CONGRESSIONAL RECORD--HOUSE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75B00380R000500380004-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 23
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 24, 2001
• Sequence Number: 4
• Publication Date: August 12, 1974
• Content Type: OPEN

A roved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500380004-6
August 12, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?HOUSE
pena or order of the Secretar or such officer
or employee issued under par raph (1) or
? paragraph (3) of this subsecti issue an
order requiring compliance ther ith; and
any failure to obey such order of e court
may be punished by such court as a c tempt
thereof.
"(5) Witnesses summoned pursue to
this subsection shall be paid the same es
and mileage that are paid witnesses in t e
courts of the United States.
"(6) (A) The Secretary is authorized to re-
quest from any department, agency or in-
strumentality of the Government such
statistics, data, program reports, and other
materials as he deems necessary to carry
out his functions under this title; and each
Such department, agency, or instrumentality
is authorized and directed to cooperate with
the Secretary and to furnish such statistics,
data, program reports, and other materials to
the Department of Transportation upon re-
quest made by the Secretary. Nothing in this
subparagraph shall be deemed to affect any
provision of law limiting the authority of
an agency, department, or instrumentality
of the Government to provide information
to another agency, department, or instru-
mentality of the Government.
? ."(B) The head of any Federal department,
agency, or instrumentality is authorized to
detail, .on a reimbursable basis, any person-
nel of poll department, agency, or instru-
mentality to assist in carrying out the duties
of the Secretary under this title."
(b) Section 112(e) of such Act is amended
by striking out "All" and inserting in lieu
thereof "FACept as otherwise provided in sec-
tion 158(a) and section 113(b), all"; and
striking out "subsection (b) or (c)" and in-
serting in lieu thereof "this title".
SEc. 403, COST IlsirCamATioN, ,
The National Traffic and Motor. Vehicle
Safety Act of 1966 (as amended by section
102) is further pmenqed hy inserting after
section 113 the following:
"SEC. 113. (a) Whenever any manufacturer
opposes an action of the Secretary under
-section 103, or Under any other provision of
this Act, on the ground of. increased cost,
the manufacturer shall submit such cost in-
formation (in such detail as the Secretary
may by rule or order prescribe) as may be
necessary in order to properly evaluate the
Manufacturer's statement., The Secretary
shall thereafter promptly prepare an evalua-
tion of such cost information.
"(b) Such cost information together with
the Secretary's evaluation thereof, shall be
available to the public unless the manufac-
turer establishes that is contains a trade
secret. ,Notice of tis ,availability of such in-
formation shall be ,published in the Federal
Register. If the Secretary determines that
any portion of such 'information contains a
trade secret, such portion may be disclosed
to the public only in such manner as to pre-
serve the confidentiality of such trade secret,
except that any such information may be
disclosed to_other officers or employees con-
corned with. carrying out this title or when.
relevant in any proceeding under this title.
Nothing in this subsection shall authorize
the withholding of information by the Sec-
retary or any officer or employee under his
control, from the Mily authorized commit-
tees of the Congress.
,,(c) For purposes of this section 'cost in-
formation' means information with respect
to. alleged cost increases resulting from ac-
tion by the Secretary, in such form as to
permit the public and the Secretary to make
an informed judgment on the validity of
the manufacturer's statements. Such term
includes both the manufacturer's cost and
the cost to retail purchaaers.
"(d) The Secretary is authorized to estab-
lish rules and regulations prescribing forms
and procedures for the submission of cost
Information under this section.
"(e) Nothing in this section shall be con-
strued to restrict the authority of the Sec-
retary to obtain or require submission of in-
formation under any other provision of this
Act."
SEC. 106. AGENCY RESPONSIBILITY.
The National 'Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act of 1966 (as amended by section
103 of this Act) is amended by adding at
the end thereof the following new section:
'SEC. 124. (a) Any interested person may
le with the Secretary a petition requesting
m (1) to commence a proceeding respect-
in the issuance of an order pursuant to sec-
tio 103 or to commence a proceeding to de..
term ie whether to issue an order pursuant
to sec 'on 152(b) of this Act.
"(b) uch petition shall set forth (1) facts
which i is claimed establish that an order
is necessa, , and (2) a brief description of
the substa e of the order which it is claimed
Should be ued by the Secretary.
"(c) The ecretary may hold a public
hearing or may onduct such investigation or
proceeding as h deems appropriate in order
to determine wh ther or not such petition
should be granted.
"(d) Within on hundred and twenty
days after filing of petition described in
subsection .(b), the cretary shall either
grant or deny the pet' on. If the Secretary
grants such petition, he all promptly com-
mence the proceeding equested in the
petition. If the Secretary enies such peti-
tion he shall publish in the ederal Register
his reasons for such denial.'
"(e) The remedies under th section shall
be in addition to, and not in eu of, other
remedies provided by law."
SEC. 107. NATIONAL MOTOR VEsil. E SAFETY
ADVISORY COUNCIL.
Section 104 of the National Tr c and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (1 U.S.C.
1393) is amended by inserting "(1)' after
"SEc. 104. (a)", and by adding the foll ing
new paragraph at the end of subsection :
"(2) For the purposes of this section, e
term 'representative of the general publ
means an individual who (A) is not in th
employ of, or holding any official relation
to any person who is (1) a manufacturer,
dealer, or distributor, or (11) a supplier of
any manufacturer, dealer, or distributor, (B)
does not own stock or bonds of substantial
value in any person described in subpara-
graph (A) (i) or (11), and (C) is not in any
other manner directly or indirectly pecu-
niarly interested in such a person. The Sec-
retary shall public the names of the mem-
bers of the Council annually and shall
designate which members represent the gen-
eral public. The Chairman of the Council
shall be chosen by the Council from among
the members representing the general
public."
SEC. 108. FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY STANDARD.
(a) REQUIREMENT FOR STANDARD.?Within
ninety days after the effective date of this
title, the Secretary of Transportation shall
promulgate a motor vehicle safety standard
for fuel system integrity applicable to four-
wheeled motor vehicles designed to carry
ten or fewer passengers in addition to the
driver (including all vehicles designated on
the date of enactment of this Act as passen-
ger cars or multipurpose passenger vehicles
in regulations of the Secretary of Transpor-
tation under the National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act of 1966), in order to pro-
tect occupants of such vehicles, and other
persons, from fuel-fed fires. Such standard
shall be effective with respect to all passen-
ger motor vehicles produced on or after
September 1, 1976. With respect to all other
four-wheeled motor vehicles designed to carry
ten or fewer passengers in addition to the
driver, such standard shall be effective on
or after September 1, 1977. In prescribing the
standard required by this subsection, the
11-'8141
Secretary shall give consideration to the need
to reduce the spread of fire and to limit the
escape of fuel. Such standard shall provide
as a minimum that fuel spillage shall not
exceed one ounce per minute as a result of
(1) front fixed barrier impacts at speeds up
to 30 mph; (2) rear moving barrier impacts
at speeds up to 30 mph; (3) front corner
fixed barrier impacts at speeds up to 30 mph;
(4) lateral moving barrier impacts at speeds
up to 20 mph; and (5) static rollovers.
(b) AMENDMENT OR REPEAL OF STANDARD.--
The Secretary may amend or repeal a stand-
ard required to be prescribed under sub-
section (a) if he determines such amend-
ment or repeal will not diminish the level
of motor vehicle safety.
SEC. 109. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING
AMENDMENTS,
(a) DEFINITION OF ,SEcarrART.--Section 102
(10) of the National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 is amended to read
as follows:
"(10) 'Secretary' means the Secretary of
Transportation.".
(b) DATE OF ANNUAL REPORT.?The first
sentence of section 120(a) of the National
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966
is amended by striking out "March 1" and
inserting in lieu thereof "July 1".
SEC. 110. OCCUPANT RESTRAINT SYSTEMS.
Section 103(a) of the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 is amended
by inserting "(1)" after "SEC. 103. (a)" and
by adding at the end thereof the following
new paragraph:
"(2) (A) Effective with respect to motor
vehicles manufactured after the date of
enactment of this paragraph, Federal motor
vehicle safety standards may not (except as
otherwise provided in pubparagraph (B) ) re-
quire that any such vehicle be equipped (1)
with a safety-belt interlock system, (ii) with
any warning device other than a warning
light designed to indicate that safety belts
are not fastened, or (hi) with any occuant
restraint system other than integrated lap
and shoulder safety belts for front outboard
occupants and lap belts for other occupants.
"(B) Effective with respect to passenger
cars manufactured on or after August 16,
976, Federal motor vehicle safety standards
all require that each motor vehicle menu-
fa turer offer purchasers the option of pur-
ch ing either (1) passenger motor vehicles
whi are equipped with passive restraint
syste s which meet standards prescribed
unde this section or (ii) passenger motor
vehicle equipped with integrated lap and
shoulde belts for front outboard occupants
and lap elts for other occuants."
(b) Sec on 108(a) (1) (A) of such Act (as
so redesign ted by section 103 of this Act)
is amended ?by inserting "(i)" after "(A)",
and by addi at the end thereof the follow-
ing:
"(I) fail to offer purchasers the option
required by sec ion 103(a) (2) (B) ;".
SEC. 111. REDU ON OF MOTOR VEHICLE
WEIGIV AND COST.
In carrying out Vi Motor Vehicle Safetysponsibilities under the
National Traffic a
Act of 1966 and thekMotor Vehicle Informa-
tion and Cost Savinks Act, the Secretary of
Transportation shall take all steps, consist-
ent with his responsibilities under those Acts
to encourage reduction-of weight and cost of
motor vehicles. --
SEC. 112,
Section 204(a) of Pubhc Law 89-563 is
amended to read as follows:\
"(a) No person shall sell, offer for sale, or
introduction for sale, or delltfr for introduc-
tion in interstate commerce, any tire or motor
vehicle equipped with any tire which has
been regrooved, except that the Secretary may
by order permit the sale, offer for sale, intro-
duction for sale, or delivery for introduction
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500380004-6
1-113)
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500380004-6
H CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE August 12, 1974
In Interstate commerce, of regrooved tires
and motor vehicles equipped with regrooteel
tires which be finds are designed and ccn?.
structed in a manner consistent with the
purpose of this Act."
SEC. 113. EPPECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this title (other
than section 110) shall take effect on the
sixtieth day after the date of enactment of
this Act.
TITLE II- -SCHOOLBUS SAFETY
Sac. 201. DEFINITIONS,
Section 132 of the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 is amended
by adding at the end thereof the following:
"(14) 'schoolbus' means a passenger motor
vehicle which is designed to carry more than
ten passengers in addition to the driver, and
which the Secretary determines is likely to
be significantly used for the purpose of trwas-
porting primary, preprimary, or secondary
school students to or from such schools or
events related to such schools; and
"(15) 'schoolbus equipment' means equip-
ment designed primarily as a system, part,
or component of a schoolbus, or any shnila
part or component manufactured or sop
for replacement or improvement of such sys-
tem, part, or component or as an acces/ory
or addition 'tc, a schoolbus."
Sac. 20E. raftwearoes Screnotares STAN AP.OS.
Section 133 of the National Tr
Motor Vehiele Safety Act of 1066 is
by adding at the end thereof the
"(i) (1) (A) Not later than six
the, date of enactment of this
the Secretary shall publish p
motor vehleile safety sten
pticable to scrioolbuses and so
ment. Such proposed standar
Minimum standards for the
of performance:
"(i) Emergency exits.
"(1i) Interior protectio
"(iii) Floor strength.
(iv) Seating systems.
'(v) Crash worthine
(including protection
ards).
"(vi) Vehicle op
"(vii) Windows a
"(viii) Fuel syste
"(5) Not later
the date of MAC
Secretary shall
vehicle safety st
minimum strands
formance set out
of subparagraph
which shall ap
item of schooibu
factured In or
States on or af
month period
promulgation
"(2) The Be
lions requirin
driven by the
duction into c
SEC, 209. ENFO
Section 108
and Motor V
amended by
following:
"(F) to '
the Secretory
TITLE LI
Section 30
Vehicle In
(15 U.S.C. 10
(1) by as
304 (and ret
through 3)5, respectively; and
(2) by inserting after section 301 the fol-
lowing neweeetion;
and
mended
llowtog:
nths alter
Inaction,
d Federal
be 3,p-
oolbus eqt ip-
s shall include
Hawing aspects
for occupants.
of body and frame
gainet rollover has-
ng systems.
windshields.
ri fifteen months after
of this subsection, the
ulgate Federal motor
s which Shall provide
s for those aspects of per-
clauses (I) through (vitt)
A) of this paragraph, and
y to each schoolbus and
equipment which is menu-
imported into the United
the expiration of the ntne-
ich begins on the date ,of
such safety standards.
etary may prescribe regala-
that any schoolbus be test-
manufacturer before intro-
erce."
NT.
a) (1) of the National Traffic
hicle Safety Act of 1963 is
ding at the end thereof the
to comply with regulatiors of
under section 103(11(21."
MOTOR VEHICLE DEMON-
ATION PROJECTS
. (a) Title III of the Motor
mataon and Cost Savings Act
1 et seq.) is amended--
ig;nating sections 302 through
fences thereto) as xectione 303
"SPECIAL DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
-Eec. 302. The Secretary shall establish a
spectal motor vehicle diagnostic inspection
demonstration project to essist in the rapid
development and evaluation of advanced in-
spec lion, analysis, and di gnostic equipment
suit able for use by the S tes iii standardized
high volume inspecti aellitles and to eval-
uate, the repair chars. :erisoics of motor vehi,
cies. Such project hall be designed to fa-
cilitate evalnatio repair characteristics by
small automotiv repair gierages."
The motio was agreed to.
The Sene bill was ordered to be read
a third tiie, was read the third time,
end pass
The ktle was amended to read as fol-
lows: tA bill to amend the National
Traf and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of
196 to authorize appropriations for the
fiscn1 years 1975, 1976, .end 1977; to pro-
vAe for the remedy of certain defective
totor vehicles without charge to the
'owiters thereof; to require that schoolbus
safety standards be prescribed; to amend
the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost
Savings Act to provide for a special
demonstration project; and for other
put poses."
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
P. similar House bill (H.R. 5529) was
lain on the table.
WAR CLAIMS ACT AMENDMENTS
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, I move
that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union for the consideration
of the Senate bill (S. 1728) to increase
benefits provided to American civilian
internees in Southeast Asia.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from
West Virginia.
The motion was agreed to.
IN Tar COMM/TEE or THE WHOLE
Accordingly the House resolved itself
Into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consid-
eration of the Senate bill S. 1728, with
Mr. McKay in the Chair.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate
bil
By unanimous consent, the first read-
ing; the bin was dispensed with.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
STAGGERS) will be recognized for 30 min-
utes, and the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. BROYHILL) will be recoge
nned for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from West Virginia (Mr. STAGGERS).
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, /
yield myself such time as / may consume.
Vire Chairman, I rise in support of S.
1728, a bill to amend the War Claims Act
of 1948.
This hill amends two sections of the
War Claims Act of 1118 to accomplish
different purposes. Section 5 is amended
to increase the authorized detention
benefit for American civilians during the
Vietnam conflict from $60 to $120 per
month. The purpose is to raise the de-
tention benefits authorized for civilians
who are or were being held as prisoners
to the same level presently authorized
for military personnel. Since American
civilian prisoners suffered the same dep-
rivations and hardships an military pris-
oners, it is a matter of equity to give
them the same detention benefit.
No appropriations are nvolved, since
funds have already been appropriated
for payment of the internee benefits.
Section 213 of the War Claims Act is
amended to awe a first priority to the
payment in full of the remaining indi-
vidual awards for property losses arising
out of World War I/. Then the bill gives
a second priority to payment of the re-
maining corporate awards for similar
losses up to the level of $50,001).
Existing law provides for payment of
the major part of both individual and
corporate awards on a proportional basis.
The unpaid corporate awards total $94.7
million; the unpaid individual awards
total $6.5 million. Therefore, pro rata
payments would distribute most of the
remaining funds to the largest eorporate
claimants.
Payments fer property losses are made
from the War Claims Fund, a trust ac-
count, on the books of the U.S. Treasury.
Therefore, no appropriations are re-
quired for this asnendment to the War
Claims Act. The War Claims Fund con-
sists of the net proceeds of German and
Japanese assets seized in the United
States during World Was Ir.
The sums remaining in. the fund will
not be sufficient to pay all remaining
claims in full. For this reaso:n, priorities
of payment become important. Equitable
considerations concerning the nature of
the individual losses led to the decision
to give priority to their payment; fol-
lowed by payment of the smaller remain-
ing corporate awards.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Cha?rman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. STAGCMRS. I yield to the gentle-
man from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, does not
the gentleman from West Virginia think
that as a matter of principle it is unfair
to pay civilians as militairy personnel are
paid under tae circumstances of Viet-
nam?
Mr. STAGGERS. That is debatable. If
the gentleman from Iowa will let me ex-
plain, they were there doing jobs, at
least, most of them, for the Government,
serving their country only in a different
capacity. Especially in view of the fact
that there are so few civilian internees,
only 66, I would say to the gentleman
from Iowa that they should receive the
same benefit as military personnel.
Mr. GROSS. Is it not true that the
civilians were there voluntarily?
Mr. STAGGERS. Some were and some
were not. Some were, as I understand.
Mr. GROSS. What is that?
Mr. STAGGERS. Some were working
for the Government, and were there un-
der orders.
Mr. GROSS. I do not Una that any
of them were drafted as civilians and
sent to Vietnam.
I do not mart to make an issue of this
particularly, but I wonder if we are not
here setting a precedent which may live
to haunt us later. I think there is a great
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500380004-6
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500380004-6
Augtst 12, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE H 8143
distinction from one who is voluntarily
in Vietnam, and someone who may have
been involuntarily there.
Mr. STAGGERS. I would say to the
gentleman from Iowa that some of these
were serving the Government, along with
the military personnel, and they were
captured. They were doing their jobs
just the same as the military personnel"
were.
Mr. GROSS. That may well be. They
are both serving the Government, but
on an entirely different basis.
Mr. STAGGERS. That is true. And
both of them Were interned in the same
camps and had to undergo the same kind
of treatment.
Mr. BROYHILL of North Carolina.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, if I may have the at-
tention of the Members I will try to ex-
plain what this bill is about.
Back in 1948 the Congress enacted the
War Claims Act. What this act did was
to permit American citizens and Ameri-
can corporations, to receive awards to
compensate them for losses that they had
.suffered as a result of World War II. The
War Claims Fund comes from the as-
sets of the enemy nations, the Germans
and the Japanese, that were seized dur-
ing World War II by the U.S. Govern-
ment.
'Under the law that was passed at that
tme, Mr. Chairman, each individual or
each corporation who had a claim
acould come in to the Foreign Claims
Settlement Commission and make their
claim and prove it. There is no. dispute
in this bill over any of these claims or
the validity of these claims because the
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission
has long ago settled these issues and ad-
judicated each one of them.
Over the years the law has been
changed to provide payment to certain
categories of claimants.
For example, all of those who have
suffered death or personal injury were
paid in full. All small business claims
were paid. One hundred percent of the
claims of those with claims under $10,-
4:100 were paid. The claims of charitable
organizations were paid in full.
As the chairman has pointed out, there
is some $101 million in claims still out-
standing but only about $20 million
available to pay these claims. Over $200
million has been paid out to claimants
already and $101,000,000 in claims re-
main with about $20 million in prop-
erty or assets to satisfy these claims.
So the claimants are fighting over the
remaining assets of the War Claims
Fund.
What this bill would do would be
to give the first .priority and payment
In full to all of the individual ?claims.
But lt goes further than that and it says
that all of the claims up to $50,000 would
be given to the corporate claimants. In
other words, we are going to be estab-
lishing a principle here in this bill that
the claims o companies are inferior to
the claims .of incliyiduaLs. But we are
going even farther than that.
We are saying that the smaller claims
of companies, those that have a claim
of $50,000 or less have a greater claim
than the claims of the larger claimants.
I think it is a bad precedent to set and I
would urge that the Members vote to
send this bill back to the committee for
further study and further amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Illinois. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROYHILL of North Carolina. I
yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. YOUNG of Illinois. Mr. Chairman,
if the bill does as the gentleman says,
would this not be contrary to the bank-
ruptcy law of this country? As I under-
stand the bankruptcy law of this coun-
try, it does not make any difference be-
tween individual claimants and corpo-
rate claimants. So long as the claims are
on a par, they would all receive equally
in distributions.
Mr. BROYHILL of North Carolina. It
is true that all the claims have been ap-
proved by the Foreign Claims Settlement
Commission. There is no question as to
the validity of the claims. It seems to me
only right in principle that all the claim-
ants have an equal right to the assets
that remain in the fund.
Mr: SYMMS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BROYHILL of North Carolina. I
yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
Mr. SYMMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I associate myself with
the remarks of the gentleman.
I would like to ask the gentleman fur-
ther, is it not true that because of the
amendment added to this bill in section
2, 791 of the claims would be paid out to
the individuals before consideration is
given to the claims of companies and
other individuals? I think it is grossly
unjust.
Mr. BROYHILL of North Carolina.
That is correct. These large individual
claims would be paid before any corpo-
rate claims would be paid.
Mr. McCOLLISTER. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROYHILL of North Carolina. I
yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. McCOLLISTER. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to dissociate myself from the
remark of the gentleman particularly as
it applies to the priorities in allocation
of the $20 million available to Satisfy
$101 million in claims.
I think the principle of giving individ-
uals preference over corporations is
proper because it seems to me in many
cases it is going to be impossible to dis-
cover who the individual stockholders of
the corporations were at the time the loss
was suffered. Does the gentleman not
agree that the loss suffered by the cor-
poration is a loss suffered by the individ-
ual stockholders of that corporation?
Mr. BROYHILL of North Carolina. If
the corporation has received any tax
benefit, that has been taken into con-
sideration by the Foreign Claims Settle-
ment Commission in making the final
award of the claim.
Mr. McCOLLISTER. No. What I am
referring to is the stockholders of the
-corporation at the time the loss was sus-
tained are probably very different from
the stockholders of that corporation
today, and therefore in trying to give to
that corporation a prorata satisfaction
for its loss, that loss accrues to the bene-
fit of the stockholders today and does
not do any good at all to the stockholders
at the time the loss was sustained.
Mr. BROYHILL of North Carolina. I
do not understand the gentleman's rea-
soning. Let us assume there was a fire
insurance proceeding and it had been
adjudicated in the court. Is the gentle-
man saying that the court would then
have the right not to pay out the fire in-
surance proceeds just because the stock-
holders are different a few years later?
Mr. McCOLLISTER. I am saying the
stockholders of record at the time the
loss was sustained are quite different
than the stockholders now, and those
stockholders whose value of their stock
was reduced, and there is no way we can
make them wriole for the loss sustained.
It therefore has a tendency to become
a windfall benefit for the corporation,
whereas individuals who suffered the loss
are still known and the losses are more
directly payable to them.
Mr. YOUNG of Illinois. Mr. Chairman,
if the gentleman will yield, I would like
to point out to the gentleman from Ne-
braska that when one buys a share of
stock he has a bundle of rights and the
stock shares have claims against thefl
assets of the corporation for whatever
value the claims may have, and that is
part of the rights one pays for, so the
stockholders who now own the stock
would have bought whatever rights that
exist in the corporation through their
stock ownership. Accordingly this is not
a proper distinction to use in determin-
ing priorities in the distribution of as-
sets in a fund to claimants against the
funds.
Mr. SYMMS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BROYHILL of North Carolina. I
yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
Mr. SYMMS. I would like to say fur-
ther to the gentleman from Nebraska
that one of the purposes of corporate en-
tities is so that we can have perpetua-
tion of business enterprises. This would
set a dangerous precedent which would
downplay the individuality of the cor-
porate interests for a corporate entity
which is viewed under the law as an in-
dividual and the purpose of it is to have
a continuous business enterprise. So I
think it matters not who the corporate
stockholders are, but the corporate en-
tity stands intact. This is a dangerous
precedent that should not be established.
Mr. BROYHILL of North Carolina. Mr.
Chairman, I have several requests for
time, so I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. ECKHARDT)
[Mr. ECKHARDT addressed the Com-
mittee. His remarks will appear here-
after in the Extensions of Remarks.]
Mr, BROYHILL of North Carolina.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. KUY-
KENDALL ) .
(Mr. KUYKENDALL asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Chairman, we
are faced with a problem here much
larger, in my opinion, than actually the
distributing of a huge amount of money,
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP751300380R000500380004-6
II 8144
Approved For Release 2001/08/29: CIA-RDP75600380R000500380004-6
CONGRESSION AL RECORD ? HOUSE Aug,tst 12, 1974
when it is compared to some of the bills
we have around here, or some of the
things we do.
For that reason, I think it is incum-
bent upon all of us to look at the paece-
dent we may be setting here.
Since 1948 we have been conducting
the war claims settlements of this Nation
under the same act. Not too long after
that date, the validity of all the claims
involved was arrived at, and I regret very
much, Mr. Chairman, that at this late
date we decide to start trying to make
this rather small piece of legislation an
instrument of either social justice or tax
reform. I do not consider it either one.
We have in this bill, the way it isnow
written, decided that a corporation for
some reason, even though it may be a
relatively modest corporation, shall be.
as we may say, Outranked in its priority
by an individual, even though some of
the largest international operatoes in
the world today are individuals. John
Paul Getty, Bunker Hunt, those people
in many instances operate as individ-
uals, not as corporations. Believe me, I
have been involved in a couple of cor-
porations that did not have any money.
' Therefore, the idea that we have put
an interpretation upon the law in this bill
that sap; an individual, just because he is
an individual, regardless of the size of his
claim, must be placed ahead of a cor-
poration, no matter how small the cor-
poration, is, as far as I am concerned,
bad law.
Mr. Chairman, that is the reason that
I am opposing this bill, unless the amend-
ment that I am going to introduce .ander
the 5-minute rule is accepted. The mat-
ter of who wrote off what how long is not
the important thing.
Mention is being made of the fact that
if an individual in business has taken
this lose on his income tax years ago,
just as Boise Cascade may have, and I
am sure they did, are we going to disal-
low the individual deduction which could
very well have been in the 68 and 75
percent tax bracket and then differ as
to the corporate deduction which was
in the 43 percent tax bracket? What kind
of sense does that make?
Mr. Chairman, my last point is this:
I will introduce an amendment Which
will place this bill back in the Senate
bill, back pretty close to the act that we
have been operating under since 1948,
which will do what the chairman referred
to in raising the civilian and military
class to the same level. Individual claim-
ants will get preference up to $35,000 and
thereaf ter all will get the same treatment
under the law, as we now have it.
Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr, Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. KUYKENDALL, I yield to th e gen-
tleman from Texas.
Mr. ECKHARDT. Does the gentleman
understand that from the information
the committee got, vee found nee indi-
vidual case where any individual took
any tax writeoff because they had. noth-
ing to take it against, such as the cor-
porations themselves have?
Mx. KUYKENDALL. Is the gentleman
saying that no individuals making claims
own a business?
Mr. ECKHARDT. The information we
gat is that no claims of loss against taxes
had been taken by individuals with re-
spect to these losses That is what our
committee understands.
Mr. KUYKENDALL. The thing I do
not understand at all is why we should
choose this bill to change a traditional
law in this land, which says that an
hidividual, regardless of the size he is,
and a corporation, regardless of the size
it is, are treated as irdividuals under the
law. This is what troubles me.
Let me tell the Members about some-
thing else that is in this bill.
Most law considers an individual pro-
prietorship or a partnership as an in-
dividual. This bill has classified part-
nerships the same as corporations, which
also flies into the face of the law of the
land which we have followed tradition-
ally concerning the status of an
individual.
Mr. McCOLLISTER. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KUYKENDA1L. I yield to the
gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. McCOLLISTEIL. Mr. Chairman, in
response to the question of why we did
this, it is very simple: Because we saw
there were insufficient assets to pay the
claims, and in view of the facts which
pertained Co this case, we simply felt
equity would be better served by setting
the priorities which we have set, first, by
paying the individual claims, and, second,
by paying the corporate claims up to
$50,000. This in effect gave priority to
the smaller corporations which could
not afford to sustain the loss as well as
the trigger corporations.
Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Chairman, I
will ask the 'gentleman this question:
Is it not true that the small individual
claims and the small corporate claims
have already been settled?
Mr. McCOLLISTER. The small in-
dividual claims have been settled, but
the small corporate claims have not been
settled.
Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Chairman, is
:.t true the corporate claims are ? the
larger claims, and that only the individ-
aal claims have been settled?
Mr. BROYHILL of North Carolina.
Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will
yield, the small basiness claims have
been settled.
Mr. KUYIMNDAII,L. The small cor-
porate claims and the small business
claims have both been settled?
Mr. BROYHILL of North Carolina.
Under $10,0011.
Mr. KUYEENDALL. So what we have
left here are the large claims, the large
corporate and individual claims, so I
think that , makes the ground for this
proposal even more shaky, instead of
less so.
Mr. STAGGERS Mr. Chairman, I
yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Mof.$).
[Mr. MOSS addressed the Committee.
His remarks will appear hereafter in the
Extensions of Remarks.]
Mr. SMITH of New York. Mr. Chair-
man, I -strongly support the passage of
S. 1728 as reported by the Committee on
Interstate and Foreign ,Commerce.
One provision of S. 1'728 deals with war
claims awards arising out of losses suf-
fered by U.S. citizens el' tring World War
II. This prevision would give individual
awardholders under the War Claims Act
priority fovea corporate awardholders in
further payments in compensation for
their World War II losses. This language
was passed by the House in 1969,but was
later dropped in conference. Because this
provision is fully justified and because
its enactment is of great importance to
a large number of Amei ican citizens who
lost all or very nearly all they had as a
result of the war, I introduced a bill,
H.R. 4896, to assure that they would he
wholly compensated for losses that have
now gone uncompensated for over 30
years. I am pleased that the Interstate
and Foreign Commerce Committee has
included the text of my bill as section 2
of S. 1728.
The purpose of the War Claims Act
of 1948 was. to compensate U.S. citizens
for the losses they suffered in World
Wax IL Every citizen claiming an award
was required to prove his claim before
the Foreign Claims Settlement Commis-
sion. All the awardholders who would
benefit from this bill have already proved
their claims and been granted an award.
Most awardholders have already been
paid in full under previous priority cate-
gories created by the Congress. There re-
main unpaid portions of awards to 186
individuals totaling i65 million and 161
corporations totaling $94.7 million. The
amount remaining in the War Clahns
Fund, however, is far too small to pay all
these awards in full. Under present law,
the vast majority of the money in the
fund would go to corporate awardholders,
and many individuals would receive only
a few cents on the dollar for their
awards.
The enactment of 5 1728 is thus nec-
essary to assure that these individuals
who have for so long lacked full com-
pensation will finally receive their just
awards. There are many reasons why the
individual awardholders are entitled to
this priority:
First. Most corporate awardholders
took very substantial tax deductions as
a result of 'their war loises. The corporate
awardholders with balances in excess of
$500,000 took a collective total of more
than $35 million in tax deductions and
have for more than 30 years had the use
of the money they saved. No individual
awardholder took a tax deduction. Thus,
these tax benefits, combined with pre-
vious payments from the war claims
fund, have allowed the corporate award-
holders to recover a substantially greater
percentage of their actual loss than have
the individuals.
Second. The losses of the individuals
were of far greater personal and eco-
nomic significance to them than the cor-
porate losses were to the corporate
awardholders. The individuals lost their
homes, their small family businesses, and
their personal belongings, while the losses
to the corporations :involved only a small
fraction of the total corporate assets of
the awardholders.
Approved For Release 2001/08/29: CIA-RDP75600380R000500380004-6
Augrcst 12, 19fTproved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000500380004-6
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?HOUSE
Third. A high percentage of the in-
dividual awardholders are elderly persons
beyond their productive years who live
on Knell fixed incomes. Many of them
spent most of their working years autside
the United States and hence receive little
or no social security benefits. These peo-
ple are relying on the payment of their
war claims awards to provide them a
final financial stake to support them in
their declining years. By contrast, at least
96 percent of the unpaid corporate
awards are held by com,panies whose
stock or whose parent company's stock is
traded on the New York or American
Stock Exchanges. All small businesses
have already been paid in full under a
previous priority. Many of the remain-
ing corporate awardholders are among
the biggest corporations in the country,
such as General Motors, Exxon, Mobil,
and LT. & T. Recovery of their awards
would have little effect on their financial
security.
Fourth. In many cases, the present
stockholders of the corporate award-
holders have little or no relation to those
who actually suffered the loss. In many
cases, the corporation holding the award
is not even the same company that suf-
i.ered the loss. For xample, in one case,
involving one of the largest corporate
awards, the company that suffered the
loss was a subsidiary of an American cor-
poration which long ago wrote the sub-
sidiary's assets down to zero. In 1969, the
present awardholder acquired the stock
of the parent corporation, paying abso-
lutely nothing for the stock of the sub-
sidiary that had suffered the loss. The
present awardholder?which not only
sclid not suffer the loss but paid nothing
for the stock of the company that did?
thus would receive a windfall by reason
of any further payments. There are
numerous instances among the corporate
awards in which the company that ac-
tually suffered the loss hag' long since
been acquired by the present award-
holder. Even in cases in which the pres-
ent corporate awardholder was the com-
pany that suffered the loss, the present
stockholders are a very different group
from those that held the stock at the
time of the loss more than 30 years ago.
By contrast, the individual awards are
all held by the persons who suffered the
loss or by members of the family that
suffered the loss.
Another section of this bill would pro-
vide benefits for American civilians who
were held as prisoners by North Vietnam
during the Vietnam war at the same level
as those for military personnel who were
Prisoners of war. These civilians were
employees of agencies of the U.S. Gov-
ernment or U.S. Government contrac-
tors and suffered as long and as griev-
ously as their military counterparts.
However, because of an inequity in the
present War Claims Act, their benefits
are less than half of those received by
military personnel. S. 1728 would correct
this inequity and allow them to be com-
pensated at the same rate as military
Personnel.
Finally, I would like to stress that no
provision of this bill requires any ap-
propriation by the Congress or increases
Government spending in any way. The
funds from which payment of World
War II awards is to be made consist of
the proceeds of the sale of assets of
enemy nationals seized by the U.S. Gov-
ernment during World War II under the
Trading With the Enemy Act. The funds
to pay Vietnam civilian internees are
derived from an appropriation made in
fiscal year 1973. Thus, enactment of S.
1728 would have no impact on Federal
spending.
These are only some of the reasons'
why enactment of S. 1728 would be Just
and proper. I urge the House to act
favorably on this bill.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. McCor-
LISTER) .
(Mr. McCOLLISTER asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McCOLLISTER. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to voice my support for the
enactment of S. 1728. I am a member of
the Subcommittee on Commerce and Fi-
nance that considered and unanimously
reported this bill, and have given close
attention to the issues the bill addresses.
S. 1728 was overwhelmingly approved
after 2 days of markup by the Committee
on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
In addition to the arguments cited by
other Members in support of S. 1728, I
believe there are further reasons for its
enactment:
First. As has been mentioned previ-
ously, the corporate awardholders took
large tax deductions from their U.S. in-
come taxes as a result of their war losses
while individuals took no such deduc-
tions. It is also true that many corporate
awardholders received substantial tax
and other benefits from foreign govern-
ments after the war as incentives for
reestablishing their operations in those
countries. These benefits, which further
compensated the corporations for their
losses, were in no way taken into account
in the calculation of their war claims
awards. Such benefits were unavailable
to the individual awardholders.
Second. Many of the corporate award-
holders are insurance companies that
insured risks overseas at premium rates
to reflect the risks of war. These com-
panies were then subrogated to the rights
of the insured. The substantial premiums
received by these insurance companies
were not taken account of in the calcu-
lation of war claims awards. No individ-
ual awardholder is in a comparable
position.
Third. Full payment of the individual
awards will not substantially affect the
amounts that will be available to pay
corporate awards. The corporate awards
total about $94.7 million. There will be
only about $20 million at most available
for payment of all awards?both cor-
porate and individual. Thus, even under
existing law, the corporations will re-
ceive at most about 20 cents on the
dollar. Since the total amount payable
to individuals is only $6.5 million, giving
a priority to individuals will reduce the
corporate recovery by only a few cents
on the dollar.
Fourth. The corporate awards repre-
sent a greater percentage of the actual
H 8.145
losses of the corporate awardholders
than the individual awards represent of
the actual losses of the individuals. In the
granting of awards, the Foreign Claims
Settlement Commission required docu-
mentary proof of the loss for which an
award was sought. Many individuals who
suffered property losses also lost their
documentary proof of ownership in the
war. Large U.S. corporations that main-
tained extensive records in this country
did not have similar problems and hence
were able to document a much higher
percentage of their actual loss than were
individuals.
Fifth. All the individual awardholders
are U.S. citizens. The War Claims Act
required that an individual be a 'U.S.
citizen at the time of his loss in order
to be eligible for an award. By contrast,
a corporation need only have been in-
corporated in the United States and 50
percent of its assets owned by U.S. na-
tionals in order to qualify. A significant
portion of the stock of many corporate
awardholders is held by foreign na-
tionals. Since the basic purpose of the
War Claims Act was to compensate U.S.
citizens for their losses, this purpose is
more consistently served by allowing in-
dividual awardholders, all of whom are
U.S. citizens, a priority.
These reasons all support the enact-
ment of a priority for individuals in the
payment of World War II war claims
awards.
In addition to this priority, the Com-
mittee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce added an additional priority cate-
gory through an amendment that I
sponsored. Under this amendment, after
payment to the individuals, all corporate
awards would be paid in equal amounts
up to $50,000 and after that amount on a
pro rata basis. This amendment does not
discriminate against any corporate
awardholders since all corporations
would receive $50,000 per award even if
their awards are larger than that
amount. Creation of this priority would
benefit the smaller corporate awardhold-
ers who, in general, are substantially
smaller companies than those with the
larger awards. This priority would enable
66 of the 161 corporate awardholders to
be paid in full and the further assets in
the War Claims Fund would then be
divided pro rata among the remaining
95 corporate awardholders. While crea-
tion of this priority would reduce some-
what the amounts that would be paid to
the very largest corporate awardholders,
its effect would not be great since even
under existing law these awardholders
would receive only a fraction of their
outstanding balances. Virtually all the
corporate awardholders whose recovery
would be reduced are among the Nation's
largest corporations, such as Exxon,
Mobil, and I.T. & T., and the amount by
which their recovery would be reduced
would be negligible in terms of their total
assets.
I would also like to express my support
for the provision of S. 1728 that gives
civilian U.S. citizens who were held pris-
oner in North Vietnam during the Viet-
nam war benefits on a par with those
available to military personnel who were
held prisoner. These civilians also served
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000500380004-6
11 8146
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500380004-6
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE August 12,1974
their country and suffered as acutely as
the military men in enemy prison camps.
We owe them at least this much con-
sideration.
Finally, I would like to point out ehat
this bill envolves neither an additional
appropriation of funds or an increase in
Federal spending. The moneys which will
be disbursed to World War II award-
holders are derived from the sale of the
assets of enemy nationals seized by the
U.S. Government during World War II
and were not raised from tax dollars. The
funds to pay the Vietnam civilian in-
ternees are derived from an appropria-
tion for fiscal year 1973. Thus, S. 1728 is
in no way an inflationary bill.
For these reasons, I urge the passage
of S. 1728 as reported by the Committee
on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I have
no further requests for time.
Mr. saon-tru of North Carolina.
Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests
for time.
The alAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule,
the Clerk will now read the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the reported bill as an orginal
bill for the purpose of amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives Of the United SI ai:es of
America in Congress assembled, That aection
5(i) (8) of the War Claims Act of 1948 (50
App. 17.8 0. 2001(1) (3)) is amended by strik-
ing out "$60" and inserting in lieu thereof
-$1511".
SEC. 2. (a) Section 213(a) (3) of the War
Claims Act of 1948 (50 App. U.S.C. 20171(s)
i 3) ) is amended to read as follows:
"(3)Chereafter, payments from time to
time on account of the other awards made
to individuals pursuant to section 202 and
not compensated in full under paragraph (1)
or (2) of this subsection in an ()mount
which shall be the same for each award or
in the amount of the award, whickever is
less. The total payment pursuant to this
paragraph on account of any award shall not
exceed $500,000.".
(b) &potion 213(a) of such Act is amended
by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph
(5) and inserting after paragraph ;3) the
following new paragraph:
"(4) Thereafter, payments from -Arne to
time or. account Of the other awatts made
to corporations pursuant to section 202 and
not compensated in full under paragraph (1)
or (2) cif this subsection in an amount which
shall be the same for each award or in the
amount of the award, whichever is less. The
total payment pursuant to this paragraph
on account of any award shall not exceed
$50,000 ".
Mr. STAGGERS (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the bill be considered as read,
printed in the RECORD, and cpen to
amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from West.
Virginia?
There was no objection.
AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF iT.NISTIIITTE
OFFERED BY MR. KUTMENDALL
Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute,
The Clerk read as follows:
Ainendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by Mr. KUYKENDALL! Striko out all
after the enacting clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
That section 5(1) (3) of the War Claims Act
of 1948 (50 App. U.S.C. 2004(1) (3) ) is
amended to substitute -slur for "$80".
(Mr, KUYKENDALL asked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KITYKENDALL. Mr. Chairman, I
shall not take the full 5 minutes, since
I feel that this amendment was debated
to a great extent during the debate.
The amendment technically does this:
'It mentions the nem of the bill men-
tioned by the Chairman earlier that it
puts the civilian and the military claim-
ant under the War Claims Act in the
same category. To make it clear as to
what the meaning of those of us who
are supporting this particular amend-
ment feel that the subcommittee in its
desire to create an across-the-board
jostice did?and my great regard for
the members of the subcommittee in
attempting this is riot lessened by the
face that I feel that in so doing they
have made a serious strike at a basic
constitutional fact, and that is under
cur laws because of the vast differences
in the sizes of individual proprietorship
and of partnerships and of corporations
and of simple individuals themselves,
people who have written our law found
it within their ideas of justice neces-
eary to require that all be treated the
same.
I am quite sure that the subcommittee
attempted to achieve justice, but it is my
considered judgment and it is my fear.
Mr. Chairman, that in their attempts to
achieve justice they have done damage
;o a constitutional fact that is more seri-
ous than the injustices that existed un-
der the present law. So I urge the
amendment to be adopted.
Mr. SYMMS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. KUYIECENDALL. I yield to the
gentleman from Idaho.
(Mr. SYMMS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks,)
Mr. SYMMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman from Tennessee for yield-
ing. I associate myself with his remarks.
Mr. Chairman, I am in support of the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I have no argument
with the original intent of the 1974 War
Claims Act Amendment as passed by the
Senate. It is very appropriate that our
American civilian internees in Southeast
Asia receive this increase in assistance,
particularly when one considers that it
brings them more in line with the com-
pensation awarded, our military person-
nel who suffered the same detention. I
commend the House for its humane ac-
tion in consideration of this provision.
I cannot agree with my colleagues who
have been instrumental in adding sec-
tion 2 to the legislation passed by the
Senate. It is discriminatory. It is unjust.
It is one of the most damaging prece-
dents proposed, in this Congress in a good
long time.
Section 2 provides that unpaid bal-
ances on World War II claims to in-
dividual awardhoiders shall be satisfied
before payments are made on legitimate
corporation claim's. The State Depart-
ment, the Foreign Claims Settlement
Commission, and the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget all 'Wattled against
this amendment in our House commit-
tee hearings. The Senate never even ad-
dressed she proposal this year although
it did defeat such a move In 1970. In a
nutshell, we are on the edge of express-
ing public policy in the House of Repre-
sentatives which holds the legitimate
claims of a business to be Inferior to
those of an individual. Were any one of
you to have a court decision in which
you were personally involved take such
a direction, the hue -and cry could be
heard across the country.
Section 2 further restricts payments
to corporations, providing that each
company shall receive no more than
$50,000, regardless of the full unsatisfied
amount of their dieing in other words,
the more a. company )ost, the less en-
titled it is to reimbursement.
Even the House has never addressed
itself to this concept in public hearings.
The amendment was added in the com-
mittee without benefit of hearing and
without; consultation with the agencies
involved.
There is injustice aplenty in that lan-
guage whic:a holds the claims of corpo-
rations to be inferior under the law of
those of individuals. This additional
language compounds that injustice by
favoring small corporate losses over large
corporate losses, It is a frightening prec-
edent. I urge this body to consider care-
fully the consequences of such action.
I urge your support this afternoon of
the amendment to restore the original
Senate language, which limits itself to
the very appropriate cause of assisting
our American civilian internees in
Southeast Asia. I further urge that the
Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce readdress itself to the ques-
tion of unsettled war claims in a more
equitable manner consistent with our
American zoncent of justice.
(Mr. MOSS asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in op-
position to the amendment.
I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that
all this does is to leave the present fund
available at the rate of $35,000 for each
claimant without regard to any of the
underlying facts as io who was an in-
surance company, as mentioned by the
gentleman from Texas, that took its
losses out of its premiums which it had
calculated as sufficient to cover the
losses. They will get their $35,000. If it
is an individual who is totally wiped out,
he will get his $35,000. If it is someone
who picked up a bit of corporate prop-
erty that had no value al the time, as
Boise Cascade did, they will get their
$35,000.
It is represented that this is an equi-
table way of dealing with this, I submit
it is not. I submit it is superficially an
equitable way, but upon examination of
the facts in any depth at all we will see
it misses an equitable resolution of this
by many, many yards.
It is bad legislation, it is not good leg-
islation, it was not wise when we wrote
it. This was the opportunity to clear it
up and to deal a little more equitably
with persons who suffered serious losses
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500380004-6
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP751300380R000500380004-6
Augnst 10 1974
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?HOUSE
I would hope that the amendment of-
fered by the gentleman from Tennessee
would not be agreed to.
Mr. SMITH of New York. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOSS. I yield to the gentleman
from New York. ,
Mr. SMITH of New York. Mr. Chair-
man, I associate myself with the remarks
of the gentleman. I would hope the
amendment offered by the gentleman
from Tennessee will not be adopted, be-
cause he effect of it is to return the war
claims distribution to exactly where it
Is today.
As the gentleman has pointed out, this
is unfair to inclividual,s who have per-
sonally lost more of their substance than
some of the larger companies.
I would like to get back for a moment
to the tax point. I understand from the
gentleman from Texas that no individ-
uals appeared before the committee who
had taken any tax writeoffs, but corpora-
tions apparently had taken some $35
million of tax losses which had not been
considered in awarding the war claims
to them. Is that correct?
Mr. MOSS, That is correct.
Mr. Chairman, I will yield to the gen-
tleman from Texas if he would like to
respond personally. Does the genq
from Texas (Mr. Ecx?ninun) care to re-
spond to the tax question which is pro-
pounded as to the fact that no individual
we could find,d0ring the hearings had
taken a tax writeoif While the corpora-
tions had taken in excess of $35 million
In tax losses?
Mr. ECKHARDT. That is what ap-
peared in the hearings. Of course, indi-
viduals usually did not have anything to
take it off against.
Mr. SMITE of New York. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield further?
Mr. MOSS. I yield.
Mr. SMITH of ,,New York. One other
statement the gentleman just made for
which I wanted, confirmation is that the
tax writeoff, of course, of some $35 mil-
lion was not taken into consideration in
making the war claims award; is that
correct?
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairragn, I yield to
the gentleman from Texas for the pur-
pose of responding to that 'question.
Mr. ECKHARDT. Vie corporation had
to take into account the U.S. settlement
taxes.
Mr. SMITH of New York. I thank the
gentleman.
Mr. YOUNG of lUos, Mr. Chairman,
I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I would like to rise in support of the
amendment. I regret that we have spent
so much time debating this bill; but I do
think that we should ,not overlook what
I believe is the appropriate role for Con-
gress with respect to ,the War Claims
Act,
It ?has_ been. Staled that we have
roughly $20 million to divide up among
$100 million of claims. In effect, we have
what I refer to OS a, bankruptcy situa-
tion, 'rhe bill without gle, amendment,
woad .Ove a preference to individuals
in the payment of the, Ir claims, before
corporations. This preference would ex-
tend to claims over $35,000.
The amendment of the gentleman
from Tennessee, as I understand it,
would eliminate any such preference
with respect to corporations and indi-
viduals. Those claims would all be
treated on a pro rata basis, which is my
understanding of the version that the
Senate bill also provides.
Now, I do not think it is appropriate
for the House to get into a determina-
tion of individual claims. I do not think
it is the purpose of the House to do that.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Illinois. I yield to the
gentleman from California.
Mr. 'MOSS. The gentleman has stated
there are $20 million. I used the figure
$11 million to $14 million. I am correct,
am I not, in that figure there are adju-
dicated claims approximating some-
where between $6 million and $9 million
now in process, so that the residual fund
which is addressed by the language of
this bill addresses itself only to between
$11 million and $14 million.
Mr. YOUNG of Illinois. I thank the
gentleman and I accept that.
The point I was using the figures for
was simply to illustrate we have not
enough money to pay all the claims, and
on that the gentleman from California
agrees with me.
The point I am speaking to is that this
House is not the appropriate body to try
to determine individual claims. I regret
that the gentleman from Texas singled
out a particular company, Boise Cascade,
to describe certain information set forth
in an annual report. It is very difficult
to evaluate that type of information. We
are not the body to do it. That is what
the Foreign Claims Settlement Commis-
sion is supposed to do.
? I do think if the House of Representa-
tives feels that individuals should have a
claim priority over corporations, then
the House should offer amendments like
this to the bankruptcy laws. The bank-
ruptcy laws, of course, have been on the
books for many, many years. They pro-
vide no such distinction between claims
of individuals and corporations. They
make no such discrimination. The rea-
son they do not make such discrimina-
tion is that it would not be equitable.
Under our Constitution corporations are
citizens, the same as individuals. We all
recognize the fact that corporations are
artificial entities, and they are owned by
individuals, so there is no valid basis to
discriminate against individuals who are
stockholders of corporations, if the cor-
porations have valid legitimate claims,
compared to individuals who own prop-
erty in their own individual names.
I think that the House of Representa-
tives would be well advised to accept the
well thought out language of the Senate
and to have all claims over $35,000 pro-
rated in amount. We should try to avoid
the political implications of corporation
versus individual. I think that is not a
proper basis for us to act upon, for the
purpose of discriminating between
claimants.
H 8147
Mr. McCOLLISTER. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Illinois. I yield to the
gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. McCOLLISTER. Mr. Chairman,
does the gentleman from Illinois know
that the income tax law, when it consid-
ers corporate taxes, imposes a surtax
over $25,000 to earnings of over $25,000,
giving thereby some preference to the
stockholders of smaller corporations? Is
not that somewhat comparable to what
the committee and the Congress is doing
in this instance?
Mr. YOUNG of Illinois. No, I do not
believe that such an analogy is relevant
to the issue of the priority of claims in
the distribution of a fund where there
are more claims than there are assets.
I think the tax laws have certain social
and other purposes in their enactment,
and here we are dealing with claims, I
do not think it appropriate to compare
the two.
[Mr. McCOLLISTER addressed the
Committee. His remarks will appear
hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.]
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the amendment. I do not
believe it is fair, and I ask that it be
defeated.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment in the nature of a substi-
tute offered by the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. KITICKENDALL).
The amendment in the nature of a
substitute was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute.
The committee amendment in the na-
ture of a substitute was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the
Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and
the Speaker having resumed the Chair,
Mr. McKAy, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the
Union, reported that that Committee,
having had under consideration the Sen-
ate bill (S. 1728) to increase benefits
provided to American civilian internees
in Southeast Asia, pursuant to House
Resolution 1306, he reported the bill back
to the House with an amendment
adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the
previous question is ordered.
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER The question is on the
third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be read a thi,rd
time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the
passage of the bill.
The question was taken': and the
Speaker announced the ayes appeared to
have it.
Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Speaker, I object
to the vote on the ground that a quorum
Is not present and make the point of
order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum
Is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify ab-
sent Members.
The vote was, taken by electronic de-
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500380004-6
1181418
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500380004-6
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE August 1211,197
vice, and there were?yeas 368, nays 17,
not voting 49, as follows:
!Roll No. 4771
'TEAS--368
Abdnor
Abzug
Adams
Addable)
Andersen,
Calif.
Anderson, In.
Andreens,
Andrews,
N. Da.
AnnunziO
Archer
Arends
Armstrong
Ashbrook
Ashley
Aspin
Badillo
Befalls
Baker
Barrett
Bauman
Bell
Bennett-
Bergland
Bevill
Biaggi
Bleeder
Bingham
Inaektnern
Beggs
Baena
13caling
Brad= ae
Bray
Breaux
Breckinridge
Brinkley
Brooks
BroOmileld
Brotzmazi
Brown, Ohio
Broyhill, N.C.
Broyhill, Va.
Buchanan
BUrgener
Burke, Calif.
Burke., Ina.
Burke, Mass.
Burlescen 'Tex.
BurlisOn, Mo.
Burton, John
Burton, Phillip
Butler
Byron
Camp
Carney, Ohio
Carter
Casey, Tex.
Cederberg
Chamkerlain
Clancy
Clark
Clausen,
Don H.
Clawson, Del
clay
Cleveland
Cochren
Cohen
Collins, Ill.
Conable
Dorn
Downing
Drinan
Duncan
du Pont
Eckhardt
Edward!, Ala.
Edwards, Calif.
Eilberg
Erlenborn
Each
Eshleman
Evans, Colo
Fascell
Findley
Fish
Fisher
Flood
Flowers
Foley
Ford
Forsythe
Fountain
P'isser
Frelinghuysen
Frenzel
Frey
Froehlich
Fulton
Fuqua
Claydos
Gettys
Glairno
Gibbons
Oilmen
Ginn
Onnenlez
C3oodling
Grasso
Green, Oreg.
Green, Pa.
Griffiths
Graver
Gude
Guyer
Haley
Hamilton
Hammer-
schmidt
Hanley
Ilanrahan
Hansen, Idaho
Harrington
Harsha
Hastings
Hawkins
Hays
Hechler, W. Va,
Heckler, Mass.
Heinz
Helstoskl
Henderson
Hicks
Hillis
Hinshaw ?
Hogan
Holiheld
Holt
Holtzman
Horton
Roemer
Floweret
Conlart }Indent
Conte Hungate
Conyers Hun
Corma a Hutchinson
Cotter Ichord
Cougb..in Jarman
Cronir Johnson, Calif.
Daniel, Dan Johnson, Colo,
Daniel, Robert Johnson, Pa.
W., Jr, Jones, Ala
Daniels, Jones, N.C.
Dominick V. Jones, Okla.
Danielson Jordan
Davis, MC. Keith
Davis, Wis. Kastenmeier
de la Garza Hazen
Delaney Kemp
Delleeback Ketchum
Dellinna King
Denhcleci Inluezynski
Dennis Koch
Dent Kyros
Derwinsti Lagornarsino
Devine Latta
Dkattaaa Penman
Diggs Lent
Donol,ne Long, La.
Lott
Lujan
Luken
McCleary
McCloskey
MeCollister
efeCormack
McEweit
McFall
McKay
McKim key
Macdor.ald
Madder
Madigan
Mahon
Mai-twig
Martin, Nebr.
Martin, N.C.
Mathias, Calif.
Mathis Oa.
Matennete a
MazzoT1
Meeds
?delete,
Metcalfe
Mezvin sky
Michel
Milford
Mills
lefirneh
Mink
Mitchel, effe.
Mttehel, N
Mizell
Moakley
Mollohin
Montgomery
Moorhead, Pa.
Morgan
Mosher
Moss
Murphy, ill.
Murtha,
Myers
Natcher
Nedel
Nelsen
Nichols
Nix
Obey
O'Brien
O'Hara
O'Neill
Owens
Parris
Patma:a
Patten
Perkin ;
Pettis
Peyser
Pickle
Pike
Poage
Powell, Mtn
Preyer
Price, 111
Price, 'rex.
Pritchard
(One
Railsb laic
Randall
Range
Rees
Begun,
Reuss
Rhodes
Riegle
Maude?
Retteri s
Rob] Ilion, yr..
Rodin.)
Roe
Rogers
Roncallo, Wyo.
Romano, N.Y.
Rooney, Pc
Rose
Rosen that
Rostotkowski
Roust
Roussolot
Royhal
Runnels
Rupp(
Ruth
Ryan
St Get main
Sandman
Sart sin
Sarhanes
Satterfield
Scherle
Schneebeli
Schroeder
Selaelius
Seiber/Ing
Shinier),
Shriver
Sisk
Skubitz
Slack
Smith, Iowa
Smith, N.Y.
Snyder
Spence
Staggers
Stanton,
J. William
Stanton,
James V.
Stark
Steed
Steele
Steelman
Steiger, Wis.,
Stephens
Stokes
Bowen
Chappell
Collins, Tex.
Crane
Evins, Tenn,
Gross
Alexander
Beard
Blatt:nit
Brasco
Brown, Calif.
Brown, Mich.
Carey, N.Y.
Chisholm
Collier
Culver
Davis, Ga.
Dingell
Dulski
Flynt
Cloldweeer
Gray
Oubser
Stratton White
Stuble eneld Whitehurtt
Stucide Whitten
Sullivan Widnall
Symington Wilson, Bob
Talcott Wilson,
Taylor. Mo. Charles H.,
Taylor, N.C. Calif.
Thompson, N.J. Wilson,
Thomson, Wis. Charles, Tex.
Thone Winn
TIernr5 Wolff
Towell Nev. Wright
Trestles* Wyatt
Udall Wydler
Ullman Wylie
Van Merlin Wyman
Yates
Yatron
Young, Alaska
Young, Fla.
Young, Ill.
Young, Tea.
Zablocki
Zion
Zwach
Vander Jag,t
Vander Veen
Vanik
Veysey
Vigori to
Waggonner
Waldie
Walsh
Warne] er
Ware
Whalen
NAYS-1'7
Huber
Kuykendall
Landgrebe
Long, Md.
Manse y
Mann
NOT VOTING-49
Cluntet Podell
Hanna Quillen
Hansen, Wash. Rarick
Hebert Reid
Jones Tenn. Robison, N.Y.
Landrum Rooney, N ,Y.
Leggett Roy
Litton Shout)
McDade Sikes
McSpadden Stuckey
Mayne Teague
Minsh all, Ohio Thorsatoe
Moorhead, Treen
Calif. Wiggins
Marne y. N.Y. Williams
Penman Young, Oa,
Pepper
Miller
Shuster
Steiger, Ariz.
Symms
Young, S.C.
So the bill was passed.
The Clerk announced the following
pairs:
Mr. Hebert with Mr. Stuckey.
Mr. Muria/trot New York with Mr. Letgetl.
Mr. Flynt with Mr. Blatnik.
Mr. Rooney of New York with Mr. Brown of
California.
Mr. Gingen with Mr. Gray.
Mr. Carey of New York with Mr. Landrum.
Mrs. Chisholm wit:a Mrs. Hansen of Wash-
ington.
' Mr. Jones of Tennessee with Mr. Litton,
Mr. Alexander with Mr. McSpadden.
Mr. Podell with Mr . McDade.
Mr. Peppet with Mr. Mayne.
Mr. Roy with Mr. Beard,
Mr. Young of Georgia With Mr. Culver.
Mr,Passman with Mr. Collier.
Mr. Hanna with Mr. Brown of Michigan.
Mr. Renck with Mr. Gulaner.
Mr. Reid with Mr. Goldwater.
Mr. Gunter with Mr. Minshall of Ohio.
Mr. Dulski with Mr. Moorhead of Cali-
fornia.
Mr. Davis of Georgia with Mr. Shoup.
Mr. Teague with Mr. Treen.
Mr. Sikes with Mr. Wiggins.
Mr. Thornton with Mr. Williams.
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
The title was emended so as to read:
"An Act to amend the War Claims Act
Of 1948 to increase benefits provided to
American civilian internees In Southeast
Asia and to provide for additional pay-
merits on awards made to individuals and
corporations Under that Act.".
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN
ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1974
The SPEAR. Under a previous
order of the House, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Ketttr) is recognized for
20 minutes.
Mr. KEMP. Mr. Speaker, it has been
a long and arduous road to the achieve-
ment of substantive, practical cam-
paign reform. I had hoped, when I first
introduced legislation establishing an
independent Federal Election Commis-
sion in 1973, that meaningful .reform
would be forthcoming in the first ses-
sion of the 93d Congress. Finally, we
have taken legislative action to help
correct campaign abuses and corruption
which have surfaced with increased reg-
ularity in the past several years.
Certainty no issue laas yielded such
broad bipartisan support. Illegal cam-
paign practices, unethical tactics, dirty
tricks, and influence peddling in the 1972
and prior campaign: have brought de-
mands from the American people for
positive legislative itetiem.
The public's wishes have been trans-
lated into action. Each American believes
that our political system must be ethical
to be fair. Each American insists on his
or her right to be informed about the
campaign practices of the candidates for
Which he must vote; each American
wants candidates to compete equitably
for public office.
THE NE 5 EMs
With this in mind, the House of Rep-
resentatives has acted. The legislation
drafted by the Committee on House Ad-
ministration and amended by the full
House limits contrtbetions to $1,000 per
person and $5,000 for broad-based pobt-
ical committees. Individuals can contrib-
ute no more than $25.000 to all candi-
dates and committees in any one calendar
year. Contributions are prohibited by
foreign nationals and cash contributions
cannot exceed $100, per person. These
provision; should help restore public
confidence by eliminating or reducing
public suspicion that candidates are be-
ing "bought" or influenced by large
campaign contribu tens.
In addition, the bill planes limits on
the amount of expeeditures a candidate
may maim: $10 mileon for nomination
for President, $20 million in a general
election for President, 5 cents times the
populations of the eeographical area or
$75,000 for the Senate?whichever is
greater?and $60,001 for House races.
The $60,C00 limitation -figure was arrived
at as a irompromise between the Com-
mittee on House Administration recom-
mendation of $75,00o and a lower figure
advocated by several colleagues and
myself.
Other provision; of the bill include
the requirement time all candidates des-
ignate a principal or central campaigr
committee. The reports of all other com-
mittees supporting that candidate mun
be fled with the t Amine' committee
which in turn eornni es these reports anc
sends them to the appropriate super-
visory oficer. All texpeenditures made or
behalf of a eandidate must be made
through the principal campaign com-
mittee.
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500380004-6
ST-71-1
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP751300380R000500380004-6
December 17, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?HOUSE
facilities close inshore, and with the
approaching end of the session we must
accept this conference action or not
have a deep port bill.
But I would like to express my dis-
satisfaction with the final product and
the methods that produced it. By a sub-
stantial margin, and with full debate on
the merits of both bills, this House
adopted the Merchant Marine and
Fisheries Committee version over that
of the Public Works Committee. Then,
with the appointment of a majority of
the House conferees from supporters of
the public works bill, it was assured that
the version adopted by the House would
never receive adequate consideration in
the conference.
This bill before us now lacks clear-cut
administrative authority, has numerous
veto opportunities, provides a series of
special preferential arrangements, and
generally is going to be very difficult to
work with.
It culminates a tortured, wasteful, and
time-consuming legislative process that
has delayed implementation of this vital
portion of our energy plans for nearly
2 years. If Congress is to effectively
address the many problems confronting
our Nation in the next term, we m
better than this,
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. BREAUX. IV,Ir. Speaker I ask
unanimous consent that all MeniL r may
have 5 legislative days in ich to
revise and extend their reMar on the
subject of the conference re just
considered.
The SPEAKER. Is there obj tion to
the request of the gentlern from
Louisiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Speaker, move
the previous question on the co erence
report.
The previous question was orderid.
The conference report:was agreed to.
A motion to reConeitler was laid on the
table.
CANAVERAL NAT'IOpTAL SEASHORE
IN THE STATE or FLORIDA
Mr, TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr.
Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take
from the Speaker's desk the bill (H.R.
5773) to establish the Canaveral Na-
tional Seashore in the State of Florida,
and for other purposes, with Senate
amendments thereto, and concur in the
Senate amendments,
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amend-
ments, as follows:
Page 2, lines 11 and 12, strike out "a point
on the waterway approximately one mile
north of".
Page 8, lines 4 and 5, strike out "a point
pp. the waterway approximately one mile
tortn of'.
The SPEAKER, Is Were objection to
the request of the gentleman from North
Carolina?
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, can the gentleman
state whether there are any nongermane
amendments attached to this?
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. The
Senate amendments involve the deletion
from the Seashore of approximately 600
acres of privately owned lands on the
mainland side of Mosquito Lagoon, This
deletion should result in a reduction in
the land acquisition costs at this area.
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, I with-
draw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request Of the gentleman from North
Carolina?
There was no objection.
The Senate amendments were con-
curred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON
S. 1728, WAR CLAIMS
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani-
Mous consent to take from the Speaker's
table the Senate bill (S. 1728) to in-
crease benefits provided to American
civilian internees in Southeast Asia, with
House amendments thereto, insist on the
House amendments and agree to the
conference asked by the Senate.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Cali-
air hears none, and ap-
e' following conferees: Messrs.
STAGGERS, MOSS, STUCKEY, ECKHARDT,
BROYHILL of North Carolina, WARE, and
MCCOLLISTER.
PERMISSION FOR CONFEREES ON
S. 1728 TO FILE CONFERENCE RE-
PORT
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani-
mous consent that the conferees on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on
the Senate bill S. 1728, have until mid-
night tonight to file a conference report
on that bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Cali-
fornia?
There was no objection.
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. No. 93-1618)
The committee of conference on the dis-
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendments of the House to the bill (S.
1728) to increase benefits provided to Amer-
ican civilian internees in Southeast Asia,
having met, after full and free conference,
have agreed to recommend and do recom-
mend to their respective Houses as follows:
That the Senate recede from its disagree-
ment to the amendment of the House to the
text of the Senate bill and agree to the same
with an amendment as follows: In lieu of
the matter proposed to be inserted by the
House amendment insert the following:
That section. 5(i) (3) of the War Claims
Act of 1948 (50 App. U.S.C. 2004(i) (3) ) is
amended by striking out "$60" and inserting
in lieu thereof "$150".
Sno. 2. Section 213(a) of such Act is
amended by redesignating paragraph (4) as
paragraph (5) and inserting after paragraph
(3) tlie following new paragraph:
"(4) Thereafter, payments from time to
time on account of the other awards made to
individuals pursuant to section 202 and not
compensated in full under paragraph (1),
(2), or (3) of this subsection in an amount
which shall be the same for each award or in
the amount of the award, whichever is less.
The total payment pursuant to this para-
graph on account of any award shall not ex-
ceed $250,000.".
H 12151'
And the House agree to the same.
That the Senate recede from its disagree-
ment to the amendment of the House to the
title of the Senate bill and agree to the same
with an amendment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be in-
serted by the House amendment insert the
following: "An Act to amend the War Claims
Act of 1948 to increase benefits provided to
American civilian internees in Southeast Asia
and to provide for additional payments on
awards made to individuals under that Act.".
And the House agree to the same.
HARLEY 0. STAGGERS,
JOHN E. Moss,
W. S. (BILL) STUCKEY, Jr.,
BOB ECKHARDT,
JAMES T. BROYHILI,
JOHN H. WARE,
JOHN Y. MCCOLLISTER,
Managers on the Part of the House.
QUENTIN BURDICK,
HIRAM L. FONG,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE
COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
The managers on the part of the House
and the Senate at the conference on the dis-
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendments of the House to the bill
(S. 1728) to increase benefits provided to
American civilian internees in Southeast
Asia, 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 accom-
panying conference report:
The House amendments struck out all of
the Senate bill after the enacting clause and
inserted a substitute text and provided a
new title for the Senate bill, and the Senate
disagreed to the House amendments.
The committee of conference recommends
that the Senate recede from its disagreement
to the amendment of the House to the text
of the bill, with an amendment which is a
substitute for both the text of the Senate bill
and the House amendment to the text of the
Senate bill, and also recede from its dis-
agreement to the House amendment to the
title of the Senate bill with a clarifying
amendment.
The differences between the text of the
Senate bill, the House amendment thereto,
and the substitute agreed to in conference
are noted below, except for clerical correc-
tions, conforming changes made necessary by
reason of agreements reached by the con-
ferees, and minor drafting and clarifying
changes.
SENATE BILL
The Senate bill amended section 5 of the
War Claims Act of 1948 to increase the
authorized detention benefits for American
civilians during the Vietnam conflict from
$60 per month to $150 per month, in order
to raise the detention benefits authorized for
civilians to the level presently authorized
for military personnel.
HOUSE AMENDMENT
The House amendment also amended sec-
tion 5 of the War Claims Act of 1948 to in-
crease from $60 to $150 per month the bene-
fits provided to American civilian internees
in Southeast Asia.
In addition, section 2 of the House amend-
ment amended section 213(a) of the War
claims Act of 1948 to give a first priority
to the payment in full of the remaining
individual awards for property losses arising
out of World War II, and a second priority
to the payment of the remaining corporate
awards for similar losses Up to the level
of $50,000.
Existing law provides for payment of both
individual and corporate awards, in equal
amounts up to $35,000, and on a pro rata
basis above that figure.
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500380004-6
II 21
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500380004-6
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE December 17, 1974
ONERRESCE SUBSITEUTE
The neeferenee subetitute, like bath the
Senate semi lbs House amendment, increeses
from efiet to 4150 per mental the eenefite
provided to American civilian interages in
Southeret Asia.
Under the conference substitute, the pro-
vision of existing law under which Loth in-
dividua: and cooperate awards are paid in
equal amounts tip to 1135,600 is retained,
and thermefter individual- claimants rot paid
in full optli receive payments in an arratunt
which 1421 he the same for each award or
in the amount of the award, whichever is
less. The total payment under the new sec-
tion 213(a) (4) to any individual on ac-
count et any award is limited to 1200,000.
The balance of amounts in the War Claims
Fund will then be used to melee sro rata
payments on the remaining individeal and
corporate awards.
The Committee of Conference ag nese in
adopting these amendments to exist ne
that there is no intent to encourage or set
any ptecedent concerning settled ent of
property loss claims in the field of interna-
tional law which are within the proper
jurisdiction of other committees of tae Con-
gresii. The amendments ase designee solely
to provide an equitable solution to the par-
ticular facts surrounding the remaining un-
paid peoperty loss claims arising out of
World Wee IT,
HARLEY 0. STAG(ISRS
Joins Z. Moss,
W. a. (Bus) armstm, Jr.,
Bon Ezaderurr,
JAMES T. HROYMT L.
JOIER H. WARR,
JOHN Y. MeCoraasTas,
Managers on the Pert of the House.
Qemerrur HERDS= ,
Mame L. FIMIG,
Managers on the Part of the Senate
PERMISSION POR COMMIT'PEE ON
ErnrATIoN AND LABOR TO PILE
COEFER.ENCE REPORT ON KR, 620
Mr. MEEDS, Mr. Speaker, I ask
unaniirrOus consent that the Committee
On Education and Labor lave un;i1 mid-
night 10111ght to fIe a Conference report
on the bill H.R. 620.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
the ribfruest of the gentleman
Wash' tigton?
There was no objection.
CONFER EN CL REPORT (Ii. Rs-r. No 113-l620)
The eommittee of conference on the dis-
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendments of the Senate to the bill (Hee
620) to establish within the Department of
the inIerler an additional Assistant Secre-
tary of the Interior for Indian Affairs, and
for other purposes, having met, after fun
and free conference, have agreed to recom-
mend end do recommend to their respective
Houses as follows:
That the House recede from its disagree-
ment to the amendment of the Senate with
an tunendment as follows:
That there shall be in the Department of
the Interior, in addition to the Assistant
Secreteries now provided for by law, one act-
ditionae Assistant Secretary of the Interior
fox" Indian Affairs, who shall be amain ted
by the President by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, who shall be responsi-
ble for such duties as the Secretary of the
Interleaf shall prescribe with respect to the
conduct of Indian Affairs, and who shall
receive compensation at the rate now or here-
after prescribed by law for Assistant Seere-
taries of the laterite.
See. 2, Section 531e of title 5 of the United
States Code is amended by striking out ' (6) "
at the end of item (18) and by inserting in
lieu thereof e(Mee
Sec. 3. Section 462, Revised Statutes, as
amended and supplemented (25 U.S.C. 1),
and paragraph (45). of section A316 of title
of the United States Code, -ate repealed:
Provided, That this section shall not take
effect until an Assistant Secretary of the In-
terior for Indian Affairs has been conermed
and takes the oath of office.
SEC. 4. Subsection 7(c) of the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688)
Is hereby amended 11 deleting that subsec-
tion in its entirety and inserting in lieu
thereof a new subsematon as follows:
"(c) The Secret 4ry shall establish a
thirteenth rezion for the benefit of Natives
who are nonresidems of Alaska who elect,
pursuant to section 28, to be enrolled therein,
and they may establish a, regional corpora-
tion pursuant to this Act."
Sec. 5. The Alaska Native Claims Settle-
ment Act (85 Stat. 588e is hereby further
amended by insertire at the end thereof a
new section 28 as follows:
"Sec. 28. (a) The Secretary shall poovide
the opportur,ity within 120 days after the
enactment of this ection to all enrolled
Natives 18 years or older on the date of fil-
ing of the original enrollment application
who are not permanent residents of Alaska
to inform him withie 180 days after the en-
actment of this Act whether or not they wish
to be enrolled in thc thirteenth region and
those that inform him that they desire to be
enrolled in the thirteenth shall have their
enrollment c:nanged so as to be enrolled in
the thirteenth region. In determining resi-
dence for purposes of this section, the Sec-
retary shall ese the roll as certfied on De-
cember 17, 1973, as amended, to reflect
changes resulting from appeals or correc-
tions: Provieed, however, That any Native
who, prior to December 1, 1974, informed the
Secretary in writing of a desire to change his
claimed place of residence as stated ta col-
umn 16 of the enrollment form and whose
request for such change was not honored by
the Secretary shall, within 120 days of the
en talent of this -iubsection, be provided
t opportunity to lie within 180 dims of
ctment of this section, a fined declaration
residence which tee Secretary shall review
ad honor if it is otherwise in conformity
with the provisions of this Act. Any Native,
previously found eligible by the Secretary to
participate in the thrteenth region election,
who fails to inform the Secretary of his de-
sires in accordance with this section shall be
enrolled according to the Native's choice
expressed on his arming' enrollment appli-
cation or any amendment thereto previously
accepted by the Secretary or any amendment
thereto not previouE..y accepted by the Sec-
retary: Provided, That the Secretary may re-
ject any such amendment previously not
accepted only if the Secretary determines
that the Native's permanent residence is not
that expressed by him in his amendment.
"(b) Within a thirty day period of the
completion cd the election and enrollment
changes provided for in subsection ore of
this section, any bona fide organization rep-
resenting nonresideet Natives shall submit
to the Secretary the names of not more than
rive Natives who hime elected to be enrolled
in the thirteenth region as nominees for
the positions of the dye incorporators of the
thirteenth regional corporation. Not less
than thirty days nor more than sixty days
after such period, the Secretary shall snail to
all eligible voters ballots containing the
names of all nominees and their associational
affiliations for the purpose of an election
by mail of the live incorporators who shall
serve as the initial directors of the thirteenth
regional corporation. eligible voters in the
electicn shill be only hatives eighteen years
of age or otter on the Cate of election of in-
corporators 'pursuant to this subsection wno
are ereollei in the thirteenth region. Valid
ballots shall be only those ballots mailed to
the Secretary or his designee not later than
ninety dela after period. The five
Wreathes for whom the most votes are cast
shalt be eected Incorporators of the thir-
teenth regional corporation and shall
promptly lake ale steps authorized by this
Act for such ineerporators. All rules, regula-
tions, and Information relating to the elec-
tion shall - be transtretted directly to all
known ormenizations representing nonresi-
dent Natives, the twelve regional corpora-
tions representing real lent Natives, and all
eligible voters-.
"No moneys distribut id or to be distributed
pursuant ea this Act may be expended or
ohngeted by any Native, Native corporation,
Native organisation, representative thereof,
or adviser thereto,, to assist in, cosnmunicate
on, or otherwise influence the election.
"(MI The articles of incorporation of the
;thirteenth regional cor)mation shall be sub-
mitted to the Secretary for approval in ac-
cordance with subsection 7(c) within
eighteen months of the enactment of this
section.
(d) Any distribution of fends to regional
corporations from the Alaska Native Fund
pursuant Ic subsection (c) of section 6 of
this Act made by the eecretary or his dele-
gate prier to enactmeat ci this aection on
the basis Cf the final roll certified on Decem-
ber 17. 1973, shall nut be affected by the
provisions of this sortie a. The Secretary shall
make any necessary adjustments in future
distributions of funds pursuant to subsection
(c) of seeirort 6 of this Act to accommodate
enrolimene changes mtde pursuant to sub-
section (al of this section to insure that the
funds received by the thirteen regional cor-
porations and their stockholders will be equal
to the auras which would have been distri-
buted to those corporations and individuals
had the thirteenth regional corporation been
formed on or before December 17, 19'73: Pro-
vided, That such adjustments shall not take
effect until the next regularly scheduled d is-
tribusien ]?ericici following completion of the
election aral enrollment changes pursuant to
subsection (a) of this section: Provided
further, That the Secretary is authorized to
make payments to the thirteenth regional
corporatioa, once established, during the
period prior to such next reguIarly scheduled
distribution period from the Fund pursuant
to this Act and such payments shall be in
the form cif advances on such corporations
adjusted share of suet regularly scheduled
distribution.
"(e) Any stock Issued by a corporation
under subsection (g) cf section 7 of this Act
to any Native who as enrolled in the thir-
teenth region persusxr; to this section shall,
upon enrollment of that Native, be canceled
by tie issuing cerporstion without liability
to it or the Native who h stock is so canceled.
"(ii Except as specifically provided herein,
nothing irf this section shall be construed to
alter or amend any of the provisions of this
Act."
Sec 6, The Alaska Native Claims Settle-
ment Act (85 Stat. 680) Ls further amended
by adding , a new section 29, to read as fol-
lows:
"See. 29 Any carport, lion organized pursu-
ant to this Act shalt through December 31.
1976, be exempt from the provisions of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (54 Stat.
789), as emended. Nothing in this section
shall, however, be construed to mean that
any such corporation shall or shall not alter
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500380004-6
Approved For Release 2601/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500380004-6
December 17, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
-r407ed until December 31, 1975, or until the
State in which the sign, display, or deviee
is located certifie%Alaat the direational infor-
mation about the Pa vice or activity adver-
tised?
on such sign, ? lay, or device may
reasonably be 'available Motorists by Some
other method or meth whichever Shall
occur first. A State shall giv reference, with
due regard to the: orderly so 1duling of the
removal of signs, displays, an. .evices and
to highway safety, to the purch e and re-
moval of any nonconforming sig display,
or device voluntarily offered by th owner
thereof to the State for removal if fu are
available to such State for such purpo
."(p) In the case of. any sign, display, ? r
device required to be removed under th
. section prior to the date of enactment of the
Federal-Aid HighWay Act of 1974, which sign,
display, or device was after its removal law-
fully relocated and which as a result of the
amendments made to this section by such
Act 15 required to be removed, the United
States shall 'pay 100 per centum of the' just
compensation for such removal. (including ,
? all relocation costs).
"(q) (1) Miring the implementation of
State laws enacted to comply with this sec-
tion, the Secretary shall encourage and assist
the States to develop sign controls and pro-
grama iidfich will assure that necessary
direCtional information about facilities pro-
viding goodil and services in the interest of
:the traveling Will continue to be available
to Motorists. To this end the Secretary shall
'restudy and revise as appropriate existing
'standards for directional signs authorized
under sill:See:am:is 11(c)(1) and 131(f) to
develop ilgns which are functional and
esthetically compatible with their surround-
ings. Re shall emploY the resourees of other
Federal desiartments and agencies, including
the National Endowment for the Arts, and
etziploy naxfm,imliartielPition of private
Industry in the- development of standards
and systems- of signs developed for those
.purposes.
"(2) POir-Purposes of this subsection, signs
proViding directional information about
faclUtlea pirovlding goods and services in the
interest of the traveling public are defined to
be those giving directional information about
OA and automotive services, food, lodging,
campgrourids, truckstops, resorts, recrea-
tional arw, tourist attractions, historic sites,
and, such Other facilities as a State, with the
aprOVal Of the Secretary, may deem appro-
priate.
"(3) Among other things the Secretary
? Shall,encourege Sttaes to adopt programs to
assure that' removal Of Signs providing neces-
sary directional information, which also were
providing'. directional information on June 1,
1972, akont facilities in the interest of the
tt11701/Jaglitililic,.be deferred until all other
nottonformifig "signs are removed.
"(4) The owner or operator of any facility
providing goods' and services in the interest
of the traveling pinblfc-shall have the right to
Continue 'aging no More thin one noncon.-
? fornaing sign in each direction on any high-
way subject to controls under a State law
enacted to comply with this section, which
sign is providing directional information
about such facility, and which had been pro-
viding directional infOrination as of June 1,
1972, and which TS within seventy-five miles,
or such 'other: dainse_ as the State in which
the sign is located may determine, until the
Secretary determines directional 'information
about such facility is being adeqUately pro-
vided to motorists traveling in that direction
. on such controlled highway by conforming
signs authorized by Subsection 131(d), Of this
title, by advertising' activities can-
ducted on the Prolierty on' which they are
located, by signs authorized by subsections
131(c) (1) or 131(f) of this title, by any
other nonconforming signs, or by such other
means as the State in whichthe sign is
located deems to be adequate."
CONTROL OF JUNKYARDS
8s.c. 104. Subsection (j) of section 138 of
title 23, United States Code, is amended by
striking out the first sentence and inserting
In lieu thereof the following:
"(j) Just compensation shall be paid the
owner for the relocation, removal, or disposal
of junkyards lawfully established under State
law.".
ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION
SEC. 105. (a) Subsection (a) of section 115
of title 23, United States Code, is amended by
striking out "including the Interstate Sys-
tem," each of the two places it appears and
inserting in lieu thereof at each such place
the following: "other than the Interstate
System,".
(b) Section 115 of title 23, United States
e, is amended by redesignating subsection
(b as subsection (c) and by adding im-
med ly after subsection (a) the follow-
ing ne ubsection:
"(b) en a State proceeds to construct
any proje on the Interstate System with-
out the aid Federal funds, as that System
may be desi ted at that time, in accord-
ance with all rocedures and all require-
ments applicabl o projects on such System,
except insofar as uch procedures and re-
quirements limit a ate to the construction
of projects with th id of Federal funds
previously apportione o it, the Secretary,
upon application by su State and his ap-
proval of such applicatio is authorized to
pay to such State the Fe al share of the
cost of construction of su project when
additional funds are apport ned to such
State under section 104 of this itle if?
"(1) prior to the construction the proj-
ect the Secretary approves the ens and
specifications therefor in the same nner as
other projects on the Interstate Sy and
"(2) the project conform to the app able
standards under section 109 of this title
BUS WIDTHS
SEC. 106. (a) Chapter 1 of title 23 of t
United States Code is amended by insertin
after section 132 the following new section:
"i 133. This widths
"Notwithstanding any other provision of
this title relating to vehicle widths, any bus
having a width of one hundred and two
inches or less may operate on any lane of
twelve feet or more in width on the Inter-
state System.".
(b) The analysis of chapter 1 of title 23
of the United States Code is amended by
striking out
"133. Relocation assistance."
and inserting in lieu'ihereof the following:
"133. bus widths.".
ENFORCEMENT
SEC. 107. (a) Chapter 1 of title 23 of the
United States Code Is amended by inserting
after section 140 the following new section:
"1 141. Enforcement of requirements
"Each State shall certify to the Secretary
before January 1 of each year that it is en-
forcing all State laws respecting maximum
vehicle size and weights permitted on the
Interstate System in accordance with sec-
titan 127 of this title, and all speed limits
on public highways in accordance with sec-
tion 2 of the Emergency Highway Energy
Conservation Act (Public Law 93-239). The
Secretary shall not approve any project un-
der section 106 of this title in any State
which has failed to certify in accordance with
this section.".
(b) The analysis of chapter 1 of title 23
of the United States Code is amended by
striking out
"141. Real property acquisition policies."
and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
"141, Enforcement of requirements.".
S 217371
ACCESS liforiwAYS TO ?TOKIO RECREATION AREAS
oN CERTAIN LAKES
SEC. 108. (a) Chapter 1 of title 23, United
States Code, is further amended by adding
at the end thereof the following new section:
"1 154. Access highways to public recreation
areas on certain lakes
"(a) The Secretary is authorized to con-
struct or reconstruct access highways to
public recreation areas on lakes in order to
accommodate present and projected, traffic
density. The Secretary shall develop guide-
lines and standards for the designation of
routes and the allocation of funds for the
purpose of this section which shall include
the following criteria:
"(1) No portion of any access highway
constructed or reconstructed under this sec-
tion shall exceed thirty-five miles in length
nor shall any portion' of such highway be
located more than thirty-five miles from the
nearest part of such recreation area.
"(2) Routes shall be designated by the
Secretary on the recommendation of the
State and responsible local officials, after
consultation with the head of the Federal
agency (1) any) having jurisdiction over the
public recreation area involved.
"(b) The Federal share payable on ac-
count of any project authorized pursuant to
this section shall not exceed 70 per centum
of the cost of construction or reconstruction
of such project.
"(c) All of the provisions of this title ap-
plicable to highways on the Federal-aid sys-
tem (other than the Interstate System) de-
termined appropriate by the Secretary, ex-
cept those provisions which the Secretary de-
termines are inconsistent with this section,
shall apply to any highway designated under
this section which is not a part of the Fed-
eral-aid system when so designated.
"(d) For the purpose of this section the
term 'lake' means any lake, reservoir, pool, or
other body of water resulting from the con-
struction of any lock, dam, or similar struc-
ture by the Corps of Engineers, Department
of the Army, or the Bureau of Reclamation,
Department of the Interior, or the Tennessee
alley Authority, and any multipurpose lake
ulting from construction assistance of the
S Conservation Service, Department of
Ag ulture. This section shall apply to lakes
here fore or hereafter constructed or au-
thor d for construction.
"(e) ere is authorized to be appropriat-
ed not exceed $25,000,000 for the fiscal year
1976 to rry out this section. Amounts au-
thorized this subsection for a fiscal year
shall be a lable for that fiscal year and for
the two suc 'eding fiscal years.".
(b) The a alysis of chapter 1 of title 23
of the United tates Code is amended by add-
ing at the end hereof the following:
"154. Access hi ways to public recreation
areas on ertain lakes.",
BRIDGES N FEDERAL DAMS
SEC. 109. (a) Se tion 320(d) of title 23 of
the United Sta Code (as amended) is
amended by striki g out "625,261,000" and
inserting In lieu t. 'reof "$27,761,000".
(b) All sums app opriated under authority
of the increased au orization established by
the amendment made by subsection (a) of
this section shall be available for expenditure
In the same manner and for the same pur-
pose as provided for in subsection (b) of sec-
tion 116 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of
1970 (Public Law 91-605).
OFF-SYSTEM ROADS
SEC. 110. (a) Chapter 2 of title 23, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the
end thereof the following new section:
"1 219. Off-system roads
"(a) The Secretary is authorized to make
grants to States for projects for the construc-
tion, reconstruction, and improvement of any
off-system road (including, but not limited
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500380004-6
S 21738
a I -7 2
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP751300380R000500380004-6
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --- SENATE December 17, 1974
to, the replacement of bridges, the elimina-
tion of high-hazard locations, and roedside
obstacles).
"(b) Gra or before 4anuary 1 next preced-
ing the cOnntrenceraent of each fiscal year the
Secretary shall apportion the sums author-
ized to be appropriated to carry out this sec-
tion among the several States as followEs:
"(1) one-third in the ratio which the area
of each Etevte bears to the total area of all
States;
"(2) one-third in the ratio which the pop-
ulation of rural areas of each State bears to
the total population of rural areas of all the
States; and
"(3) one third in the ratio in which the
off-system road mileage of each State bears
to the total off-system road mileage ref all
the Stater. Off-system road mileage as used
in this subsection shall be determined as of
the end of the calendar year preceding the
year in whiCh the funds are apportioned and
shall be certified to by the Governor et the
State and Subject to approval by the Sec-
retary.
"(e) St.nas apportioned to a State under
this section shall be made available for ex-
penditure; In the counties of such State on
a fair and equitable basis.
"(d) Stens apportioned under this section
and programs arid projecte under this sec-
tion shall be subject to all of the provisions
of chapter I of this title applicable to high-
ways on the Federal-aid Secondary system
except the formula for apportionment., the
requirement that these roads be or; the Fed-
eral-aid system, and those other provisions
determined by the Secretary to be incon-
sistent with this section. The Secretary is
not authorized to determine as ineonsistent
with this section any provision relating to
the obligation and availability of funds.
"(0) As used in this section the tern. 'off-
system read' means any toll-free road (in-
cluding bridges) in a rural area, which road
is not on any Federal-aid system and which
is under the jurisdiction of and maintained
by a public authority and open to public
travel.".
(d) The analysis of chapter 2, title 23,
United States Code, is amended by adding
at the end thereof the following:
"219. Off-system roads.".
DONATIONS
SEC. 111. Sectiob. 3113 of title 23, United
States Code, is amended by striking out
"after he has been tendered the full amount
of the estimated just compensation R-3 es-
tablished by approved appraisal of the fair
market value of the subject real property,"
and by inserting in lieu thereof the follow-
ing: "after he has been fully informed of his
right to receive just compensation for the
acquisition of his property,".
REPEAL
SEC. 112. Subsection (e) of section 2 of
the Emergency Highway Energy Conserva-
tion Act (Public Law 93-239) is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"(e) Thls section shall cease to be la ef-
fect on and after the data on which Con-
gress by. concurrent resolution declares
there is r.o -need requiring the application
of this sec tion.".
EXTENSION OF CARPOOLS
SEC. 113, The last sentence of section 3(d)
of the Emergency Highway Energy Conserva-
tion Act (Public Law 93-239) is amended by
striking out "December 31, 1974" and insert-
ing in lieu thereof "December 31, 1975".
RECONSTRUCTION OF ROUTES
SEC. 114. The Secretary of Transportation
Is authorized to make grants to the State of
Florida for the reconstruction of Federal
primary rsiurs. The provistens of chapter 1
of title 2.43, united States Code, that are ap-
plicable to Federal -aid primary highwaye,
cept those relating to the apportionment
formula and the period of availability of
funds dual apply to the reconstruction au-
thorized by this section. Funds authorized
by this section are in addition to, and not
In lieu of, funds othereise available to the
State of Florida under any other provision
or law. Funds authorized to carry out this
section for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1975, shall be deemed to be apportioned to
the State of Florida on the date of enact-
ment of this section and other funds au-
thorized to carry out this section shall be
deemed to be apportioned to the State of
Florida on January 1 next preceding the
commencement of the first full fiscal year
which begins after the date of enactment of
this section. Such sums shall be available
until expended. $10,000,300 is authorized out
of the. Highway Trust Fund for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1.975, and $16,000,000
Is authorized out of the Highway Trust Fund
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976, to
carry out this section.
DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
Sec. 115. The Secretary of Transportation
shall carry out a demonstration project for
construction of a high-density urban high-
way intermodal. transportation connection
between Franklin Avenue and Fifty-ninth
Street, South, in Minaeapolis, Minnesota.
The Federal share of such project shall be
90 per centum of the cost thereof. Such high-
way shall be placed on a Federal-aid system
before any funds are expended under this
section. There is authorized to be appropri-
ated, out of the "Highway Trust Fund, not
to exceed $53,000,000 to carry out this sec-
tion.
AUBURN' BRIDGE
SEC. 116. (a) In order' to provide access
between the historical portion of the city
of Auburn, California, Auburn District Fair-
grounds, city park and parking lots, and the
Auburn Dam Overlook area, for motor ve-
hicles and for passage or pedestrians, eques-
trians, and cyclists under a highway reloca-
tion, the Secretary of the Interior is au-
thorized to construct, in lieu of a drainage
culvert, an intermediate size bridge across a
shallow ravine, The bridge, at approximate
stations 154 16 to 155+30 (84 feet), shall be
part of the Stale Highway Number 49 relo-
cation through the city of Auburn, Cali-
fornia.
(b) Upon completion such
transferred to The State of ifornia for
operation and maintenance a part of the
highway relocation. The cost f the bridge,
less the original planned dr age culvert,
shall be considered as nonrei bursable.
(c) There is authorized to ppropriated
to carry out the: section the su of $250,000
(October 1974 price levels) pl or minus
such amounts as easy be Justin by changes
in price indexes applicable to e type of
development involved herein,
aorere wrier DRAWALS
SEC. 117. (a) Section 103(e) (2 1.f title 23
of the United States Code is ended by
striking out the period following use Re-
port Numbered 92-1443" and in
g g i11
thereof' a comma and the foil n: "In-
creased or decreased, as the c ay be, as
determined by the Secretary, ased on
changes in conseruction costs o euch route
or portion thereof as of the d of with-
drawal of approval under this p aph and
in accordance with that design such route
or portion thereof which is the sis of such
1972 cost estimate,"
(b) Section 103(e) (41 of title 23 of the
United States Code is amended by striking
out the period following "House Report Num-
bered 92-1443" and inserting In lieu thereof
a comma and the following: "Increased or
decreased, as the case may be, as determined
by the Secretary, based on changes in con-
struction costs of such route or portion there-
of as of the date of withdrawal of approval
under this paragraph and in accordance with
that design of such route or portion thereof
which is the basis of such 1972 cost estimate."
sector:a. ars DRIVER TRAINING
SEC. 1118. (a) Chapter 4 of title 23, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the
end thereof the following law section:
"6 406. School bus driver training
"(a) The Secretary is authorized to make
grantsao the States for the purpose of carry-
ing out State_ programs approved by him of
driver ethical:ion and training for persons
driving school. buses.
"(b) A State program under this section
shall be approved by the Secretary if such
program--
"(1) provides for the establishment and
enforcement of qualifications for persons
driving school buses;
"(2) provities for initial education and
training and for refresher courses;
"(3) provides for periodic reports to the
Secretary on the results of such program;
and
"(4) includes persons driving publicly op-
erated, and persons driving Privately oper-
ated, school buses.
"(b) There is authorized to be appropri-
ated out of the Highway Trust Fund for the
fiscal year 1076, $7,500,000 per fiscal year.
Such sums shall be apportioned among the
States in accordance with theaformula es-
tablished under subsectiOn (e) of section 402
of this title. The Federal share payable on
account of any project to carry out a pro-
gram under this title shall not exceed 70 per
centura of the cost of the project."
(b) The analysis of chapter 4, title 23,
United State* Code, is amended by adding
at the end thereof the following:
"406. School bus driver training.".
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I move
that the Senate disagree to the amend-
ment of the House; agree to the request
of the House for a conference on the dis-
agreeing votes of the two Houses there-
on; and that the Chair be authorized to
appoint the conferees on the part of the
Senate.
The motion was agreed to; and the
Presi Officer appointed Mr. RAN-
r. GRAVEL, Mr. BuRracic, Mr.
TAFFORe, and Mr. BAKER conferees On
the part of the Senate.
AMERICAN CIVILIAN INTERNEES IN
SC RrrHEAST ASIA
Mr. BURDICK. Mr. President, I ask
the Chair to :y before the Senate a mess-
age from the House of Representatives
on S. 1728.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HAS-
KELL) laid before the Senate the amend-
ment of the House of Representatives to
the bill (S. 1728) to increase benefits
provided to American civilian internees in
Southeast Asia as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause,
and insert:
That section Ii(i) (3) of the War Claims Act
of 1948 (50 App. U.S.C. 2004(1) (3) ) is amend-
ed by striking out "$60" and inserting in
lieu thereof "$150".
Sec. 2. (a) Section 213( a) (3) of the War
Claims Act of 1948 (50 App. U.S.C. 20171(a)
(3) ) is amended to read as follows:
"(3) Thereafter, paymeate from time to
time on account of the Other awards made
to individuals pursuant to section 202 and
not compensated in full under paragraph
(1) or (2) of this subseston in an amount
which shall be the same for each award or
in the amount of the award, whichever is
less. The total payment pursuant to this
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500380004-6
Approved For Release 2001/08/29: CIA-RDP75600380R000500380004-6
December 17, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE S 21739
paragraph on account of any award shall not
exceed $500,000.".
(b) Section 212(a) of such Act is amended
by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph
(5) and inserting after paragraph (3) the
following new paragraph:
"(4) Thereafter, payments from time to
time on account of the ether awards made
to corporations ptirsnant to section 202 and
not compensated in full under paragraph (1)
or (2) of this subsection in an amount which
elaall be the same for each award or in the
? amount of the award, whichever is less. The
total payment pursuant to this paragraph
On account of any award shall not exceed
a50,000.".
And to amend the title so as to read:
"An Act to amend the War Claims Act
of 1948 to increase benefits provided to
AMarican civilian internees in Southeast
Asia and to provide for additional pay-
on awards made to incividuals
. and corporations tinder that Act."
Mr. BURDICK. Mr. President, I move
that the Senate disagree to the aniend-
, Ments of the House and request a con-
ference with the House of Representa-
tiVes, and that the Chair be authorized
to appoint then conferees on the part of
the Senate.
motion was agreed to; and the
Presiding Officer appointed Mr. BURDICK,
Mr, Balm., and Mr. FONG conferees on the
part of the Senate.
?BOCl2kT., SERVZ7;1Ail.VIENDMENTS
The Senate continued with the con-
!aeration of the bill (FIR. 17045) to
amerid the Social Security Act to est
b. a consolidated program of
ancial assistance to pro-
vision of services by the States.
Mr.LONG. Mr. President, in order that
the RECORD *might show what a shocking
arnount of taxes are actually paid by
the poor, I ask unanimous consent to
have printed in the RECORD a chart dem-
OnStrating the percent of taxes estimated
to be paid by the poor and their income.
There being no objection, the chart was
ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as
follows:
TAXES AND TRANSFERS AS A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME:
1965
Taxes
Trans-
-State fer
. Fed- and' pay-
Income class mai local ' Total meats
Taxes
less
trans-
fers
Under $2,000
$2,000 to $4,000
$4,000 to $6,000
$6,000 to $8,000
$8,000 to $10,000
$10,000 to $15,000
$15,000 and over
Total
ts
16
17
17
18
19
32
22
25
11
10
9
9
9
7
9
44
27
27
26
27
27
38
31
126
11
5
3
2
2
1
14
?183
16
21
23
25
25
37
24
1 The minus sign indicates that families and individualsin this
class received more from Federal, State, and local governments
than they, as a group, paid to these governments in taxes.
Source; Herman Miller, filch Man, Poor Man, p. 17. Joseph A.
Pechman "The Rich, the Poor and the Taxes They Pay," The
Public interest, November 1969. The data are from the Economic
Report of the President, 1969, p. 161.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, according to
this chart, which was prepared by Mr.
John A. Pechman and which was in-
cluded in an article entitled, "The Rich,
the Peer, and the Taxes They Pay," No-
vember of 1969, it is pointed out that
people whose income is listed as being
$2,000 and under pay a shocking figure
of 44 percent of their income in taxes.
Mr. President, that is a higher percentage
than is paid by those who are making
$15,000 and over, at the bottom of that
column.
One can say, well, how could it be so
high? I assume the reason it is so high
is that some of those people are drawing
welfare payments, which are not counted
as income, and which are shown in the
column of that table headed "Transfer
Payments."
Mr. President, there are a lot of poor
people who have no income other than
their earnings. For those people who
make $2,000 or less, the taxes are amaz-
ingly high. For example, even though
they pay no income tax, when they buy
a product, they absorb somewhere be-
tween 50 percent and 75 percent of the
income tax levied on corporations, which
has been passed on to them in the price
of their product. All economists agree,
so far as I have been able to determine,
that that figure has to be at least 50
percent, and it probably would be nearer
to 75 percent if one takes into account
the extent s which corporations neces-
sarily must ass along the tax expense,
just as the must pass along all other
expenses ? doing business in order to
make a fit and stay in business.
Wh he social security tax is paid,
the ically the worker is paying about
rcent of his income in social secu- -
ty taxes. As a practical matter, he is
paying more, because when he buys the
article, the manufacturer or the pro-
ducer, having paid that social security
tax, adds it to the cost of doing business
and it is in the price that a person pays.
So, if we look at who ultimately pays
a tax, in many instances, it might ap-
pear that the tax is assessed on an em-
ployer, but it had been pased on to the
consumer of the product.
Taking those things into account, Mr.
President, it is amazing and somewhat
shocking how the poor pay almost as
much in taxes, measured against their
meager income, as do the rich. That is
why some of us have been contending for
many years, and we have persuaded the
Senate on at least two occasions, that,
rather than tax income away from the
poor, Which then puts them on welfare,
and rather than have working poor on
welfare for small amounts of money?
$10 or $15 or $20 a month?it would be
better simply to give those people a tax
cut on taxes which are being passed
through to them, give them credit on
taxes we know they are absorbing. There
is no way of their buying the necessities
of life without absorbing the social secu-
rity taxes, the corporate income taxes,
and other taxes passed on to them.
When people pay rent, it is true that
they are paying no direct taxes on the
property, but thelandlord is paying those
taxes, and he is including the cost in the
rent. So it is not the landlord, in the last
analysis, who is paying taxes on his prop-
erty, it is the person who rents the prop-
erty. That is why this chart indicates
that for people making an income of
$2,000 or less, their State and local tax
rate is 25 percent of their income, being
a large part of the rent that they pay
when they seek to obtain housing.
This tax credit was once referred to,
Mr. President, as the work bonus. That
was the name suggested to us by the
able Senator from Nebraska (Mr. CUR-
las), at a time when he was supporting
this proposal. Subsequently, when we of-
fered it on a tax bill, he suggested it
should be named the low-income tax
credit. I suppose it would be just as well
to let it be named the low-income tax
credit, because if the Senator feels that
he must disown the baby to which he
helped give birth, and it would be best
that it not bear the name he gave it.
If it becomes law, it will be known as
the low-income tax credit, which I think'
might help avoid confusion as to the pa-
ternity of the legislative proposal.
It is not really the suggestion of the
Senator from Louisiana, Mr. President.
This was suggested to me the first time
by Gov. Ronald Reagan of California.
He suggested that we should try to give
back to law-ineome working poor that 5
percent social security tax that they were
paying. This Senator, in turn, concluded
that if we are going to give them back
something, since they are actually ab-
sorbing the whole 10 percent, we may as
well give them back the whole 10 percent,
In order to avoid helping the poor on to
the welfare rolls.
When we debated this welfare reform
proposal back and forth, there was one
suggestion generated by those of us who
studied the matter on the Committee on
Finance, which at that time both the lib-
erals and the conservatives were able to
agree upon. That was this proposal which
is now referred to as the low-income tax
credit, part of the amendment to this bill.
I hope, Mr. President, that the Senate,
having voted for it by large majorities
every time it voted?I think the last time
It was voted on, it received better than a
2-to-1 margin, almost a 3-to-1 major-
ity?the Senate will again give its
approval to this measure.
We just passed a proposal to provide
public service jobs for several billion dol-
lars to try to help the poor who have no
jobs. While we are at it, I think we would
be well advised to see if we cannot do
something for those who are very dis-
tressed, partly because of the taxes they
are having to absorb. They have jobs, al-
though those jobs have so little to recom-
mend them that many of these people
must apply for welfare assistance, which
would not be necessary if they were not
having to bear an unconscionable burden
on the very meager income that they
earn.
Mr. President, if there is no other Sen-
ator desiring to speak on this measure, I
am prepared to yield back the remainder
of my time and permit the clerk to call
the roll.
The PRESIDING ateriCER (Mr. BAS-.
KELL) . The time of the Senator from Lou-
isiana has expired.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I yield
such time as he desires to the distin-
guished Senator from New York (Mr.
BUCKLEY).
Mr. BUCKLEY Mr. President, I wish
to reiterate a point I have been making
Approved For Release 2001/08/29: CIA-RDP751300380R000500380004-6
S 21740
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CilA-RDP751300380R000500380004-6
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE December 17, 1974
on a elm/thereof oceasions in reeent
months, namely, the impossibility of do-
ing tam work intelligently when we are
asked to vote on complex legislation that
is reported out wthout any advance notice
and without any accompanying report, or
a report arriving on the floor so late as
to make analysis impossible.
Under the circumstances, I propose to
vote against cloture. I simply do not see
why theee matters cannot be held over
until the first of next year?we are talk-
ing only in terms of a few weeks?so that
the Members of this body will have a
chance to analyze and assess the impact
of the whole variety of issues and amend-
ments that are contained in the legisla-
tion before us.
There is one item that is of particular
Interest to me, and that is to see to it
that any legislation that is enacted has
in it an expression of the will of the Sen-
ate that no Federal funds will be availed
of for the financing of abortions. In
the past year, we have had a number of
pieces of legislation that contained this
clear intent; yet we find resistance and
heel-dragging at HEW. I certainly Intend,
if we dca go forward with this legislation
this year. to call up such an amendment.
I also understand that this bill pro-
poses a measure which may very well be
important, and may very well meet one
of our basic needs; namely, the proposi-
tion of providing financial subsidies to
the working poor.
This, however, is a complex matter,
and I believe it has enormous implica-
tions for a redirection of our whole con-
cept of welfare support. It may very well
be a measure to which I may want to
give my personal support, but, again, I
cannot see how any of us who have, not
been actively involved in the delibera-
tions of the committee can be expected to
drop every-thing else we are trying to do
In the doling clays of the session in order
to concentrate oh the issues, to deter-
mine how we may want to vote on this
and the other important issues involved
in the legislation.
Therefore, Mr. President, I hope sufti-
dent Members will vote against cloture
to enable us to more thoughtfully under-
stand what is contained in the Social
Services Amendments of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
does the Senator from Louisiana have
any time remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Louisiana has no time re-
maining.
Mr. CURTLS. Mr. President, how much
time do we have remaining?
The PRESIDING OLorICER. The Sen-
ator from Nebraska has 13 minutes.
Mr. CURTIS. Does anyone wish fur-
ther time, on either side?
Mr. President, I yield back the re-
mainder of my time.
CLOTURE MOTION
The parsmirra OFFICER (Mr.
Hesiceee). All remaining time for de-
bate uneer the unanimous-consent
agreement having been yielded back.,
pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays
before the Senate the pending cloture
motion, which the clerk will state.
The legislative cleric read as follows:
CLoTinua MOTION
We, the Undersigned Senators, in accord-
ance With the provisions of Rule =I of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move
to bring to a close the debate upon the
Committee substitute amendment to H.R.
17045.
Russell B. Long, Herman E. Tal-
madge, Hugh Scott, Abraham Ribicoff,
Mike Gravel, Fra?ak E. Moss, Walter F.
Mondale, Lloyd Bentsen:
Robert P. Griffin, Wallace F. Bennett.
Carl T. Curtis, Paul J. Fannin, Clif-
ford P. Hansen Robert Dole, Bob
Packwocxl, Clatlx, rue Pell.
?
CALL OF THE ROLL
The PRESIDING OrriCER. Pursuant
to rule XXII, the Chair now directs the
clerk to call the roll to ascertain the
presence of a quorum.
The second assistant legislative clerk
called the roll, and the following Sen-
ators answered to. their names:
[No. 558 Leg.]
Allen Curtis Long
Buckley Ervin McGee
Byrd. Fannin Metcalf
Harry F., Jr. Griffin Pastore
Byrd, Robert C. Fart Ribicoff
Chiles Ers?elrell
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum
is not Present.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I move that the Sergeant at Arms be
directed to request the attendance of
absent Senators.
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Ser-
geant at Arms will execute the order of
the Senate.
After some delay, the following Sen-
ators entered the Chamber and answered
to their names:
Abouresk Hansen Packwood
Aiken Hartke Pearson
Baker Hatfield Pell
Bartlett Helms Percy
Esayh Hollings Proxmire
Beall H ruska Randolph
Bennett Htddlestoa Roth
Biden Hughes Schweiker
Brock Humphrey Scott, Hugh
Brooke Itouye Scott,
Burdick Jackson William I.,
Cannoa Javits Sparkman
Case Johnston Stafford
Church Kennedy Stennis
Clark Magnuson Stevens
Coot Mathias Stevenson
Cotton McClellan Symington
Cranston McClure Taft
Dole MN2tovern Talmadge
Domenid McIntyre Thurmond
Dominick Metz enbai im Tower
Eagleton Mondale Tunney
Eastland Montaya Weicker
Fong Moss Williams
Fulbright M ask ie Young
Goldwater Nelson
Gurney Nunn
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce
that the Senator from Texas (Mr.
BeNesee) , the Senator from Nevada (Mr.
Brine), and the Senator from Alaska
(Mr. GRAVEL) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that the Senator
from Montana (Mr. MANSFIELD) is ab-
sent on official business.
I also announce that the Senator from
Maine (Mi. HATHAWAY) is absent because
of a death in the family.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Bummer)
Is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum
is present.
VOTE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ate will be in order.
The question is, Is it the sense of the
Sentae that debate on the committee
substitute amendment to H.R. 17045, the
Social Services Amendments of 1974,
shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory
under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
let us have order before the clerk calls
the roll. ?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will suspend and Senators will
please take their seats.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
we cannot hear our names.
The PRESIDING OPFIC:ER. The Sen-
ate will be in order, The clerk will
suspend.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative cleric resumed and
concluded the call of the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD,. I announce
that the Smator from Nevada (Mr.
BIBLE),? the Senator from Texas (Mr.
BENTSEN) , the Senator from Alaska (Mr.
GRAVEL) , and the Senator from Michigan
(Mr. HART) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that the Senator
from Montana (Mr. MANSFIELD) is absent
on official budnes.e.
I also announce that the Senator from
Maine (Mr. HATHAWAY) IS absent because
of a death in the family,
I further announce that, if present
and vottng, the Senator from Maine (Mr.
HATHAWAY) and the Senator from Mich-
igan (Mr. Mete) would each vote "yea."
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. BELLMON)
IS necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted?yeas 70,
nays 23, as follows:
[No. 559 Leg.]
YEAS----70
Abourezk Hatfield
Aiken Hollings
Baker Huriclleston
Bayh Hughes
Beall Humphrey
Biden Inouye
Brock Jackson
Brooke Javits
Burdick Johnston
Byrd, Robert C. Kennedy
Case Long
Clark
Cook
Cranston
Curtis
Dole
Domenici
Eagleton
Fannin
Fong
Griffin
Hansen
Hartke
Haskell
Allen
Bartlett
Bennett
Magnuson
Mathias
McGee
McGovern
McIntyre
Metcalf
Metzenbaum
Mondale
Montoya
itoss
Euskie
Nelson
Nunn
NAYS-23
Buckley
Byrd,
Harry F., Jr,
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500380004-6
Packwood
Pastore
Pearson
Pell
Percy
Randolph
Ribicoff
Roth
Schweiker
Scott, Hugh
Sparkman
Stafford
Stevens
Stevenson
Symington
Taft
Talmadge
Tower
Tunney
Weicker
Williams
Young
Cannon
Chile*
Church
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500380004-6
December 19,1974. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
, AS educator, author, Congressinari, even begun to rival his stature in foreign
,
Senator, and-stateaman in the true sense affairs and his impact on the conduct
of the term, ,3. Wii.iiiiit-FITL1311IGHT" has of U.S. foreign relations.
. performed "15ri1liant1Y - On behalf of his Under Senator FULBRIGHT'S leadership,
CpuntrY. I Will - miss his daily presence the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Ennerig Us, and the wise arid Patient has gone on to new strengths, while his
cops- el Which he always gave of So -get).- personal contribution both within and
erously. 'Yet f knovethat We can cOntinue without the committee has been im-
, to count upon:Min:to observe and discuss measurable.
the whele specTUST &Talk events, and From the Fulbright scholarship pro-
that his role sTaredUCator-statesman will gram to his unflagging courage and in-
not be ROMs as his Senate Career closes, sight during the national trial of Viet-
Toiny..good -friend, may I wish many nam, to divining a new course for Amer-
happy ancl produatiVe Years ahead. The ica in the post-Vietnam era, Senator
Repnbfic is much in your debt. And your FULBRIGHT has set the highest standards
Countrymen will long honor the splendid for wisdom, statesmanship, and leader-
service you have performed as a Rbpre- ship.
sentative of the pervle of this great land. BILL FULBRIGHT is a son of the Senate,
. ,
Mr. McGOVeRl\r: 16. vi re?i derit , Sen- but he has walked a world stage, as well.
atOT FULBRIGHT'S"i,eaf's as Chairinin of He is as well known and respected in
- the Senate Foreign.Relations,Conimittee the far corners of the Earth as he is here
Will stand .in Watery as an era of iiri- in this Chamber. One cannot traVel any-
eXcelledstate: s'rnanilaip and patriotism where without hearing him spoken of
, He 114' challinge`cl most forcefully the as the personification of what is best in
dangerous thesis that the role Of Con- America and best in our foreign policy.
gress is ,only ta: ratifY"Viithotit question Our loss in the Senate is a logs, therefore,
what the ..cecr,yt,iv,e-,4Oes in foreign at- for the world.
fairs. And WQ 3Q01E0 li:,111IS Of that cour- 'Yet, even as Senator FULBRIGHT leaves
' ageous efforl today, In such far-reaching the Senate, his work is riot done. What-
institutional clian.geS 4s: the War Pow- ever he does, he will Continue to leave
ers Bill and refOrrned3rOcedures on ex- his mark on U.S. foreign policy, and con-
ecutive agreenients. In many cases these tinue to provide invaluable service to this
reforms bear tl-,4.0 nainei of others:. 31 ut Nation and the world.
every one bears the Imprint and fulfills Mr. President, on a more personal
the inspiration or lii.a. `PULBRIGHT. Por note, I Want to thank BILL FULBRIGHT
above all othoCconsrcrerations, including for all that he kr done for me and the
. ...
party, he has .been faithful to the bon- other younger embers of the Senate.
stitution and t4, tla:e "true interests of the For the past 12 years, I have always
American peOple.known that I Could turn to him for wise
We ghould reCall .in. particular today counsel, friendship, and support. He has
Senator Ftri,saroirr!s decisive role in re- .1-lever faileCto respond with generosity
" versing the worst foreign policy blunder of his time, talents, and compassion.
In our history?the war in Vietnam. I feel deep warmth and affection for
Ill he niidd.le IRO's; the incisive hear- BILL T'uiltiiroirr, treasure my associations
lags of the Senate Committee on Foreign with him, and look forward to many
Relations were, without any question, the more years of continuing friendship. We
greatest single restraint upon disaster in will all miss him, and the Chamber will
Indochina. More than anything else, it seem .empty when he has left it.
was Senator PUL:BRIGHT's persistentin- T4e, PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
terrogations that exposed the fallacy of atorirom Arkansas. .
our WO Policy: and that began the long ""r. FULBRIGHT. I could not possibly
process which ultimately turned that Pol= e),,,press adequately my appreciation to
Icy around. And X shall always believe iny colleagues for what they have said,
that there are thousaridsOf young Amer- gr. President.
leans wlio are a1ive, t94,y, or who escaped One of the rewards of retiring from
shattering 1nja,n7,.,bedause of the cour- :this body is to feel that you have the
age and determination of the gentleman respect of so many of these very able
from Ark as gentlemen from all parts of this great
I
have ian the privilege of serving un;'
der Chairman FtwanonT on. the Foreign
Relatione Ponunittee for but 2 years.
'TUt for all the time I have been l, he
, Congress I have increasingly adipired
this remarkable, unique man from Ar-
kansas. -7
As he leaves the Senate no he has
my lasting appreciation for L insight
and inspiration and MY best es for a
happy, satisfying future for in and for
lalo lovelYWife.I3ettMr y,
. . ent, I wnt
.
. ' ' test' t ' Pre a
to join My colleagues in the Senate in
paying tribute to Senatol2onu WILLIAM
FuLBRIGyr Of ArkanSas.sIt would be im-
possible to do justiceour friend and
colleague In a ew wo ?
axles, he has been a gt.. nt on the national
if
. For three dee-
:f
and InternAppur scene. Only a small
country.
Earlier today, not anticipating quite
this development, I made this state-
ment with regard to my experience here
in the Senate. I will not repeat that,
other than. to say it has been a tremen-
dous experience, and I have enjoyed it.
It has been a unique one from my point
of view, and wholly unexpected since I
had started out in the academic field.
In any case, today has been a very
satisfying and fitting last day?I pre-
sume it will be our last day?of 30 years
in this body.
It is a great body, and I leave with
every confidence that in the great prob-
lems that are confronting it, both do-
mestic and foreign, a way will be found.
I appreciate all that has been said by
the Senators from South Dakota, Flor-
handful of Senators in our history have ida, Maine, Pennsylvania, Mississippi,
S 22193
Iowa and, of course, my senior colleague
with whom I have worked during these
30 years.
Senator MCCLELLAN, of course, as we
know, is a great tower of strength and a
leader of this Senate. It has been a tre-
mendous privilege and pleasure to work
with him in the many areas which are
of great interest primarily to Arkansas,
but also to every State in the Union. He
has made a great contribution and, of
course, is making a great contribution
as chairman of the Committee on Ap-
propriations.
I only end by saying I deeply appre-
ciate the thoughtfulness of all my col-
leagues who have so eloquently expressed
themselves here today.
COPYRIGHT IN SOUND
RECORDINGS
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, I ask
the Chair to lay before the Senate a mes-
sage from the House of Representatives
on S. 3976.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HAS-,
KELL) laid before the Senate the amend-
ments of the House of Representatives to
the bill (S. 3976) to amend title 17 of the
United States Code to remove the expi-
ration date for a limited copyright in
sound recordings, to increase the crimi-
nal penalties for piracy and counterfeit-
ing of sound recordings, to extend the
duration of copyright protection in cer-
tain cases, to establish a National Com-
mission on New Technological Uses of
Copyrighted Works, and for other pur-
poses as follows:
Page 2, line 12, strike out "three years,",
and insert "one year,".
Page 2, line 14, strike out "seven", and
insert: "two".
Page 2, line 19, strike out "three years,",
and insert: "one year,".
Page 2, line 21, strike out "seven", and
insert: "two".
Page 4, line 18, strike out "generally;",
and insert: "generally, with at least one
member selected from among experts in con-
sumer protection affairs; ".
Page 6, line 8, after "title", insert: "until
June 30,1976".
Mr. McCLELLAN, Mr. President, on
September 9 the Senate passed the long
delayed bill for the general revision of
the copyright law. It was then antici-
pated that adequate time did not remain
in this Congress for the House of Repre-
sentatives to act on that legislation. Con-
sequently, on the same day the Senate
also passed S. 3976, which contains cer-
tain copyright provisions which require
action this year.
The House of Representatives today
passed S. 3976 with minor amendments.
Two amendments relate to the criminal
penalties for the pirating of records and
tapes. The Senate language, which was
supported by the Department of Justice,
provides for imprisonment of up to 3
years for a first offense and up to 7 years
for a subsequent offense. The House
amendments reduce these terms to 1 year
and 2 years respectively.
S. 3976 establishes a National Commis-
sion on New Technological Uses of Copy-
righted Works to study certain copy-
right issues which are not resolved in the
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500380004-6
S 22194
S t
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500380004-6
CONGRESSIONAL RE CORD ? SENATE December 19, 1974
general revision legislation. Two }Ruse
amendments pertain to the Commission.
One would limit to June 30, 1976, the au-
thorization to appropriate funds for the
operation of the Commission.
The other House amendment concerns
the selection of the four public members
of the Conunission. The only requirement
in the Senate bill IS that they be "nm-
governmental." I had included that q
lification la my bill solely to preclude the
sisPointment of official representative; of
Governmeit agencies. The House ame ad-
ment specifies that at least one of the
Public members shall be selected "from
among exerts in consumer protection
affairs." All members of the public are
consumers of copyrighted materials.
None of the major consumer organisa-
tions have been active in the technical
areas to bs studied by the Commission.
Consequently, I do not interpret the
House amendment as requiring the P re-
sedent to necessarily select an individial
who is associated with any organieed
association of consumers.
Mr. President, with the approval of
the minorty, I move that the Senate
ne House amendments to S.
The motion was agreed to.
WAR CLAIMS ACT--CONFERENCE
REPORT
Mr. BUFDICK. Mr. President, I stb-
mit a report of the committee of ccn-
ference on S. 1728, and ask for its lin--
mediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Has-
KUL). The report will be stated by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The committee of conference on the dis-
agreeing voles of the two Houses on the
amendments of the House to the bill (S.
1728) to inwease benefits provided to Amor-
lean civilian internees in Southeast Asia,
having met, after full and free conference,
have agreed to recommend and do recom-
mend to their respective Houses this report,
signed by all the conferees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the consideration of the
conference report?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the report.
(The conference report is printed in
the House .:eroceedings of the COMMIES-
SIONAL RECORD of December 17, 1974, at
p.1112151.)
Mr. BURDICK. Mr. President, I ask.
unanimous consent that two of my staff
members William P. Westphal and Brien
Southwell have the privilege of the flan
during the consideration of this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Wahl:nit
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BURDICK. Mr. President, the con-
ference report on this bill reflects the
fact that the conferees reached agree-
ment on a tompromise proposal for dis-
tribution of the funds remaining for dis-
tribution or to be liquidated for futuee
distribution under the War Claims Alt
of 1948.
I might soy at this time that the Hoven
has adopted the conference report.
When S. 1728 first passed the Senase
on October 8, 1973, it provided simiely
for an increase from $60 to $150 per
month in the benefits paid to civilians
who were interned during our recent ex-
periences in Southeast Asia.
The bill was amended by the House
to provide for certain new priorities in
Payment of the remaining unpaid claims
by individuals and corporations for prop-
erty lost in World War II.
The War Claims Act was intended to
provide seine measure of relief to U.S.
citizens and U.S. corporations who suf-
fered injury, death, or property loss as
a result of the hostilities with Japan and
Ge. enany. They were to be paid as a
matter of grace from the moneys re-
ceived from the sale of enemy assets.
Because the claimants had no vested
rigats in the fund and because full pay-
ment of all claims was unlikely, Congress
authorized payment through a system
of priorities based on equity.
Personal injury and death claims were
given first priority, with claims of small
businesses, and those of $10,000 or less
also paid in full, This was authorized in
1962. In 1970 further amendments gave
full satisfaction of claims by religious,
charitable, and similar nonprofit orga-
nizations, and authorized additional pay-
ments not to- exceed $35,000 of which
$11,000 has been paid to date. All claims
not yet fully 'satisfied were to be taken
from the balance on a pro rata basis:
6,62 claims have been fully satisfied of
approximately 7,000 total claims. The
total expenditure to date is approximate-
ly $350 million. The remaining 161 cor-
porate and 187 individual claims repre-
sent the largest of the nonpriority
ascla rds.
The payments which have been made
to date can best be summarized as fol-
Iowa:
Thirty-four death and personal injury
awards paid in full totaling $510,035; 251
small business awards paid in full total-
ing $12,026,093; 5,635 awards of $10,000
or less paid in full totaling $13,059,352;
33 religious,- charitable, and nonprofit
awards paid in fell totaling $24,189,313;
886 individuals have received payment
of $35,276,571 leaving 187 individuals
with a remaining unpaid claim balance
of $6,578,916; 199 corporations have re-
ceived payment of $241,441,491 leaving
161 corporations with a remaining un-
paid claim balance of $94,700,830.
There are now $5 mull ion in the fund
available for distribution and there may
be additional funds up to $15 million
available for later distribution.
The amendment made by the House
proposed a payment priority which
waled satisfy all individual claims up to
$500.000 and pay up to $50,000 on each
corporate claim with the balance of any
funds remaining after these priority
awards to be divided prorate by the car-
Pens tions:
The Senate Judiciary Committee held
a day of hearings on December 3, 1974,
at which all interested parties were
heard. After consideration by the Judi-
ciary Committee the Senate disagreed
to the House amendments and the bill
went into conference committee.
The comparative difference between
the :resent law, the House amendment
and the Senate compromise?which was
accepted by the House isexplained in
the papers which have been placed on
the desk of each Member.
The centre,: argument, I presume, will
be whether or not some preference in
favor of individuals should be given in-
stead of a general pro rata. The differ-
ences are found in the schedule placed
on the desk of each Senator.
In the left-hand column will be found
what is known as present law, where the
$5 million which is on hand today is di-
vided equally among corporations and
individuals. The House bill, which the
Senate Cominittee on the Judiciary
turned down, would not have included
the corporations in that distribution.
The compromise reached by the confer-
ence committee retained that section of
the present law. The difference comes in
thereafter.
.The individuals would receive UP to
$250,000 of their claim; and from that
point on, all moneys would be paid on a
pro rata basis, whether they are individ-
uals or corporations.
When we consider the amount to be
paid out, let us say, for final distribution,
we find that under the present law, 15 tO
Percent, or 15.1/2 cents of every dollar,
will be paid to the venous claimants
after the paynient of the $5 million.
Under the House bill, the rate of dis-
tribution would be 9% cents out of every
dollar. Under the COinproMise position,
which takes a position more or less mid-
way between the two, we find that, under
the compromise position, adopted by the
House in the conference report, the re-
maining balance of pro rota distribution
would be on the basis of 124 cents of
every dollar.
It can be seen that the conference com-
mittee struck a ground more or less be-
tween the present law arid the House
amendments.
Why do we have a tilt toward the in-
dividuals in this distribution? These are
the reasons:
First. Individual award o are based on
the loss of homes, personal belongings
and family businesses. In most cases? the
individuals lost all they had. The cor-
porate awardholders are almost exclu-
sively large multinational corporations
that lost only a small fraction of their
total assets-. The corporations suffered
losses, but the individuan suffered dis-
asters.
Second. About 77 of the corporate
awardholders have taken more than $35
million in tax deductionS as a result of
their losses and have had the use of the
money they saned for over ro years. -We
were advised at the healing that no in-
dividual a warcholders took tax deduc-
tions.
Third. While it is true that under the
law, if a corporation took a tax loss it
had deducted from its award an amount
equal to the tax benefit it received, it
should also be -noted that under section
2017(e) (b) of tele 50 appendix, any pay-
ments received under the War Claims Act
were declared exempt from Federal in-
come taxation. No individual was granted
an exemption from taxatioli and the staff
of the Senate Committee on Finance pre-
pared a memorandum for our hearings
advising that under the Internal Revenue
Code individuals who e re fortunate
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500380004-6
Approved For Release 2001/08129 : CIA4RDP75600380R000500380004-6
December 19, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE , S 22195
enough to receive from the War Claims
FUnd an amount equal to 100 percent of
the adjusted cost basis or such
may be sUbject to income tax either on
a capital gain basis. or as ordinary in-
tome.
Thus, some oT the corporations Who
took a taxleie and Who hive or vJill re-
ceive 100 percent Of their claim will be
exempt from taxation.
Records of the War Clainia Coin-Mission
show that Some corporations took tax
losses as small as $300 or $400.
Fourth. Many of the individual
awardholders are elderly Persons. -Many
of them live on Sinai', .fixed incomes and
receive little th the'way of 'social security
payments since their productive years
were oefit abroad. Their war claims
awards represent a final financial Stake
to support them in their declining years.
A few individuals earned some wealth by
their efforts as ttr Vtarld War but in
this regard it must e noted that under
the coMPromise language, the six largest-
Indiviclual.clairns will not be paid in full
but will be affected by the $250,000
Fifth. In order- to receive an award,
claimants had to provide documentary
proof of their ownership of the property
that had been lost. Many individuals lost
their documents in the war. U.S. corpora-
tions, which maintained ektensive
records in this country, were able to
document a much zreater Percentage of
their losses and hence received awards
to cover a larger portion of their lessee.
sixth. All indlyidtial awardholders are
U.S. citizens. Many' of the stockholders
of the corporate awards are foreign na-
tionals. The basic theory of the War
Claims Act i.' to oarnpensate U.S. citizens.
The priority for individuals furthers that
purpose. "
Mr. Pre,sident, I believe that this com-
promise should be accepted. There is, as
I say, a Small tilt 'toward the Individuals,
and I think it is adequately justified.
The PAHSEDI1g+, OFT:Ictit. The
question is on agreeing to the conference
report.
r.TUNNEV:,. gr. President, I com-
pliment the Cilstirlguislied Senator from
North ttakeity, for,t#e Work he has done,
with the distinguished Senator from
Hawaii and the distinguished Senator
from Indiana,. as an ad hoc subcommit-
tee of the COinnatke Con the Judiciary, in
working out a compromlse proposal to
the House i on he War Claims Act
which X iPJ?s most acceptable, or
should be 4;tptable,to the Senate.
It is Cleartlt Qopgress has consist-
ently interposed its jnAfinlerit on pri-
orities for payment Of war claims. There
is ample precedent that Other than pro
rata payments be made. Congress has al-
ready created priorities for death and
personal injury claims, for charitable
and, nonprofit institutions, for small
bilsinesses, and awards up to $10,000.
he past practice has been for Con-
gress to adjust the paymentschenie
based upon equitable considerations.
This is what is being proposed by., the
Senator from North Dakota in the legis-
lation that was passed by the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary a few days
ago.
I personally feel that individuals are
entitled to some priority consideration
as related to the claims that they have
and that corporations have for losses
that occurred in the last war. This bill
established such a priority through a
four-level payment scheme. The first
priority gives each individual claimant
the amount of his claim, up to $24,000.
On the other hand, it does seem clear
that, where we have a claim up to
$24,000, corporations?and some of them
are relatively small?are entitled to some
consideration, too. The second priority
gives corporations a priority distribution
after individuals, up to $24,000. Then
the bill gives individuals a third priority
claim, up to the amount of his award or
$250,000. Thereafter, all claims are dis-
tributed pro rata. We are trying to meas-
ure fairly what is justified in the way
of a claimant's receiving adequate com-
pensation for the losses that were in-
curred, and I think this procedure gives
a fair adjustment of the equities.
I know that theie are some who feel
that individuals should not be entitled
to any priority considerations. There are
others who feel that corporations should
not receive a nickel until the individuals
have their claims paid off in tote.
I cannot help feeling that the prob-
lem resembles a Gordean knot, and that
there is, in an absolute sense, no right
or wrong. I think that the committee has
worked out a scheme which, from my
point of view, is eminently fair.
I compliment, again, the Senator from
North Dakota on the presentation that
he has made, and the Senator from
Hawaii for coming forward with a pro-
posal to our committee and to the Sen-
ate that attempts to sift through the
various claims and counterclaims, and
manages to bring out what I consider
to be the most equitable response to a
difficult problem. In the end, I feel the in-
dividuals are entitled to this limited pri-
ority because the nature of their losses
was More severe than the losses of cor-
porations. Individuals?all of them U.S.
citizens of course?lost their homes,
their personal belongings, their family
businesses. Such losses are of a special
nature, not like the loss of a large plant
to some shareholders.
Second, corporations were able to tax
a tax deduction for those losses many
years ago, and are not liable for tax on
any war claims awards they receive. In-
dividuals do not receive such tax bene-
fits.
One thing that it does seem to me is
clear is that we need to pass this bill this
afternoon. It is my hope that we will be
able to do it without very much further
argument. Therefore, I shall and listen
to my own advice, and end my remarks.
Mr. FONG. Mr. President, this bill,
when originally passed by the Senate,
was a very simple bill. It took care of the
American civilian internees in Southeast
Asia. It raised the amount which is to
be paid to them from $60 to $150 a month
while they were interned. If we do not
pass this bill, these internees will be get-
ting only $60 a month, instead of the
comparable $150 which is now being paid
to military internees.
When this bill went to the House, the
House added to the Senate-passed bill
an amendment which would have re-
pealed a present provision of the War
Claims Act to pay corporate and individ-
ual awardees the next installment on
their claims.
Up to now, Mr. President, under the
War Claims Act, death and personal
injury claims have been paid in full.
small business awards have been paid in
full. Awards under $10,000 have been
paid in full. Awards to religious and
charitable organizations have been paid
in full. Each awardee, whether corporate
or individual, has been paid $10,000, plus
61.3 percent of the award.
In 1970, we provided for an additional
$35,000 payment to each awardee. Of this
$35,000, $11,000 has been paid. The House
would have nullified the provision for the
payment of the balance of $24,000. This
the ad hoc committee, with the endorse-
ment of the Committee on the Judiciary
in executive session, rejected,
The Rouse accepted that decision. The
corporations will receive the money they
were to receive under present law. That
Is, they will receive the $24,000 which the
House, in their amendment, refused to
give to corporations and which we have
restored in this conference.
Then the House originally proposed
paying all individuals in full. The ad hoa
committee cut the $500,000 limit pro-
vided in the House amendment, which
actually would have paid all the individ-
ual applicants in full, by half. Instead of
giving full priority to individuals who
suffered a loss, we limited this payment
up to $250,000.
There will still be, I believe, six indi-
viduals who will not receive payment in
full, but, rather, will share with corpo-
rations, pro rata, in the distribution of
these war claim funds, as they become
available.
We had good reason, in the circum-
stances presented to the ad hoc commit-
tee, to make this recommendation for
a preference in treatment of the indi-
viduals involved here. Some of the
reasons which compelled the ad hoc
committee to act this way are as follows,
Mr. President.
One, it was harder for individuals to
prove their claims, as their records were
largely destroyed in World War II. Thus,
not all their claims were necessarily
awarded them.
Second, for many individuals, the lost
asset was frequently his only personal
or business asset. They had family hold-
ings for generations totally wiped out.
The lost asset was only one asset of the
corporate awardees?they did not lose
all their capital.
Three, many corporate claimants, es-
pecially those whose claims are now un-
der $50,000, are insurance companies on
a subrogated basis under war risk insur-
ance. It is for the assumption of this very
risk they were paid their premium. That
was their business, to insure these assets.
Four, corporations were given and took
tax losses in the 1940's. No individual took
a tax loss for the lost asset. Corpora-
tions, when they took that tax loss, had
the use of that money for the past 30-
odd years. Not one individual has taken
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500380004-6
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500380004-6
S 2211)6 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
a tax kiss and, therefore, had no use of
that- money for the past 30-odd years.
Five," by statute, corporations which
took a tax loss were given an exemption
for the amount of the awards, as re-
ceived. No such exemption was given
individuals. Hence, corporations had no
capital gains tax, while individuals paid
tax as the money was paid them.
Here, we gave preferential treatment
to corporations as against individuals.
Six, some of the corporations which
took no tax loss did so because?the, asset
lost had previously been fully depreci-
ated; other tax deductions made this de-
duction unnecessary. For example, some
of the oemparties taxes were only :L per-
cent to- 5 percent, so a tax loss was un-
necessary for theme .
Seven, furthermore, the present stock-
holders of corporations would benefit
from these payments, not the stockhold-
ers of record at the time of loss. In the
intervening years, from the dates of the
losses in the 1940s, the corporate stock-
holders have changed. Many of the
stockholders have sold out, and other,
new stockholders have purchased the
stock. So, the stockholders who bole the
loss will not benefit by what has been
paid to the corporations. Unless the
stockholder of record at time of the loss
still holds the stock, he soldet at a lower
price because of the lost assets. The per-
son now holding the stock paid less for
it for this asset has long been written off
the corporate books. A payment to these
corporations now would be in the nature
of a "windfall" to present stockhceders.
This -*Saw, Mr. President, has been
changed several times. This is not the
only three it has been changed. In the
several changes, privileges have been
given to 'benefit particular grOups as their
needs were proved to Congress. In the
conference report, the conferees made it
clear that the amendments adopted were
designed solely to provide an equitable
solution under the particular facts now
existing fn connection with these claims
arising Out of World War II losses.
There is no precedent being set by. this
law. I repeat, we say that no precedent
Is being set by this action.
It is very late in the session. The House
is adamant about its amendment. We
were able to cut their amendment down
to the point where we feel that it is a
fair compromise.
If this conference report fails, we
penalize the civilian internees, who will
only get 860 a month instead of the $150
a month peovided for herebe -
So I urge the adoption of the confer-
ence report.
Mr. 13A.YH. Mr. President, the distin-
guished Senator from North Carolina
asked to be notified. I suggest the ab-
sence of a quorum.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
will the Senator withhold that for a
moment?
Mr. BAYH. I am glad to withhole.
ORDER TO PRINT TRIBUTES TO DR.
RIDDICK AS A SENATE DOCU-
MENT
which will be made with respect to Dr.
Riddick be collected and printed as a
Senate document.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I yield the floor.
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that all Fen-
atolls have 10 days te file individual trib-
utes to retiring Senators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
......???????^111111111111101....
QUORUM CALL
Mr. BAYH, Mr. President, I suggest
the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk
proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BURDECK. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the con-
ference report.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Indiana.
Mr. BAYH. I suggest the absence of
a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk
proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. .BYRD. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that
the order for the quorum call be re-
scinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
ORDER OF BTJSINESS
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presi-
dent:1 ask unanimous consent to proceed
for 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
H.R. 16215?AMENDMENT TO THE
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
ACT OF 1972
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask the Chair to lay before the
Senate a message from the House on
H.R. 16215.
The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before
the Senate H.R. 16215, a bill to amend the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,
to provide more flexibility in the alloca-
tion of administrative grants to coastal
States, and for other purposes, which
was read twice by its title.
The PRESIDING OeViCER. Without
objection, the Senate will proceed to its
consideration.
The bill was considered, ordered to a
third reading, read the third time, and
passed.
???=1?0111?11?11?1111.
QUORUM CALL
Decen;ber 19, 1974
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk
proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. cu:ans. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING ObeseCeat. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I yield to
the distinguished Senator from Hawaii.
--...1?????1111111?41??????
PRIVILEGE or ME FLOOR
Mr. FONG. Mr. President, I ask unani-
mous consent that Mr. Robert Seto be
allowed the privilege of the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
TRIBUTES TO SENATOR PETER
- DOMINI CIC -
Mr. 4:-.:URTIS. Mr. President, I am at.
a loss for words when I express my dis-
appointment that Senator PETER
DOMINICK of Colorado will not be with
us when the new Congress convenes next
January. Senator Dolaenex is a most
valuable Senator. I often referred to him
as an Ideal Senator.
Legislative tasks are like any other
tasks. Success requires hard work. Sena-
tor Domremat worked hard and has the
respect of all-Senators. He possesses a
keen mind and he knows what is going on
in the field of legislation.
If Senator DOMINICK served on a com-
mittee, he mastered well the legislation
that that committee would forward to
the floor. Other Senators sought his
opinion and. advice. He was not a fol-
lower?he was a leader. Time and time
again the Senate would be called upon
to vote on a Dominick amendment. A
Dominick amendment was always an
amendment of substance and he backed
it up with hard facts. clear logic, and a
convincing argument.
PETER Datenexcx combines all of the
qualities that a good legislator should
have, such as honesty, respect, dedica-
tion, skill, background, knowledge, and
a willingness to apply himself to the task
at hand.
In these troubled times, the Senate of
the United States has had to deal with
many issues of grave concern to our
country. These have involved issues of
national, defense, fiscal soundness, ad-
herence to Constitutional principles and
to our system of private enterprise. PETER
DOMINIC:K could always be counted upon
to be on the side of his ,3ountry on these
important and crucial issues.
Preasure groups, selfish interests, and
self-aggrandizement never caused Sena-
tor PETER DOMINICK to deviate from his
high principles. Senator Dozarencx was
always attentive to debates. When he
spoke, be spoke withauthority because
he was well erepared. His work has made
a great coneribution to all legislation,
but particularly legislation dealing with
edueation, labor and managerhent mat-
ters and legislation relating to our na-
tional defense. -
I sincerely hope that this distinguished
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, Senator from my neighboring State of
I ask unanimous consent that the tributes I suggest the absence of a quorum. Colorado will continue in the public
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500380004-6
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000500380004-d
December 19, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
?rota c);p: 1A/sT.NFas ,
Mr. lgr44.0g.:,titr.gRes,idirik what js
the presen
Thex
ferenCe
Mr.'
gest the a,
OFFICER. The con-
on S. 1728.
* - 6 .
. Mr. President, I sug-
lice of a quorum.
? ICZ... M. PreSident, may I
raise a point of order? There is no Inter-
vening busWess, ?.
? The P#EWPQA`* OFFICER. There has
not been ..a...liVe quorum since the last
,vote. Thereitas been intervening busi-
hess and ,, the Senate just passed two
bills. ?"..' ,
The clerkwill, call the roll.
ceededgo the U.
The assi4 nt, legislative clerk pro-
,
Mr, 4 Btr 7 c. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask un .lop consent that the order
, for the quorum call be rescinded. .
The pREsIvavo OFFICER, Without
objection, itis so ordered.
OF BUSINESS
rt AT C. BYRD. NIL President,
I ask Wanimous consent that pr. TAL-
WAGS MaY proceed for hot to exceed 2
M1111,1,tex, to call uptiyo measures.
The PrtEIDING OFFICER. Without
objection it is so ordered
IMPR? IC, NT, 1-1C oU4s.47?y OF UN-
SE PfrsugaL4P.TAUP:r.S
?
AbGE. Mr. President, I ask
consent that the Senate pro-
ceed_consideration of H.R. 2933,
whieb.--,wp:o reported unanimously by the
COMP4t.P. 9/1 AgricPlture and Forestry
this ming, and Which hasheen cleared
with the p.cting- majority leader and the
acting minority leader.
The PnEsivnici OFFICER, ,(Mr?.
CHILES) . The bill will be stated by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as
follows:
A bill (Ha. 2933) to improve the quality
of unshelled filberts Aria shelled filberts for
marketing in the United Sates.
,
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the present consideration
of the bill?
There being no objection, the Senate
? proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. TAL1VIADGE. Mr. President, this
bill amends the Agricultural Marketing
Agreement Act of 1937 to include filberts
as one of the commodities which are
subject ?to section 8(e) of that act. Sec-
tion 8(e) provides that whateYer grade,
siZe, quality, or maturity regulations are
In eaect ,under a Fed.eral.. Marketing
Order fer,...certain doinesticaljy _produced
comino.dMes, the sante or comparable
reo tikenients must be applied to imports
at commodity. ?
PACKWOO.D, Mr, President, I
rongly urge thaeBenate to approve H.R.
29$3, which is intended tO improve the
tittality of unshelled filberts and shelled
filtierts , for marketing in the United
Eit4a,tee?
On 1111ay 18 of this year I introduced
S. 3539, which is identical to H.R. 2933.
It pasSed the House on Pecember 16 and
was Unanimously approved by the Sen-
ate Agriculture Committee yesterday.
Mr. President, the filbert industry in
this country is concentrated in the
Northwest, with roughly 90 percent of
the national filbert production coming
from Oregon and the remainder from
the State of Washington. Senators HAT-
FIELD, MAGNUSON, and JACKSON join me
in strongly supporting this legislation.
What H.R. 2933 does is quite 'simple.
It would include filberts as one of the
cOmmodities protected under s
of the Agricultural Marketin
ment Act of 1937, as amended.
provisions of ? this section,
quality standards currently a
domestic producers would be
Imported filberts.
Mr. President, this legislati
sents a sincere effort on the p
filbert industry to upgrade the
its product. I commend the m
this industry for acting to a
the quality of their product
highest standards. Without
men t to secitort Be of the A
Adjustment Act, grading sta
only applied to filberts in the
the shelled filbert market tha
to intense competition of ung
Agree-
der the
g de and
lied to
plied to
repre-
t of the
uality of
bers of
ure that
eets the
amend-
ricultural
dards are
shell. It is
is subject
aded, poor
quality imports. The purpose Of this leg-
islation is to require the sam0 standards
of imported shelled nut meats as do-
mestic producers have imPosed upon
themselves.
Mr. President, even though the State
Department has indicated its disap-
proval Of this legislation, they cannot
deny the depressing effect which poorer
quality imports have on the domestic
market.
There is no need for further delay of
this act of equity. It is time we recognize
the plight of this small but important
segment of our agriculture industry and
give theni an opportunity to compete in
the market place on a fair and equitable
basis.
I urge the adoption of H.R. 2933.
- The PRESIDING anoiCER. The bill
Is open to amendment. If there be no
amendment to be proposed, the question
Is on the third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to a third read-
ing, read the third time, and passed.
DItoicehRENT MINIMUM GRADE
STANDARDS FOR GRAPES AND
PLUMS
Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate pro-
ceed to the consideration of H.R. 13022,
which was reported unanimously by the
Committee on Agriculture and Forestry
on yesterday.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
will be stated by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as
follows:
A bill (Ha. 13022) to amend the Act of
September 2, 1960, as amended, so as to au-
thorize different minimum grade stand-
ards for packages of grapes and plums ex-
ported to different destinations.
The PRESIDING Or iCER. Is there
objection to the present consideration of
the bill?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, this
nL)
S 22201
bill would amend the act of September 2,
1960, which authorizes the Secretary of
Agriculture to establish and enforce
uniform grade standards for packages
of grapes and plums exported from the
United States.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
Is open to amendment. If there be no
amendment to be proposed, the question
Is on the third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to a third read-
read the third time, and passed.
WAR CLAIMS ACT?CONFERENCE
REPORT
The Senate continued with the consid-
eration of the report of the committee
of conference on the disagreeing votes of
the two Houses on the amendments of
the House to the bill (S. 1728) to in-
crease benefits provided to American ci-
vilian internees in Southeast Asia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the conference re-
port on S. 1728.
Mr. BAYII addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Indiana is recognized.
QUORUM CALL
Mr. BAYH. Mr. Pictielai&J,,maitagesi
the absence of a acti .
The PRESIDING atovICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HUDDLESTON. Mr. President,
ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. BURDICK. I object, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection
is heard.
The assistant legislative clerk contin-
ued with the call of the roll, and the
following Senators answered to their
names:
[No. 576 Leg.]
Aiken Curtis
Bartlett Dominick
Bayh Ervin
Biden Fong
Buckley Fullaright
Burdick Griffin
Byrd, Robert C. Huddleston
Chiles McClure
Moss
Nelson
Pell
Sparkman
Symington
Talmadge
The PRESIDING_Or WER. A quorum
is not present.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I move that the Sergeant at Arms be
directed to request the attendance of
absent Senators.
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING 0.m.CER. The
Sergeant at Arms will execute the order
of the Senate.
After some delay, the following Sen-
ators entered the Chamber and answered
to their names:
Abourezk Fannin
Allen Goldwater
Beall Gravel
Byrd, Gurney
Harry F., Jr.
Cannon
Case
Church
Clark
Cook
Cotton
Cranston ,
Hansen
Hartke
Haskell
Hatfield
Hathaway
Helms
Hollings
Hruska
Dole Hughes
Dbmenici Humphrey
Eagleton Inouye
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000500380004-6
Javits
Johnston
Laxalt
Long
Mathias
McClellan
McGovern
McIntyre
Metcalf
Metzenbaum
Mondale
Montoya
Muskie
Nunn
Packwood
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500380004-6
S 22202
Pastore Scott, Hugh TO.ft
Pearson Scott, Thurmond
Proxmire William L. Tower
Randolph Stafford Tunney
Ribicoff Stennis Welcker
Roth Stevens Williams
Schwelker Stevenson. Young
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Goldwater
Gravel
Griffin
Hansen
Hartke
Haskell
Hatfield
Hathaway
Helms
Hollings
Huddleston
Johnston
The P illiefiNG OFFICER. A quorum
oki ?
WAR CLAIMS ACT?CONFERENC
REPORT
The Senate continued with the con-
eideration of the report of the committee
of conference on the disagreeing votes of
the two Houses on the amendments of
the House to the bill (S. 1728) to increase
benefits provided to American civilian in-
ternees in Southeast Asia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clues-
tion recurs on agreeing to the conference
report on EL 1728.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, this con-
ference report should be rejected. We
have these war claims. There is a limb, to
the amount of assets. The conference re-
port, in effect, would have Congress bless
with its approval a most discriminatory
division of the assets that are available
to the creditors. The conference report,
in effect, says that all the corporate cred-
itors will hi excluded, or at least thet all
of the ind:vidual creditors will be given
priority.
Corporations are owned in equity by
individuate, and those individuals who
are entitled, to share he the corporate
assets are just as much entitled to have
their corporate claims paid as the in-
dividuals who have individual claims.
Some of the individual claims are am Mg
the largest claims, which would swallow
up a large part of the assets.
I have always heard that equality is
equity. The assets that are available for
the payment of all creditors ought not
to be diverted to the payment of only a
few of the ereditors.
So, at the proper time, / intend to
move that the conference report be laid
en the table. I do not wish to cut off
debate.
Mr. EITIADICK. Mr. President, will the
Senator Yield?
Mr. trttlart. I yield,
Mr. BM/WM Is the Senator aware
that this is a War Claims Act of 1948,
and that both In 1982 and in 1970 we
have adjusted, and again today we are
adjusting, the priorities between the var-
ious peoPit? Does the Senator reilize
that all-the nonproperty claims have
been paid, that is, all the personal in-
jury claims have been paid for individ-
uals, and that on the property damage
claims everyone has been paid $10 000,
that everyone has been paid 61.3 per-
cent, and that the 1970 law provide for
the payment of $35,000, of which $11,000
has already been paid?
Mr. ERVIN. Yes, but this would pay
certain creditors to the exclusion of
others.
Mr. BTJRDICK. Is the Senator aware
that certain tax benefits that in to
the corporations do not inure to individ-
uals?
Mr. ERVIN. I am not aware that any
corporation has tax benefits that are not
available to individuals standing in the
Mr. BURDICK I will read the identi-
flea lion Of the section. It is section 2017
(e) (a) of title 50 appendix.
Mr. ERVIN. Well, Mr. President, the
fact that people have sinned in times
past, and the fact that a legislative body
may have sinned in eimes past, does
not Justify a continuation of the sinning.
If we have sinned in times past, it is all
the more reason why we ought to get
righteous today.
Unless somebody else wants to speak,
I move that this cent erence report be
laic on the table, and I ask for the yeas
anti nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
a sufficient second?
'I he yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the motion to lay
the conference report on the table.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant; legislative clerk pro-
ceeled to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ate will come to order. Can we have quiet
In the Senate. The S mate will please
come to order. The clerk will withhold
calling the roll until the Senate comes
to order.
May we have order in the Senate so
that we can resume the call of the roll.
May we have order in the back of the
Senate so we can resume the calling of
the roll.
The clerk will resume.
The assistant legislative clerk resumed
and concluded the call of the roll.
Mr. ROBtatT C. BYRD. I announce
that the Senator from Texas (Mr. BENT-
sElf), the S,enator from Mississippi (Mr.
EASTLAND), the Senater from Arkansas
(Mr. FULSRIGH T) , the Senator from
Michigan (Mr. HART), the Senator from
Washington (Mr. JecicsoN), the Sena-
toi from Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY) ,
the Senator from Washington (Mr.
MaGNI1SON), and the Senator from Wyo-
ming (Mr. MeGEE) are necessarily ab-
sent.
further announce that the Senator
from Montana (Mr. MANSFIELD) is ab-
sent on official business.
( further announce that, if present
ard voting, the Senator from Wash-
in ;ton (Mr. :MAGereeoN) would vote
"yea."
f further announce that, if present,
ar d voting, the Senator from Massa-
chusetts (Mr. E:ENNED'? and the Senator
from Washington (Mr. JACKSON) would
vete "nay."
Mr. GRIrreN. I announce that the
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BAKES),
the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. BELL-
MON ) , the Senator from 'Utah (Mr. BEN-
wiry), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Beocet), the Senator fi oin Massachnsetts
(Mr. BeocueE), and the Senator from
Envie (Mr. Peeev) are necessarily ab-
sent.
The result was announced ?yeas 50,
nays 35, as follows:
577 Leg.]
YEAS-59
Alen Byrd, Curtis
rtlett Harry F.. Jr. Dole
BE vh Cannon Domenici
13( all Case Dominick
Bilen Chiles Ervin
Approved For Release
Abourezk
Aiken
Burdick
Byrd, Robert C.
Clark
Cook
Cotton
Cranston
Eagleton
Fong
Gurney
Hruska
Baker
13ellmon
Bennett
Bentsen
Broek
December 19, 1974
Laxalt Scott,
Long William L.
McClellan Sparkman '
LicClure Stennis
Montoya Stevens
14unn Symington
Packwood Talmadge
Pea.rson Tower
Proxmire Weicker
Randolph Williams
llibicoff
Roth
NAYS-35
Hughes Nelson
Humphrey Pastore
:Inouye Pell
davits Schweiker
:Mathias Scott, Hugh
:McGovern Stafford
McIntyre Stevenson
Metcalf Taft
Metzenbaum Thurmond
:Mondale Tiftiney
:Moss Young
Muskie
NOT VOTING -15
:Brooke Kennedy
Eastland /Magnuson
Fulbright Mansfield
Hart MaGee
Jackson Percy
So Mr. ERVIN'S motion to lay an the
table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. What is
the will of the Senate?
May vie have order in the Senate.
please?
The Senate will come to order.
ORDER
OF BU SIN
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. 1Vr esident,
I ask unanimous consent that Mr. NEL-
soN may be recognized to call up a con-
ference report on H.R. 14449 and that
there be a time limitation on the discus-
sion of that conference report of 10 min-
utes equelly divided between Mr. NELSON
and Mr. Derr's.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
COMMUNITY SERVICES?CONFER-
, ENCE REPORT
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I submit
a report of the committee of conference
on H.R. 14449, and ash: for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
Curers). The report be stated by
title.
The assistant legislat: ye clerk read as
follows:
The committee of cotif:Tence of the dis-
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R..
14449) to provide for the mobilization of
community development and assistance
serviceS and to establish a Community Ac-
tion Administration in tile Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare to adminis-
ter such programa, having met, after full
and free conference, have agreed to recom-
mend and do recommend to their respective
Houses this report, Signeti by a majority of
the conferees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the consideration of the
conference report?
There being no Objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the report.
(The conference report is printed in
the House proceedings of the CONGRES-
SIONAL IZEGORD of today,
same position. Blibb burch F1/08/ : CIA-RDP751300380R000500380004-6annin Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500380004-6
December 19, 1#74 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?HOUSE 1112349
1111A, which may come in play in ap-
?propriate cases of rule viola ens, as well
as in other clearly defined circ tances.
The consumer redress provi , as a
whole, is a significant advance eon-
suiner protection, for it, together ith
the carefully drafted class action pr - Mr. MOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the
zions in title L should provide an answlbe gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ecanenex)
to the multifaceted and, perennial prob-\ such time as he may consume.
lent of class actions. In part because of (Mr. ECKHARDT asked and was
my objections, a sithilar consumer re- en permission to revise and extend his
dress proVision was defeated on the floor re
of the House. f was initially opposed to
_the a4dition of such a provision in con- gent'
-lerence because it was being added with- BROY
ant an opportUnity for hearings to permit establish
the public -to -be heard and without full between
:recognition of what we were doing to making pro
clearly spell out the authority of the FTC istrative Pro
to seek consumer redreSs; However, I is very impor
acceded to the provision finally adopted stand exactly w
because it seeks to provide protections There is a pro
Against unfairness and is aimed at mak- report which states
ing *hole these coneumers who actually if the Commission
show injury from a rule violation or there are disputed issu
knowingly dishonest and fraudulent and (2) that it is nee
evs ctices. issues, interested persons
10 present such rebuttal su
AIR* PPITAL, 11,ES, zonduct (or have conducted
One aspeet of 'the civil penalties pro- sion) such cross-examination o
lelsion deserves coltan exit because the menting orally as the Commissio
idea involved is a relatively new one. 'to be appropriate and required ro
The penalty provisions permit the FTC, true disclosure with respect to
after it has obtained a cease-and-desist The only disputed issues of material
order, to go into cburt to obtain civil be determined for resolution by th
znission a those issues characte
pen realties for the conduct subject to the issues of specific fact in contrast to
order if it was engaged 'in with actual tive fact.
knowledge that the conduct was unfair
or deceptive and in violation of section 5.
Sometimes, in dealing with a joint
acheme_, the Comniission will proceed
? 'against only some- df the persons In-
volved in the joint attion. We have added
ta SEM PrOVISfora vviiich will now enable
the PTC to seek civil penalties in court
against the other persona 'involved in
the scheme 'but ridt technically parties
to the initial rre proceeding and thus
net,tectiniCally subjeetto the cease-and-
desist order. I might add, course, that
these persons Will -be entitled to their
day in court before being assessed with
penalties, and for that reason are granted
A de haw) 'trial on all factual issues in
the penalty actian. .
_lute Thr -,rrra cdtrars
The -conference re/16ft contains one
p.lovision that gives me a good deal of
ecne?i That provision is the one that
grants to the Pelleial Trade Commission
the authority to represent itself through
Its own attorneys n the Supreme Court
under certain CircurbArades. This pro-
vision was added to the Conference re-
port despite great einfeSsions of concern
from the chief legal officers of the United
States, the AttorneyTThrieral, 'former So-
licitor General Ervin Griswold, and all
-nine justices of the'Slififerhe *Court. What
other expertise could- We possibly draw
from? I would like to caution my col-
leagues that if we allowthis type erosion
of the Solicitor General's authority to
roritinue, we *ill fragment what has tra-
ditionally been a 'Central authority de-
signed to coordinate a uniform poSition
for Federal Government litigation.,
normLuerorf
At in all, 'I believe the 'bin represents
a reasonable comprcmise between the
Senate and House versions and a respon-
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP751300380R000500380004-6
sible piece of legislation. It completes the
FTC reform begun with the amendments
to the Alaska pipeline bill, and these two
bills together constitute an important
new consumer protection measure for
which we shciuld all feel proud.
ks.)
ECKHARDT. Mr. Speaker, as the
an from North Carolina (Mr.
) has just indicated, we are
a new category somewhere
adjudicatory and the rule-
ss of the present Admin-
ures Act, and I think it
that we clearly under-
t we are doing.
on on page 33 of the
at--
termines (1) that
of material fact,
to resolve such
uld be entitled
issions and to
the Commis-
rsons corn-
etermines
full and
issues.
act to
om-
as
I point out the word "orally," and
wish to find out if the gentleman from
California (Mr. Moss) feels that that
language is exclusive, or merely descrip-
tive of the section dealing with oral
presentation.
Mr. MOSS. It is the intent and the
understanding of the gentleman from
California that the words "commenting
orally" were intended to be descriptive,
and not limiting. In other words, the
Commission could authorize cross-exam-
ination of written submissions if it deter-
mined that it was appropriate.
Mr. ECKHARDT. For instance, if the
Commission should rely, in making a rule
on a written report of one of its agents
and crass-examination of that agent Is
necessary for fair determination of the
rulemaking procedure taken as a whole,
the Commission should make that agent
available for cross-examination. Am I
correct in that?
Mr. MOSS. The gentleman is indeed
correct.
Mr. BROYHILL of North Carolina.
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOSS. I yield to the gentleman
from North Carolina.
Mr. BROYHILL of North Carolina. I
thank the gentleman for yielding.
I concur in the gentleman's interpre-
tation.
Mr. ECKHARDT. Each of us was on
the conference committee, and I under-
stand that to be in accord both with the
language and with the discussions there;
Is that not correct?
Mr. BROYHILL of North Carolina.
That is correct.
Mr. ECKHARDT. I thank the gentle-
man.
Mr. MOSS. Do any other members of
The committee at this time seek recog-
nition?
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous
Question on the conference report.
The question was taken; and the
Speaker announced that the ayes ap-
peared to have it.
Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Speaker, on
that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were refused.
So the conference report was agreed
to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 1180,
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIA-
TIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING
JUNE 30, 1975
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the House joint resolu-
tion (H.J. Res. 1180) making urgent
supplemental appropriations for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1975, and for
other purposes, with Senate amendments
thereto, disagrees to the Senate amend-
ments, and agree to the conference
asked by the Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentle-
man from Texas? The Chair hears none
and appoints the following conferees:
Messrs. MAHON, WHITTEN, BOLAND,
FLOOD, SLACK, CEDERBERG, MICHEL, and
WYATT.
RTHER LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
r. O'NEILL asked and was given
pe ission to address the House for 1
min .)
Mr. 'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ake the following announce-
ment.
We ha scheduled for today the
chrome b next. BY mutual agreement
of both sid on this issue, it will be
eliminated fr the schedule, and it will
not be brough up for the remainder of
the session. It ill be scheduled some-
time early in th 94th Congress.
AUTHORIZING A ECIINICAL COR-
RECTION IN TH ROLLMENT OF
S.356
s ution (S. Con.
Pe\er,
Mr. MOSS. Mr. S ' I call up the
Senate concurrent re
hes. 126) authorizing a, technical cor-
rection in the enrollment .f S. 356, and
ask unanimous consent for ts immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the Sen concur-
rent resolution as follows:
5. CON. RES. 126
Resolved by the Senate (the Hou of Rep-
resentatives concurring), That the retary
of the Senate is authorized and dir ted, in
the enrollment of S. 356, An Act to rovide
disclosure standards for written co uzner
product warranties against defect or al-
function; to define Federal content s nd-
ards for such warranties; to amend the oral Trade Trade Commission Act in order to
prove its consumer protection activities, a d
for other purposes, to make the followl
technical correction: ?
Section 18(e) (3) (A), as inserted by sec.-
2.?
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500380004-6
1112350 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
tion 202(a) of the Conference 'Report on such
bill, is amended to read as follovic
"(A) the court finds that the ()Guam's-
sion's action is net supported- by substantial
evidence in the rulemaking record (as de-
fined in paragraph (1) (B) of this subsection)
taken as a whole, or",
The SPEAKER. I. there ob eetion te
the JAireit of the gentleman from Cali-
.
lorries? -
There was no objection.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Speaker, I Indicated
at the time of My statement on the con-
ference report that I Intended to offer
this essential resolution in order to
clarify an understandieg of the con
ferees. We feel that the standard of re-
view could be betteet expressed an follows
The court shall hold unlawful and Sc.
aside the rule on certain grounds specifieu
in the Administrative Procedures dkot Or
And now I quote from the; resolu-
tion---11?
the otutt finds that the Commissioa's action
Is not supported by substantial evidence in
the rtile-making record (as defined in para-
graph (1) (5) of this subsection) t3ken as a
whole, or.
This, Mr. Speaker, is strictly to clarify
and make very clear the intent of the
conferees and to do it through the con-
current resolution SO that there will be
no poSSibility of error.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman
from North Carolina, Mr. Beaver-Lee.
MrannoyHru, of North Carolina. I
thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, it is necessary to clarify
the language Iri the conference report,
not because of any disagreemene among
the conferees but because of some legal
Interpretation of the language which was
inoluded in the conference report. We
want to make crystal clear that any rules
that are issued lpy the commission must
Nal/steed upon the substantial evidence
that Is; developed in the consideration of
the rile. That is the Purpose of the
araerielment?to clarify the provision in
the Judicial Review section.
Mr. MOSS. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the
concurrent resolution.
The Senate concurrent resolution was
concurred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Speaker, 1 ask unani-
mous consent that all Members may have
5 legislative days in which to extend their
remarks on the Senate concurrent reso-
lution just concurred in.
e"'"'""a""rfiLaelliaagEn. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Cali-
fornia?
There was no objection.
WAR CLAIMS ACV AMENDMENTS
Mr. KOKEIARDT. Mr. Speaker, I call
up the Conference rePort on the Sen-
ate bill (S. 1728) to increase benefits
providel to American civilian internees
in Southeast Asia, and ask unanimous
consent that the etaternerit of the man-
agers be read In lieu of the report;..
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Texas
Mr. ASH131/008. Mr. Speaker, reserv-
ing the right to object, is there a printed
report?
Mr. ECKHARDT. There is.
Mr. ASHBROCK. Mr. Speaker, further
reserving the right to object I take this .
time to ask if there is anything in the
conference report that is not germane.
Mr. ECKHARDT. No, there is riot.
Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Speaker, I with-
draw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER.. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the statement,
(Par conference report and statement,
see proceedings of the House of Decem-
ber 17, 1974.)
Mr. ECKHART/T. Mr. Speaker, on
August 12, 1974 the House passed amend-
ments to the War Claims Act of 1948 to
Increase benefits provided to American
civilian internees in Southeast Asia and
for other purposes. The House language
differed from the Senate and a confer-
ence, was needed. The conference report
has been filed and it is a good report.
It reflects the give and take that one
expects in a conference between two
bodies.
I will summarize briefly the recom-
mended solution. :First, both the Senate
bill and the House amendment increased
the authorized detention benefits for
American civilians during the Vietnam
conflict from $60 per month to $150 per
month in order to raise the benefits for
civilians to the same level presently
authorized for military Personnel. The
conference substitute retains this pro-
vision.
Second, the House amendment would
have eliminated the priority in existing
law for all unpaid award holders, both
Individual and corporate, up to $35,000.
The conference substitute retains this
priority under which $11,000 has already
been paid to each award holder. There-
fore, $24,0011 or the unpaid balance of
each remaining award, whichever is less,
will be paid under this priority.
Since each corporate award holder
will receive up to $24,000 under this pro-
vision, the language in the House amend-
ment providing an additional priority for
payments to corporate award holders up
to $50,000 was omitted from the confer-
ence substitute.
Third, the House amendment would
have created a priority for all individual
awards up to $500000. The conference
substitute creates a priority for individ-
ual awards up to $250,000. The conferees
agreed that the equitable considerations
favoring a priority for the payment of re-
maining individual awards would be ade-
quately recognized by the priority
adopted in the conference substitute. The
balance of amounts in the war claims
fund will then be used to make pro rata
payments on the remaining individual
and corporate awards.
While this legislation was pending in
the House, the Department of Justice was
Decembee 19, 1974
requested to ref late. from certifying
funds for distribution to the war claims
fund until this Congress completed ac-
tion on Sy 1728. The Department agreed
to this request. It is my Understanclinz
that certain funds are now ready to h,
cer titled by the De artment of Justice tel
distribution to the War claims fund, are
it is also my hope that this transfer and
any future tram, Fors will be accom-
plished as soon as possible upon enact -
ment of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, the conference report re-
fleets a reasonable resolution of the dif-
ference; in the Sei ;ate and House mons--
urea. It will provide an equitable solution
for the payment of the remaining awards
from the war clams fund. I urge ite
adoption.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman
from North Caxoliea (Mr. BROYHILL)
Mr. BROYHILL of North Carolina
Mr. Speaker, I thaek the gentleman for
yielding.
I rise in support of the conference re-
port.
Members will recall when the bill was
before the House, the issue was, are we
going to give priority to individual
clairnanes to the wer claims funds and,
if so, how much tint priority would be
in terms of dollars?
The conference report says we are
giving priority to claims of individual
persons up to $250,000 and then those
other claimants, ineluding corporations,
would share on a pro rata basis in the
balance of the fund,
I think it is a good compromise. It is,
in my opinion, a better bill than when
It left the House, Al though I do still dis-
agree with the priaciple of giving in-
dividuals, this preference, as we have
done here, at least we have a better bill
than when it left the House.
Mr. YOUNG of Illinois. Mr. Speaker,
will the gentleman y ield?
Mr. ECKHARDT. I yield to the gen-
tleman front Illinois.
(Mr. YOUNG of Illinois asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Ildnois. Mr. Speaker,
I would like to associate myself with the
remarks of the distinguished gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Becteerree).
[Mr. YOUNG of Illinois addressed the
House. His remarks uill appear hereafter
in the Extensions of Remarks.]
Mr, ECXHARDT. Mr. Speaker. T move
the previous question on. the conference
report.
Th-.5previous question was ordered.
The conference report was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on tl
table.
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimoui consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to
revise and extend their remarks on the
conference report on 3. 1782, just agreed
to.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Texas"here was no object ion.
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500380004-6
STAfINTL ?
STATINTL
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500380004-6
SENDER WILL CHECK CLASSIFICATION TOP AND BOTTOM
UNCLASSIFIED
CONFIDENTIAL
I SECRET
OFFICIAL ROUTING SLIP
TO
NAME AND ADDRESS
DATE
INITIALS
1
OP
ACTION
DIRECT REPLY
PREPARE REPLY
APPROVAL
DISPATCH
RECOMMENDATION
COMMENT
FILE
RETURN
CONCURRENCE
INFORMATION
SIGNATURE
Remarks $
Attached is a copy of the committee .
report on S. 1728, in which you ?
expressed an interest. This clears
it for floor vote.
. .
' ssistant Legislative Counsel
.,
cc: DDM&S
FOLD HERE TO RETURN TO SENDER
FROM: NAME, ADDRESS AND PHONE NO.
DATE
OLC 7D35 6136
7/19/74
1
UNCLASSIFIED CONFIDENTIAL I
SECRET
FORM NO. 237 Use previous editions
1-67
(40)
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500380004-6