CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP73B00296R000400130022-0
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 28
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 10, 2001
• Sequence Number: 22
• Publication Date: March 5, 1971
• Content Type: OPEN

MarAP13roy9# f or Release 21~1 7-/JJg?iP7 R0 18022-0
Workload performance indicators
S 2511
Intermediary
processing
time-
Average
Number of
Per-
cent
f
A
Ratio
Aver-
age
Per-
cent
Percent of receipts by type
of bill
Ratio
of
Weeks
o
bills
pend.
Per-
cent
dminis-
trative
Total expendi-
of
ad m.
expen.
adm.
expen,
per
Pro-
eider
audit
of
--
clear.
work
over
req.
9
bene. tures
to
bill
costs
Natl,
Inp. Outp.
to
on
30
add
i
pmts.
(thou-
bene.
proc-
(thou-
rcpts.
hosp. hosp.
ECF HHA
rcpts.
hand
days
dev. (thousands)
sands)
pmts.
essed
sands)
Minnesota (Mutual)------
(8)
0
0
100.0
0
110.4
2.8
17.4
16.7
230
5
2.33
5.89
4
Arizona (Mutual) --------
(6)
0
0
100. 0
0
76.9
2.9
8. 9
37.4
34
po)
1.15
4.26
(I0)
Michigan (Mutual) -------
(I)
0
29.9
70.1
0
83.9
5.5
5.3
11.0
80
2
1.96
5.38
P6)
Iowa (Memphis-Aetna)- -
(1)
0
0
100.0
0
100.0
.2
11.1
11.3
()
(
)
Wisconsin (Aetna) -------
8
0
3.8
96.2
0
99.4
.5
0
10.6
(8)
8
75
8
8
Tennessen (Mutual)-----
8
0
0
100.0
0
121.4
2.1
7.1
2.3
2.
2.76
(1)
Florida ((Mutual))_________
(8
0
.7
99.3
0
76.2
6.1
9.5
23.5
22
2.37
5.27
(lo)
Illinois (Mutual)_________
(o)
0
19.4
80.6
0
69.1
6.3
12.4
25.5
1.36
5.68
(Ia)
Hawaii (( Kaiser))_________
(6))
96.2
1.5
0
0
91.6
3.0
12.1
4.2
302
2
North Dakota (Aetna)____
8
0
3.1
96.9
0
74.8
3.1
32.0
37.1
8
)
(8
(8)
8
8
Colorado (Aetna) --------
e)
0
0
100.0
0
98.4
.2
0
23.4
e
B
(9)
B
Utah (Mutual)___________
6
0
0
100.0
0
91.8
,3
12.7
62. 5
14
(II)
0.94
3.
(I6)
Nebraska (Aetna) -------
e)
0
10.3
89.7
0
106.2
4
0
10.6
8
South Dakota (Aetna) ----
(e)
0
0
100.0
0
100.0
:4 4
0
9.3.
(8)
O
8
O
8
(
)
8
O
Chattanooga, Va. (B/C)___
(6)
0
0
100.0
0
109.4
.2
0
30.1
(
)
2)
(2)
(8)
(2)
Minnesota (Aetna) -------
(8)
0
0
100.0
0
93.1
1.5
27.3
8
(
8)
R)
Ohio (Mutual) -----------
(6)
0
0
100.0
0
16.3
1.7
49.6
63.2
(
4
)
o
New Mexico (Mutual)----
e)
0
0
100.0
0
93.8
2.5
0
22.2
2
(
1.09
75 -
4
(m
Kansas (Mutual)--------
O
0
0
100.0
0
100.0
(1t)
0
0
4
)
(
7.03
.
3.85
(r6)
N evada (Mutual) --------
(2)
(2)
(2)
I Includes cost data for New York Department of Health, terminated in October 1969, P.R.
Coop de Salud, terminated in December 1969, and Michigan Community Health terminated in
August 1969,
a Individual State data are not available. Data included in State where home office is located.
8 This intermediary does not process inpatient hospita bills.
e This intermediary does not process extended care facility bills.
Individual State data are not available. Data included in Blue Cross at Charleston, W. Va.
8 Less than 0,05 percent.
APPENDIX: HI INTERMEDIARY OPERATIONS:
SELECTED WORKLOAD AND COST DATA,
APRIL-JUNE 1970
WORKLOAD DISTRIBUTIONS
Percent of National Receipts-Total num-
ber of bills received by the intermediary dur-
ing the quarter as a proportion of total na-
tional receipts during the quarter.
Percent Distribution of Receipts by Type of
Bill-Percent distribution of total bill re-
ceipts during the quarter for each intermedi-
ary by type of bill-inpatient hospital, out-
patient hospital, extended care facility, and
home health agency. Total includes bills for
ancillary services paid under Part B as well as
other miscellaneous bills, As a result, detail
shown may pot add to totals.
WORKLOAD PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Ratio of_ Clearances to Receipts-Total
number of bills pleared during the quarter
expressed as a percentage of total number
received during the quarter. Bills cleared in-
clude bills paid, bills processed without pay-
ment, bills rejected or denied, and bills re-
turned to providers for additional informa-
tion.
Average Weeks Work on Hand-The aver-
age (mean) number of weeks work on hand
during the quarter based on the number of
weeks work at the end of each month. The
number of weeks work on hand at the end of
an individual month is computed using the
following formula:
Bills pending end of month
Weeks work- -- (Bills cleared during the month`
Work weeks in month J
Average Percent of Bills Pending Over 30
Days-The average (mean) percent of bills
pending over 30 days during the quarter based
on the percent of bills pending over 30 days
at the end of each month. Individual month-
ly percentages are developed by taking the
-number of bills over 30 days old expressed as
a percentage of the total pending workload.
Percent Requiring Additional Develop-
ment-The total number of bills requiring
investigation plus the number returned to
providers for additional information during
the quarter expressed as a percentage of the
number of bills reviewed by the intermediary
days between
date rec'd Bills returned because
and date of error
appr'd for
pmt. Percent by type of bill
Inp. Outp. Inp, Outp.
bills bills hosp. hosp. ECF
7 This intermediary does not process inpatient and/or outpatient hospital bills.
8 Individua State data are not available. Data included in Aetna at Peoria, Ill.
B Individual State data are not available. Data included in Aetna at Memphis, Tenn.
IB Less than $500.
Less than 0.05 weeks work on hand.
Note: NR-Not reported.
in the quarter. Bills reviewed include bills
cleared plus bills investigated but not re-
turned to providers.
ADMINISTRATIVE COST DATA
Total Benefit Payments-The total amount
of health insurance benefit payments repre-
sented by checks or drafts drawn on the in-
termediaries' special bank accounts and re-
ported on Interim Expenditure Reports
(Form SSA-1527) covering the period July
1969 through June 1970, cumulative, and re-
ceived in SSA prior to August 30, 1970.
Administrative Expenditures-Administra-
tive costs incurred as reported by interme-
diaries on Interim Expenditure Reports
(Form SSA-1527). Excluded are administra-
tive costs incurred by the Blue Cross Associa-
tion and provider auditing costs.
Ratio of Administrative Expenditures to
Benefit Payments-Administrative expendi-
tures during the July 1969-June 1970 period
expressed as a percentage of benefit payments
during the same period.
Average Administrative Cost Per Bill Proc-
essed-This unit cost is derived by dividing
total administrative expenditures by the
number of bills processed during the same
period.
Provider Audit Costs-Includes costs re-
lated to annual audits of the books of ac-
counts and records maintained by the pro-
viders of services and which pertain to the
health insurance program. These costs are re-
ported on the Interim Expenditure Reports
and cover the period July 1969-June 1970.
Bill Processing Time in. Calendar Days-
Processing times are shown separately for
inpatient and outpatient hospital bills. Aver-
age (mean) processing times are shown for
intermediary processing, i.e., the average
number of elapsed days between the date that
the bills were received by the intermediary
and the date that the intermediary approved
the bills for payment. Data presented are
based on bills processed by SSA during April,
May, and June.
Bill Errors-Error Rate By Type of Bill-
The number of bills which failed at least one
of the clerical and/or utilization edits per-
formed by SSA and returned to the interme-
diary expressed as a percentage of all bills
reviewed for clerical and utilization errors by
SSA during the quarter.
BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
INTRODUCED
The following bills and joint resolu-
tions were introduced, read the first time,
and, by unanimous consent, the second
time, and referred as indicated:
By Mr. FULBRIGHT:
S. 1125. A bill to amend title 5, United
States Code, with regard to the exercise of
executive privilege. Referred to the Com-
mittee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. MOSS:
S. 1126. A bill for the relief of Petko Mushi-
koff, Erika Mushikoff, Bettie Mushikoff, and
Caren Mushikoff. Referred to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
By Mr. COOK (for himself, Mr.
METCALF, Mr. PACKWOOD, Mr. RAN-
DOLPH, Mr. SCHWEIKER, Mr. STEVENS,
and Mr. WILLIAMS) :
S.J. Res. 65. Joint resolution establishing
the Federal Committee on Nuclear Develop-
ment. Referred to the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy.
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED
BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. FULBRIGHT (for himself
and Mr. CRANSTON) :
S. 1125. A bill to amend title 5, United
States Code, with regard to the exercise
of executive privilege. Referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I in-
troduce a bill, and ask for its appropriate
reference. Six years after the initial mas-
sive intervention of American forces in
Vietnam, the American people and Con-
gress still do not have clear answers to
the basic questions: What are we fighting
for? What are America's aims and in-
terests in Indochina? At a recent meet-
ing of the Foreign Relations Committee
one member put this simple question to a
high administration official: Is it your
intention to withdraw all American
forces from Indochina regardless of what
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400130022-0
 S 2512 Approved For Rele?jWWVR~1 1V .A C3JB002?f00130022-0 March 5, 1971
follows, or is it your intention to with- factory. Neither the Cambodian nor the
draw when, and only when, you can Laotian intervention, for example, were
leave behind firmly established anti- made known to the Foreign Relations
Communist governments? That ques- Committee in advance, although on both
tion-which the administration official occasions Secretary Rogers had met with
declined to answer-is the seminal ques- the committee shortly before the mili-
tion at issue, and we are entitled to an tary operations began, ostensibly to dis-
answer. The persistent refusal of the ad- cuss those very subjects.
ministration to answer it-ostensibly on i shoutld like to say that neither I nor
the ground that we cannot reveal our in- the committee is interested in the mili-
tentions to the enemy-means that the tary aspects so much as we are in the
American people are being committed to policy aspects-that is, the objectives of
an open-ended, undeclared, unconsti- any move of this sort. We have by no
tutional war for unknown, "classified" means at anytime pressed this Secretary
objectives. or any other for precise details regarding
We are entitled to more than an an- military dispositions,
swer. As citizens of a constitutional de- To cite another example: Only through
mocracy we are entitled, through the the diligent investigative activities of
electoral process and through the legis- Senator SYMINGTON'S Subcommittee on
lative process in Congress, to ratify or re- U.S. Military Agreements and Commit-
ject any President's proposed course of menns Abroad did it become known to
action. He is not, in law, at liberty to Congress and the American people that
make war as he alone sees fit. After sev- the United States has been conducting a
eral decades of quiescence in this matter, secret war in northern Laos, far away
Congress has recently shown a healthy from the Vietnamese infiltration routes
and responsible renewed interest in the along the Ho Chi Minh Trail, at the cost
rs uestion in its own responsi- 'ill f
d U
owe
refused to appear before any congres-
sional committee, either in public or in
private. The result is that the people's
representatives in Congress are denied
direct access not only to the President,
himself, but to the individual who is the
President's chief foreign policy adviser,
the author of his recent message on the
state. of the world, and the principal
architect of our war policy in Indochina.
Executive privilege is a custom, not a
it has been
even as a custom
and
law
,
,
,
understood until recently to apply to
information rather than to persons. Nei-
ther law or custom authorizes individual
advisers to the President to refuse to ap-
pear before a congressional committee.
The refusal to give due account of the
President's foreign policy is an exten-
sion of the arrogant contention, ex-
pressed in a Justice Department study
in 1958, that-
Congress cannot, under the Constitution,
compel heads of departments by law to give
up papers and information; regardless of
the public interest involved; and the Presi-
dent is the judge of that interest.
ons o
war p
of many American lives an
bilities, and in practical means of restor- dollars. When former Ambassador Wil- The memorandum goes on to say that
'ng constitutional balance. Members of liam Sullivan was asked in his appear- neither Congress nor the courts may
both Houses of Congress have proposed ance before the Symington subcommittee compel the President to provide informa-
legislation which would specify those tion when, in his own judgment, it would
limited conditions, such as a sudden at- why at an earlier hearing he had with- be inexpedient to do so e
tack on the United States, under which the heed U.S. Air information Force was about the playing in north- critical role This, of course, is a repudiation of the
n
the President can properly be authorized ern Laos, he replied, disingenuously, that very concept of a government of checks
to use the Armed Forces without the he had not been asked any direct ques- and balances. If the President has sole
prior consent of Congress. The Foreign tions about U.S. air operations in north- discretion to keep information from Con-
Relations Committee is going to begin ern Laos. My own comment a' the time gress and the country, he is in practice
hearings on these proposals next week. was that "There is no way for us to ask at liberty to do anything he wishes, at
I submit today a proposal for breach- you questions about things we don't home or abroad, as long as he manages
ing the wall of secrecy behind which the know you are doing." to keep it secret. That, indeed, is exactly
administration has barricaded itself in what the last two Presidents have done
It is, needless to say, even more dif s-
matters relating to foreign policy in in Indochina. President Johnson con-
general and to our war aims in Indochina cult to ask questions of people who refuse ducted an air war in Northern Laos
in particular. It has to do with the prac- to talk to you, as is the case, for example, which, as I mentioned before, was totally
tice known as "executive privilege," with the President's principal foreign unknown to Congress and the country
through which officials of the executive policy adviser, Dr. Kissinger. It was until Senator SYMINGTON's subcommittee
branch claim the right to withhold in- reasonable enough, in the old days, to made it known. Similarly, President
formation from Congress when, in their permit the President to consult with an Nixon kept the present Laotian invasion
own judgment, disclosure "would be in- intimate adviser-such as Colonel House, under the cloud of a news embargo until
compatible with the public interest."' In under President Wilson-who would not it was well underway. Under our Con-
the case of officials who are considered be held to public or congressional ac- stitution-in case anyone still cares-
personal assistants to the President- count. Over the years, however, the Pres- he should have come to Congress to re-
such as Mr. Kissinger and. his staff-as ident's "intimate" advisers -have grown quest authority for American participa-
distinguished from Department heads- steadily in numbers and power until, at lion in the expansion of the war into
such as the Secretary of State-the claim present Mr. Kissinger's office contains Laos.
of "executive privilege" is extended be- about 120 professional foreign policy ex- If Congress can be denied information
yond the withholding of informatign to ports, man- of them career Foreign regarding a war in which the country
the withholding of the person himself, 'M Service officers. Power and influence in is engaged solely at the discretion of the
his refusal even to appear before a con- the making of foreign policy have passed President, then there is no possibility
gressional committee, either in public or? largely out of the hands of the State whatever of Congress discharging its
in closed session. The Secretary of Department-which is accountable to constitutional responsibilities to declare
State-the present one like his predeces- Congress-into the hands of Mr. Kis- war, raise and support armies, provide
sor-has repeatedly refused invitations singer's National Security Council staff- and maintain a navy, and make rules for
from the Senate Foreign Relations Com- which is not, under the present practice, the Government and regulation of the
mittee to testify in public, but he has accountable to Congress. In the view of a land and naval forces. In this area, as in
usually acceded to invitations to testify reporter who has made a study of for- others, executive secrecy can alter our
in closed, or executive session. On these eign policy *naking in the Nixon admin- form of government as decisively as
occasions the Secretary of State has all istration: would a constitutional amendment.
too often withheld information from Mr. Kissinger has become the instrument History, logic, and law show that the
the committee, but at least he has with- by which President Nixon has centralized president is indeed obligated to provide
held it in person, giving Senators the the management of foreign policy in the
White House as never before... pertinent information to Congress; nor
opportunity to make their own views I can he claim to be the final judge of
known and also to see if they can gage Although Mr. Kissinger appears on what in fact is pertinent. No one ques-
the intentions of the administration by television, provides background briefings tions the propriety of "Executive priv-
listening to the Secretary's tone, so to for the press and occasionally provides
speak, as well as to his words. special briefings for selected Congress-
This procedure is by no means satis- men and Senators, he has steadfastly
President Nixon's "Memo for the Heads of Hedrick Smith, "Foreign Policy: Kissinger
Executive Departments and Agencies," at Hub," New York Times, January 19, 1971,
April 17, 1969. p. 1.
3 The Power of the President To Withhold
Information From the Congress-Memoran-
dum of the Attorney General, compiled by
the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights
of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Sen-
ate, 85th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 3-4.
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400130022-0
 Maa pr'v48 or Release 20(0MA29ESSA)RDH73M tO0 QP,22-0
ilege" under certain circumstances; what indeed of the responsibility-of the Con-
is and must be contested is the conten- gress to exercise legislative oversight.
tion that the President alone may deter- This power is spelled out in section 136
mine the range of its application. In his of the Legislative Reorganization Act,
-authoritative book, "The President, which states that each standing com-
Office and Powers," Prof. Edward Cor- mittee-
win comments: Shall exercise continuous watchfulness of
Should a congressional investigating com- the execution by the administrative agencies
mittee issue a subpoena duces tecum to a concerned of any laws, the subject mat-
Cabinet officer ordering him to appear with ter of which is within the jurisdiction of
certain adequately specified documents and such committee; and, for that purpose, shall
should he fail to do so, I see no reason study all pertinent reports and data sub-
why he might not be proceeded against for mitted to the Congress by the agencies in
contempt of the house which sponsored the the executive branch of the Government.
Inquiry .4 The power and duty of legislative over-
The courts have not yet considered sight is in fact rooted deeply in our
the Executive's claim that its invocation constitutional history. In the words of
of executive privilege is unreviewable a study of the congressional power of
when invoked against Congress. The investigation prepared for the Senate
courts have left no doubt, however, that Judiciary Committee in February of
they will review such claims when they 1954:
are invoked against private parties seek- A legislative committee of inquiry vested
ing governmental information. In United with power to summon witnesses and com-
States against Reynolds, the Supreme pel the production of records and papers is
Court stated that "judicial control over an institution rivaling most legislative in-
the evidence in a case cannot be abdi- atitutions in the antiquity of its origin. Its
Can Congress rights be less than those
of a private individual? Can Congress
be expected to abdicate to "executive ca=
price" in determining whether or not
the Congress will be permitted to know
what it needs to know in order to dis-
charge its constitutional responsibilities?
As James Madison said in "The Federal-
ist," neither the Executive nor the leg-
islature can pretend to an exclusive or
superior right of settling the boundaries
between their respective powers. The
Supreme Court has ruled not only that
the judiciary may review an executive
decision to withhold information sought
by an individual but has also held that
under certain circumstances the courts
might require the disclosure to court
personnel of classified information ..5 It
( would be grotesque indeed if security
f grounds could be invoked to deny Con-
; gress information Which was available
both to executive and judicial officials.
In some instances-such as the establish-
ment of overseas bases and special brief-
ings for newsmen from other countries-
even foreigners are entrusted with infor-
mation which is withheld from Congress.
If the matter of accountability were to
-.,y ill tine ngnt OT a knowledge of these
origins and subsequent developments does
it become possible to comprehend its limits .6
Nor can there be any doubt of the
right and duty of the Senate-and par- _
titularly its Committee on Foreign Re-
lations-to oversee the conduct of a war.
In 1861 a joint committee of the two
Houses was formed for this purpose of
investigating the conduct of the Civil
War. This "Wade Committee," as it came
to be known, diligently examined the
conduct of Union military activities
throughout the war; Its reports filled
four large volumes. In the case of the
present war in Indochina, congressional
oversight is not only desirable but es-
sential, specifically for purposes of ascer-
taining the Executive's compliance with
the Church-Cooper amendment and any
future restrictions which Congress may
impose, but also for the broader purpose
of introducing some small measure of
constitutional procedure In the conduct
of this unconstitutional war.
Legislative oversight is of course im-
possible without pertinent information.
Insofar as the Executive is at liberty to
withhold information, he is also at lib-
erty to nullify the ability of ram?-- 4-,.
- -_ ---- _--y -Liie purpose ol is to make a
question of the legal authority of Con- to the prevailing Executive view that the small breach in thetwallbof secrecy which
gress, or of a congressional committee, President alone may determine what he now separates Congress from the Exec-
to subpena a Government official, just will reveal or withhold from the Con- utive in matters of foreign policy, and
as it can subpena a private individual to gress, according to his judgment of the particularly in matters pertaining to the
appear and give testimony, and to hold "expediency" of revelation, the Congress war in Indochina. The specific change of
that individual in contempt should he is not without resources to require the procedure that would be required by this
fail to comply. Under section 134a of the disclosure of pertinent Information and bill is a limited one, perhal5 even a minor
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, the appearance of appropriate witnesses. one, but its intent goes to the core of
every standing committee and subcom- A study of "Congressional Inquiry Into the democratic process by reaffirming the
mittee of the Senate is authorized: Military Affairs" prepared for the For- principle of accountability to Congress in
To require by subpoena or otherwise the eign Relations Committee In 1968 the conduct of foreign policy.
attendance of such witnesses and the pro- points out that contempt of Congress by Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, will
duction of such correspondence, books, reason of the failure of a witness to the Senator from Arkansas yield?
papers, and documents, to take such testi- testify or produce papers is punishable Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield.
mony and to make such expenditures .
as it deems advisable, by law as a misdemeanor. Furthermore,
there is no necessity for Congress or a 7 Congressional Inquiry into Military
In foreign as in domestic affairs there
can be no question of the authority Affairs, A Study Prepared the Request - O Congressional Power of Investigation, the Committee on Foreign n Relations, , U.S.
.
Study Prepared at the of Senator Senate, 9th Cong., 2d . Edward S. Corwin, The President, Office Will am Langer, Chairmaneof the Committee U.S. Governor nt Print ngeOffice, 1968), p. 7.
and Powers (New York University Press: on the Judiciary, by the Legislative Refer- Pertinent rulings were made by the Supreme
1967), pp. 281-282. ence Service of the Library of Congress, U.S. Court in Jurney v. McCracken, 294 U.S. 125
5 Halpern v. United States (258 F. 2d 36, Senate, 83d. Cong., 2d sess. (Washington: (1935) and McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S.
44 (2 Cir., 1958) ). U.S. Government Printing Office, 1954), p. 23. 135 (1927).
S 2513
congressional committee to rely on the
Department of Justice to act in a con-
tempt case. As an agent of the Execu-
tive, the Attorney General might be less
than wholehearted in the prosecution of
a recalcitrant witness. But, as the mili-
tary affairs study points out:
There can be no doubt that either House
of Congress has the power to seize a recal-
citrant witness, try him before the bar of
the House, and punish him for contempt by
imprisoning him in the Capitol?
There have in fact been instances in
which witnesses in contempt have been
brought to trial before the House of
Representatives, and there has been at
least one instance in which the Senate
has ordered the confinement of a con-
tumacious witness in the common jail of
the District of Columbia.
Mr. President, not for a moment would
I wish to impose so drastic a procedure
on Mr. Kissinger, for example, or any
other official of our Government. It does
seem to me of the greatest importance,
nonetheless, that appropriate action be
taken to provide the Congress with a
reliable and continuing flow of informa-
tion on foreign policy in general and,
most urgently, on the aims and interests
of the United States in Indochina as
these are perceived by the present
administration.
Stopping well short of attempting to
deal with the principle of executive priv-
ilege in its fullest dimensions-a problem
which requires detailed and careful
study-I am proposing a bill which would
require employees of the executive
branch to appear in person before Con-
gress or appropriate congressional com-
mittees when they are duly summoned,
even if, upon their arrival, they do
nothing more than invoke executive
privilege. The purpose of this bill is to
eliminate the unwarranted extension of
the claim of executive privilege from
information to persons. It would require
an official such as the President's Assist-
ant on National Security Affairs to
appear before an appropriate congres-
sional committee if only for the purpose
of stating, in effect:
I have been instructed in writing by the
President to invoke executive privilege and
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400130022-0
 Approved For Rele~~SMF7J8fi1g00A00130022-0 March 5, 1971
S 2514
Mr. CRANSTON. The distinguished thodty to exercise Oversight. It is a prec- carefully study this matter and support
chairman, of the Committee on Foreign edent for that purpose. Perhaps that is this resolution.
r
Relations has performed an invaluable an extreme case, but that is the only nth t is my is joint leas ue tion to ad aas c sponsor
s
service in bringing this matter before the reason it is cited.
Senate. If the role of Congress Is to ful- I do not think for a moment that the PACKWOOD, RANDOLPH, SCHWEIKER, STEV-
fill its constitutional obligations in mat- Foreign Relations Committee would seek ENS, and WILLIAMS.
ters of war, peace, and other matters, to emulate that example at all. On the I ask unanimous consent that the joint
which I believe is threatened by the contrary? the Foreign Relations Commit- resolution be appropriately referred and
growth of the executive not only in this tee is for all practical purposes excluded that my remarks of April 15, 1969, be
administration but in others by the prob- from any oversight at all because of the printed in the RECORD at this point.
lem of Executive privilege, which the failure to have access to information There being no objection, the remarks
Senator from Arkansas has so ably out- relevant to policymaking. It is only cited wwerelordered to be printed in the RECORD,
lined here, I would like very much to for that :purpose alone.
work with the Senator in his endeavors I do not think the State Department SENATE JO NT RESOLUTION EST _ RODu TION
to find a way to remedy this problem. would question the principle that Con- FEDERAL oivinuTrEE ON N ABLI DEVELOP HE
With the hope that the bill as pro- gross does have a responsibility and au-
posed by the Senator will provide that thority and ought to examine witnesses MENT
Mr. PI introduce, for
appropriate rMr President, re , a joint resolution con
remedy, or vehicle, for dealing with the from the executive department. Mr. Coox.
great problems we face in our country Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, I do not appro of to refe enc Senators Cooper, Mans-
today, I should like to be listed as a question. that at all. I just question that fibelf eld Mathias, Metcalf, Williams of New
cosponsor. reference because I happen to be some- Jersey Packwood, Stevens, Schweiker, and
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I what familiar with that history. Randolph. The joint resolution, if passed,
would be very pleased to have the Sen- Mr. FULBRIGHT. That was a joint would establish the Federal Committee on
as as a cosponsor; and, Mr. that President, committee. Nuclear Development whose purpose it
I ask unanimous consent sent ththe Sen- Mr. McGEE. The Senator is correct. would be to assess and evaluate the current
ator from California (Mr. CRANSTON) be I believe there were three from the Sen- atomic energy program of the United States.
listed as a cospohsor. ate and four from the House. I have not I claim no pride of authorship in this
PRESIDENT PREESIDENT pro tempare. With- had a chance to do my homework on matter, as it was introduced in substan-
tially the same form in the last Congress
out Objection, it is so ordered. that. by my predecessor, Hon. Thruston Morton.
Mr. McGEE subsequently said: Mr. Mr. FULBRIGHT. The Senator is col- At that time, February 28, 1968, he pointed
President, I rise almost inadvertently be- rect. out in great detail the? history of peaceful
cause I did not think I would be present development of atomic energy subsequent
when the Senator from Arkansas was By Mr. COOK (for himself, and to World War II and described the current
Mr. METCALF, Mr. PACKWOOD, feeling among many in the scientific corn-
delivering hit addresy b this morning. Mr. RANDOLPH, Mr. SCHWEIKER, munity that a review of the direction of our
I was captured one reference Mr. STEVENS, and Mr. WIL- atomic energy program was greatly needed.
page 5 of this statement which alluded d My remarks today will be confirmed to a
to the precedent in wartime of an over- LIAMS) : summation of Senator Morton's very com-
sight committee in this body. The ref- S.J. Ices. 65. Joint resolution establish- prehensive treatment of the subject.
erence was to the Wade committee. That ing the Federal Committee on Nuclear Congress instructed the Atomic Energy
was organized in 1861, at the time of the Development. Referred to the Joint Com- Atomic Energy when Act it in 1954 established to promote by and
Civil War. For many years I have fancied mittee on Atomic Energy. Atom cage t Eneg development of atomic eeead
myself as something of a history buff. I Mr. COOK. Mr. President, today I am en least a h billion have been spent in the
spent a good deal of time in that portico- reintroducing a joint resolution provid- interim period to make nuclear plants effi-
lar interval with one of the great archi- ing for the establishment' of a Federal cient and able to compote with other power
tects of history during that period, Prof. Committee on Nuclear Development. Ex- sources such as coal and oil. we appropri-
James Randall, of Illinois. cept for the addition of language empha- ated these large sums for developing a new
The point is that the Wade committee sizing the need to assess the potential power source knowing full well that it
still stands on the books as one of the impact of atomic energy on the environ- would not be needed until 50 to 100 years
most notoriously abusive committees in ment, it is identical to Senate Joint Reso- hence when our supply of fossil fuels might
the history of our Nation. This flagrant lution 91 which I introduced in the 91st begin to run short.
Congress. Congress adopted this atomic energy pro-
group is always cited as how not to do it. The committee would, when estab- gram which resulted in a new technical de-
Inasmuch as I am a membqr of the velop,ment becoming, for the first time in our
Foreign Relations Committee, headed by lished, study, review, and evaluate the history, a Government monopoly. There is
the Senator from Arkansas, I feel a bit Atomic Energy Act and the atomic en- no question that the ability to create elec-
nervous about drawing attention today ergy program generally in terms of- trical energy through atomic fission is an
to Bluff Ben Wade, of Ohio, as they First, the impact of the atomic energy amazing accomplishment but we also un-
called him in those days and using that industry upon competitive industries; derstand now what we did not realize in
1atomic energy is no Panacea.
committee as one of the reasons for the Second, methods for effectively ante- 1945-that 5-t might is a erg this pa acea in
action. grating atomic energy into the general somSome
e way a repudiation of the outstanding
I think we are on much higher ground. energy complex of the United States so work of the Joint Committee on Atomic
I would hope that we would keep it there that reasonable priorities may be deter- Energy. I assure Senators that I have noth-
rather than emulate Ben Wade. mined; and ing but the highest regard for the Mem-
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, will Third, the potential environmental im- hers of the Congress thwho ey serve
have on ably this scrn-
the Senator yield? pact of atomic development upon the -tttee and I
original mandate of Congress ro
health and safety of the American public. out the
ick
Mr. McGEE. I yield. was to promote rig na ma peaceful ones es atomic hied
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, it The peaceful uses of atomic energy energy, unfortunately, the act made no pro-
committee, e of competing fuels,
but onlyo emulating
for the purpose of Americans is obviously a matter of con- nuclear fenergy, the fat
showing that Congress does have the au- cern to all of- us. I urge my colleagues to and the effect on the economy.
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400130022-0
 p v~ F ]f R62001/Q7/26 : CIA-F~ft'd 31300296k6h 1 39022-0 PAGE
Bill, Passed i Requiresi
All Foreign Agreements to
Be Submitted to Congress
By 3011N W. FINNEY
Special to The New York Tama
WASHINGTON, Feb. 16-
Thg Senate, in a step aimed
' rectric~ns ,SOfr y-- e
branch nn foreign
iiG~C117r131C IVA - __gA
~n~mmid~mPn-tg,nimQl}al~'
nroy d le icla`iionodg-ghat
--,jr -all interrnational
:subinipt to
'I =- n.fn inn
the State Department and
adopted by the Senate by an
8i-to-0 vote with no contro-
versy, was put forward by the
Com-
Senate Foreign Relations
mittee as "a significant step
toward redressing the imbal-
ance between Congress and the
executive branch in making of
foreign policy."
A w cimil r _ meas. was
n,~cced una Wusl . >z'V e
Renate in 1956, but it died in
Ae current legislation was in-
wen, _I
j ew y~ .l
,ray Fahr~,ar}eQ110W
of reviousTy,
ortP xec 1y.,ae , a&reements
ties
signed in ineteen Me s
Laos, . rZ&nand,
d Spain.
Bipartisan Call-Up
The Case bill, which was re-
ported out of the Senate For-
eign Relations Committee last
month, was called up today by
the Democratic and Republican
that action was taken on the
could fill a gap in the legis-
lative schedule. As such, it was
said it was only coincidental
leadership of the Senate as.
noncontroversial legislation tha
Continued on Page 7, Column 1
parture for China.
In the House, where a simi-
lar bill has been introduced by
Representative T. Bradford
Morse, Republican of Massachu-
setts, Representative Thomas E.
Morgan of Pennsylvania, chair-
man of the Foreign Affairs
Committee, said the legislation
would be given "prior consid-
eration."
It appeared from today's 81-
to-0 Senate vote that the Nix-
on Administration had made no
concerted effort to block the
Case bill on the Senate- floor.
ung
beta die IL the Iose,
- At the WRte House, a,
spokesman said there would be'
no immediate comment on the
Senate action.
,iagislation ap-'
ba.Secreta? Ho
S to ltnld l --r. re .to i
to Con ess_ the teXt
a eemennt1'
thr provision that et
1ze:' sto.
lation~s d~am-
#t6ea. aignI
mittee.
The legislation is particularly I
aimed at the practice of the'
executive branch of entering
into executive agreements
about which Congress some-
times is not informed.
Under existing law, the State
Department periodically pub-
lishes all nonsecret inter-
national agreements, but on
occasions the executive branch
haw withheld from Congress
secret agreements that it re-
garded as diplomatically or,
militarily sensitive.
ccn&tw j1I makes it clear
that "nderits _Prov- i.s m1 sUC t
agreements.. affecting _ natiQpal
socuzity would-be given, t0_tj}e
tum aomnuttees in -secret and
uRdas soJad; Qn&_daig .-1to
pmtect-the security.
The agreements that the
state Department. would be re-
quested to transmit are pri-
marily executive agreements,
which do not require the Sena-
tors' approval, as treaties do.
They thus, would be submitted
largely for the information of
Congress and Its committees.
The. argument of the Foreign
Relations Committee was that I
only by requiring the submis-
sion of , such agreements could
Congress begin to break down'
the secrecy of the exectuive
branch and impose an obliga-
tion on the executive to report
its foreign commitments to
Congress.
tx!;,e rn,r.oracs under the
leizislation cou-dnot disapprove
th
e.
nrer?n tea a4
e
carri" tzneiits arnl be
them
ll
enge
ia..& s cion to cha
a ne they were made.
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400130022-0
 Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000 130022-0
THE WASHINGTON POST DATE __ PAGE
spO,ie agalr "i.n. goes:
now to the IA,
formally- op used by the Stag
bartlnent, Y e ' sena .
~4nsr Se?oxd
F Cass..(IW ,the bilLwasj
10V UL to the Senate Qfl Ite
-Utons ^nd Howe .Fgieign Af-~
s committees with a_
re-
-text-seoret, the text .would be
svguld have tq tom, on-j
mss ;vi in GO clays of being j
ail II S ewer g~ree-
rtS st~i ~es+
executive agreements, which,
unlike treaties, don't require
approval by. the Senate, had
-+-Case said that intern&tio"1
diplomatic or ,ni itary commit-
=
for et1 _oj the existence of the;
.~ r
gress hadn't even been
7ftit~ff r0
other nations with-
In o con.., tmg Congress.
In many cases, he said Con-
derstandings_reached at the
1943 Cairq Conference, but the
Yalta a aerations were kept se-
war 1I, provisions of the 1945
Yalta Agreement amended un-
erase said that during World
been concluded but was given
no detaiis._ _ --, :< -
crg tr t s..,
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400130022-0
 Approved For Release, 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400130022-0
April 4, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -.SENATE
centers to ease pressures on existing metro-
politan areas; now, therefore
"Be It resolved by the Senate of the Sixth
Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular
Session of 1972? that this body extend its
congratulations and appreciation to Richard
M. Nixon, President of the United States,
members of the Congress of the United
States, John D. Rockefeller, III, Chairman
of the Commission on Population Growth
and the American Future, and members of
the Commission on Population Growth and
the American Future for their unselfish con-
cern and work towards the betterment of
America forte people; and
"Be it further resolved that certified copies
of this Resolution be transmitted to the
President of the United States, the Speaker
of the United States House of Representa-
tives, the President and President Pro Tern-
re of the United States Senate, and John
'b. Rockefeller, III, Chairman of the Com-
mission on Population Growth and the
American Future."
A resolution adopted by the Pasadena
Classroom Teachers Association, Pasadena,
Tex., praying for the enactment of legisla-
tion to oppose forced consolidation of inde-
pendent school districts in the State of
Texas; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
The petition of Harold Vroom, and sundry
other citizens of the State of New Jersey, ex-
pressing opposition to the massive busing of
pupils; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND
JOINT RESOLUTIONS
The following bills and joint resolu-
tions were Introduced, read the first time
and, by unanimous consent, the second
time, and referred as indicated:
By Mr. JAVITS:
S. 8446. A bill to amend section 7 of the
Small Business Act. Referred.to the Commit-
tee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.
By Mr. CASE:
S. 8447. A bill terminating certain assist-
ance to Portugal and Bahrain until the agree-
ments relating to the use of military bases by
the United States in the Azores and Bahrain
are submitted to the Senate for its advice
and consent. Referred to the Committee on
Foreign Relations.
By Mr. STENNIS (for himself and Mrs.
SMITH). (by request) :
S. 3448. A bill to authorize certain con-
struction at military installations and for
other purposes. Referred to the Committee
on Armed Services.
By Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD (for Mr.
JACKSON):
8. 3449. A bill to authorize and direct the
Water Resources Council to coordinate a na-
tional program to insure the safety of dams
and other water storage and control struc-
tures, to provide technical support to State
programs for the licensing and inspection of
such structures, to encourage adequate
State safety laws and methods of imple-
mentation thereof; and for other purposes.
Referred to the Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs.
By Mr. CRANSTON:
S. 8450. A bill to authorize continuation of
programs of ACTION, create a National Ad-
visory Council for that Agency, and for other
purposes. Referred to the Committee on La-
bor and Public Welfare.
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED
BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. JAVITS:
S. 3446. A bill to amend section 7 of
,the Small Business Act. Referred to the
Committee on Banking, Housing and Ur-
ban Affairs,
ELIGIBILITY OF SHELTERED WORKSHOPS FOR
SMALL BUSINESS LOANS
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I intro-
duce for appropriate reference a bill to
amend the Small Business Act to make
eligible for SBA loans nonprofit sheltered
workshops for the blind and the severely
handicapped.
These nonprofit sheltered workshops,
which can serve up to an estimated 100,-
000 persons in every State of the Nation,
seek out the most restricted of workers
because such individuals require the
most assistance. The workshops en-
deavor to maximize the earnings of these
handicapped persons, giving them dig-
nity and making them self-supporting
rather than community supported. The
workshops consequently must subsidize
such items as the wages of low producers,
health and rehabilitation services as well
as management and overhead. These
supportive services are funded by fees
from State rehabilitation agencies, com-
munity "chests, private donors, commu-
nity fundraising drives, Government
grants and bequests.
Since the workshops spend almost all
their funds on their clients, they cannot
accumulate capital funds; they also have
limited access to other sources of capital
in the community. Thus, the small busi-
ness loan program offers a major hope
that they can obtain the funds needed to
tool up adequately to meet the demands
for the goods and services which they
can sell.
Access to SBA loans for capital ex-
pansion will Increase the Nation's re-
sources for handicapped persons. It will
also help special workshop groups that
ordinarily find difficulty in securing em-
ployment in most of the sheltered work-
shops, such as the homebound, the multi-
handicapped and minority group mem-
bers.
Sheltered workshops have proven ex-
cellent risks-they can repay the money
loaned them in addition to providing re-
munerative work and training oppor-
tunities where private enterprise has not
done so.
The recently enacted Public Law 92-
28-the so-called Javits-Wagner-O'Day
Act-has opened up for these workshops
new opportunities in securing Federal
contracts for goods and services; the
legislation I am introducing will afford
nonprofit sheltered workshops the
chance to grasp this new opportunity.
And that is all that the handicapped ask
of us-a chance.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the text of the bill may be
printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the bill was
ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
S. 3446
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That section
7 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636)
is amended by adding at the end thereof a
new subsection, as follows:
"(g) The Administration also is empow-
ered to make loans (either directly or in
cooperation with banks or other lenders
through agreements to participate on an
immediate or deferred basis) to assist any
agency-
S 5309
"(1) organized under the laws of the
United States or of any State, operated in
the interest of blind or other severely handi-
capped individuals, the net income of which
does not inure in whole on in part to the
benefit of any shareholder or other individ-
ual;
"(2) which complies with any applicable
occupational health and safety standard
prescribed by the Secretary of Labor; and
"(3) which in the production of commod-
ities and in the provision of services dur-
ing any fiscal year in which it receives fi-
nancial assistance under this subsection em-
ploys blind or other severely handicapped
individuals for not less than 75 per centum
of the man-hours of direct labor required
for the production or provision of these
commodities or services."
By Mr. CASE:
S. 3447. A bill terminating certain as-
sistance to Portugal and Bahrain until
the agreements relating to the use of
military bases by the United States in
the Azores and Bahrain are submitted
to the, Senate for its advice and consent.
Referred to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I am today
introducing a bill which would block all
assistance to Portugal and Bahrain
promised in recent executive agreements.
This ban would remain in effect until
the executive submits to the Senate as
treaties these two executive'agreements.
I expect to offer the substance of this
legislation as an amendment to the For-
eign Aid Act.
I would have preferred that this mat-
ter be handled in a less drastic fashion.
For several months now, I have been
taking actions which urge the executive
to submit to the Senate the agreements
for U.S. military bases in the Portuguese
Azores and in Bahrain-but to no avail.
I started out by writing to Secretary
of State Rogers on December 9, 1971,
urging that the agreement with Portu-
gal for a 25-month extension of U.S.
bases rights in the Azores in return for
about $435 million in U.S. assistance and
credits be submitted as a treaty.
I wrote:
There is no question in my mind that in
and of itself, the stationing of American
troops overseas is an issue of sufficient im-
portance to necessitate the use of the treaty
process.
And I added that-
The furnishing of economic aid to Portugal
is complicated by the fact that Portugal is
involved in colonial wars in Africa.
When it became clear that the admin-
istration would not react favorably to
my letter, on December 16, 1971, with
the cosponsorship of four other senior
members of the Foreign Relations Com-
mittee, I introduced a resolution which
called on the executive to submit the
Portuguese agreement as a treaty.
Then on January 6, I read in the
newspaper that the United States had
entered into an "unpublicized" agree-
ment with Bahrain for the establishment
of a naval base on that island in the
Persian Gulf. Again, the administration
intended not to submit the agreement to
the Senate but to settle the whole matter
with a stroke of a diplomat's pen. Again,
I pointed out on the Senate floor that
the stationing of American troops over-
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400130022-0
 Approved For Release'2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400130022-0
S 5310 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
seas could lead to a commitment toward
the host country and ultimately to war,
and that the United States was becom--
ing involved in a volatile part of the
world where previously we had never had
our own base.
On that day, I announced my inten-
tion to expand my resolution on the
Azores to include also the submission to
the Senate of the Bahrain agreement.
The Foreign Relations Committee then
held 3 days of public hearings during
which the State Department testified it
still would not submit the Azores and
Bahrain agreements.
Nevertheless, on March 3, the Senate
passed my resolution 50-6. The vote was
significant not only because of the over-
whelming majority by which it was
adopted but also because Senators of all
ideological persuasions joined in the of
fort to reassert the Senate's explicit con
stitutional role in the treatymaking
process.
On March 6, I wrote again to the Sec-
retary of State asking, in view of the
Senate's passage of my resolution, if and
when the executive would submit the two
agreements to the Senate for advice and
consent.
I have now received the State Depart-
ment's reply-dated March 21-which
says that after "serious consideration," it
still will not submit the Bahrain and
Azores agreements to the Senate. Claim-
ing that the agreements "were appro-
priately concluded as executive agree-
ments," the State Department's only re-
action to the overwhelming vote of the
Senate on my resolution is to "have noted
the sense of the Senate."
I understand full well that a Senate
resolution is not legally binding, so the
State Department technically has the
right only to "note" it. Yet, I must say
that the attitude of the Department is
most unwise and is shortsighted in the
extreme.
The framers of the Constitution were
explicit in their inclusion of the require-
ment for advice and consent of the,
in the making of a treaty. And no.-
where in the Constitution did they men-
tion that the executive could skirt sena-
torial approval by simply. calling a pact
with a foreign government an executive
agreement.
But the Department still refuses to
take heed of the Senate's will on this
question. So, I am faced with two choices:
Either I can let the matter drop-content
to have a resolution with my name on it
passed by the Senate-or I can at least
try to take further action. I have chosen
the latter course because I believe a
fundamental constitutional question is at
stake.
The Senate cannot compel the execu-
tive to submit the agreements, but at the
same time the Senate does not have to
appropriate any money to pay for the
agreements' costs.
I am today calling on my colleagues to
uphold the Senate's vote of March 3 and
cut off the funds needed to implement
the agreements with Portugal and Bah-
rain until they are submitted as treaties.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that there be printed in the RECORD
the text of my bill, various background
documents, and earlier editorial comment
on the Portuguese and Bahrain deals.
There being no objection, the bill and
material were ordered to be printed in
the RECORD, as follows:
S. 3447
Be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That (a) the
Congress declares that, until the agreements
signed by the United States with Portugal
and Bahrain, relating to the use by the
United States of military bases in the Az res
and Bahrain have been submitted toIthe
Senate as treaties for its advice and eon nt,
assistance to be furnished Portugal and
Bahrain as the result of such agreements
should be terminated, and that Senate Res-
olution 214, 92d Congress, agreed to March
3, 1.972, expressed the sense of the Senate
that such agreements should be so submitted
to the Senate as treaties.
(b) Therefore, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, on and after the date of
enactment of this Act-
(1) no vessel shall be loaned or otherwise
made available to Portugal;
(2) no agricultural commodities may be
sold. to Portugal for dollars on credit terms
or for foreign currencies under the Agri-
cultural Trade Development and Assistance
Act of 1954;
(3) no funds may be provided to Portugal
for educational projects out of amounts made
available to the Department of Defense;
(4) no excess articles may be provided by
any means to Portugal;
(5) no defense articles may be ordered for
Portugal from the stocks of the Department
of Defense under section 506 of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961; and
(6) the Export-Import Bank of the United
States may not guarantee, insure, extend
credit, or participate in any extension of
credit, with respect to the purchase or lease
of any product by Portugal, or any agency
or national thereof, or with respect to the
purchase or lease of any product by another
foreign country or agency or national there-
of if the Bank has knowledge that the prod-
mitted to the Senate as a treaty for its ad-
vice and consent.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, on and after the date of enactment
of this Act, no funds may be furnished by
the United States to Bahrain for the use of
any such base in Bahrain until such agree-
ment with Bahrain is submitted to the Sen-
ate as a treaty for its advice and consent.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, D.C., March 21, 1972.
Hon. CLIFFORD P. CASE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR CASE: The Secretary has
asked me to reply to your letter of March 6,
1972 asking to be informed if and when the
Administration plans to send the recent
agreements with Bahrain and Portugal to
the Senate for its advice and consent.
The Department has given serious consid-
eration to S. 214, as is deserving of any res-
olution expressing the sense of the Senate
on a. matter of this nature. However, as Un-
der Secretary U. Alexis Johnson stated in his
testimony before the Senate Foreign Rela-
tions Committee on February 1, the De-
partment of State believes that the agree-
ment with Portugal to continue United
States rights to station forces in the Azores
and the agreement with Bahrain to permit
the Middle East Force to continue to use
support facilities in Bahrain were appro-
priatsely concluded as executive agreements.
The agreements involve no new policy on
the part of the United States nor any new
April 4, 1972
defense commitment. Indeed, to seek Senate
advice and consent would, in our view, carry
a strong Implication of new commitments
that were not in fact intended by the parties.
Of course the agreement with Portugal is in
implementation of our already existing com-
mitments under the North Atlantic Treaty,
which was approved by an overwhelming
majority of the Senate.
We realize, of course, that there may he a
difference of view on the form an inter-
national agreement should take, and we have
noted the sense of the Senate with respect
to the Bahrain and Azores age ments as ex-
presse I. the vote on S. 21 We will con-
tinue oto make every effort Keep the ap-
propriate Congressional Committees in-
formed of important agreements under ne-
gotiation and to consult with those Com-
mittees whenever there is a serious question
whether an International agreement is to be
made in the form of a treaty or otherwise
Sincerely yours,
DAVID M. ABSHIRE,
Assistant Secretary for Congres-
sional Relations.
TREATY WITH PORTUGAL AND
U.S.. ECONOMIC AID,
December 9, 1971.
The Hon. WILLIAM P. ROGERS,
Secretary of State, Department of State,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. SECRETARY: In this morning's
New York Times, it was reported that the
United States and Portugal had negotiated
an agreement regarding the future use by the
United States of air and naval bases in the
Portuguese Azores. It was further reported
that the United States would furnish Portu-
gal with economic aid in return for the use
of the bases.
While not questioning the right of the
Executive to negotiate agreements of this
sort, I would like to receive your assurances
that any final agreement will be submitted
as a treaty for the Senate's adviceand con-
sent, and that no economic assistance will be
furnished to Portugal without affirmative ac-
tion of both Houses of Congress.
There is no question in my mind that in
and of itself, the stationing of American
troops overseas is an issue of sufficient --- im-
oo rtance to necessitate the use of the treaty
process. It is unfortunate that American
forces have been in the Azores since World
War II only on the basis of executive agree-
ments, but this past oversight in no way jus-
tifies the enactment of a new agreement
without conforming to our Constitutional
processes.
Similarly, the Executive has the right to
discuss with any foreign government the
furnishing of foreign assistance, but the Con-
stitution clearly establishes that the Congress
must appropriate (and hence authorize) the
funds to institute such a program. Congress
has provided the President with certain dis-
cretionary authority to make changes in the
allocation of foreign aid funds, but the
clear intent of Congress has been for this
discretionary authority to be used in emer-
gency situations. The new agreement with
Portugal is not a matter on which the Ex-
ecutive must act immediately and thus would
not and have time to come to Congress for
authorization.
Finally, I would point out that the
furnishing of economic aid to Portugal is
complicated by the fact that Portugal is in-
volved in colonial wars in Africa. You stated
on March 26, 1970: "As for the Portuguese
territories, we shall continue to believe that
their peoples have the right of self-deter-
mination.. . . Believing that resort to vio-
lence is in no one's interest, we imposed an
embargo in 1961 against the shipment of
arms for use in the Portuguese territories."
Yet there would seem to be a clear tie
between the furnishing of economic aid to
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400130022-0
 Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400130022-0
April T,71972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
Portugal and the wars in the Portuguese cal- Portuguese Foreign Minister. If you have
onies. The New York Times said this morn- any further questions about them, please
ing: "The loans could reduce pressure on do not hesitate to let me know.
Portugual's foreign currency reserves, Sincerely yours, r"'+
which are under considerable strain because DAVID M. ABSHIRE,
of the need to import foodstuffs in part
because of the war against the guerrillas in
Angola, Mozambique and Portuguese
i 11
Assistant Secretary for Congressional
Relations.
u nea. His Excellency, Rol PATRICIO,
This additional complication is an added Minister of Foreign Affairs of Portugal
reason for the Executive Branch to Be- the
advice and consent of the Senate before final
action is taken on the reported agreement
with Portugal. I am confident you will agree
and I await your affirmative response.
Sincerely,
CLIFFORD P. CASE,
U.S. Senator.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington? D.C., December 17, 1972.
Hon. CLIFFORD P. CASE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR CASE: The Secretary has
asked me to reply to your letter of December
9 regarding the recent exchange of notes with
Portugal formalizing continuance of the
rights of the United States to use certain
milithxy facilities in the Azores.
The basis of our defense cooperation with
Portugal is the North Atlantic Treaty, which
was, of course, overwhelmingly approved by
the Senate on July 21, 1949. The bilateral
Defense Agreement of 1951. with Portugal,
which was executed in implementation of
the North Atlantic Treaty, provided for war-
time use of the Azores facilities by United
States forces "during the life of the North
Atlantic Treaty" and for the peacetime
presence of American personnel during a
specified time for the purpose of preparing
the facilities for possible wartime use, storing
materiel, and otherwise? achieving a state
of readiness. These rights to peacetime pres-
ence of United States forces in the Azores,
in pursuance of the goals of the North
Atlantic alliance, were extended by agree-
ment on November 15, 1957 to December 31,
S5311
and the United States Government declares
its willingness to provide, in accordance with
the usual loan criteria and practices of the
Eximbank, financing for these projects.
3. The hydrographic vessel USNS Kellar
on a no cost basis, subject to the terms of a
lease to be negotiated.
4. A grant of $1 million to fund educational
development projects selected by the Govern-
ment of Portugal.
5. $5 million in "drawing rights" at new
acquisition value of any non-military ex-
cess equipment which may be found to meet
Portuguese requirements over a period of two
years. The figure of five million dollars is to
be considered illustrative and not a maxi-
mum ceiling so that we may be free to exceed
this figure if desired.
As soon as the Government of Portugal re-
plies to this letter, discussions shall be
initiated to implement the details of each
of the individual items listed herein.
Sincerely yours,
WILLIAM P. ROGERS.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE,
Washington, D.C., December 9,1971.
His Excellency RUI PATRICIO,
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Portugal.
DEAR MR. MINISTER: During the recent dis-
cussions between our two Governments re-
garding possible participation by my Govern-
ment in the plans which your Government
has drawn up for the economic and social
development of your country, Portuguese and
American technicians have reviewed various
Portuguese proposals with a total value of
some $400 million. These included, inter
alia, projects for airport construction, rail-
way modernization, bridge-building, electric
power generation, mechanization of agricul-
ture, harbor construction and town planning,
and the supplying of equipment for schools
and hospitals.
I am pleased to inform you that the United
States Government is willing to provide,
through the Export-Import Bank of the
United States, financing for U.S. goods and
services to be used in these projects, in ac-
laterally by the Portuguese Foreign Minister ' Stituting a formal agreement between the tw0_J rflough tha Portuguese Embassy in Washing-
in a letter of December 29, 1962 to the Ameri- LGovernments. ton or directly at any time and will receive
can Ambassador. The exchange of notes Accept, Excellency, the asurances of my expeditious handling.
which took place last week restored those
rights to a bilaterally agreed basis, as was
the case from 1951 to 1962. This exchange of
notes did not, of course, expand in any way
our presence iri the Azores, which has re-
mained substantially the same for many
years. Likewise, it does not expand our com-
mitments beyond those accepted by the Sen-
ate in giving advice and consent to ratifica-
tion of the North Atlantic Treaty.
The various forms of assistance we intend
to make available to Portugal will come
under existing programs of the Departments
of Defense, Agriculture and the Export-Im-
port Bank of the United States. All assistance
is expressly conditioned on the availability
of authorizing legislation and appropriated
funds. The Department does not agree that
there is "a clear tie between the furnishing
of economic aid to Portugal and the wars
in the Portuguese colonies." Contrary to
the press article you cite, there is no strain on
Portugal's foreign currency reserves, which,
In fact, have been rising continually and
now stand at an all-time high of $1.6 billion.
The main effect of the Eximbank and PL-480
credits we are offering Portugal should be to
increase the United States share of Portugal's
import market, which is lower than our
share of the market in any other Western
European country.
I am enclosing for your Information, a
complete set of the documents exchanged
last week between the Secretary and the
ExCELLENCY: I have the honor to acknowl-
edge receipt of Your Excellency's Note dated
December 9, 1971, which reads as follows:
" I have the honor to refer to the letter of
the Foreign Minister of Portugal to the Am-
bassador of the United States of America,
dated December 29, 1962, and to the notes of
this Ministry and of your Embassy, dated
January 6, 1969, and February 3, 1969, respec-
tively, relating to the conversations regarding
the continued stationing of American forces
and personnel at Lajes Base in the Azores
and its use by the same.
"I have the honor to propose that the con-
tinued use by American forces of the facilities
at Lajes Base be authorized by the Govern-
ment of Portugal for a period of five years
dating from February -, 1969.
"The continued use of such facilities will
firmed and described in the letter of the
Foreign Minister of Portugal dated December
29, 1962. Either party may propose the com-
mencement of conversations regarding use
of such facilities beyond the period described
in this note six months before the expiration
of such period, but no determination that a
negative result has arisen in such conversa-
tions shall be made for at least six months
following the expiration of such period. In
the event neither party proposes the com-
mencement of further conversations, a nega-
tive result shall de deemed to have arisen
upon the expiration ;f the period described
in this note.
"I should like to propose that, if agree-
able to your Government, this note together
with your reply, shall constitute an agreg
WILLIAM P. ROGERS,
Secretary of State of the United States
of America.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE,
Washington, D.C., December 9, 1971.
His Excellency Rui PATRICIO,
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Portugal.
DEAR MR. MINISTER: I refer to the series of
discussions that have taken between our two
Governments designed to enhance our poli-
tical, economic, and cultural relations and in
particular to the discussions that have cen-
tered on Portugal's development programs in
the fields of education, health, agriculture,
transportation, and science.
As a result of these discussions, the United
States agrees, within the limitations of ap-
plicable United States legislation and appro-
priations, to help Portugal in its develop-
ment efforts by providing the following eco-
nomic assistance:
1. A PL-480 program that will make avail-
able agricultural commodities valued at up
to $15 million during FY-19'72 and the same
amount during FY-1973. The terms of the
agreements under PL-480 will be 15 years
at 41/a percent interest, with an initial pay-
ment of 5 percent and currency use payment
of 10 percent.
2. Financing for certain projects of the
Government of Portugal, as follows: The
two Governments have reviewed development
projects in Portugal valued at $400 million
WILLIAM P. ROGERS.
JANUARY 14, 1972.
I-ton. WILLIAM P. ROGERS,
Secretary of State, Department of State,
'Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. SECRETARY: As you may know, I
have already informally told the Department
that I plan to include the Bahrain base
agreement in my resolution on Azore bases
(S. Res. 214). I am enclosing for your infor-
mation a copy of the amended resolution.
Since we are now in the process of prepar-
ing for hearings on S. Res. 214, I would be
grateful if you could send me the details
of the Bahrain agreement as the Department
did earlier on the Azores pact.
Sincerely,
CLIFFORD P. CASE, U.S. Senator.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, D.C., January 26, 1972.
Hon. CLIFFORD P. CASE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR CASE: The Seoretary has
asked the to reply to your letter of January
14 requesting details on the agreement be-
tween the U.S. and Bahrain providing for the
continued stationing of the U.S. Navy's Mid-
dle East Force in Bahrain.
I enclose a copy of the text of the agree-
ment, which was concluded December 23,
1971, and will soon be published In the
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400130022-0
 Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400130022-0
S 5312 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE April 4, 1972
Treaties and Other International Acts Series.
The Chairman of the Foreign Relations Com-
mittee has also been provided with a copy.
I would like to stress that this agreement
is essentially a logistics arrangement to per-
mit Middle East Force to continue to carry
out its mission of visiting friendly ports in
the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean area as a
manifestation of the United States interest
in the states of the region. The agreement
with the Government of Bahrain was neces-
.sary because the British have relinquished
the naval facilities in Bahrain, a small por-
tion of which our Navy has utilized on an
informal basis for over two decades. In addi-
tion, the British retrocession of legal juris-
diction over all foreigners in Bahrain as that
state became fully independent last year ne-
cessitated a direct U.S.-Bahraini arrangement
on the legal status of the personnel of Mid-
dle East Force.
The agreement with Bahrain involves no
change in U.S. naval presence or mission in
the area and the agreement in no way in-
volves a political or military commitment to
Bahrain or any other state.
Department officers would, of course, be
pleased to have the opportunity to discuss
with you the Bahrain agreement and its re-
lationship to U.S. policy toward the Persian
Gulf.
Sincerely yours,
DAVID M. ABsHIRE,
Assistant Secretary for Congressional
Relations.
Enclosure: Text of Bahrain Agreement.
I, the undersigned consular officer of the
United States of America, duly commissioned
and qualified, do hereby certify that the
attached is a true and faithful copy of the
original this day exhibited to me, the same
having been carefully examined by me and
compared with the said original and found
to agree therewith word for word and figure
for figure.
In witness whereof I have hereunto set mg
hand and affixed the seal of the American Em-
bassy at Manama, Bahrain this day of De-
cember 23, 1971.
RICHARD W. RAUH,
Vice Consul of the United States of America.
EMBASSY OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Manama, Bahrain, December 23, 1971.
His Excellency SHAIKH MOIIAMMAD BIN
MUBARAK AL-KHALIFA,
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Government of
the State of Bahrain.
EXCELLENCY: I have the honor to refer to
the present deployment in Bahrain of the
United States Middle East Force, including
its flagship and other vessels and aircraft.
The United States Government proposes to
maintain this presence and its related sup-
port facilities subject to the following ar-
rangements :
1. Vessels and aircraft assigned to or sup-
porting the United States Force may freely
enter and departthe territorial waters, ports,
and airfields of Bahrain;
2. Members of the United States Force will
be allowed freedom of movement within
Bahrain and freedom of entry to and egress
from Bahrain;
3. If there is any substantial change con-
templated by the United States Government
in the deployment of vessels or aircraft or
numbers of personnel to be supported on
Bahrain in connection with the United
States Middle East Force, the United States
Government will consult with the Govern-
ment of Bahrain before effecting that change;
4. Passport and visa requirements shall not
be applicable to military members of the
United States Force except as shall be agreed
upon between the two governments. All mem-
bers of the United States Force, however,
shall be furnished with appropriate identi-
fication which shall be produced, upon de-
mand, to the appropriate authorities of the
Government of Bahrain. Members of the
United States Force will be exempt from im-
migration and emigration inspection on en-
tering or leaving Bahrain, and from registra-
tion and control as aliens, but will not by
reasons of their entry into Bahrain be re-
garded as acquiring any rights, to permanent
residence in Bahrain;
5. Members of the United States Force will
respect the laws, customs and traditions of
Bahrain, and abstain from activity inconsist-
ent with the spirit of these arrangements.
'the authorities of the United States will take
necessary measures to that end;
6. Members of the United States Force shall
not be subject to taxation on their salary
and emoluments received from United States
sources, or on any other tangible movable
property which is present in Bahrain due to
Lheir temporary presence there;
7. The authorities of Bahrain will accept
as valid, and without a driving test or fee,
driving, licenses or military driving permits
issued by the authorities of the United States
to members of the United States Force;
8. The authorities of the United States will
pay just and reasonable compensation in set-
tlement of civil claims (other than contrac-
tual claims; arising out of acts or omission
of members of the United States Force done
in the performance of official duty or out of
any other act, omission or occurrence- for
which the Force is legally responsible. All
such claims will be expeditiously processed
and settled by the authorities of the United
States in accordance with United States law;
9. The United States Force and its mem-
bers may import into Bahrain (without li-
cense or other restriction or registration and
free of customs, duties and taxes, equipment,
supplies, household effects, motor vehicles
and other items required by the Force or for
the personal use of the members of the Force.
Any items imported under this paragraph
may be exported freely without customs, du-
ties, and taxes. However, any property of any
kind imported entry free under this para-
graph which is sold in Bahrain to persons
other than to those entitled to duty free im-
port privileges shall be subject to customs
and other duties on its value at the time of
sale.
10. Personal purchases by members of the
United States Force from Bahraini sources
shall not be exempt from Bahraini customs,
duties and taxes except for certain articles to
be agreed upon between the two govern-
merits;
11. The Government of Bahrain shall exer-
cise civil jurisdiction over members of the
United States Force, except for those matters
arising from the performance of their official
duties. The Government of the United States
shall exercise criminal jurisdiction over mem-
bers of the United States Force. In particular
cases, however, the authorities of the two
governments may agree otherwise;
12. The term "members of the United
States Force" means members of the Armed
Forces of the United States and persons serv-
ing with, or employed by said Armed Forces,
including dependents, but excluding Indige-
nous Bahraini nationals and other persons
ordinarily resident in Bahrain territory, pro-
vided that such nationals or other persons
are not dependents of members of the United
States Force;
13. The occupancy and use of the support
facilities required by the United States Force
will be governed by administrative arrange-
ments between the United States authorities
and the authorities of Bahrain or, as appro-
priate, private property owners;
14. Should either government determine at
some :Future time that it is no longer desir-
able to continue the presence on, Bahrain of
the United States Middle East Force, the
United States shall have one year thereafter
to terminate its presence.
If the foregoing is acceptable to the Gov-
ernment of Bahrain, I have the honor to pro-
pose that this note and your note in reply
confirming acceptance will constitute an
agreement between our respective govern-
ments regarding this matter.
Accept, Excellency, the assurance of my
highest consideration.
JOHN N. GATCH, Jr.,
Charge d'Affaires ad interim.
STATE OF BAHRAIN,
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS,
December 23, 1971.
JOHN N. GATCH, Jr.
Charge d'Affaires ad interim, Embassy of the
United States of America, Manama,
Bahrain
SIR: I have the honour to acknowledge the
receipt of your note dated December 23, 1971,
reading as follows:
"His Excellency,
SHAIKH MOHAMMED BIN MURBARAK AL-
KHALIFA, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Gov-
ernment of the State of Bahrain.
EXCELLENCY: I have the honour to refer
to the present deployment in Bahrain of the
United States Middle East Force, including
its flagship and other vessels and aircraft.
The United States Government proposes to
maintain this presence and its related sup-
port facilities subject to the following
arrangements.
1. Vessels and aircraft assigned to or sup-
porting the United States Force may freely
enter and depart the territorial waters, ports,
and airfields of Bahrain;
2. Members of the United States Force will
be allowed freedom of movement within Bah-
rain and freedom of entry to and egress from
Bahrain;
3. If there is any substantial change con-
teniplated by the United States Government
in the deployment of vessels or aircraft or
numbers of personnel to be supported on
Bahrain in connection with the United States
Middle East Force, the United States Gov-
ernment will consult with the Government
of Bahrain before effecting that change;
4. Passport and visa requirements shall not
be applicable to military members of the
United States Force, except as shall he agreed
between the two Governments. All members
of the United States Force, however, shall
be furnished with appropriate identification
which shall be produced, upon demand, to
the appropriate authorities of the Govern-
ment of Bahrain. Members of the United
States Force will be exemt from immigration
and emigration inspection on entering or
leaving Bahrain, and from registration and
control as aliens, but will not by reason of
their entry into Bahrain be regarded as ac-
quiring any rights to permanent residence in
Bahrain;
5. Members of the United States Force
will respect the laws, customs and traditions
of Bahrain, and abstain from activity in-
consistent with the spirit of these arrange-
ments. The authorities of the United States
will take necessary measures to that end;
6. Members of the United States Force shall
not be subject to taxation on their salary
and emoluments received from United States
sources or on any other tangible movable
property which is present in Bahrain due to
their temporary presence there;
7. The authorities of Bahrain will accept
as valid, and without a driving test or fee,
driving licenses or military driving permits
issued by the authorities of the United States
to members of the United States Force;
8. The authorities of the United States will
pay just and reasnoable compensation in
settlement of civil claims (other than con-
tractual claims) arising out of acts or omis-
sion of members of the United States Force
done in the performance of official duty or
out of any other act, omission or occurrence
for which the Force is legally responsible.
All such claims will be expeditiously proc-
essed and settled by the authorities of the
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400130022-0
 April 4Agowed For Release6W1 g10&IkRRf~ 296 4 8130022-0
United States in accordance with United
States law;
9. The United States Force and its mem-
bers may import into Bahrain, without li-
cense or other restriction or registration and
free of customs, duties and taxes, equip-
ment, supplies, household effe6ts, motor
vehicles and other items required by the
Force or for the personal use of the mem-
bers of the Force. Any items imported under
this paragraph may be exported freely with-
out customs, duties, and taxes. However, any
property of any kind imported entry free
under this paragraph which is sold in Bah-
rain to persons other than those entitled to
duty free import privileges shall be sub-
ject to customs and other duties on its value
at the time of sale.
10, Personal purchases by members of the
United States Force from Bahraini sources
shall not be exempt from Bahraini customs,
duties and taxes except for certain articles
to be agreed upon between the two govern-
ments.
11. The Government of Bahrain shall exer-
cise civil jurisdiction over members of the
United States Force, except for those mat-
ters arising from the performance of their
official duties. The Government of the United
States shall exercise criminal jurisdiction
over members of the United States Force. In
particular cases, however, the authorities of
the two governments may agree otherwise;
12. The term "members of the United
States Force" means members of the Armed
Forces of the United States and persons
serving with, or employed by said Armed
Forces, including dependents, but excluding
indigenous Bahraini nationals and other per-
sons ordinarily resident in Bahrain terri-
tory, provided that such nationals or other
persons are not dependents of members of
the United States Force;
13. The occupancy and use of the support
facilities required by the United States Force
will be governed by administrative arrange-
ments between the United States authori-
ties and the authorities of Bahrain or, as ap-
propriate, private property owners;
14. Should either government determine
at some future time that it is no longer de-
sirable to continue the presence on Bahrain
of the United States Middle East Force, the
United States shall have one year thereafter
to terminate its presence.
If the foregoing is acceptable to the Gov-
ernment of Bahrain, I have the honour to
propose that this note and your note in reply
confirming acceptance will constitute an
agreement between our respective govern-
ments regarding this matter.
Accept, Excellency, the assurance of my
highest consideration.
JOHN N. GATCH, Jr.,
Charge d'Affairs ad interim".
It is my pleasure to inform you that the
Government of Bahrain agrees to all that
was said in this note.
Accept, Sir, the assurance of my highest
consideration.
MOHAMMAD BIN
MUBARAK AL-KHALIFA,
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Government
of Bahrain.
[From the Washington Post, Dec. 18, 1971]
TRADE LEADS THE FLAG
Eager to sell more American goods over-
seas, the United States discovered that Por-
tugal had (1) a long list of civilian needs
and (2) a tradition of buying from West Eu-
rope. So the State Department went to work
to open the Portuguese market. It succeeded
handsomely. The other day it announced for
the Export-Import Bank that the bank would
finance American exports for Portuguese
development projects (Lisbon happens to
have an excellent credit rating) valued at
about $400 million. Exim currently is financ-
ing only $17 million worth of exports to
Portugal; the total since 1934 is only $175
million. Portugal, whose economic and polit-
ical lag continues to keep it out of the Euro-
pean Common Market, had obvious economic
reasons of its own to make the deal.
In return, Portugal gat several things.
First, it got a base-extension agreement from
Washington. We have used Lajes field in the
Azores since 1962 without a formal accord
and, assured of use anyway, we didn't want
or seek a renewal. But Lisbon sought the po-
litical imprimatur which, it felt, a formal
renewal would bestow an its general policy.
Second, Portugal got a visit from Mr. Nixon,
who met Prime Minister Gaetano (and
French President Pompidou) there this week.
Mr. Gaetano may not do much for Mr. Nixon's
political image but Mr. Nixon does plenty for
Mr. Gae'tano's. And third, Lisbon got a few
other conspicuous goodies, such as $30 mil-
lion worth of PL 480 food, $5 million worth
of civilian gear (roadscrapers) from Penta-
gon "excess" stocks, and a $1 million grant
for education projects "selected by the gov-
ernment of Portugal."
Well, these days export promotion is all
the rage. And if the 'united States In fact
needs an Atlantic base to track Soviet subs
and to keep an eye on the mouth of the Medi-
terranean, than it's not outlandish that it
should sign for it. Often, after all, as with
Spain last year, base agreements are paid
for in military supplies' or in credits for
such supplies, not in credits for develop-
ment goods, as is the case now with Portu-
gal.
There is, however, a high price to pay;
many Americans, and black Africans, wish
we weren't willing to pay it. It is to give
Europe's last colonial power extra status
and encouragement in its dominion over
Portuguese Guinea, Angola and Mozambique.
By allowing trade priorities to lead it into
closer association with Lisbon, Washington
unavoidably identifies itself further with a
colonial regime. It did so without a word
to indicate it may have some residual sym-
pathies for Africans fighting for independ-
ence. It did so with a gratuitous visit to the
Azores by Mr. Nixon. And it did so without
any visible effort to separate the negotiation
or at least the announcement of the base
and credits deals so as to avoid the damag-
ing impression that the credits were some
kind of aid given in return for the base.
There is also the question raised by Sen-
ator Case's resolution calling on the Presi-
dent to submit the new pact to the Senate
as a treaty demanding ratification: "I can-
not believe that the founding fathers would
not consider to be a treaty an agreement,
such as the reported one with Portugal,
which calls for the stationing of American
troops overseas and which furnishes a for-
eign government with a reported $435 mil-
lion in assistance." We don't think the $400
million in export credits can fairly be counted
as aid, but Mr. Case has a good point any-
way. "Nowhere in the Constitution," he said,
"did the [the founding fathers] mention
that the Executive could skirt senatorial ap-
proval simply by calling a pact with a for-
eign government an Executive agreement."
[From the Trenton Evening Times,
Dec. 20, 1971]
ADVICE AND CONSENT
The five senators who are seeking to have
the administration submit the recent agree-
ment with Portugal to the Senate for its ad-
vice and consent may be batting their heads
against a stone wall. But they deserve an A
for effort and their proposal merits the
thoughtful consideration of their colleagues
and the American public.
Under the accord, which the administra-
tion describes as an elecutive agreement not
legally subject to congressional ratification,
the United States promises Portugal up to
$435 million in economic and social devel-
opment credits in return for continued use
of air and naval bases, In the Azores.
S 5313
Senator Case of New Jersey, a member of
the Foreign Relations Committee, immedi-
ately wrote Secretary of State Rogers de-
manding that the pact be submitted to the
Senate as if it were a treaty because it in-
volves the stationing of American troops
overseas. The Case move was not unprece-
dented. Senator Fulbright, the chairman of
the committee, had sought unsuccessfully
last year to have the administration submit
a bases agreement with Spain to Senate con-
sideration. Now Sens. Case and Fulbright
have been joined by Sens. Javits of New
York, Symington of Missouri and Church of
Idaho in the introduction of a resolution
that would declare it to be the "sense of the
Senate" that any new agreement with Por-
tugal for military bases or foreign assistance
be submitted as a treaty for the Senate's ad-
vice and consent, and that no economic as-
sistance be furnished Portugal without af-
firmative action by both houses of Congress.
The justification of an arrangement with
a highly authoritarian regime that has been
engaged for a decade in wars against nation-
alist guerrillas in Africa might be a distaste-
ful and difficult problem for the administra-
tion. But that does not justify the bypassing
of the constitutional role of the Senate in
the treaty-making area. And, as Senator Case
said, the framers of the Constitution "did
not mention that the executive could skirt
senatorial approval by simply calling a pact
with a foreign government an executive
agreement."
[From the Long Island Newsday, Dec. 22,
1971]
THE AZORES AGREEMENT
The recent decision of the Nixon admin-
istration to negotiate a five-year agreement
with Portugal allowing this nation to use
air and naval bases in the Azores has dis-
tressed one member of our United Nations
delegation to the point of resignation.
And-as a black man and an American-
Rep. Charles Diggs (D-Mich.) had good rea-
son to be upset. The Azores agreement, said
Diggs upon leaving the UN mission, was just
another example of the "stifling hypocrisy"
that characterizes this nation's policy toward
black Africa.
For, the agreement comes complete with a
$436,000,000 American donation to Portugal-
money, said Diggs, that will be used to the
disadvantage of suppressed blacks in Por-
tugal's African territories.
Diggs is not the only person in Washing-
ton perturbed by the agreement. Sen. Clif-
ford Case (R-N.J.) and four other senators,
all members of the Foreign Relations Com-
mittee, last week introduced a "sense of the
Senate" resolution that would put the upper
house on record as opposing any new agree-
ment with Portugal involving aid and mili-
tary installations not first cleared by the
Senate as a treaty.
The State Department says the White
House was able to act unilaterally in this
instance because the pact was an "executive
agreement" and not a treaty. But Case and
.his co-sponsors-including Sen. Jacob Javits
(R-N.Y.) and J. William Fulbright
(D-Ark.) -are not satisfied with that answer.
On :humanitarian and economic terms, the
agreement with Portugal is questionable, at
best. And, as an instrument of practical
necessity, it is of doubtful purpose. An out-
post in the Azores hardly seems vital tp our
national defense.
We urge the Senate to pass the Case reso-
lution quickly when Congress reconvenes
next month. Perhaps then the White House
will get the message and re-think its posi-
tion, at the very least when it considers fu-
ture arrangements with foreign governments. -
Major U.S. support for the Portuguese-and
the concomitant loss of respect for U.S. in-
tentions among emerging African nations-
is too vital a matter to be settled by Presi-
dential decree.
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400130022-0
 Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400130022-0
S 5314 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
[From the New York Times, Dec. 26, 19711
IN CONTEMPT OF THE CONSTITUTION
Since World War It, the United States has
had the privilege of refueling its military
planes at an air base in the Portuguese
Azores. This arrangement included port fa-
cilities for the U.S. Navy. A so-called "ex-
ecutive agreement" was entered into between
this Government and Portugal and regu-
larly renewed until 1962, when the Portu-
guese allowed it to lapse because of their
resentment against the Kennedy Adminis-
tration's anti-colonial policy in Africa. Use
of the facilities continued, however, with-
out a formal agreement. About 1,500 Ameri-
can servicemen have been stationed in the
Azores for many years.
Earlier this month, President Nixon re-
vived the agreement and not only renewed it
for five years but also granted $435 million
in economic aid to Portugal without consult-
ing Congress.
Air and Naval bases, the stationing of
troops overseas, the granting of money-
these are the very substance of foreign pol-
icy. If the Senate is to exercise its consti-
tutional authority to advise and consent in
the making of foreign policy, it has an obli-
gation to pass judgment on these issues.
Under the North Atlantic Treaty, of which
Portugal is a signer, and under various laws
enacted in the past the Nixon Administra-
tion can find a color of legality for the latest
Azores deal. But the truth is that the Presi-
dent did not submit this agreement to the
Senate as a treaty because he knew that he
could not get two-thirds approval. It is
doubtful if he could get the support of a
simple majority. Rather than put the ques-
tion to a test, he has put himself in contempt
of the plain intent of the Constitution. It
is an odd posture for a President who claims
to be a "strict constructionist."
it is worth recalling that in 1947 when
President Truman wanted to extend a small-
er amount of aid-$400 million-to Greece
and Turkey, he addressed a joint session of
Congress and committees of Congress held
lengthy hearings before approval was grant-
ed.
The amount of assistance granted to Port-
ugal is enormous in terms of that small
country's limitedq budget. It is also political-
ly significant because it eases Portugal's
budgetary difficulties when her finances are
strained by the cost of combating the guer-
rilla warfare of the black rebels in the Afri-
can colonies. Do the American people with
their anti-colonial traditions wish to provide
a subsidy to this last ramshackle little
empire?
Senator Case, Republican of New Jersey,
and four other members of the Senate For-
eign Relations Committee from both parties
have challenged Mr. Nixon's righthanded be-
havior by introducing a resolution calling
upon him to submit the Azores agreement
to the Senate for ratification as a treaty.
If the Senate wishes to restore its constitu-
tional credibility as a partner in the making
of foreign policy, it will adopt this resolution.
I From the Washington Post, Jan. 9, 1972]
WHAT'S OUR GAME IN THE INDIAN OCEAN?
The stated grounds for the new American
naval role planned in the Indian Ocean are
so flimsy that one can only wonder if it has
not been undertaken merely to provoke "the
lady," as Indian Prime Minister Gandhi is
apparently known in the White House these
days. On the one hand, the larger and more
frequent patrols will supposedly fill the
"vacuum" being left by the British; on the
other, they will offset the expanding but still
modest presence (10 ships) of the Russians.
Take your pick-or take both; they're small.
The Pentagon makes no effort to identify
any newly threatened American interest,
Rather, it says the Navy is eager for Indian
Ocean "operating experience," vessels are
available from the Vietnam war, and "we
do have the capability." In a similar pose
of innocence, the Pentagon calls attention
to its new mid-Ocean "communicationscen-
ter" on Diego Garcia, as though to say, we've
got it so let's use it.
Just last July, addressing a House For-
eign Affairs subcommittee, administration
witnesses could discern no pressing reasons
for enlarging- the then-modest American
naval presence In and about the Indian
Ocean. Since then, of course, the Indo-
Pakistani war has taken place. In a gesture
intended, according to the "Anderson pa-
pers," to distract Indian forces from Pak-
istan, the United States sent a task force
including aircraft and helicopter carriers
into the Indian Ocean. The administration's
explanation that the ships were meant to
evacuate Americans, if a threat to them ma-
terialized, must be set against the fact that
three weeks after the war, the ships are still
there. Is this not the spirit in which the new
patrols have been ordered?
For the United States substantially to up-
grade its politico-military role in an ocean
heretofore spared the excesses of great-power
competition is, however, a major move de-
serving of thorough public discussion. It goes
well beyond the administration's disturbing
step, just revealed, to take over from the Brit-
ish a naval base on Bahrain in the adjoin-
ing Persian Gulf; Senator Case has correctly
demanded that this new executive agreement
be submitted to the Senate as a treaty. Just
what American interests are being served,
and how? Will the American move solidify
or loosen the Soviet purchase in India?
Should we move unilaterally into a new
theater, international sea though it be,
when no litoral state has invited us and
when all litoral states have just demanded
in a General Assembly resolution that the
big powers stay out? Should we consider re-
sponding in kind to the public Soviet offer
of last July to negotiate naval limits in the
Indian Ocean and elsewhere? Will our in-
Creased presence there give the Russians
a stronger claim to increase their presence
in the Caribbean?-
We would have thought that the vaunted
"Nixon Doctrine" militated against such an
initiative as the President has now taken
in the Indian Ocean. Or is this Doctrine al-
ready extinct?
[From the New York Times, Jan. 10, 1972]
NEEDED: CANDOR AND CONSENT
From the strategic viewpoint it makes good
sense for the United States to maintain a
modest naval task force in the Persian Gulf,
as it has done for twenty years. What con-
cerns us about the new arrangement for a
permanent American naval station on Bah-
rain is the same problem that bothers Sena-
tor Case of New Jersey and four of his
Foreign Relations Committee colleagues.
The agreement, signed wtih the newly-
independent Government of Bahrain Dec. 23,
was not announced; it was confirmed by
Washington only after a New York Times
dispatch had disclosed its existence, it was
not in the form of a treaty, which would
require Senate advice and consent, but an
executive agreement, which does not have
to be submitted to Congress at all.
It thus fits the pattern of Administration
behavior illustrated only last month by re-
vival of a pact with Portugal for continuing
use of bases in the Azores in return for $535
million in credits, and by the signing last
year of a new agreement with General Franco
for bases in Spain at a comparable price. Mr.
Case and his colleagues, who have already
asked the Administration to submit the pact
with Portugal as a treaty, say - they will
broaden their resolution to include the Bah-
rain agreement.
The presence in the Persian Gulf of even a
converted seaplane tender and two destroy-
April 4, 1972
ers-the current size of the task force-could
bolster stability in a volatile area. Along with
the decision to deploy Seventh Fleet patrols
more frequently in the Indian Ocean, the
force at Bahrain could offset an expanding
Soviet naval presence and fill a vacuum left
by Britain's withdrawal last year.
But if anything is clear about American
military deployment and American bases in
Asia after the bitter disillusionment in In-
dochina, it is that the Administration must
make its case openly for every major move-
with Congress and the country. Senator Case
deserves plaudits, as usual, for reminding the
Administration that establishment of an
American base abroad is "a very serious mat-
ter" on which the Congress should be con-
sulted.
[From the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin,
Jan. 10, 19721
SHOWING THE FLAG OFF INDIA
The U.S. Senate is restive aver the emerg-
ing American presence in the Indian Ocean.
And properly so, despite the Navy's argument
that the "showing of the flag," in the shape
of the giant nuclear carrier Enterprise, is
necessary to counter Soviet penetration in
this area of fast fading British influence.
Several senators have posed two critical
questions: Could the deployment and the
simultaneous leasing of an old British base
from the Sheikdom of Bahrain precipitate
the same disastrous sequence of events which
culminated in the Vietnam War? And
shouldn't the Bahrain agreement be sub-
mitted to the Senate for ratification?
There is, of course, a distinction to be
made between the deployment of a carrier
off the Indian subcontinent to assert "free-
dom of the (Indian) seas" and the leasing
of a base.
The former suggests a transient presence,
to be augmented, reduced, or, as the Navy
asserts in this instance, to be withdrawn al-
together, periodically.
But a base, in anybody's definition--the
Senate's or the Nixon Administration's-is
just the dangerous stuff unwanted commit-
ments are made out of. There's always the
danger the Bahrain agreement might escalate
to a commitment far exceeding Mr. Nixon's
"low (Asian) profile ..." And this possi-
bility is all the more real for the fact that
Bahrain views the agreement as an effective
counter to territorial demands by Iran and
Iraq.
Thus, the understandable anxiety of U.S.
Senator Case (R-NJ) and Senator Fulbright
(D-Ark). It may well be that the senators
overreach in demanding that not only the
Bahrain accord but the recent agreement
with Portugal for expanded U.S. use of the
Azores be submitted to the Senate for rati-
flcation. But one thing is certain. Only such
demands, registered in firm and uncompro-
mising language, can set the stage for the
comprehensive debate such agreements
dictate.
The debate may not bring the vote on rat-
ification Mr. Case wants, or even prove that
the accords are "treaties," properly subject
to Senate action. But surely debate on such
a critical constitutional question would serve
to set and illuminate the limits of the U.S.
commitment, on Bahrain and the Azores.
It is knowing precisely where the limits
are that prevents or, at least substantially
reduces, the threat of another Vietnam.
BACK TO THE CONSTITUTION
With no fanfare at all President Nixon has
now entered into an agreement to establish
a naval base on Bahrain, an island in the
Persian Gulf that recently proclaimed its
independence. Sen. Case of New Jersey right-
ly protests that the agreement is actually
a treaty, and he insists it should be sub-
mitted to the Senate as the Constitution di-
rects.
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400130022-0
 April ,pp"d For Release L ' 7 g%I E ~8 96 j0 130022-0
President Nixon is probably quite right in
supposing that the base on Bahrain makes
sense. He might even have been right in
suppositions leading up to another so-called
executive agreement with Portugal concern-
ing bases in the Azores. But his rightness
should not be permitted to obscure the cen-
tral point, that major agreements with for-
eign nations should be submitted to the Serr-
ate for its review and advice.
The President's power in foreign affairs is
enormous, which has been demonstrated for
years in Vietnam and lately again in the
war between India and Pakistan. But the
Constitution and common sense insist that
it be not unlimited. Congress does have its
role.
There is need for debate of an issue like
a naval base in the Persian Gulf. That is a
dangerous part of the world. As Sen. Case
points out, Iran has lately occupied certain
islands in the Persian Gulf, and there is a
territorial dispute among several Arab coun-
tries about islands there. The United States
could become involved, and the Senate
should have full knowledge of the possibil-
ities.
Sen. Case has been joined by Sens. Javits,
Fulbright, Church, and Symington in spon-
soring a resolution calling for submission of
the Azores agreement to the Senate for con-
firmation as a treaty. He now intends to
submit a new resolution on Bahrain or to
extend the Azores resolution to cover Bah-
rain.
Mr. Case stated the case well when he said:
The ;senate's treaty-making role is so
clearly defined In the Constitution that it
should be redundant to be introducing reso-
lutions calling for the Senate to give its ad-
vice and consent to treaties. Yet the Senate's
role in the treaty-making process has become
so eroded that we have no choice.
S 5315
Forces, of which $980,396,000 are for the De- gineers, and the Soil Conservation Service for
partment of the Army; $540,869,000 for the its program of licensing and inspection of
Department of the Navy; $301,585,000 for such structures and for other activities nec-
the Department of the Air Force; and $46,- essary for implementation of the plan. As a
400,000 for the Defense Agencies. precondition for Federal assistance, the State
Title V contains legislative recommenda- would have to demonstrate that it has ade-
tions considered necessary to implement the quate safety laws and methods for imple-
Department of Defense family housing pro- mentation of those laws. An annual sum of
gram and authorizes $1,073,684,000 for costs $5,000,000 would be authorized for the ad-
of that program for FY 1973. ministration of the program.
Title VI contains authorization to expand Mr. President, the tragic Buffalo Creek
the Homeowners Assistance Program (au- disaster which occurred in West Virginia has
thorized by section 1013 of Public Law 89- focused public attention on one aspect of ,a
754) to cover two limited situations in which widespread danger to life and property. The
Department of Defense homeowners outside dam which failed on February 26th was con-
the United States have not been eligible for structed out of mine refuse and was intended
assistance. to impound water from a washing process
Title VII contans General Provisions ap- at the mine. The failure apparently resulted
plicable to the Military Construction Pro- because the structure was not properly de-
gram. signed for the release of excess water and be-
Title VIII totaling $97,185,000 would au- cause it was capable of impounding more
thorize construction for the Reserve Com- water. than the dam could safely retain.
mand Components, of which $33,570,000 is In the aftermath of this tragedy, At has
for the Army National Guard; $33,500,000 for become evident that there are other similar
the Army Reserve; $14,715,000 for the Naval ?+.uctur-
_
-
ibly
equall
oss
as
Air Force Reserve. These authorizations are The terrible loss of life, human misery,
in lump sum amounts and will be utilized and destruction of property which resulted
in accordance with the requirements of chap- from the Buffalo Creek disaster cannot be
ter 133, title 10, United States Code. lessened by legislation, but the lesson of
The projects which would be authorized that disaster can provide the incentive to
b this remedy the potential disasters which exist
by proposal have been reviewed to de- elsewhere.
termine if environmental Impact statements
are required in accordance with Public. Law Mine impoundments are only one of the
91-190. Eighteen projects have been identified many kinds of water control structures
which may require environmental impact which pose threats to life and property. There
statements. Environmental statements will are dams throughout the nation which have
be submitted to the Congress by the military been constructed by public and private en-
departments when required procedures have tities for all manner of purposes, many of
been completed. which are of far greater size than the Buf-
By Mr. STENNIS (for himself and By Mr. ROBERT
Mrs. SMITH) (by request) : Mr. JACKSON) :
tures, to encourage adequate State safety
laws and methods of implementation
thereof; and for other purposes. Re-
ferred to the Committee on Interior and
S. 3448. A bill to authorize certain con- S. 3449. A bill to authorize and direct
struction at military installations and the Water Resources Council to coor-
for other purposes. Referred to the Com- dinate a national program to insure the
mittee on Armed Services. safety of dams and other water storage
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, for my- and control structures, to provide tech-
self and the senior Senator from Maine nical support to State programs for the
bill to authorize construction at military
installations and for other purposes.
I ask unanimous consent that the
letter of transmittal requesting intro-
duction of the bill and explaining its
purpose, be printed in the RECORD im-
mediately following the listing of the bill.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
Washington, D.C., March 23, 1972.
Hon. SPIRO T. AGNEW,
President of the Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: There is forwarded
herewith a draft of legislation "To authorize
certain construction at military installations
and for other purposes."
'.Phis proposal is a part of the Department
of Defense legislative program for FY 1973.
The Office of Management and Budget on
March 6, 1972, advised that its enactment
would be in accordance with the program of
the President.
This legislation would authorize military
construction needed by the Department of
Defense at this time, and would provide addi-
tional authority to cover deficiencies in
essential construction previously authorized.
Appropriations in support of this legislation
are provided for in the Budget of the United
States Government for the FY 1973.
Titles I, II, III, and IV of this proposal
would authorize $1,869,250,000 in new con-
struction for requirements of the Active
Insular Affairs.
NATIONAL SAFETY
tnreats of far greater disasters than did the
failure at Buffalo Creek.
There are nearly 30,000 dams and reservoirs
in the United States which are under state
supervision. Some of these dams and res-
ervoirs may be subject to Federal regulations
under such statutes as the Coal Mine Health
and Safety Act. Others are exclusively under
State supervision. Unfortunately, neither
situation provides for adequate regulation
and inspection throughout the nation.
The safety of these impoundments should
be a matter of great concern to public offi-
cials. The security of life and property below
the reservoirs depends upon professionally
competent design and construction super-
vision, and programs for regular inspection
and maintenance of completed structures.
Unfortunately, there is no uniformity among
State law
l
ti
s regu
a
ng these structures.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
on behalf of the distinguished Senator In July of 1966, the united States Com-
mittee on Large Dams surveyed existing
from Washington (Mr. JACKSON), I in- State law and reported that the majority of
troduce a bill and I ask unanimous con- the states either had not enacted laws ade-
sent that a statement prepared by Sena- quate to safeguard the public or did not
for JACKSON together with the text of the fully support the laws already enacted. In
bill be printed in the RECORD at this point. 1969, the same body prepared and circulated
There being no objection, the state- a model State law for State supervision of
safety
men t and bill were ordered to be printed of dams and reservoirs.
in the RECORD, as follows: As is often the case, however, most states
have small water resources staffs which are
STATEMENT BY SENATOR JACKSON-NATIONAL already overburdened with a variety of duties
SAFETY OF DAMS ACT regarding water supply' water quality con-
Mr. President, I introduce for appropri- trol, and other water resource responsibil-
ate reference the "National Safety of Dams ities. If an expedited program of Inspection
Act." of all non-Federal impoundments nation-
This measure would provide for an ex- wide is to be carried out by the States, as it
pedited national program, coordinated by should be, the expertise and manpower of
the Water Resources Council, to insure the the Federal agencies which have engineering
safety of dams and other water storage and competence and which are leaders in the field
control structures. At the request of the of hydraulic structures must be mobilized to
Governor of any State, the Council, to- assist in the effort.
gether with State officials, would prepare a It is not logical to confine this effort to the
technical assistance plan to insure the safety type of mine spoil impoundments which
of water storage and control structures in failed in West Virginia. The problem is much
that State, Under the Council's direction, broader than that. The problem is the lack
technical assistance would be provided to the of law and staff and monetary resources at
State by the Bureau of Reclamation and the State level to insure the safety of water
Geological Survey, the Army Corps of En- control structures of every type.
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400130022-0
 Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400130022-0
S 5316 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE April 4, 1972
We as a Nation cannot countenance the
continued threats to life and property which
unsafe dams and water impoundment pose.
Congress must act to provide for an ex-
pedited national program to insure dam
safety.
The bill I propose today would lend needed
support to the states to encourage them to
attack the problem of dam safety. The vastly
greater resources in technical knowledge and
manpower of the Federal government would
be placed at the States' disposal. The States,
in turn, *would be required to strengthen
tneir safety laws and programs so as to make
effective use of these Federal resources.
S. 3449
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That this
Act may be cited as the "National Safety of
Dams Act."
SECTION 1. The Congress, recognizing the
responsibility of the Federal Government and
the governments of the several States to
provide for the public welfare, finds-
(a) That provisions for the licensing and
inspection by the States of the construction
and operation of structures for the storage
and regulation of water vary widely among
the several States and in a number of States
are inadequate to insure the safety and wel-
fare of. the public;
(b) That even in States which do provide
for State licensing and inspection of such
structures, there frequently are not ade-
quate funds, personnel, and technical ability
to maintain an adequate schedule of inspec-
tion of dams and. other water control struc-
tures with the frequency and detail nec-
essary to insure their safety;
(c) That the Federal Government has ac-
cepted responsibilities for broad public pro-
tection from floods in programs for the di-
rect Federal construction of flood control
and waterway improvement works, Federal
financial assistance for the construction of
flood control works by others, regulation
of the construction of impoundments on
navigable streams, and programs of disaster
relief for areas affected by floods;
(d) That the Federal water resource de-
velopment agencies possess technical com-
petence in every aspect of design, construc-
tion, operation, and safety of water storage
and control structures which need not and
probably cannot be duplicated at the level
of State government; and
(e) That he necessity for an expedited
national program to insure the safety of
water storage and control structures has
been recently and tragically demonstrated
in the cost of lives lost and property dam-
aged and in reports which document the
lack of safety in many such structures
throughout the Nation.
SEC. 2. To implement an expedited na-
tional program to insure the safety of wa-
ter storage and control structures, the Sec-
retaries of the Interior, Army, and Agricul-
ture, acting through the Water Resources
Council, are authorized and directed to de-
velop a program of technical assistance for
the support of State programs for the li-
censing and inspection of non-Federal dams
and other water storage and control struc-
tures. The existing technical personnel and
facilities of the Bureau of Reclamation and
Geological Survey, the Army Corps of En-
gineers, and the Soil Conservation Service
shall be made available as otherwise pro-
vided in this Act to implement this program.
SEC. 3. Upon the establishment of the
program authorized by Sec. 2, and upon
written application by the Governor of a
State to the Water Resources Council (here-
inafter referred to as the "Council"), the
Council shall, in consultation with State
officials designated by the Governor, pre-
pare a technical assistance plan to insure
the safety of water storage and control struc-
tures in the State. Federal assistance pro-
vided under the plan may include any or
till of the following functions-
(a) 'Technical review and recommenda-
tions to the appropriate State official con-
cerning the adequacy of the designs of Wa-
ter storage and control structures which
.are proposed for State licensing or are cur-
rently under construction;
(b) Field inspection of existing water
storage and control structures and recom-
mendations to. appropriate State officials
t oncerning the safety of such structures and
remedial measures required to protect life
and property from any inadequacies found
therein;
(c) Technical assistance to State officials
on specific problems arising from State li-
censing; and inspection of water storage and
control structures; and
(d) Technical assistance to State officials
on the development of general criteria for
the design, construction, operation, and
maintenance of water storage and control
structures.
SEC. 4. No State shall be eligible for assist-
ance under this Act until it has shown to the
satisfaction of the Council that:
(a) The State requires by law that the
construction of new water storage and con-
trol structures, as defined in this Act, and
the modification, enlargement, and removal
of existing such structures must be approved
in writing by an appropriate State agency
having engineering competence;
(b) The State provides by law for the in-
spection by a State official having engineer-
nsg competence of water storage and con-
trol structures during construction and of
existing structures periodically during oper-
ation;
(c) The State by law provides authority
to an appropriate State official having engi-
neering competence to suspend construction
work, to restrict operation, and to require
repairs or modifications of water storage
and control structures for the protection of
life and property;
(d) The State provides by law or regula-
tion a procedure acceptable to the Water Re-
sources Council for prompt and adequate
consideration of complaints to the State by
citizens who are or claim to be endangered
or damaged by water storage and control
structures; and
(e) The Governor of the State has desig-
nated a State official with engineering com-
petence to administer the State laws and to
represent the State in cooperation with the
Council pursuant to this Act.
SEC. 5. Nothing in the Act shall add to or
detract from the legal responsibility of the
United States for damages caused by the
partial. or total failure of any water storage
or control structure.
SEc. 6. For the purposes of this Act-
(a) A "water storage or control structure"
means any artificial barrier including ap-
purtenant works which does or will impound
or divert water and which (1) is or will be
25 feet or more in height above the natural
strean:ibed or from the lowest elevation of
the base of the barrier to the maximum ele-
vation. of impounded water, or (2) has or
will have a maximum impounding capacity
of 50 acre-feet or more, or -(3) is a con-
veyance work designed to pass flood flows
for the purpose of protecting life or prop-
erty. Provided, That barriers which either
are less than six feet in height or have a
maximum impounding capacity of less than
15 acre-feet shall be excluded: Provided
further, That "water storage or control struc-
ture" shall not include any structure con-
structed, operated, or owned by the United
States.
(b) A "State" includes the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Territories
of Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin
Islands.
SEC. 7. The Water Resources Council is
authorized to make such rules and regula-
tions as it may deem necessary or appropriate
for carrying out the provisions of this Act.
SEC. 8. There are authorized to be appro-
priated to the Water Resources Council not
more than $5,000,000 annually for the five
fiscal years beginning with the fiscal year of
the date of enactment of this Act for the
administration and for transfer to the agen-
cies enumerated in section 2 of this Act to
carry out the purposes of this Act.
By Mr. CRANSTON:
S. 3450. A bill to authorize continua-
tion of programs of ACTION, create a
National Advisory Council for that
Agency, and for other purposes. Re-
ferred to the Committee on Labor and
Public Welfare.
ACTION ACT OF 1972
Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, I in-
troduce today, for appropriate reference,
on the request of the administration, S.
3450, the proposed ACTION Act of
1972, a bill to authorize continuation of
programs of ACTION, ' to create a Na-
tional Advisory Council for that Agency,
and for other purposes.
This draft legislatign was transmitted
to the President of the Senate by the
Director of ACTION on March 16, 1972.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
that this transmittal letter, together with
the proposed draft bill and section-by-
section analysis, he printed in the RECORD
at this point.
There being no objection, the material
was ordered to be printed in the REC-
ORD, as follows:
ACTION,
Washintgon, D.C., March 16, 1972.
Hon. SPIRO T. AGNEW,
.President of the Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I am transmitting
herewith a proposed `ill authorizing the con-.
tinuation of programs of ACTION, creating
a National Advisory Council for ACTION, and
for other related purposes.
Reorganization Plan No. I of 1971 brought
together in a new agency, ACTION, a number
of programs which together provide a broad
mix of volunteer services-Volunters in
Service to America (VISTA), Retired Senior
Volunteer Program (RSVP), Foster Grand-
parents Program, Service Corps of Retired
Executive (SCORE) and Active Corps of Ex-
cutives (ACE). The Peace Corps and the Of-
fice of Voluntary Action were also trans-
ferred to ACTION by Executive Order No.
11603 on July 1, 1971.
When the President submitted Reorganiza-
tion Plan No. I to the Congress on March
24, 1971, he outlined in his message of trans-
mittal additional steps which would be
necessary in support of his goal of an ex-
panded government contribution to volun-
teer service.
This bill would provide the Director of
ACTION with sufficient authority to achieve
that goal. It would modify existing legisla-
tion to take into account the effects of the
creation of ACTION, to broaden the areas
of endeavor in which volunteers may be em-
ployed, and to eliminate some of the dif-
ferences between the treatment afforded
domestic volunters and that afforded vol-
unteers in international programs. The pro-
visions of the bill are described in the at-
tached section by section analysis.
Among the major provisions are-
A continuing authorization for the inter-
national and domestic activities of ACTION;
Grant-making authority for new programs
to stimulate and initiate improved methods
of providing volunteer services and to en-
courage wider volunteer participation; and
A broadening of the scope of the VISTA
and Foster Grandparent Programs.
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400130022-0
 H 15q aro ,d For Release 20 08QJ426 S% 7RECORD -HOUSe 022-0
Fund" which earmarked a portion (approxi-
mately $65 to $75 million annually) of the
funds collected on import duties collected
pursuant to Section 32 of the Act of August
24, 1935.
The exact amounts reserved for accelerated
reforestation programs on national forests
were calculated under a formula which re-
flected the gross receipts from duties on
various wood products.
H.R. 13089 also ;called for the Secretary
of Agriculture to submit to Congress within
one year of the date of enactment and annu-
ally thereafter a report containing several
specified provisions.
SENATE AMENDMENTS
The Senate amendments deleted all refer-
ences to "Section 32." Thus, the "Supple-
mental National Forest Reforestation Fund"
would be financed by direct appropriations,
not to exceed $65 million annually.
The Senate amendments did not change
the annual report requirements.
CONFERENCE AGREEMENT
The House conferees receded from their
disagreement td the Senate amendments.
In their deliberation of the provisions of
this legislation, the conferees were never in
disagreement over this bill's objective. The
only disagreement was over the method of
financing the accelerated reforestry effort.
The conferees have agreed to the conven-
tional appropriations process contained in
the Senate amendments with the clear un-
derstanding that this approach should first
be tried for a reasonable period of time,
Then, if the evidence indicates that the high
priority neeii for an expanded reforestation
effort in the national forests is not being
met, the search for more direct financing
methods will resume.
Finally, the conferees point out that this
bill now proposes a specific legislative goal,
the attainment of which is vital to the Na-
tion and that it is imperative for this pro-
gram to be fully funded in the future.
THOMAS S. FOLEY,
BILL D. BURLISON,
JOSEPH VIGORITO,
CHAS. M. TEAGUE,
JOHN KYL,
Managers on the Part of the House.
HERMAN E. TALMADGE,
JAMES 0. EASTLAND,
B. EVERETT, JORDAN,
JACK MILLER,
G. D. AIKEN,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
TRANSMITTAL OF EXECUTIVE
AGREEMENTS TO CONGRESS
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Speaker, I move
to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S.
596) to require that international agree-
ments other than treaties, hereafter
entered into by the United States, be
transmitted to the Congress within 60
days after the execution thereof.
The Clerk read as follows:
S. b96~
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That title 1,
United States Code, is amended by insert-
ing after section 112a the following new
section:
"? 112b. United States international agree-
ments; transmission to Congress
"The Secretary of State shall transmit to
the Congress the text of any international
agreement, other than a treaty, to which
the United States is a party as soon as prac-
ticable after such agreement has entered
into force with respect to the United States
but in no event later than sixty days there-
after. However, any such agreement the im-
mediate public disclosure of which would,
in the opinion of the President, be prej-
udicial to the national security of the
United States shall not be so transmitted
to the Congress but shall be transmitted to
the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate and the Committee on Foreign Af-
fairs of the House of Representatives under
an appropriate injunction of secrecy to be
removed only upon due notice from the
President."
SEC. 2. The analysis of chapter 2 of title 1,
United States Code, is amended by inserting
immediately between items 112a and 113
the following:
"112h. United States international agree-
ments; transmission to Congress."
The SPEAKER. Is a second demand-
ed?
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand
a second.
The SPEAKER, Without objection, a
second will be considered as ordered.
There was no objection.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this bill requires the Sec-
retary of State to send to Congress the
text of any international executive agree-
ment to which the United States is a
party at least 60 days after the agreement
has entered into force.
Because some of those agreements may
be sensitive and must be kept secret in
the national interest, S. 596 provides that
those agreements would be transmitted
to the Committee on Foreign Relations
and to the Speaker for the Committee on
Foreign Affairs where they would be held
under an "appropriate injunction of se-
crecy" classification which could be re-
moved only by the President.
The bill is not retroactive and, there-
fore, past international executive agree-
ments would not have to be sent to Con-
gress.
It would affect only future interna-
tional agreements-which have averaged
about 200 per year in recent times.
The problem which this bill seeks to
remedy has been a perennial one: On
past occasions Congress has not been
notified or fully informed about interna-
tional agreements entered into by the
President or other officials of the execu-
tive branch.
For example, the provisions of the
Yalta agreements were not made avail-
able to the Congress or the public until
some years after the agreements had
been concluded.
In more recent times, congressional in-
vestigations have disclosed contemporary
examples of agreements which were
withheld from Congress.
During testimony on this bill, Depart-
ment of State witnesses admitted that
Congress had not always been kept ade-
quately informed about international ex-
ecutive agreements.
Initially, however, the State Depart-
ment preferred informal arrangements
for providing Congress with information
about executive agreements, and opposed
this legislation.
Following the passage of S. 596 by a
vote of 81 to 0 in the Senate, however,
the executive branch dropped its oppo-
sition to the measure. It now has no ob-
jection to the i3assage of this bill if the
August 14, 1972
Congress believes this is the wisest way
to proceed.
This proposal is not a new idea. Its his-
tory goes back to 1954 when a similar
measure was introduced in the Senate by
Senators Ferguson of Michigan and
Knowland of California.
The Eisenhower administration had a
hand in shaping the bill which was seen
as an acceptable alternative to much
more stringent measures affecting ex-
ecutive agreements which had been of-
fered by Senator Bricker of Ohio.
Although the Ferguson-Knowland bill
passed the Senate in 1956, the House
failed to act because that legislation did
not include reporting of executive agree-
ments to the House of Representatives.
The bill before us today is essentially
the same legislative proposal as that pre-
ferred by the Eisenhower administration
with the letter provision included.
This bill does not impinge on the right
of the President to conclude interna-
tional executive agreements. It in no way
limits the negotiating authority of the
President.
S. 596 simply provides that if the
President makes international agree-
ments he must inform the Congress-or
in the case of secret agreements, inform
responsible committees of Congress.
It should be pointed out that executive
agreements have the same effect as
treaties in international law.
In other words, executive agreements
bind the United States as a whole Na-
tion-not Just the President or adminis-
tration which makes them.
Nor, under international law, is the
duration of an executive agreement lim-
ited by the tenure of the President who
entered into such agreements. It con-
tinues to be binding on the Nation-and
the Congress as the national legisla-
ture-after he has left office.
If such agreements are to be binding
on the Nation, then Congress must know
about them. To keep them entirely secret
from Congress is a distortion of our con-
stitutional system.
Yet, that is what happened in the past
and may well happen in the future un-
less S. 596 is enacted into law.
Therefore, I urge thpt this body vote
to suspend the rules and approve S. 596.
Mr. MONAGAN. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ZABLOCKI. i am glad to yield to
the gentleman.
Mr. MONAGAN. I want to say to the
gentleman from Wisconsin that I sup-
port this legislation. I also compliment
him for his work and that of his sub-
committee in bringing it before 'the
House for consideration.
Last week we touched upon this sub-
ject in connection with the foreign aid
bill. At that time I moved to remove
from the bill the projected suspension of
aid to Portugal based on the condition
that the agreement in that case had not
been reported to the Congress.
I do want, however, to emphasize that
I support this bill and support the gen-
eral principle of free disclosure of execu-
tive actions. In the circumstances of
last week, of course, and the question of
assistance to Portugal, that transaction
had already taken place and the agree-
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP73B00296RQ00400130022-0
 Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400130022-0
August 14, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE_ H 7577
Mr. Giamo with Mr. Dellenback. The message also announced that the GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. Reid with Mr. rish. Senate agrees to the report of the com- Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Speaker, I ask
Mr. Ryan with Mr. Brown of Michigan. mittee of conference on the disagreeing unanimous consent that all members
Mr. Murphy of New York with Mr. Lent. votes of the tWo Houses on the amend-
Mr. Madden with Mr. McDonald of Mich- menu of the Senate to the bill (H.R. may have 5 legislative days in which
igan. entitled "An act to provide for to extend their remarks on the bill just
Mr. Thompson of New Jersey with Mr. Fre- 13089) passed.
acceleration of programs for the plant-
linghuysen. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
nal forest lands in
ti
f t
Mr. Waldie With Mr. Goldwater.
Mr. Lennon with Mr. Ashbrook.
Mr. Blanton With Mr. Baker.
Mr. Vigorito with Mr. Halpern.
Mr. Wright with Mr. Betts.
Mr. Slack with Mr. Davis of Wisconsin.
Mrs. Abzug with Mr. Dellums.
Mr. Cotter with Mr. Kuykendall.
Mr. Landrum with Mr. Blackburn.
Mr. Alexander with Mr. Frey.
Mr. Mollohan with Mrs. Chisholm.
Mr. Diggs with Mr. Pepper.
Mr. Metcalfe with Mr. McCormick.
Mr. Leggett with Mr. McKinney.
Mr. Hagan with Mr. Carter.
Mr. Passman with Mr. Edwards of Alabama.
Mr. Rarick with Mr. Keith. -
Mr. McMillan with Mr. Dennis.
Mr. Edmondson with Mr. Clancy.
Mr. Gallagher with Mrs. Dwyer.
Mr. Long of Louisiana with Mr. Crane.
Mr. Price of Texas with Mr. Lloyd.
Mr. Quillen with Mr. Michel.
Mr. Ruppe with Mr. Mills of Maryland.
Mr. Smith of California with Mr. Minshall.
Mr. Pelly with Mr. O'Konski.
Mr. Dowdy with Mr. Schmitz.
Mr. Wiggins with Mr. Wylie.
Messrs. KOCH, HECHLER, of West
Virginia, and SCHEUER changed their
votes from "yea" to "nay."
Mr. RONCALIO changed his vote from
"nay" to "yea."
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
The title was amended so as to read:
"An act concerning the war powers of
the Congress and the President."
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
o
rees on na
ing o
need of reforestation, and for other pur-
poses."
The message also announced that the
Senate agrees to the report of the com-
mittee of conference on the disagreeing
votes of the two Houses on the amend-
ments ow the Senate to the bill (H.R.
15417) entitled "An act making appropri-
ations for the Departments of Labor, and
Health, Education, and Welfare, and re-
lated agencies, for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1973, and for other purposes."
The message also announced that the
Senate agreed to the House amendments
to Senate amendments numbered 19, 24,
51, 52, 54;, 66, and 76 to the foregoing bill.
The message also announced that the
Senate agrees to the report of the com-
mittee of conference on the disagreeing
votes of the two Houses on the amend-
ments of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
15586) entitled "An act making appro-
priations for public works for water and
power development, including the Corps
of Engineers-Civil, the Bureau of Recla-
mation, the Bonneville Power Adminis-
tration and other power agencies of the
Department of the Interior, the Appa-
lachian regional development programs,
the Federal Power Commission, the Ten-
nessee Valley Authority, the Atomic En-
ergy Commission, and related independ-
ent agencies and commissions for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and for
other purposes."
The message also announced that the
Senate agrees to the report of the com-
mittee of conference on the disagreeing
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE votes of the two Houses on the amend-
ments of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
A message from the Senate by Mr. 15692) entitled "An act to amend the
Arrington, one of its clerks, announced Small Business Act to reduce the interest
that the Senate had passed without rate on Small. Business Administration
amendment a bill and concurrent reso- disaster loans."
lutions of the House of the following The message also announced that the
titles: Vice President,' pursuant to Public Law
H.R. 2131. An act for the relief of the 77.-250, appointed Mr. STENNis as a mem-
Howrey Lumber Co.; ber of the Joint Committee on Reduction
H. Con. Res. 560. Concurrent resolution of Federal Expenditures vice Mr. Ellen-
providing for the printing of the report en- der, deceased.
titled "Housing and the Urban Environment, The message also announced that the
Report and Recommendations of Three Study
Panels of the Subcommittee on Housing"; Senate had passed bills of the following
and I tftles, in which the concurrence of the
H. Con. Res. 605. Concurrent resolution to House is requested:
authorize the printing as a House document S. 2166. An act to authorize the establish-
the pamphlet entitled "Our Flag", and to ment of the Grant-Kohrs Ranch National
provide for additional copies. Historic Site in the State of Montana, and
The message also announced that the for other purposes;
S. 3240. An act to amend the Transporta-
Senate had passed with amend~ents in tion Act* of 1940, as amended, to facilitate
which the concurrence of the House is the payment of transportation charges;
requested, a bill and a concurrent reso- S. 3307. An act to amend the joint resolu-
lution of the House of the following Lion establishing the American Revolution
titles: Bicentennial commission, as amended, and
H.R. 12207. An act to authorize a program for other purposes; and
for the development of tuna and other latent S. 3755. An act to amend the Airport and
fisheries resources in the Central and West- Airway Development Act of 1970, as amended,
ern Pacific Ocean; and to increase the U.S. share of allowable
H. Con. Res. 550. Concurrent resolution project costs under such act; to amend
providing for the installation of security ap- the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended,
paratus for the protection of the Capitol to prohibit certain State taxation of persons
complex. in air commerce, and for other purposes.
the request of the gentleman from Wis-
consin?
- There was no objection.
CORRECTION OF ROLLCALL
Mr. YATRON. Mr. Speaker, on roll-
call No. 313, on Thursday, August 10,
a quorum call, I am recorded as absent.
I was present and answered to my name.
I ask unanimous consent that the per-
manent RECORD and Journal be cor-
rected accordingly.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Penn-
sylvania?
There was no objection.
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R.
13089, PLANTING OF TREES ON
NATIONAL FOREST LANDS
Mr. FOLEY submitted the following
conference report and statement on the
bill (H.R. 13089) to provide for accelera-
tion of programs for the planting of
trees on national forest lands in need of
reforestation, and for other purposes:
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. No.
92-1334)
The- committee of conference on the dis-
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
13089) to provide for acceleration of pro-
grams for the planting of trees on national
forest lands in need of reforestation, and for
other purposes, having met, after.full and
free conference, have agreed to recommend
and do recommend to their respective Houses
as follows: That the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendments of the Sen-
ate and agree to the same.
THOMAS S. FOLEY,
BILL D. BURLISON,
JOSEPH VIGORITO,
CHAS. M. TEAGUE,
JOHN KYL,
Managers on the Part of the House.
HERMAN E. TALMADGE,
JAMES O. EASTLAND,
B. EVERETT JORDAN,
JACK MILLER,
G. D. AIKEN,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE
COMMITTEE ON CONFERENCE
The managers on the part of the House
and the Senate at the conference on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the
.amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
13089) to provide for acceleration of pro-
grams for the planting of trees on national
forest lands in need of reforestation, and
for other purposes, submit the following joint
statement to the House and the Senate in
explanation of the effect of the action agreed
upon by the managers and recommended in
the accompanying conference report.
HOUSE BILL
H.R. 13089, as passed by the House on
May 3, 1972, was designed to establish a
"Supplemental National Forest Reforestation
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400130022-0
 A prove o Release 2001/07/26 :CIA-RDP73B00296R000400130022-0
Augu 1 J~, 7 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
H 7579
ment between the countries was in effect. ments would have to be sent to the Con- responsibility of being Congress' focal
Any revocation of it would have been ex gress. Point in the international field. Without
post facto. Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Speaker, will the complete information, neither the com-
Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly support gentleman yield? mittees nor the entire Congress can dis-
this legislation. Mr. GROSS. I yield to the gentleman charge their duties properly.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. I thank the gentle- from Illinois. In closing, I would like to note the con-
man for his contribution. Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Speaker, I just tribution made in this area by our former
This is a most orderly procedure for might interject this: That the extension colleague, the present Under Secretary
receiving executive agreements.. of the coffee agreement pact did germi- General for Political and General Assem-
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Speaker, in addi- nate in the House Committee on Ways bly Affairs, Brad Morse. Brad was the
tion to the comments made by the gen- and Means, as the gentleman knows, and sponsor of the first bill introduced in the
tleman from Wisconsin (Mr. ZASLOCKI), had it not then been extended it would House on this subject in the 92d Con-
with which I completely concur, I would have expired this year. gress. I am sure that he is greatly pleased
like to add this comment: Some concern However, the committee voted 24 to 1 that the effort he commenced has re-
was expressed that there might be ex- to extend what I think is merely a foreign sulted in our consideration of S. 596 this
ecutive agreements which should not be aid bill which the housewives of America afternoon.
publicly known, that there might be a pay for in marketplace. Mr. Speaker, I also commend the
period in which it would be in the na- Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman chairman of the House Foreign Affairs
tional interest for a level of secrecy to from Illinois for his contribution, and I Subcommittee on National Security Po1-
be maintained. The enactment of S. 596 am left to wonder how it was possible icy and Scientific Developments (Mr.
would not impede such a procedure. The to get 24 votes in the Committee on Ways ZABLOCKI) for bringing this bill before
Committee on Foreign Affairs on many and Means to extend the infamous in- the House, and I urge that S. 596 be
occasions has received documents under ternational Coffee Agreement. passed.
the very highest classification, and these Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3
have been adequately protected, the con- minutes to the gentleman from Ohio minutes to the gentleman from Illinois
tents have been noted by proper officers (Mr. WHALEN). (Mr. COLLIER).
of the committee, the chairman and the (Mr. WHALEN asked and was given Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Speaker, at the
ranking minority members. But never- permission to revise and extend his outset I want to add my compliments to
theless the information in all executive remarks.) the subcommittee for reporting this bill.
agreements in my view should be made Mr. WHALEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to I think it is indeed a real step in the right
available promptly to the Congress join the distinguished gentleman from direction of providing the means by
whether the contents must be under clas- Wisconsin (Mr. ZASLOCKI) in urging the which the Congress can remain informed
sification or not. passage of S. 596. He and I have spon- in the area of international agreements.
So, Mr. Speaker, I consider that this sored in the House measures which are Might I add further, it would be my
bill, like the war powers bill we just han- identical to S. 596. hope and desire that this Congress will
dled, represents a very significant step Mr. Speaker, a free people must have now deal with an even more important
forward in establishing proper relation- access to the decisions of their govern- matter and that is the matter of inter-
ships between the executive and legisla- ernment if they are to remain free. As national treaties.
tive branches of the Government. representatives of a free people, we in For several years, I know that many of
(Mr. FINDLEY asked and was given Congress have a responsibility to keep my colleagues in the House have felt a
permission to revise and extend his apprised of governmental matters in even great need to review a host of interna-
remarks.) greater detail than our constituents tional treaties, some of which are obso-
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 Unfortunately, however, in the area of lete and some of which certainly are out-
minutes to the gentleman 'from Iowa international agreements, it is often dif- moded by reason of the change in events
(Mr. GROSS). ficult for Congress to be fully informed. since the time in which they were en-
(Mr. GROSS asked and was given per- This is so because the executive branch, tered.
mission to revise and extend his re- under both Republican and Democratic Today, for example, I believe we are all
marks.) administrations, has taken the position aware of the fact that we are committed
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, earlier this that it can withhold from regular dis- to the common defense of some 41 na-
year the House renewed the infamous semination to Congress-even on a clas- tions in the world by reason of some seven
International Coffee Agreement, which sified basis-those documents which it international treaties, some of which, as
the Members will recall establishes a deems sensitive in view of security con- I said before, are obsolete.
cartel in London to fix the prices of siderations. While it is not the constitutional func-
coffee. Recently the price of coffee, In recent years, the number and the tion or jurisdiction of this House to deal
ground coffee, was increased approxi- subject matter of these secret agree- in the area of international treaties
mately by 12 cents a pound, and the ments make it imperative that Congress which are ratified, of course, only by the
price of instant coffee was increased by be aware of their existence. Many of Senate.
1 cent an ounce, or 16 cents a pound. these commitments affect our survival The fact of the matter is that this
My question to the chairman of the and defense in the most fundamental Congress could move on a resolution
subcommittee who has the bill on the sense. Certainly, in this age of instant which I introduced calling for a con-
floor is whether this legislation to deal communication and military deployment stitutional amendment that in sum and
with executive agreements could possibly abroad, agreements which could involve substance would provide that wherever
affect in any way this international cof- the United States in hostilities must be 'this country is committed by an inter-
fee agreement that is about to cost the known to the Congress before, not after, national treaty to the commitment of
coffee consumers of the United States they have triggered events. Thus, the U.S. forces abroad, that not only
a tremendous increase in the amount of purpose of the legislation we are consid- the Senate of the United States pro-
money spent for coffee? ering today is to reenforce the right of vide ratification of such treaties. I am
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. -Speaker, will the Congress to know the terms of all of this convinced that where the commitment of
gentleman yield? country's commitments. military forces is involved that we should
Mr. GROSS. I will be glad to yield to This proposal also recognizes that it amend the Constitution so that this body
the gentleman from Wisconsin. might not be in the Nation's interest whose Members are closer to the con-
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Speaker, as I have for some agreements to be disclosed pub- stituency they represent that those in the
stated in my remarks, the provisions licly. For that reason, the bill stipulates other body should also ratify those
of this bill would not be retroactive, so that agreements which the Executive treaties.
any agreements that have been entered wishes to remain classified would be I do not want to encroach upon the
into in the past would not necessarily be transmitted not to the Congress at large longstanding constitutional powers of
reported to the Congress. However, but to the House Foreign Affairs and the Senate, but I think In this area, we
agreements, such as coffee agreements, Senate Foreign Relations Committees. should have not only a right but a re-
if there are any in the future, such agree- These committees are charged with the sponsibility to participate in the ratffica-
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400130022-0
 H 7580
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400130022-0
CONGRESS];ONAL RECORD -HOUSE August 14, 1972
tion process. I would hope that now that join in support of S. 596 to require that (Mr. FASCELL asked and was given
we have made this step forward, we will international agreements other than permission to revise and extend his re-
move on to considering that resolution. treaties, be transmitted to the Congress marks.)
I think most of the people in this coun- within 60 days after the execution there-
try would support this concept, and of. GENERAL LEAVE
which I am sure it would be expeditiously The Congress must exercise a strong ZABLOCKI. Mr. Speaker, I ask
ratified by the required number of role in foreign policy. Failure to do so Mr.
consent that all s Members
States. only encourages a disproportionate role unanimous 5 consent days n emb is
remarks legislative the bill.
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Speaker, in re- for the executive branch, and adversely may may have
sponse to the comments of the gentleman effects the balance between the execu- extend their
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
from Illinois (Mr. COLLIER), it was not tive and legislative branches'
ranches necessary the request of the gentleman from n to
too many years ago that this body for effective formulation and execution tusin
adopted by a very heavy margin a con- of foreign policy.
stitutional amendment to provide that all The Vietnam war has led to a steady There was no objection.
treaties henceforth must be ratified by increase of congressional concern and Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Speaker, I have
the House as well as the Senate. But, un- action in this arena. We have seen the no further requests for time.
fortunately, it got nowhere in the other constitutional authority of the Congress ' The SPEAKER. The question is on the
body. to declare war steadily eroded. But leg- motion offered by the gentleman from
The proposal that the gentleman now islation passed by the House and before Wisconsin (Mr. ZABLOCKI) that the
makes may have the same fate, but I us again today reaffirms that authority House suspend the rules anti pass the bill,
must say I am intrigued by the idea. I and clearly lets the executive branch S. 596.
have not heard of a specific proposal of know that we shall exercise our full re- The question was taken; and (two-
this sort before and I express the hope sponsibility and authority in the future. thirds having voted in favor thereof) the
that our subcommittee may give it con- In order for the Congress to exercise rules were suspended and the bill was
sideration. the role I feel we should, we must be passed.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support pas- fully informed of all international agree- A motion to reconsider was laid upon
sage by the House of S. 596. This legis- ments to which the United States is a the table.
lation would require that international party. This should certainly include ex-
agreements other than treaties entered ecutive agreements, entered into by the
into by the United States be transmitted President. Executive agreements have INTERNATIONAL BRIDGES
to the Congress within 60 days after ex- the same effect as treaties in interna- CONSTRUCTION
ecution of the agreement. Where neces- tional law. They bind the United States Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Speaker, I move
sary of course the documents could be as a whole nation, no less than do r and pass the bill
classified. treaties. Similarly, under international suspend pend the to give rules and
consent the bill Con I consider this legislation a meaning- law, the duration of an executive agree- (H.R. 15577)
the construction give he of certain in-
do th tr, and for other por-
ful step toward developing a better work- merit is not limited by the tenure of the geess th
ing relationship between the Congress President who concluded it, but is bind- poses.
and the executive branch In the area of ing on the Nation until similar formal The Clerk read as follows:
of a formal procedure, by law, for the action suspends the agreement. Be et enacted by the senate and House of
transmittal of executive agreements, we Executive agreements are an integral Representative of the United states of
can eliminate a potential source of Epic- and important aspect of our foreign pol- America in Congress assembled, That this
tion between the executive branch and icy. The Congress has the need to know, Act may be cited as the "International Bridge
the Congress. and the power under the Constitution to Act of 1972".
I should emphasize that this legislation require the disclosure of, the texts of all SEC. 2. The consent of Congress is hereby
Is not new. A similar proposal was intro- international executive agreements, and granted to the construction, maintenance,
duced In 1954 by Senators Knowland of should require such disclosure by law. and operation of any bridge and approaches
California and Ferguson of Michigan. The bill before us does not question in thereto, y which will l connect hni States
The Senate adopted the measure unani- any way the right of the President to ne- with foreign "inter country (hereinafter rithis
referred
e collection o as an an ern ft tolls n its inode, )
mously in 1956, but no action was taken gotiate and conclude executive agree- And any
in the House. merits, nor does it transgress on the in- faa to of so
r as the United States has jurisdiction.
Also, I would like to point out that dependent authority of the Executive in Such consent shall be subject to (1) the
through this legislation we are not ques- the area of foreign affairs. approval of the proper authorities in the
tioning the right of the President to con- Similarly, the bill leaves to the discre- foreign country concerned; (2) the provisions
clude executive agreements. However, tion of the President which agreements of the Act entitled "An Act- to regulate the
executive agreements bind the United shall be made public when transmitted to construction of bridges over navigable wa-
States as a nation, not just the Presi- the Congress and -which shall be kept ters", approved March 23, 1906 (33 U.S.C.
491-498), except section 6 (33 U.S.C. 498),
dent or his administration, under inter- secret and transmitted only to the Sell- whether or not such bridge is to be built
national law. And the agreement con- ate Foreign Relations Committee and the across or over any of the navigable waters
tinues to be binding after the President House 'Foreign Affairs Committee. It of the United States; and (3) the provisions
has left office. gives the President the sole authority to of this Act.
Clearly the Congress has the right to declassify agreements, and precludes SEC. 3. The consent of Congress is hereby
know about all international executive such action by the congressional com- granted for a State or a subdivision or Instru-
agreements. Passage of S. 596 will help mittees and by Members of Congress. mentality there of to enter into agreements-Canad to assure that the Congress will be kept - The legislation before us today does anadian Prthe Go e a subdivision ara, a
informed. establish, in law, a formal procedure for C Ca n , iu. the case of a
m lity connycof either, United States and
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield transmittal to Congress of all executive strnadian bridge
2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida a? regiments. It is an important step to- Canada, or
(Mr. FASCELL). ward restoring a proper working rela- (2) with the Government of Mexico, a
Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Speaker, I com- tionship between the Congress and the Mexican State, or a subdivision or instrumen-
mend the gentleman from Wisconsin executive branch, and I strongly urge its tality of either, in the case of a bridge con-
(Mr. ZABLOCKI) as chairman of the sub- adoption. . - netting the United States and Mexico,
committee and the Subcommittee on Na- Mr. Speaker, I have applauded the for the construction, operation, and mainte-
tional Security Policy for bringing this President's decision to submit to both nance of such bridge in accordance with the
legislation to the floor. the House of Representatives and the applicable provisions of this Act. The effec-
tiveness of such agreement shall be condi-
Mr. Speaker, this is very important Senate the InterimAgreement on Stra- tioned on its approval by the Secretary of
legislation, one of a series of steps de- tegic Offensive Weapons which he signed State.
signed to assure that this body and the in Moscow last May. Such action, how- Sec. 4. No bridge may be constructed, main-
entire Congress will have a voice in mat- ever, should not be an exception but tamed, and operated as provided in section 2
ters that are of great concern to the should be the rule. Favorable action to- unless the President has given his approval
people of this country. I am pleased to day would accomplish that objective. thereto. In the course of determining
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400130022-0
 SAlved For Release 2001/f~-6#;l@,?SWBQ40QEi-0
I have reasonable cause to believe that the
above employer and union are within the
jurisdiction of the Equal Employment Op-
portunity Commission and have violated and
continue to violate Section 703 (a) (c) and
(d) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by dis-
criminating against Negroes and females on
the basis of race and sex with respect to
recruitment, hiring, job assignment, promo-
tion, training, compensation, representation
and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment:
1. Respondent employer discriminatorily
refuses or fails to recruit and hire Negroes
and females in the same manner it recruits
and hires- Caucasians and males.
a. The company employs a total of 2207
employees, Of these, 285 (12.91/ ) are
Negroes. The population of Columbia is esti-
mated to be 40% Negro.
b. The company employs 339 (15.4%)
females.
2. Respondent employer discriminatorily
places Negroes and females in lower paying
and traditionally relegated jobs.
a. Of 1030 blue collar jobs, Negroes hold
248 (24.1%). Of 1,157 white collar jobs, Ne-
groes hold 17 (1.5%). All three laborers and
twenty service workers are black.
b. Of 537 clerical and office workers, 310
(57.7%) are females. There is only 1 female
in the blue collar category.
3. Respondent employer discriminatorily
excludes and/or restricts Negroest%frogz
the blue collar level.
4. Respondent employer discri
the office and clerical level.
5. Respondent employer discriminators
limits and restricts Negroes and females
certain job categories.
6. Respondent employer discriminatorily
maintains segregated departments accord-
ing to race and sex.
7. Respondent employer discriminatorily
fails to provide Negroes and females with
equal training opportunities.
8. Respondent employer discriminatorily
fails to provide Negroes and females with
equal job opportunities and promotions af-
forded other employees.
9. Respondent union discriminatorily fails
to represent Negroes and females on the
same basis as Caucasian males.
10. Respondent employer and union have
further discriminated against Negroes and
females in all policies and practices, like, re-
lated to, or growing out of the specific prac-
tices enumerated above.
The class aggrieved includes, but Is not
limited to all persons who have been and
continue to be or might be or might be
adversely affected by the unlawful practices
complained of herein.
Commissioner.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this
letter and memorandum will indicate
some of the harassment which has taken
place and which, of course, I do not
condone.
Since the second session of this Con-
gress convened on January 18, the over-
whelming majority of the Senate's time
has been occupied with the consideration
of the equal employment opportunity bill.
It is the type of harassment described
by Mr. WILLIAMS which has alarmed me
and caused me to oppose the Commis-
sion's having judicial powers. According-
ly, I have consistently supported amend-
ments to the bill which would deny to
the Commission a broad, blank check of
judicial power. Allowed the free rein of
the original bill, the Commission would
have become a champertous and sur-
reptitious volunteer. Approval of the
Dominick amendment, in my view, has
given the Commission a reasonable and
effective means of carrying out their mis-
sion: presenting their findings to an im-
partial, judicial tribunal.
Mr. President, I must now act in good
faith by voting for final passage. I can-
not deny the fact that the Equal Employ-
ment Opportunity Commission to date
has been ineffective in ?otecting equal
opportunities. I cannot leny that the
Commission's authority ust be beefed
up, and I cannot de th equal job op-
portunities for o n cities must be
guaranteed. The now carries this
guarantee wit it. ccordingly, it is now
time for the approve the legis-
lation.
ORUM CALL
1 TRANSMITTAL TO CONGRESS OF
1 INTERNATIONAL TREATIES
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill 6) to require that inter-
national agreements other than treaties,
hereafter entered into by the 'United
States, be transmitted to the Congress
within 60 days after the execution
thereof.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I understand
the pending business is my bill S. 596.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator is correct.
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I ask unani-
mous consent that we may have a time
limitation on this measure with a final
vote to occur at 3:45 p,m. today, the time
to be equally divided between the pro-
poser of the measure and the majority
leader or his designee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I yield my-
self 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from New Jersey is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I had for-
gotten we have this new loudspeaker
gadget. My colleague, the Senator from
West Virginia, was very kind to suggest
that we put it into operation and I here-
by do so.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, under the
terms of the bill which I have introduced,
all international agreements entered into
by this Government will henceforth be
transmitted to the Congress within 60
days of their execution. Sensitive agree-
ments will be transmitted to the Senate
February 16, 1972
Foreign Relations and House Foreign
Affairs Committees under an appropriate
injunction of secrecy.
THE FOCUS OF THE BILL
No problem presently exists with the
transmittal of unclassified international
agreements to the Congress. Under exist-
ing statute-section 112a, title I. U.S.
Code-the Secretary of State presently
compiles and publishes all international
agreements other than treaties con-
cluded by the United States during each
calendar year.
Although the provision of this statute
on its face is all-inclusive, the position of
the executive branch has been to with-
hold from regular dissemination to Con-
gress-even on a classified basis-those
documents which it deems sensitive in
view of security considerations.
My bill is designed to end such an ex-
ception to the principle that Congress
has the right to know the terms of all this
country's commitments.
THE EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM
The Constitution contains no explicit
provision authorizing the President to
enter into executive agreements. They
began under George Washington and
during this century have increased at a
rate which has paralleled our progres-
sive involvement in world affairs. In
numbers, executive agreements-which
do not require the advice and consent of
the Congress-have come to far exceed
treaties, which do require congressional
approval.
During the year 1930, 25 treaties and
only nine executive agreements were en-
tered into by the United States. By 1968,
this ratio had been overwhelming re-
versed, with the record reflecting more
than 200 executive agreements in com-
parison with only 16 treaties. As of Janu-
ary 1, 1969, according to the State De-
partment, the United States was party to
909 treaties still in force; the number of
publicly disclosed executive agreements
in force totaled 3,973.
Although the equivalent number of
secret agreements entered into by the ex-
ecutive is not a matter of public record,
enough is known to establish the key role
they have played at critical junctures in
this Nation's history.
At the turn of the century, in an exam-
ple cited by the distinguished historian,
Prof. Ruhl J. Bartlett, President Theo-
dore Roosevelt, through the Taft-
Katsura agreement of 1905, agreed to
Japanese hegemony over Korea in return
for Japan's accession to U.S. control over
the Philippine Islands. In 1917, according
to Professor Bartlett, the Lansing-Ishii
Agreement went so far as to include a
secret protocol which nullified the very
agreement to which is was attached.
In 1943, the understandings reached at
the Cairo Conference were made' public,
but the provisions of the Yalta Agree-
ment which altered the Cairo compact
were not publicly disclosed for 3 years.
And the Yalta Agreement in its entirety
was not published until 1947.
More recently, the Symington Subcom-
mittee on National Commitments uncov-
ered contemporary examples of secret
agreements entered into without refer-
ence to the Congress: with Ethiopia in
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400130022-0
 J Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400130022-0
b r'2~ai' 16, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.- SENATE
Pros it Employee Relations will make rec-
omm dations to the department heads con-
cerned to how any necessary redistribu-
tion ca a accomplished with minimum ad-
verse eff on efficiency and morale.
The E oyee Relations Department will
devise who er special communications pro-
gram I.
nee ry to encourage greater num-
bers of mino group and female employ-
ees or potenti mployees to undertake the
education or tr ing essential to Category
2 jobs. Recruiting urces which are likely to
refer qualified min ity group or female ap-
plicants will be mor eatly utilized. Only
job related qualificati will be required
for such positions. A pro m of continuing
education coupled with fi nctal incentives
for participation therein wi be maintained
The Employee Relations D rtment will
attempt to discover the specific easons for
low minority group and female terest in
Category 3 jobs. Any misunderstan' ings re-
vealed will be removed by careful lana-
minority group members or women. It is rec-
ognized that within the Company many mi-
nority group members and women may not
appear to be motivated toward advancement
because of the mistaken belief that they
will be held back because of their minority
status or sex. The Company will undertake
to seek out those of such employees who may
be qualified except for motivation, and con-
sider them for Category 4 jobs and for those
positions which are prerequisite to Category
4 jobs.
COMMUNICATION OF POLICY
The Company's policy of equal employ-
ment opportunity will be communicated to
all employees by appropriate means. The
Company will propose the addition of a
non-discrimination clause to any collective
bargaining agreements which do not contain
such language. All notices and posters relat-
ing to the fair employment practice laws will
be prominently displayed.
The public will be informed of the Com-
pany's policy on equal employment oppor-
tunity, with particular notice to those orga-
nizations which are most likely to refer for
employment qualified minority group mem-
bers or women. Other employers with whom
the Company does business will be given par-
ticular notice of this policy, and sub-con-
tractors will be made aware of any obliga-
tions which they may have under the Exec-
utive Order.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FILE
The Employee Relations Department will
maintain a separate file which will contain
copies of all reports, memoranda, and corre-
spondence relating to actionunder this Plan,
including copies of Form EEO-1, copies of
communications of this policy to internal
and external groups, reports of up-grading
and distribution of minority group members
and women, the details of recruiting efforts
directed at increasing the number of qual-
ified minority group and female applicants,
and information relating to adjustment of
selection standards to increase employment
opportunity to all citizens.
INTERNAL REPORTING
As often as necessary, but not less than
annually, the Vice President Employee Rela-
tions will report to the Executive Committee
on progress in Affirmative Action. He will be
prepared to explain and suggest remedies for
any failure to achieve the objective of the
Plan.
ARTHUR M. WILLIAMS, Jr.,
President.
ATLANTA DISTRICT OFFICE, EQUAL
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUITIT'1 COM-
MxPSION,
Atlanta, Ga., January 28, 1972.
Re TAT2 0748.
Mr. H. W, WALDON,
Vice Pre sident,? Employee Relations, South
Carolina Electric & Gas Co., Columbia,
S:C.
DEAR Ria. WAL DoN: As we agreed during our
telephone conversation on Friday (1/21/72),
I am taking this opportunity to serve you
with a copy of the above captioned charge by
mail. Kindly acknowledge receipt by com-
pleting the enclosed form entitled "Acknowl-
edgment of Service" and return same to me
at this office in the enclosed self-addressed
return e: volope.
In an attempt to move expeditiously in this
proceeding, I am enclosing a complete out-
line of information and/or documentation
that'I will need to review initially. Please de-
velop this material immediately and forward
it to me in Atlanta. As I suggested to you
during our conversation, it is.hoped that re-
view of the materials requested will allow
us to determine a course of on-site investiga-
tion.
Please know that I am at your service and
if you have further questions regarding this
matter do not hesitate to call me in Atlanta
[phone].
remain,
fleet specifical
a. Name and
GENERAL
1 employees of the Company
1, 1969. This list should re-
the following about each:
dress.
b. Race and sex[
c. Date of hire.
demotions, pay
and reprimands
2. Complete organizationhart of the
Company showing staff, d rtments and
sub-departmental work units nd number
If used.
RECRUITMENT
ber constituting a recruitment team.
3. Sources of all recruitments.
1969 reflect the race and sex of each and tl1
specific position for which recruited.
HIRING AND PLACEMENT
1. Written policy on hiring and placement.
2. Title and description of all jobs and
position used by the Company since Janu-
ary 1, 1969.
3. Indicate the pass of promotability and/
*or seniority lines of progression for each job
and position listed in response to item No. 2.
4. Name and title of all job vacancies within
the Company since January 1, 1969.
5. Copy of the applications for employment
for all persons hired since January 1, 1969.
6. Copy of the applications for employ-
ment for all applicants rejected and the rea-
son for rejection since January 1, 1969.
S 1903
7. Copy of each testing instrument used
and accompanying validation studies.
8. Copies all test and results administered
to the applicants listed in response to items
Sand6.
PROMOTION AND TRANSFER
1. Copy of, Company's written policy on
promotion and transfer.
2. Copies of all seniority list used to deter-
mine promotability or other employee status
changes.
3. Copies of all bids placed for employee
status changes such as promotions, transfers,
etc. This information should reflect the rea-
son(s) for rejection in each case when the
bidder was rejected.
4. Copy of the work history record for each
employee promoted or rejected for promotion
since January 1, 1969.
TRAINING
1. Name, race, sex, religion, job title of all
persons assigned to and received the bene-
fit of a Company administered training pro-
gram since January 1, 1969. This informa-
tion should include the following:
a. Job for which trained.
b. Criteria by which selected.
c. Evaluated results of training for each
person participating.
d. Copy of the work history record for
each.
2. Name and description of all training
programs used by the company January 1,
1969. Please state the requirements for each.
3. The same information requested in item
No. 1 for persons requesting training who
were denied.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. Copy of Company rules and regulations
setting down the terms and conditions of
employment.
2. Company policies on the following:
a. Overtime.
b. Sick Leave.
c. Annual Leave.
d. Leave of Absence.
e. Maternity Leave.
3. Description of Company's disciplinary
system and how it is administered.
LAYOFF, RETENTION AND RECALL
1. Name, race, sex and seniority of all per-
sons subjected to layoff since January 1,
1969 reflecting the following:
a. Date of layoff.
b. Date of Recall.
c. Reason for Layoff.
2. Complete description of the Company's
policy on layoff and recall.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMIS-
SION VS. SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS
COMPANY
Re: Charge No(s) TAT2-0748
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that
on , 1972, he was served by Certified
Mail a copy of the foregoing Charge alleging
employment discrimination in violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
"QUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION,
Washington, D.C.
COISSIONER'S CHARGE: TAT2-0748
Pursua3lt to Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 196k,I charge the following employer
and union ith unlawful employment prac-
South Caro na Electric and Gas Company,
328 Main Stre , Columbia, South Carolina,
and IBEW Lo l 772, Columbia, South
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400130022-0
 February I6; p Pd For ReleMai J~C ALCI4 R73ELOCq 400130022-0
1960; Loas, 1963; Thailand, 1964; South
Korea, 1966; Thailand, 1967; and the
secret annexes to the Spanish Bases
Agreement of 1953.
In the case of the Ethiopian agreement,
the executive's pledge to equip the Ethio-
pian Army-at a cost of $147 million
through 1970-and commit U.S. re-
sources to the maintenance of Ethiopia's
territorial integrity, had the clear poten-
tial of involving this country in the al-
most continuous. civil war and border dis-
putes of this section of Africa. This agree-
ment, concluded in 1960, was transmitted
to the Senate Foreign Relations Commit-
tee on May 18, 1970-and this occurred
only after the Symington subcommittee
had learned of the commitment.
Unlike the other agreements uncov-
ered through the independent efforts of
this subcommittee, notably those con-
cerning Laos and Thailand, the Ethio-
pian commitment did not embroil the
United States in yet another open-ended
conflict.
But it could have.
These and other similar international
agreements-those we know of and those
whose existence are still unknown to the
Congress-affect our survival and de-
fense in the most fundamental sense.
They go to the heart of our foreign
policy.
In'this age of instant communications
and U.S. military deployment abroad in
the eye of potential conflict, these agree-
ments, which can in an instant commit
or involve this country in possible hos-
tilities, must be formally and systemati-
cally examined by the Congress before
they are triggered by events.
Failing such prior examination, the
U.S. Congress-as increasingly has been
the case since World War II-is reduced
to postmortem review of accomplished
facts.
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH'S PROPOSAL
Both the existence of this problem of
congressional access to those agreements
and the need for new procedures is ad-
mitted to by the executive branch itself.
wring hearings on my bill on October
21, IW11," Mr. John R. Stevenson, legal
adviser to Me State DepAiT--.
firmed is point on several occasions:
In certain instances In the past they (the
Congress) have not been informed on a
current basis but only ad hoc some years
later.
we recognize there is a problem here.
I think the problem that has been most pin-
pointed is the fact that the information
hasn't been obtained until a number of
years after the event.
It seems to me that a systematic procedure
There is a problem which you referred to
of having the Congress informed on a more
;urgent basis.
Nonetheless, although conceding that
Congress has not been fully informed,
As further defined by the State De-
partment during the course of hearings,
however, these "practical arrangements"
would preserve in every important aspect
the executive's present ability to with-
hold or disclose at will the terms of these
agreements. For Congress to accede even
informally to these practices would be
to acknowledge the subordination of Con-
gress to the executive branch. In effect,
it would legitimatize what, in fact, has
been an unconstitutional assumption of
power by that branch:
The executive would reserve to itself the
decision as to whether Congress should be
even told of an agreement. Mr. Stevenson,
State Department Legal Adviser: "I cannot
tell you right now that there wouldn't be
some reservation of Presidential discretion
of the President's ultimate power to decide
what. he wanted to do in a particular case."
The executive would determine how Con-
gress would be informed, and in some in-
stances even presumably dictate whether the
full committee membership should have the
information or whether it should go to cer-
tain selected members only. Mr. Stevenson:
"In some cases there would be a briefing
with respect to the subject matter of the
agreement. In other cases the agreement
could be shown} to several interested mem-
bers of the committee but not permanently
retained by the committee."
The executive would decide which sections
of an agreement Congress could know about,
and certain categories of information would
be completely excluded. Mr. Stevenson: "If
in briefing you got the substance of what
was involved, that would not necessarily
mean that you had to have detailed annexes
which might have vital military significance
but very little foreign affairs significance."
WHY LEGISLATION IS NECESSARY
In 1954, the Eisenhower administra-
tion, in a ter from then-Assistant Sec-
retary of State Thruston B. Morton to
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
said:
The Department would be glad to supply
the Senate copies of all such (international)
agreements.
There were no quibbles, no exceptions
to the principle that the Senate should
receive all international agreements in
their full and original text. Indeed, the
State Department cooperated in drawing
ardin the handling of classifie-d--aTme-
mPntS- an legislation similar o mine,
except that it did not provide for the
transmittal of agreements to the House
of Representatives, subsequently passed
the Senate in 1956.
In explaining why this legislation, once
agreed to by the Eisenhower administra-
tion, is now being opposed by the present-
administration, the State Department
response was:
I think this administration, reviewing the
,problem in the context of the on-going dis-
cussions we have had with this committee,
feels that the respective interests of the Pres-
ident and Congress could be better reconciled
without having quite the rigidity that this
bill proposes. (Emphasis added)
)pinion that legislation on this sub' In my view, the lessons of the years
vol since 1956, let alone the relations be-
istead, the State Department recom- tween the State Department and the
Wended that the Department of State Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
nd the committees concerned "meet to have shown us that this "rigidity"-
,ork out mutually acceptable practical which I interpret to mean strict account-
rrangements." ability by the executive branch-is es-
S 1905
sential to the task of restoring the peo-
ple's confidence in their government.
If any reminder is necessary of these
lessons we have learned so painfully in
the intervening years since this legisla-
tion was last considered, it was provided
in a recent editorial in a major eastern
newspaper:
If the dreary story of our involvement in
the Vietnam war demonstrates anything, it is
that the Executive Branch does not neces-
sarily know best; it is that an uninformed
Congress will make uninformed decisions or
none at all; it is that secrecy breeds distrust
and that neither Congress nor the public can
be expected to support policies unless they
have the basic data upon which to make
their judgments.
We know the consequences of un-
checked executive power.
How, then, can we accede to a contin-
uation of this practice of selective dis-
closure to the Congress of this Nation's
commitments? ,
For it is not enough that Congress be
"told about" or "be made aware" that the
executive has entered into a new agree-
ment stationing -,U.S. forces abroad or
extending U.S. assistance in return for
some political concession. Rather, it must
be possible that Congress can participate
and offer an independent judgment on
these policy decisions.
To fulfill this role, Congress must be
b M to-intorm 1 se w1 r of
t sense
comml
end
Even apart from the question of exact
language which commits this country to
a course of action, there should be no
."a prior" judgment as to which annex
or which section may or may not be of
concern tcti the Congress.
As previously noted, the State Depart-
ment witness in testifying on my bill as-
serted that Congress did not "have to
have detailed annexes which might have
vital military significance but very little
foreign affairs significance."
How an agreement can be of "vital mili-
tary significance" and not affect foreign
policy, I do not know.
But I am aware of a chilling example
of how crucially significant to the future
of this country such an "annex" can be.
In the transcript of the White House
meetings surrounding the India-Paki-
stan war released by Columnist Jack
Anderson on January 4, Presidential Ad-
viser Henry Kissinger was quoted as
saying:
When I visited Pakistan in January 1962,
I was briefed on a secret document or oral
understanding about contingencies arising
in other than the SEATO context. Perhaps
it was a Presidential letter. This was a spe-
cial interpretation of the March 1959
bilateral agreement.
Whether in fact such a "special in-
terpretation" existed which could have
directly involved the United States in
the India-Pakistan war, this is an ex-
ample of how an annex of mere "mili-
tary" significance, although perhaps
concluded irk a time of relative tran-
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400130022-0
 ,qj - fi&-ff~RQ$ fl6R0g~VR Q022-0
S 1906pproved For Release 2~0J J
quillity when its application seemed re-
mote, can have an overriding importance
to this country's foreign policy.
Selecting disclosure in any of its forms
is unacceptable.
This bill, in the terms used by the
executive branch in opposing it, is
"rigid." It offers no loopholes. Every in-
ternational agreement entered into by
the United States would be formally
transmitted to the Congress in its full
and original text. And, as made clear
in the Senate Foreign Relations Com-
mittee report accompanying the bill, the
intent is clear that the executive should
make available to the Congress all such
agreements now in force.
This bill does not represent an attack
upon the executive branch. Instead, it is
designed to restore the constitutional
role of Congress in the making of this
country's foreign policy.
In the words of former Justice Jack-
son of the Supreme Court, redressing
this balance is the responsibility of Con-
gress itself:
With all its defects, delays and incon-
veniences, men have discovered no technique
for long preserving free government except
that the Executive be under the law, and
that the law be made by parliamentary
deliberations.
Mr. President, this bill is a matter that
has been before the Senate before and
it has been approved by the Senate be-
fore. In substance, it is the same as an
amendment which our former leader,
Senator Knowland, proposed. It was ad-
judged to be worthy at that time and I
think it is even more worthy right now.
.This measure would require that all
international agreements entered into by
our Government be transmitted to Carl-
gress within 60 days of their execution.
Sensitive agreements would be transmit-
ted to the Committee on Foreign Rela-
tions of the Senate and the Foreign Af-
fairs Committee of the House under
whatever injunction of secrecy the Pres-
ident deemed appropriate. Of course,
there would be no problem with respect
to unclassified agreements. Under exist-
ing law they are supposed to be published
within each calendar year.
This statute has been observed more
in the breach in recent years. I would
suggest that the present practice where-
by the Congress is not made aware of
agreements is altogether improper and
represents a most unfortunate situa-
tion.
Mr. President, I ask unanmous con-
sent to have printed in the RECORD an ex-
cerpt from the committee report.
There being no objection, the excerpt
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
COMMITTEE ACTION
Public hearings on S 596, which had been
introduced in the Senate by Senator Case on
February 4, 1971, provided the committee
with testimony expressing the favorable
views of a distinguished historian and a lead-
ing academician and the unfavorable views
of the administration. On October 20, 1971,
Prof..Ruhl J. Bartlett of the Fletcher School
of Law and Diplomacy provided the commit-
tee with an analysis of the problem of secrecy
to which this bill addresses itself in the
broader context of the historical problem of
executive agreements as means of contract-
ing significant foreign commitments. On the
basis of this historical perspective, Professor
Bartlett expressed his view that-"this pro-
posed measure is so limited in its scope, so
inherently reasonable, so obviously needed, so
mild and gentle in its demands, and so en-
tirely unexceptionable that it should receive
the unanimous approval of the Congress."
On the same day the committee heard
testimony by Prof. Alexander M. Bickel of
the Yale University Law School, who also ex-
pressed strong support for the measure. "In
requiring, as S. 596 would do," said Professor
Bickel, "that international agreements other
than treaties to which the United States is a
party be transmitted to it, Congress would be
exercising a power that, in my opinion,
clearly belongs to Congress under the Con-
stitution."
Professor Bickel also expressed his belief
that "Congress has too long tolerated, in-
deed cooperated in, a diminution of its role
in the conduct of foreign affairs and in the
decision of questions of war and peace-a
diminution that approaches the vanishing
point."
In this respect, Professor Bickel concluded,
the balance of power between Congress and
the President ought to be redressed, to which
end S. 696 would constitute "an important
step."
The views of the administration were pre-
sented to the Committee on October 21, 1971,
by Mr. John R. Stevenson, Legal Advisor to
the Department of State. Mr. Stevenson ex-
pressed the administration's view that the
provision of a reliable flow of information to
Congress could best be provided for by "prac-
tical arrangements" of a nonlegislative
nature. Conceding that in the past they (the
Congress)' have not been informed on a cur-
rent basis but only ad hoc some years later.
Mr. Stevenson concluded nonetheless that
"we are dealing with a question of practical
arrangements, not with a question of right or
authority which would in any way be altered
by statute."
On December 7, 1971, the bill was consid-
ered by the committee in executive session
and ordered reported without amendment
and without dissent.
BACKGROUND OF THE BILL
The legislative history of S. 596 goes back to
1954 when a similar proposal was introduced
in the Senate by Senators Homer Ferguson of
Michigan and William Knowland of Cali-
fornia. It was reported favorably to the Sen-
ate in August 1954 but no action was taken
on the bill. The proposal was revived by
Senator Knowland in 1955 and subsequently,
in July 1956, favorably reported and then
adopted unanimously by the Senate. No ac-
tion was taken by the House of Representa-
tives.
As adopted in 1956, and as introduced by
Senator Case in February 1971, the bill was
in a form which had made it acceptable to
the Eisenhower administration. As originally
conceived in 1954, the proposal called for the
submission of all executive agreements to the
Senate within 30 days. The Eisenhower ad-
ministration, through its Assistant Secretary
of State for Congressional Relations, Thrus-
ton B. Morton, objected that the 30-day time
period was too short and objected further
to the absence of a provision for the protec-
tion of highly classified agreements. In order
to meet that objection, the bill was amended
to provide for a 60-day transmittal period
and also to permit the President, at his op-
tion, to submit sensitive agreements not to
the Senate as a whole but to the Committee
on Foreign Relations "under an appropriate
injunction of secrecy." With these amend-
ments the Eisenhower administration offered
no objection to the bill.
As reintroduced by Senator Case in 1971,
S. 596 was broadened to require the report-
ing of agreements to the House of Repre-
aeritatives and Its Committee on Foreign Af-
February 16, 1972
fairs as well as to the Senate and its Com-
mittee on Foreign Relations. In all other
respects the bill as introduced by Senator
Case and favorably reported by the Foreign
Relations Committee in 1971 is the same as
the proposal to which the Eisenhower ad-
ministration offered no objection in 1954
and 1965.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS
In the view of the Foreign Relations Com-
mittee, S. 596 embodies a proposal which is
highly significant in its constitutional im-
plications. The bill does not undertake to
resolve fundamental questions relating to
the treaty power of the Senate and the fre-
quently countervailing claim-or simple
use-of executive authority to enter into
binding agreements with foreign countries
without the consent of Congress. S. 596 un-
dertakes only to deal with the prior, simpler,
but nonetheless crucial question of secrecy.
The committee shares Professor Bickel's view
that the adoption of this bill would be "an
important step" in the direction of redressing
the balance of power between Congress and
the President in the conduct of foreign rela-
tions.
The committee does not accept the admin-
istration's view, as expressed by Mr. Steven-
son, that the sole requirement for the flow of
reliable information to Congress is the work-
ing out of "practical arrangements." As out-
lined by Mr. Stevension, these "practical ar-
rangements" would still fail to establish the-
obligation of the executive to report all
agreements with foreign powers to the Con-
gress. In the absence of legislation, even the
soundest of "practical arrangements" would
leave the ultimate decision as to whether a
matter was to be reported or withheld to the
unregulated judgment of the executive.
It is well and good to speak, as Mr. Steven-
son does, of the executive's recognition of the
needs of Congress and of the desirability of
"mutual cooperation and accommodation"
between the two branches of government.
These are highly desirable, but the principle
of mandatory reporting of agreements with
foreign countries to the Congress is more
than desirable; It is, from a constitutional
standpoint, crucial and indispensable. For
the Congress to accept anything less would
represent a resignation from responsibility
and an alienation of an authority which is
vested in the Congress by the Constitution.
If Congress is to meet its responsibilities in
the formulation of foreign policy, no infor-
mation is more crucial than the fact and con-
tent of agreements with foreign nations.
As the committee has discovered there have
been numerous agreements contracted with
foreign governments in recent years, par-
ticularly agreements of a military nature,
which remain wholly unknown to .Congress
and to the people. A number of these agree-
ments have been uncovered by the Syming-
ton Subcommittee on Security Agreements
and Commitments Abroad, including, for ex-
ample, an agreement with Ethiopia in 1960.
agreements with Laos in 1963, with Thailand
in 1964 and again in 1967, with Korea in 1966,
and certain secret annexes to the Spanish
bases agreement..
Section 112(a) of title I of the United
States Code now requires the Secretary of
State to compile and publish all international
agreements other than treaties concluded by
the United States during each calendar year.
The executive, however, has long made it a
practice to withhold those agreements which,
in its judgment, are of a "sensitive" nature.
Such agreements, often involving military
arrangements with foreign countries, are fre-
quently not only "sensitive" but exceedingly
significant as broadened commitments for
the United States. Although they are some-
times characterized as "contingency plans,",
they may in practice involve the United
States in war. For this reason the commit-
tee attaches the greatest importance to the
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400130022-0
 FebruAp r0VgcI19wQRelease W/gl g?SI ADatl%ft?9&8g gg30022-0
establishment of a legislative requirement of foreign policy. It has been the custom
that all such agreements be submitted to of the President for a long time to make
Congress. executive agreements which are never
The committee fully recognizes the sensi-
tive nature of many of the agreements the submitted for ratification, as treaties are
executive enters with foreign governments. submitted; these executive agreements
At some point the committee may wish to have a very wide impact, and their con-
explore the question whether the executive sequences bear heavily on the doctrine of
is exceeding his constitutional authority in separation of powers.
making some of these agreements. That, how- For example, during the days of the
ever, is not the issue to which S. 596 addresses Second World War a presidential agree-
itself. Its concern is with the prior, more ment was made in the form of an ex-
elemental obligation of the executive to keep
the Congress informed of all of its foreign ecutive, agreement which resulted in
transactions, including those of a "sensitive" taking property in New York State out
nature. Whatever objection on security from under the law of New York State,
grounds the executive might have to the which had control over that property,
submission of such information to Con- and turning it over to Russia.
gress is met by the provision of the bill which I think everyone who has studied this
authorizes the President, at his option, to problem has been perplexed by the ex-
transmit certain agreements not to the Con-
gress tent of executive agreements made b
as a whole, but to the two foreign af- by
fairs committees "under an appropriate in- the President without knowledge of
junction of secrecy to be removed only upon Congress and the fact that it is ex-
due notice from the President." tremely difficult for Congress to obtain
As reported by the Foreign Relations Com- an analysis of those executive agree-
mittee, S. 596 would not require the submis- ments or to know what is in them. In-
sion to Congress of international agreements
entered deed, this fosters secrecy in Government.
into prior to the enactment of the
bill. It is the strongly held view of the com- Since the Supreme Court has held
mittee, however, that the absence of a retro- that, in some instances, executive agree-
active provision in this bill is not to be in- ments take precedence over State laws,
terpreted as license or authority to withhold this bill guarantees that Congress would
previously contracted agreements from the be apprised of the existence of such ex
Congress. In keeping with the spirit and in- ecutive agreement and their contents.
tent of the bill, the committee would ex-
pect the executive to make all such previ-
ously enacted agreements available to the from New Jersey has made the Nation
Congress or its foreign affairs committees at his debtor in proposing this particular
their request and in accordance with the legislative proposal.
procedures defined in the bill. The Subcommittee on Separation of
In conclusion, the committee reiterates its Powers, which I am honored to chair,
view that the proposal contained in S. 596 has long been interested in this area.
is a significant step toward redressing the If the executive branch of the Govern-
imbalance between Congress and the execu- ment is entirely free to determined
tive in making of foreign policy. Twenty what it will submit - to the Senate in
years ago Congress undertook an examina-
tion of the broader issue of the treaty power this area, then the constitutional provi-
through its consideration of the so-called sion requiring Senate participation in
:Bricker amendment. One of the essential the treaty making field is no more than
purposes of the Bricker amendment, in the a price of dead parchment.
various forms in which it was considered by Mr. CASE. I thank the Senator from
Congress, was to place restrictions on the use North Carolina sincerely for his con-
of executive agreements as a means of con-
tracting tribution significant agreements with foreign
powers in circumvention or violation of the to me. Mr. President, when you have on
treaty power of the Senate. your side the strong right arm of the
The present proposal, which was originally Senator from North Carolina, you have
initiated as a modest alternative to the an ally-if I may mix two metaphors-
Bricker amendment, does not purport to re- of incalculable value.
solve the underlying constitutional question Mr. President, I understand the yeas
of the Senate's treaty power. It may well be and nays have been ordered on the meas-
interpreted, however, as an invitation to fur- ure. Is that correct?
that consideration of this critical constit The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
tional issue. For the present, however, the he
committee strongly recommends the adop- ator is correct.
tion of S. 596 as an effective means of deal- Mr. CASE. I hope when the time
Ing with the prior question of secrecy and of comes to vote, which under the under-
asserting the obligation of the executive to standing already arrived at will be at
report its foreign commitments to Congress. 3:45 p.m., we may have a showing of
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, in the inter- unanimous interest and support by the
est of saving time, because I know that Members of this body for this bill.
Members of this body are already very For a long time we have been under-
much aware of the purpose and the pur- standably aware of the nature of the
port of this bill, I shall be happy to yield problems that have faced us and the
any Senator who wishes to express his -world, but because of the enormous in-
view. crease in the business of the Senate and
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I commend each of its Members, we have let the im-
the distinguished Senator from New Jer- portant matter of dealing with foreign
sey for bringing this measure to the Sen- countries slip more and more from our
ate, and I commend the Committee on hands exclusively to the hands of the
Foreign Relations for reporting it with- executive.
out amendment. I am not blaming the executive in any
I think this is a bill which fills a need sense. If there is fault here I think it
which has existed for a long time. There must rest squarely on our shoulders in
has been no remedy. the Senate
Under the Constitution the Senate When there is a vacuum the Presi-
most certainly has a voice on questions dent-and not particularly this Presi-
S 1907
dent but all Presidents-have tended in-
creasingly to take unto themselves what
now has almost seemed to be absolute
authority in the field Qf international
affairs. The President must be the prime
mover in those areas, but the Senate's
duty of advice and consent, and not only
with respect to formal treaties, or just
with respect to ambassadors and other
officers, but alsoall other areas, must be
maintained if we are to have sound
relations.
I see the Senator from New York on
his feet. He has been most helpful in this
matter. I now yield to him.
Mr. JAVITS. I thank the Senator. I
wish to inquire of the Senator as to the
balance in numbers as between executive
agreements and treaties so far as the
United States is concerned. In other
words, how large a problem are we deal-
ing with here in quantity?
Mr. CASE. If the Senator will indulge
me for just a moment, that information
is here.
Mr. JAVITS. I think there is a ratio of
something like 4 to 1.
Mr. CASE. It is over 3. Yes; I think the
Senator is correct. It is 4 to 1. The inter-
esting thing about it is that some of the
most important things that have been
done in recent years have been done by
executive agreement, and some of the
more routine and simple things have
been sent to us as treaties.
Mr. DAVITS. The second point which
bears on the answer the Senator just
made is this. Is there any difference, as
the Senator finds it, between a commit-
ment which the United States makes by
a treaty and the commitment the United
States makes by executive agreement
and as respects the other party? It may
make a difference and often does make
a difference as to our support, but what
about the other party? Does not the
other party in every case assume that if
the President of the United States made
an agreement, that is it, and the United
States is bound?
Mr. CASE. I am sure the other party
does, although sophisticated diplomats
understand the technicalities of our con-
stitutional system. That is not the real
point. The point is, what do people in
other countries think about agreements
our President has made.
Mr. JAVITS. But more profound, the
President is making an executive agree-
ment, which is a certification by him,
that he can bind the country and does
not need Congress; and the people in
other countries rely on the fact that it is
a valid agreement; our President has
given his word, it is a valid agreement,
and he needs no further authority.
Mr. CASE. The Senator makes a good
point. Carrying it further, the impor-
tance of that point in a direct sense is
this: The people of this country and the
Senate recognize that other countries do
rely on agreements the President pur-
ports to make on the part of the Nation.
There is great reluctance, because we are
responsible people, to disturb that re-
liance.
Mr. DAVITS. Is there any way we have
of saying, "No, Mr. President, this is not
properly an executive agreement. It
should be a treaty, or we should approve
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400130022-0
 S 1908 Approved For Reles6 ~1~1 T3 A -a W02 ffi00130022Aby?uary 16, 1972
it in the Congress in some way," unless
we know it has been made and what it is?
Mr. CASE. Of course, there is no way
for us to know it has been made and
what it is, until and unless the time
comes for us to put some money into it,
and then, unless we further abdicate our
authority in that basic parliamentary
field, we would have at least a technical
right to withhold the funds, but not an
actual right, in fact.
Mr. JAVITS. That is right.
Is it not true that there are literally
hundreds of places in the world where
the United States has forces?
Mr. CASE. That is correct.
Mr. JAVITS. And each one of those
forces is a tripwire which could, un-
der any construction, even under the War
Powers Act, which has been reported to
the floor, engender a reaction which
could put American forces into hostili-
ties? That is an extremely important
matter, and yet it could happen under
any one of these multilateral agree-
ments?
Mr. CASE. That could happen, and, as
the Senator knows, it has happened.
If I may advert to the matter of the
War Powers Act, the Senator's initiative
here in connection with the War Powers
Act is in the same direction, for the same
broad purpose, and I have been so happy
to be associated with him in that par-
ticular.
Mr. JAVITS. I thank my colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator's time has expired.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, will the Sen-
ator from West Virginia yield me a lit-
tle time, unless he wants to use it here
now?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pres-
ident, I yield the Senator 5 minutes.
Mr. CASE. I promised to yield to the
chairman of the committee and to the
Senator from Texas (Mr. BENTSEN).
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield me 30 seconds just to com-
plete the thought?
Mr. CASE. I yield.
Mr. JAVITS. I think this is the day of
open covenants openly arrived at. It has
at last come. What the Senator is doing
is implementing what is the new diplo-
macy. I strongly support that and hope
the Senate will pass this bill.
Mr. CASE. I appreciate that. I would
perhaps only qualify what the Senator
has suggested in saying this is at least
the day of open covenants. Whether they
should be openly or privately arrived at
is a matter of discussion.
Mr. JAVITS. I will accept that.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I yield now
to the Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I
wish to say that I support the bill. I con-
gratulate the Senator from New Jersey
for bringing it before the Senate.
For the purpose of the legislative rec-
ord, I wanted to have a short colloquy
with the Senator. This measure is not in
any way intended to abrogate our au-
thority to have submitted to us impor-
tant matters as treaties. Is it? Perhaps
the Senator referred to it before in his
colloquy.
Mr. CASE. Only by implication. I am treaties. We can deal with that question,
glad to have it made explicit. and we do not estop ourselves by getting
Mr. FULBRIGHT. We hear stories and copies of the agreements.
reports. It was recently reported, for ex- Mr. FULBRIGHT. That is right. So
ample, in the recent exchange with re- often the problem is that once it has been
gard to Vietnam-and I have no idea of made and accepted, we have not been
the validity of it-that the President was able to undo it. The only way we can
thinking of offering a large sum, in the do anything about it is perhaps through
neighborhood of $7 billion, for recon- a limitation on an appropriation bill,
struction of Vietnam. The Senator would or to refuse to implement it. That is a
agree that anything of that consequence, very drastic remedy, and I doubt that we
whether it be money or the stationing of would be able to muster the votes to
troops, or anything like that, should not do it. We have tried to do it before. It
be handled by executive agreement, but is not an orderly way to do business. That
should be submitted to the Senate as a is the great weakness if an executive
treaty. Is that correct? chooses to ignore us.
Mr. CASE. The Senator is correct. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time
Mr. la ULBRIGHT. The Senator may of the Senator has expired.
recall recently a report in which there Mr. FULBRIGHT. I thank the Senator
was a move for an agreement for the es- very much.
tablishxnent of a base in the Persian Gulf. Mr. CASE. Mr. President, if I may have
The Senator agrees that should be a 2 minutes more so that I may yield to
treaty.:Does he not? the Senator from Texas, I would appre-
Mr. CASE. The Senator is correbt. ciate it.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I agree with the Mr. BYRD of West Virginia.. Mr. Pres-
Senator completely. I wanted to make it ident, if the Senator will yield, I will allot
clear that because we passed this bill, my remaining time to the Senator from
which :I support, that in no way gives Texas, if the Senator from New Jersey
validity to such agreements, which I does not object.
tgree with the Senator from New Jersey Mr. CASE. The Senator from New
should be treaties, if we are to have any Jersey would not be able to object, but
respect for the true meaning of the Con- even if he were, he would not object.
stitution. The Constitution did not an- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ticipate that matters of this importance ator from Texas is recognized.
should be done secretly by executive Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I rise in
agreement. support of and as a cosponsor of the
I know the Senator agrees with that. I piece of legislation submitted by the
wanted. to emphasize that for fear that' Senator from New Jersey, S. 596, a meas-
upon the passage of this bill, there will be ure which I believe has far greater sig-
those who will say, "Well, the Senate has nificance than its simply stated objective
gone on record as endorsing any execu- of requiring that the Executive commu-
tive agreement as valid so long as it is nicate with Congerss.
reported to the Senate within 60 days." Mr. President, upon my return, to
That is not what the Constitution pro- Congress approximately 1 year ago, I was
vided. It provided that the Senate should amazed at the extent to which relations
have the opportunity to express its views between the executive branch and the
and to reject or approve such a treaty Congress had regressed during the 16
when it was submitted. years of my absence. It is particularly
Mr. CASE. That is correct. within the realm of foreign policy that
Mr. IFULBRIGHT. I wanted to be care- I have noticed a great and unhealthy
ful on this point. I have had a little hes- gap in the communications system be-
i tancy about ? it. It is a step forward in tween the White House and Capitol Hill.
the right direction. It is not unlike reser- We are all familiar with the long list
vations I have, again not because I am of foreign policy goals and decisions
against the bill, to the bill on war powers which Congress has found out about after
of the Senator from New York, in which the fact-and too frequently not from
certain specifications have seemed to me the executive but from other sources in-
to be subject to the possible interpreta- stead. This is a condition which must
tion that it authorizes the President to not be permitted to continue if we are
take this action, or is an Inducement to to retain the confidence of the people in
him, whereas I do not think that is its their Government and in the historic
real purpose. We are really trying to re- balances of their Constitution.
strict him; we are not trying to broaden it is not my purpose here to criticize
the power. I know the Senator from New the Executive's conduct of foreign policy.
York did not intend that. In general I support the administration's
It may be that my interpretation is efforts to end the Vietnam war, to open
not the most logical one, although I communication with China, and to reach
felt it was. In this case I think the Sen- arms agreements with Russia. My pur-
ator from New Jersey is quite in order. pose here is to seek reaffirmation of con-
I think he has done a very fine thing gressional powers, for when: Congress re-
in bringing this measure to the Senate. affirms its powers, it also confirms its
I shall. support it, but I did want to make responsiveness to the American people.
that point clear. The U.S. Congress has the constitution-
Mr. CASE. I am glad the Senator did, ally derived privilege, indeed obligation,
because it is completely in accord with to share in the foreign policyinaking
my own view of the matter. In fact, to process. According to the law of the land,
have knowledge of and copies of all Congress is an equal partner with the
agreements would make it possible for executive branch. As an equal partner,
us to decide whether or not particular and as the elected representative body
agreements should come before us as of the people, it is entitled to a voice in
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400130022-0
 Fe brua pt.,vd(f PZr ReleasC 0MAIRRM dOD296 QQ,130022-0
governing this country and in this coun-
try's foreign commitments.
The Founding Fathers wrote into the
Constitution a well-known balance be-
tween the executive, the legislative, and
the judiciary. That balance is being in-
creasingly usurped by an Executive which
is constantly appropriating unto itself
the foreign policy function it must, by
law, share with the Congress.
The guidelines for checks and balances
a > set forth under the Constitution are
not self-perpetuating, for they often run
contrary to human emotions, such as the
desire for power. Men who achieve the
Presidency are usually self-confident,
strong, and impatient individuals, re-
luctant to share power or decisionmak-
ing with anyone else.
As a President, it is easy to rationalize
and justify a course of action which
leaves the decision process and reporting
only to yourself and a self-appointed
inner court of courtiers. Why risk or
subject such a carefully nurtured and
orchestrated agreement which has al-
ready been argued out with an adversary
country to the possible further criticism
and evaluation of a portion of one's
government, not completely subject to
one's own will? So it is also with those
around a President, who certainly are
not eager to have their counsel to the
President questioned by 'a source to
which they owe no allegiance. And so
goes each variance and tilting of the bal-
ance of power. Each variance becomes
the precedent for the next and further
distorts the constitutional guidelines,
until finally the current model of a bal-
anced government looks as though one
had badly tilted the original. But I blame
not just the executive branch, for the
Congress is equally to blame.
Too often in recent years Congress has
taken a subordinate role to both the ex-
ecutive and the judiciary, a role contrary
to the balance of powers envisioned by
those who wrote the Constitution. It is
not just that the executive has decided
to reach out and take these powers, or
that the judiciary branch has moved too
much into the legislative realm. Part of
the reason for the loss of these powers is
congressional inaction. Congress itself
must share the blame for its dwindling
powers for in recent years it has .per-
mitted something of a vacuum to de-
velop by its own inactivity and inatten-
tion, and the executive branch and the
courts have moved to fill that void.
It is high time that the elected body
given a share of foreign policymaking
powers under the Constitution-the body
consisting of elected representatives most
directly responsible and responsive to the
people and thus closest to control by the
people-reasserts itself as an equal part-
ner with the President.
S 1909
the President, Congress has reacted too or in certain cases, solely to the foreign
strongly through powers of the purse. affairs committees. It would not impede
This, at times, has been less than con- the President's ability to conclude execu-
tributory to sound policy. If the Congress tive agreements. It does not hamper the
rightly shares in the development of pro- executive iii the free negotiation of these
grams and policy direction, both domes- agreements. Rather it reaffirms the con-
tically and foreign, there will be less of stitutional powers of Congress, as the
that purse string reaction. elected representatives of the people, in
Let me stress, Mr. President, that we in the policymaking process.
Congress have no constitutional author- The first step in restoring this vital re-
ity in the conduct of foreign affairs; sponsibility of Congress is to require, by
that is,'the President's province, and we law, better communication between the
should not seek to weaken that constitu- Executive and the Congress. The open-
tional power. We must, however, insist on ing of information to the public, where
the restoration of constitutional author- it is not damaging to the national inter-
ity of the Congress to share in the for- est, and to those designated by Congress
mulation of that policy. I want to make to fully scrutinize secret agreements
that distinction and to insist that the where it is determined such is in the na-
theory apply as the Constitution intends. tional interest, is the first small step to-
I want to emphasize the fact that, in ward restoration of congressional equal-
this bill, the Congress does not seek to ity. There should be the fullest possible
weaken the President's foreign policy- public scrutiny of foreign agreements,
making powers; rather we simply want and the decisions which determine the
to reassert the balance specified in the direction the Nation is going in foreign
Constitution. Moreover, as was brought policy. I submit, Mr. President, that
out during the hearings on this legisla- those parties representing the United
tion, this bill does not destroy Presiden- States in negotiations will be even more
tial powers, it reaffirms them, diligent in obtaining the best possible
One of the important purposes of this deal for our country if they know the
legislation is to make the American peo- agreement will be subjected to the cru-
ple aware of the directions our foreign cible of public debate, or at least the
policy is taking so that we are not caught scrutiny of the Congress. This is a nation
unaware of shifting trends, and so that and a Government responsible to the
we do not find ourselves in a situation, people, and the people must participate
as the Senator from New Jersey has if we are to expect them to believe their
pointed out, in which a President be- Government and retain confidence in it.
lieves he has to take unsupported ac- The Executive has moved more and
tion-unsupported because the Congress more under the cloak of.secrecy, not oilly
and the people had not been informed of for the protection of national interest,
earlier decisions and agreements. We do but also too often secrecy for the sake of
not want to tie the President's hands in protection against criticism or examina-
his efforts to engage in foreign policy- tion of decisions by the constitutionally
making. We want the President to be free coequal Congress.
to negotiate the agreements he deter- We hear the argument that those in
mines in the best interests of the United Congress cannot be trusted with foreign
States. That, I reiterate, is his constitu- policy secrets. I say "absurd."
tional prerogative. We are merely asking it has been demonstrated again and
that he inform the Congress, so we may again that even the most sensitive in-
intelligently perform our function as formation frequently turns up in public
well. print before Congress is aware of the
How can a President hope for a restor- facts, and I refer to some of the "papers"
ation of bipartisan support for foreign which have been much in the news over
policy if one partner to the policy is un- the past few months. I do not condone
aware of secret agreements upon which the revelation of secrets; in fact, those
he justifies a policy which otherwise who leaked them from positions of re-
might appear to be not in the best in- sponsibility in Government should be
terests of our country? Congress cannot made to answer to the laws. The point is,
be put in a position of accepting on blind the possibility of secrets becoming public
trust and faith the admonition that a knowledge as pretext for preventing con-
chief executive, or his aide, shielded by ferring with Congress is just not valid.
executive privilege, is somehow omni- Secrecy is too often used as a lame ex-
scient and omnipotent and always knows cuse for failing to share information
best. The judgments of Congress will with Congress.
only be as good as the information on During the course of negotiations over
which they are based and tq withhold an executive agreement, so many groups
vital information essential to the deci- are involved in working out the language
sion process will result in bad legislation, of the agreement that one wonders why
At issue, Mr. President, is the Con- the circle of those informed cannot be
stitution and the powers that the Consti- extended to incl
d
th
H
u
e
e
ouses of Con-
And we must go further than just uti- tution has allotted to the legislative gress, or at least the select committees
lizing the power of the purse strings, the branch. We must not continue to sit idly dealing with foreign relations. Is Con-
authority of appropriation. Because of by and watch those powers being whit- gress to be less trusted than the Rand
the loss of full participation in the mak- tled away by the executive and the Corp., Dr. Ellsberg, the myriad of typists
ing of foreign policy, the Congress has courts. The Congress has a responsibility and clerks who document, type, and file
become almost solely dependent on the to the people to legislate wisely. This can- such reports? Would the President pre-
appropriation process as a vehicle in not be done if the Congress is not in- fer to trust the many staff members of
making its voice heard. In fact, because formed. This measure in no way chal- the foreign government who participate
of the reaction of Congress in some in- lenges the authority of the President. in the drafting of such an agreement and
stances to learning of the secrecy and Rather it merely facilitates the flow of owe no allegiance to this country? Does
the usurpation of its own "prerogatives by information to the Congress as a whole, the administration feel that Senators
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400130022-0
 S 1910 Approved For Releasit1U./ lAb_gJLRIJI TR B296gM 130022-OFebruary 16, 1972
and Congressmen are any less trust-
w,Vorthy than its own staff which, I might
add, has been responsible for a number
of leaks recently, including some from
the most sacrosanct of secret groups, the
National Security Council? Is it too
much to ask that as the Xerox machine
impersonally disgorges the copies, some-
where on that distribution list be found
the words "Congress of the United
States"? the price paid for possible loss
of secrecy is more than compensated for
by the reclining of our system of checks
and balances and restoration of con-
fidence.
This whole question, certainly, has
been too long neglected. I urge the Sen-
ate's support for this much-needed bill
which is a small step toward rectifying
our time-honored and proven system of
governmental checks and balances.
It is imperative that we reaffirm the
Congress role in the foreign policymak-
ing process and thus strengthen the pub-
lic's confidence in the ability of the Con-
gress to legislate wisely and on a fully
informed basis. We must restore to the
people of this Nation the feeling that
they know of the commitments their
Government has made in their name.
Mr. President, I yield the remainder
of my time to the distinguished Senator
from New Jersey.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I thank the
Senator from Texas for his generosity in
yielding the remainder of his time, and
also wish to express my deep apprecia-
tion of the remarks he has made. They
are very sound, and I am sure will have
the profound effect upon our colleagues
that they should have, on their own
merits.
I am happy to yield 1 minute to the
Senator from Maryland.
Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. President, I appre-
ciate the Senator giving me time to
comment very briefly on this bill, which
is the result of the distillation of his own
experience and his own observation of
events within our Nation and in the
world over a long period of time.
I think clearly one of the loopholes
that has developed over the course of
time in the constitutional procedure by
which the people of the United States are
given an organic part in foreign policy
through the provision that the Senate
must ratify treaties is the fact that there
are now all sorts of international agree-
ments which are given other names than
treaties; and while this may appear to be
a semantic difference to the layman, it
becomes a very important difference to
those who are engaged in keeping track
of foreign policy in the democratic
process.
What the Senator from New Jersey has
proposed here, and what is, I think, emi-
nently practical and very necessary, is
that the right of the people in our demo-
cratic representative system be preserved
in the area of foreign policy. That is what
this bill would do, and I am very happy to
support it.
Mr. CASE. I thank my colleague for
his very pertinent comment and his sup-
port, which I think reflects, as far as I
can tell, the unanimous view of the Mem-
bers of this body and those whose atten-
tion has been directed to the problem.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
BEALL). All remaining time having ex-
pired,, the question is, Shall the bill pass?
On this question, the yeas and nays have
been ordered, and the clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I an-
nounce that the Senator from New
Mexico (Mr. ANDERSON), the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. GRAVEL), the Senator
from Iowa (Mr. HUGHES), the Senator
from Minnesota (Mr. HUMPHREY), the
Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
MCGOVERN), the Senator from Utah (Mr.
Moss), the Senator from Maine (Mr.
MUSKIE), the Senator from Oklahoma
(Mr. HARRIS), the Senator from Indiana
(Mr. HARTKE), the Senator from Wash-
ington (Mr. JACKSON), and the Senator
from Minnesota (Mr. MONDALE) are nec-
essarily absent.
I further announce that the Senator
from Georgia (Mr. TALMADGE) and the
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KEN-
NEDY) are absent on official business.
I further announce that, if present and
voting, the Senator from Alaska (Mr.
GRAVEL), the Senator from Minnesota
(Mr. HUMPHREY), the Senator from
Washington (Mr. JACKSON), the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. MCGOVERN) and
the Senator from Iowa (Mr. HUGHES)
would each vote "yea."
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BROCK),
the Senator from New York (Mr. BUCK-
LEY), the Senator from Arizona (Mr.
FANNIN), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr.
FONG), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
TAFT) are necessarily absent.
The Senator from South Dakota (Mt.
MUNDT) is absent because of illness.
The result was announced-yeas 81,
nays 0, as follows:
[No. 48 Leg.]
YEAS-$1
Aiken
Eastland
Nelson
Allen
Ellender
Packwood
Allott
Ervin
Pastore
Baker
Fulbright
Pearson
Bayh
Gambrell
Pell
Beall
Goldwater
Percy
Bellmon
Griffin
Proxmire
Bennett
Gurney
Randolph
Bentsen
Hansen
Ribicoff
Bible
Hart
Roth
Boggs
Hatfield
Saxbe
Brooke
Hollings
Schweiker
Burdick
Hruska
Scott
Byrd, Va.
Inouye
Smith
Byrd, W. Va.
Javits
Sparkman
Cannon
Jordan, N.C.
Spong
Case
Jordan, Idaho
Stafford
Chiles
Long
Stennis
Church
Magnuson
Stevens
Cook.
Mansfield
Stevenson
Cooper
Mathias
Symington
Cotton
McClellan
Thurmond
Cranston
McGee
Tower
Curtis
McIntyre
Tunney
Dole
Metcalf
Weicker
Dominick
Miller
Williams
Eagleton
Montoya
Young
NAYS-0
NOT VOTING-19
Anderson
Hartke
Moss
Brock
Hughes
Mundt
Buckley
Humphrey
Muskie
Fannin
Jackson
Taft
Fong
Kennedy
Talmadge
Gravel
McGovern
Harris
Mondale
So the bill (S. 596) was passed, as fol-
lows:
Mr. HRUSKA subsequently said:
Mr. President, it was with some reluc-
tance that I voted in the affirmative in
the unanimous vote on S. 596 which has
just occurred. S. 596 is the bill to require
that international agreements other than
treaties hereafter entered into by the
United States be transmitted to Congress
within 60 days after the execution
thereof.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent to have printed in the RECORD the
text of that bill from line 5 on page 1
to line 10 on page 2.
There being no objection, the excerpt
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
112b. United States international agree-
ments; transmission to Congress
"The Secretary of State shall transmit to
the Congress the text of any international
agreement, other than a treaty, to which the
United States is a party as soon as prac-
ticable after such agreement has entered into
force with respect to the United States but
in no event later than sixty days thereafter.
However, any such agreement the immediate
public disclosure of which would, in the
opinion of the President, be prejudicial to
the national security of the United States
shall not be so transmitted to the Congress
but shall be transmitted to the Committee
on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the
Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House
of Representatives under an appropriate in-
junction of secrecy to be removed only upon
due notice from the President."
Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, the ex-
ecutive branch, both in its letter to the
Foreign Relations Committee comment-
ing on S. 596 and also in the testimony
of the legal adviser of the Department of
State, has emphasized its full agreement
with the general purpose of this bill-
to insure that the Congress.is informed
promptly of the conclusion by the United
States of all new international agree-
ments about which the Congress needs
to know, if it is to carry out properly its
constitutional responsibilities. In its tes-
timony before the committee the ad-
ministration has emphasized its recog-
nition of the needs of Congress to be in-
formed of agreements with foreign
powers and the desirability of mutual co-
operation and accommodation in this
respect.
At the same time, the administration
emphasized its view that the provision
of a reliable flow of information to the
Congress can be made without this leg-
islation. The administration's witness
stated to the committee that the ad-
ministration believed practical arrange-
ments could be worked out to achieve the
end sought by the legislation.
The administration view that such ar-
rangements could be worked out was not
accepted by the committee in its report.
Certainly it would appear desirable be-
fore this legislation is passed to discuss
with the administration the possibility of
arrangements which would make this
legislation unnecessary.
Mr. President, this matter was further
discussed in the hearings before the
Committee on Foreign Relations. I read
from the testimony of John R. Steven-
son of the State Department. The Sena-
tor from Alabama (Mr. SPARKMAN) Was
presiding.
Mr. STEVENSON.Mr. Chairman-
Senator SPARKMAN. May I say I realize you
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400130022-0
 February 4p pr y For Rela~ 7~/a AClfi~@pp7O00 RW00130022-0
did, you discuss certain sensitive agreements,
and you point out the fact that Senator CASE
recognizes that in the bill that he has draft-
ed.-How would that be handled?
Mr. STEVENSON. Mr. Chairman, to re-
view briefly some of the ground I have cov-
ered, at the present time the vast bulk of the
agreements other than treaties are published
and are transmitted to Congress through the
regular procedures from the Government
Printing Office.
Senator SPARKMAN. I realize that.
Mr. STEVENSON. So it is only the classified
agreements that raise a problem.
With respect to those agreements, we
would like to discuss procedures with the
committee. Now, the bill, as I understand it,
would contemplate that in all eases these
agreements would come to the two com-
mittees as a whole, and would be retained
by the committee. In the past we have had
problems involving particularly sensitive
agreements which we have worked out in a
number of different ways. In some cases there
would be a briefing with respect to the sub-
ject matter of the agreement. In other cases
the agreement could be shown to several in-
terested members of the committee but not
permanently retained by the committee.
Senator SPARKMAN. That would be a mat-
ter to be worked out.
Mr. STEVENSON. We don't have any spe-
cific proposal at this time, but I think our
fealing is there is a broader range of possibili-
ties'than those contemplated in this legisla-
tlon.
Mr. President, it would be my hope
that when the other body considers this
matter, the broader possibilities for han-
dling this problem will be explored.
I notice in the.report, on page 2, the
following:
Conceding that in the past they (the Con-
gress) have not been informed on a current
basis but only ad hoc some years later, Mr.
Stevenson concluded nonetheless that "we
are dealing with a question of practical ar-
rangement, not with a question of right or
authority which would in any way be
altered by statute."
I presume that is a reference, perhaps
a little delicate, and not explicit on the
surface, to the doctrine of the separation
of powers, and whether there is danger
that we could invade the doctrine of the
separation of powers which applies to
some aspects of the executive depart-
ment's functioning. That is one aspect
that very likely should be explored fur-
ther.
The second one, frankly, is that the
efficacy of any steps taken to insure se-
crecy in the committee would be highly
suspect. The bill calls for the filing with
the committee of these agreements "un-
der an appropriate injunction of secrecy
to be removed only upon due notice from
the President."
Anyone who has served in the Con-
gress any small number of years-they
do not have to be great in number-
knows there is very little assurance that
secrecy will prevail. In fact, the opposite
is true. Here we would be dealing with
the number of those serving on the com-
mittee in this body and also with the
larger number who are in the relevant
committee in the other body. There
would be no assurance that the secrecy
would be inviolably kept, and if it is a
particularly sensitive executive agree-
ment, that might spell trouble for this
country:
If there are other ways-and Mr.
STEVENSON seems to think there would be
other ways-it might be well to take that
into consideration.
I voted for the bill. I voted for it re-
luctantly, because it was called up some-
what unexpectedly, and by the time I
had eaten my very modest lunch, follow-
ing a 4 hour spell here on the floor, the
process of voting was already going on.
I do not complain about that, but I did
feel that this would be a good place to
insert a few references to some of the
real issues involved. I am hopeful that
these remarks may serve also as an in-
dicator to the other body, when it does
consider the measure just passed, that
the items to which I have referred should
be given due consideration.
I yield the floor.
1971
The Senate continued with the consid-
eration of the bill (S. 2515) a bill to
further promote equal employment op-
portunities for American workers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
(BEALL). Under the previous order, the
Senate will now return to the considera-
tion of the unfinished business, which the
clerk will state.
The assistant legislative clerk read as
follows: A bill (S. 2515) a bill to further
promote equal employment opportunities
for American workers.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I take the floor to announce that
there will be no additional rollcall votes
today.
I yield to the distinguished senior
Senator from North Caronila (Mr.
ERVIN), so that he may lay before the
Senate an amendment and make it the
pending question for consideration on
tomorrow.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, on behalf
of the distinguished Senator from Ala-
bama (Mr. ALLEN) and myself, I call
up amendment No. 888 and ask that
it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read as
follows:
On page 33, insert the following between
line 10 and line 11:
"(5) In subsection (f), change the period
at the end Lf the subsection to a colon, and
add thereafter the following words:
"'Provided, however, That the term "em-
ployee" shall not include any person elected
to public office in any State or political sub-
division of any State by the qualified voters
thereof, or any person chosen by such officer
to advise him in respect to the exercise of
the constitutional or legal powers of his
office.'."
Renumber section (5) as (6).
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, will the Senator from North Caro-
lina yield?
. Mr. ERVIN, I yield.
ORDER FOR ADJOURNMENT UNTIL
TOMORROW
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that when
the Senate completes its business today,
S 1911
it stand in adjournment until 12 o'clock
noon tomorrow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
ORDER FOR RECOGNITION OF
SENATOR PERCY TOMORROW
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that
tomorrow, after the two leaders have
been recognized under the standing
order, the distinguished Senator from
Illinois (Mr. PERCY) be recognized for not
to exceed 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
ORDER FOR TRANSACTION OF ROU-
TINE BUSINESS TOMORROW
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that fol-
lowing the remarks of the Senator from
Illinois (Mr. PERCY) tomorrow there be
a period for the transaction of routine
morning business, not to exceed 30 min-
utes, with statements therein limited to
3 minutes each, and that at the conclu-
sion of routine morning business the
Chair lay before the Senate the un-
finished business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNI-
TIES ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1971
The Senate continued with the con-
sideration of the bill (S. 2515) a bill to
further promote equal employment op-
portunities for American workers.
'UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pres'-
dent, I ask unanimous consent-and I
have cleared this request with the dis-
tinguished manager of the bill (Mr. WrL-
LIAMS), the distinguished author of the
amendment (Mr. ERVIN), and the dis-
tinguished Senator from New York (Mr.
JAVITS) -that time on the pending
amendment, No. 888, offered by Mr.
ERVIN, be limited to 2 hours; that the
time on the amendment begin to run
tomorrow at the time the Chair lays be-
fore the Senate the unfinished business;
that the time on the amendment be
equally divided between the mover of the
amendment (Mr. ERVIN) and the man-
ager of the bill (Mr. WILLIAMS) ; and that
time on any amendment to the amend-
ment, debatable motion, appeal, or point
of order be limited to 20 minutes, to be
equally divided between the mover of
such proposal and the manager of the
bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Is it the
intention of the distinguished Senator
from North Carolina to ask for the yeas
and nays tomorrow?
Mr. ERVIN. May I inquire what time
the Senate will convene tomorrow?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. At 12
o'clock.
Mr. ERVIN. The reason I was asking,
I had a hearing scheduled for 10 o'clock.
Mr. President, I do not care to debate
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400130022-0
 Approved For Release 2001/07/26: CIA-RDP7 6R0 0022-0
S 1912 CONGRESSIONAL R February 16, 1912
this question this afternoon, except to he could not have that attorney general Mr. WILLIAMS. It would certainly be
make one or two observations. to advise him on the law, that he would the Governor's attorney general, for ex-
This is an exceedingly important have to take someone the EEOC picked ample.
amendment. The bill defines a State and out instead. Mr. ERVIN. The Senator is correct.-
a political subdivision of a State as em- Mr. METCALF. Haw could we keep Mr. WILLIAMS. The Governor of the
ployers for the first time in the history such an Attorney General who comes in State of New Jersey has personal coun-
of legislation of this kind. It defines an and says, "Well, I am going to be Attor- sel. This would cover that particular of-
employee as one who is employed by an ney General for awhile," but when the fiver or individual.
employer. The dictionary states that any next election campaign comes up, he says, Mr. ERVIN. The Senator is correct.
person or concern which employs "I am going back into campaigning oper- However, it would not exclude a person
another, usually for wages or a salary, is at:ions." How can we prevent that? who merely carries out the advice which
an employer. Under these provisions, no Mr. ERVIN. We cannot prevent any- the elected official would receive from
one is excepted. In other words, the bill thing at the State level. The EEOC- those who advise him.
is broad enough in its present form to Mr. METCALF. I am trying to prevent Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, in
cover Governors of States, State su- something at the Federal level. other words that would be the law
preme court justices, State legislators, Mr. ERVIN. In the old days, I thought clerks and the law assistants of the
and so forth. that a Postmaster General was the ap- personal counsel. The Governor or mayor
The report states: propriate person to advise the President, would not be included within this term.
A question was raised in committee con- because he did not have anything else to Mr. ERVIN. We are getting into a
cerning the application of title VII in the do except to read the Postal Guide. rather gray area there.
case of a Governor whose cabinet appointees Mr. METCALF. We had a lot of ap- Mr. WILLIAMS. I wanted to see if we
or close personal aides are drawn from one pointments but- could find where the clear area is and
political party. The committee's intention Mr. ERVIN. This bill does not deal with the ambiguous area.
is that nothing in the bill shall be interpreted it at the Federal level. It deals with it at Mr. ERVIN. They would be excluded
to prohibit such appointments on the basis the State level. from this exclusion or this exception, be-
religion, discrimination
sex, or on on i national or o of origin. race, That In- Mr. METCALF. I was wondering what cause the only person excluded besides
rn, al
tention is reflected in section 703 (h) and happens when we have an Attorney Gen- the elected official is the person who ad-
706(w) of the law. eral who comes in at the Federal level, vises him. I chose that word advisedly.
In other words, this would give the after he has been working at a cam- It would be the person who would advise
Federal courts jurisdiction to inquire as paign level and gets appointed Attorney him in regard to his legal or constitu-
to what motive a Governor had in select- General, and then after 21/2 or 3 years tional duties. It would not just be a law
ing men for his cabinet who would give he moves it back into his campaign. clerk. The Attorney General picks his
him advice on his constitutional and legal Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I am try- own employees.
duties, on if a Governor was actuated in irig to get for the Governor of a State the Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I have
any extent in the selection of an ad- same authority to pick out his attorney an instinctively favorable reaction to this
viser or if the people were actuated in general as the President has to pick out particular exemption or exclusion under
any extent in the election of a public his Attorney General or campaign the law. However, I am glad that we
official, so that the Commission could manager. are going until tomorrow, because some
come in and remove that public official Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I of the ambiguity can be worked out
from office or that adviser from office should like to ask the Senator one or before I commit myself to it.
and dictate who should be employed in two questions just to see if there is a Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I really
his place. way to describe the scope and the limits think that makes a bad bill a little less
I respectfully submit that that is go- of the amendment. Certainly it is clear obnoxious, because I do not think the
ing too far, for Congress to empower that an elected official at the State or author pf this bill ever intended to cover
an Executive agency at the Federal level municipal level should not be covered in elected officials, those elected by the
to tell the Governor of his State, or the any way by this bill as an employee duly qualified voters. However, I fear
people for that matter, whom they can Mr. ERVIN. The Senator is correct. that they have covered them by the
elect Governor, or Supreme Court Jus- However, I feel that he is covered now. breadth of the language.
tice, or State legislator, or what officials Mr. WILLIAMS. It says "as an em- In my own county we have a board
shall be selected to advise the Governor ployee." Frankly, I do not understand of commissioners appointed by the peo-
as to his constitutional and legal duties, the terminology. It says that the term ple. They run the county affairs. They
Mr. President, it is absurd for a Fed- employee" shall not include any person choose for themselves a legal adviser, a
eral agency to be able to say to a State elected to a public office in a State or county attorney. I think they ought to be
who its Governor, State officials, or ad- political subdivision of any State by the allowed to choose that attorney without
visers shall be. I respectfully suggest that qualified voters thereof. any restrictions whatsoever, because a
if Congress is not going to make itself Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, under the person. ought to know who he relies on
ridiculous, this amendment should be Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employee is for advice as to the duties of his office.
agreed to. defined in substance as one who is em- This would exclude the attorney, but not
We will argue the amendment more to- ployed by an employer. This is just to put any other Government or county of-
morrow. an exception to that provision and make ficial,. such as clerks or secretaries or
Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, will the it clear that the term employee is not people like that.
Senator from North Carolina yield? to be construed as including an elected Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the
Mr. ERVIN. I am happy to yield to my official or a person chosen by the elected Senator yield?
good friend from Montana. Official to advise him as to his constitu- Mr. ERVIN. I yield.
Mr. METCALF. Once upon a time, we tional and legal duties. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I would
I think that the point the Senator is
had a Postmaster General who was a driving at is that this is narrowly drawn like to point out for the RECORD that we
great political adviser to the President. to make certain that the only persons have said at page 11 of the report:
Jim Farley was such an example. covered by the bill at a State or local A question was raised in the Committee
Today, we have in the Department of level are elected officials and the people concerning the application of Title Vii in
Justice an Attorney General who is who advise them as to their constitu- the case of a Governor whose cabinet ap-
leaving to run a political campaign for pointees and close personal aides are drawn
tional and legal powers. It would leave from one political party. The Committee's in-
his President. He first becomes Attorney covered by the bill those people who tention is that nothing in this bill should
General and now he leaves it. merely carry out the directives. be interpreted to prohibit such appoint-
What happens in that soft of situa- It would only exclude elected officials ments unless they are based on discrimina-
tion? . and those who give them advice as to tion because of race, color, religion, sex or
Mr. ERVIN. If that was done at the how they should carry out their legal and national origin. That intention is reflected in
State level, and the attorney general was constitutional duties, and riot those who sections 703(h) and 706(w) of the law.
an appointee of the Governor, EEOC actually carry them out as administra- Incidentally, that should be 706(g)
could come in and tell the Governor that tive off=icials. and not (w)
Approved For Release 2001107/26 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400130022-0