CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT OF 1974 SENATE VERSION

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75B00380R000600080010-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 10
• Document Creation Date: November 17, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 14, 2000
• Sequence Number: 10
• Publication Date: March 27, 1974
• Content Type: SUMMARY

OLc7-&F -
Approved For Release 2000/08127: CIA-RDP75B0038OR000600080010-1
Congressional Budget Act of 1974
Senate Version
1. Following is a brief summary of major provisions of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as recently passed by the Senate and as
it is about to be considered by a conference committee. The House version
passed in December, differs from it in details only except as discussed
below in paragraph seven concerned with anti-impoundment questions.
2. Purpose of the bill: The bill is an attempt to give
Congress the necessary mechanism and procedures to enable it to deal
in a comprehensive way with the Federal budget proposed annually by
the President. It would replace the present haphazard system, under
which the various congressional committees pass authorization and
appropriation bills which bear no relationship to any overall fiscal
and resource allocation strategy. Within an overall framework it would
require explicit consideration of a budget total, and a functional distri-
bution within the total, before the authorization/ appropriation process
begins, as well as a reconciliation of all individual actions with that
total (or a readjusted total) at the end of the cycle.
3. The basic provision of the bill is as follows: It would
create a standing Budget Committee in both the Senate and the House
which would be the focul point for all information and analyses relating
to the formulation of a congressionally-recommended overall fiscal
policy and budget priorities within that policy. The main function of
the Committees would be to report two concurrent resolutions, one at the
beginning of the congressional budget cycle and one at the end, to the
House and Senate respectively. The first concurrent resolution would
set forth appropriate levels of total new spending for the upcoming fiscal
year and recommend a distribution of that spending, based on input from
the Appropriations Committees, by major functional category. The
resolution would set forth estimated revenues and a recommended level
E2 IMPDET
CL BY: 58389
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 CIA-RDP75B00380R0006000860-1
 Approved For Release 2000/08/27;;CIA-RDP75B00380R000600080010-1
of surplus or deficit. Following enactment of this initial budget
resolution, the new bill would require that the Committee on the
Budget submit a report translating ' spending levels in each of
several functional categories (such as health or national defense)
into target levels for each individual appropriation bill to be con-
sidered in the normal appropriation process.
4. The new bill would also revise the present budget cycle.
Whereas the Executive Branch now considers the budget for the forth-
corning fiscal year during the months through January and submits it
to Congress in early February, the new bill would require that the
President first submit what would be called a "Current Services"
budget on 10 November to the Congress. This budget would apparently
consist of an appropriation by appropriation projection of how much it
would cost to extend each program into the next fiscal year without any
adjustment--that is if no policy changes were made. By 15 February
the Congress would then receive--very much as now--the full Presi-
dent's budget, in essentially the format in which it is submitted today.
By 1 April under the proposed law, all congressional committees would
have to submit reports to the newly created Budget Committee as to what
target spending levels should be established in each functional category.
On the basis of this information, the two Budget Committees would each,
by 1 May, report a first concurrent resolution setting an overall appro-
priation total and establishing spending priorities by functional category
to their respective Houses. By 15 May all authorization bills would
be reported by the various committees, and by 1 June action on the
first concurrent resolution would be completed. The process. then con-
templates that all appropriation bills would be acted on by the various
committees during the months of June and July. Thus congressional
action on all specific appropriation bills would be completed by the first
week in August. At that time the Budget Committee would perform its
second major task which would be to report a second concurrent resolu-
tion, reflecting any desired adjustment in the overall total or the
allocation of resources to functional categories within the total. If the
total amount appropriated by Congress as a result of normal individual
committee consideration of all pending appropriations bills should exceed
the total agreed to in the second concurrent resolution, then the Budget
Committee would be required to recommend where adjustments downward
should take place. The process as envisaged would be complete by about
25 September and the fiscal year would begin on 1 Octcber, instead of
1 July as at present.
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000600080010-1
 Approved For Release 2000/08/2f CIA-RDP75B00380R000600080010-1
5. The question of how Congress might keep itself to such a
rigid schedule is recognized in the law itself in the establishment of
fairly rigid rules as to the circumstances under which the concurrent
resolutions will be debated, the length of the debate allowed, and in
other ways.
6. To help the two new Budget Committees in their analysis
of the President's budget, development of the budget resolutions, exercise of
the "scorekeeping" function with respect to spending and revenue bills,
and continuing evaluation of changing revenue conditions, the proposed
Act would also create a Congressional Office of the Budget. The Office
would also function to enable Congress- to establish a center of expertise
on larger policy considerations such as the impact of alternative levels
of revenues and spending for the coming year.
7. Another major provision of the Senate bill is an anti-
impoundment title amending the Antideficiency Act. It does this by
limiting the justification which can be employed by the President to place
funds in reserve. The present Antideficiency Act permits the President
to create reserves of appropriations to provide for contingencies or to
effect savings when such savings can be made because of changes in
requirements, improved efficiency, or "other developments." The
proposed new anti-impoundment title would provide that appropriated
funds may not be reserved for fiscal policy reasons alone or in such a
way as to prevent fulfillment of the full objectives and scope of programs
enacted and funded by Congress. It would require that the Comptroller
General be notified in advance whenever reserves are to be established,
in order to be sure that the purposes for which the reserves are
created are consistent with the Act. The House version takes a somewhat
different tack, requiring the President to report in detail on any impound-
ment and providing that the Congress may specifically terminate any such
impoundment by resolution of either House within 60 days.
8. The bill provides a transition period during which the
new procedures described above would be adopted. The two Budget
Committees and the Congressional Office of the Budget would be established
upon enactment of the bill. The two Budget Committees could report their
first concurrent resolution for Fiscal Year 1976 as a "dry run" in June
1975, but the new congressional budget process would take full effect
for. Fiscal Year 1977 beginning 1 October 1976.
3
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000600080010-1
 Approved For Release 2000/08/27;: CIA-RDP75B00380R000600080010-1
9. The bill establishes a very complicated procedure and
its full impact on us will not be clear without considerable more study.
This should wait until final congressional action because some key
provisions may be adjusted. Several possible areas of immediate impact
can, be identified now, however.
10. First, there is the schedule change and its possible
impact on the resource review cycle. The shift to a fiscal year which
begins on 1 October and which requires that the President's budget be
submitted to Congress only two weeks later than at present suggests that
our internal review cycle will need to stay as now but that our decision-
making about the budget year will be somewhat further removed from
reality than at present. For example, we will this year complete our
reviews of 1975 and 1976 requirements in May and June at which time
we will know in some detail what we did or did not get done this year,
1974. If the new procedure were applicable right away, we would
complete our 1975-76 review in July, two months before the end of
Fiscal 1974 on 30 September. In addition, the need for Executive Branch
submission of a "Current Services" budget to the Congress in mid
November will require us to gear up to meet this need, although I doubt
this would involve a great deal of work. Offsetting these problems is the
possibility that we and all Government agencies will have final appro-
priation actions in hand before the fiscal year begins, and that we should
be able to predict with greater certainty when we will need to testify on
our pending budget to the Congress before the Appropriations Committees.
According to the schedule, this should take place only during June and
July.
11. Second, the provisions which amend the Antideficiency
Act will need to be examined carefully to be sure that our ability to use
the contingency reserve can continue unimpaired. The bill would
require that the Comptroller General be informed whenever a reserve is
to be established in order that he can be sure that the terms of the
Antideficiency Act as amended in this bill are not being violated. It
would appear that a one-time finding by the Comptroller General might
establish the legitimacy of our reserve procedures. It is probably time
that consideration should be given to creating some favorable legislative
history on this point, but this will need further examination.
12. Finally, another area in which we may expect some change
is in the possible need to find a way to deal with the Congressional Office
of the Budget and the new Budget Committees. As the Budget Committees
4
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000600080010-1
 Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000600080010-1
will have a role in establishing what the total target figures for Defense
appropriations are, it is not unreasonable. to assume that they will need,
or want, to know something, about the Defense appropriations bill within
which CIA money is contained. We will need to find a way. to cope with
this.
Deputy Comptroller
25X1A
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000600080010-1
 '44 ./150
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000600080010-1? t'he Floor - I 1
at a committee markup session, had violated its own
rules. When Schroeder and William J. Randall (D Mo.)
arrived at the committee's markup session, the committee
had already voted, 18-16, in favor of deleting the provi-
sion, they asserted.
Randall, they charged, was allowed to record his vote
against the motion, making the talley 18-17, but Schroe-
der, who also would have voted against it, was not per-
mitted to record her vote.
"I have been on the committee ...f'or 14 years and this
was the first time I have ever heard a member denied the
right to be recorded on a vote," Pike said.
F. Edward Hebert, committee chairman, denied that
the committee had. acted contrary to its rules or that
Randall had been allowed to record his vote after the
voting was concluded. The committee report on the bill
indicated the provision had been rejected on an 18-16
vote.
Schroeder and others favoring the Senate provision
said it would make the armed services more attractive
to women and that the committee's action was contrary
to the proposed equal rights amendment awaiting ratifi-
cation by the states.
Samuel S. Stratton (D N.Y.), floor manager of the
bill, and Hebert assured members who supported the
concept of allowing women to attend the service academies
that the committee would hold hearings on the issue.
Stratton, in explaining that the bill would result in
cost savings, said the Defense Department had estimated
that in fiscal 1973 it had spent $43-million in bonuses
for skills that would have been available without the
bonus. The bill, he said, would give the department flex-
ibility in granting bonuses that it did not have.
On the 237-97 recorded vote passing the bill, only
three of the House's 16 female members voted for S 2771:
Corinne C. Boggs (D La.), Julia Butler Hansen (D Wash.)
and Marjorie S. Holt (R Md.).
Voting against. the bill were, besides Schroeder,
Bella A. Abzug (I) N.Y.), Margaret M. Heckler (R Mass.),
Elizabeth Holtzman (D N.Y.), Patsy T. Mink (D Hawaii),
and Leonor K. Sullivan (D Mo.).
Seven did not vote: Barbara Jordan (D Texas), Ella
T. Grasso (D Conn.), Edith Green (D Ore.), Shirley
Chisholm (D N.Y.), Yvonne Brathwaite Burke (D Calif.),
Cardiss Collins (D Ill.) and Martha W. Griffiths (D Mich.).
A two-thirds vote (222 in this case) is required to pass
a hill under suspension. (Vote 57, p. 779)
Provisions
As passed by the House, S 2771:
? Modified the existing law by allowing up to $15,000
in a selective re-enlistment bonus for those with critical
skills in place of the variable and regular bonuses, which
would he terminated.
? Expanded existing law to allow enlistment bonuses
of up to $3,000 for a four-year enlistment in any critical
skill area in any service.
? Made the hill effective on the first day of the first
nunillh offer enactment, with it termination date of dune
:10, lu permit congressional review of the programs.
? Contained a hold-harmless provision to allow service-
men already on active duty to receive re-enlistment.
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000600080010-1
COPYRIGHT 1974 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.
R?prodoctlon prohibited , whale or in port P -p, by ?di-i.1 climb
Earlier Senate Action
S 2771 was reported (S Rept 933-659) by the Armed
Services Committee Dec. 19, 1973, and passed by the Sen-
ate by voice vote Dec. 20. No opposition was expressed
in the Senate. The amendment allowing women to enter
the service academies was offered by William D. Hathaway
(D Maine) and was approved by voice vote.
Hathaway said the amendment would help make the
armed services more attractive to women. Chairman John
C. Stennis (D Miss.) of the Armed Services Committee,
floor manager of S 2771, and Strom Thurmond (R S.C.), a
committee member, expressed approval of the Hath-
away amendment.
Provisions
As passed by the Senate, S 2771:
? Modified existing law by allowing up to $12,000 in a
selective re-enlistment bonus for re-enlistments in crit-
ical skills in place of the existing bonus structure.
? Expanded existing law to allow enlistment bonuses
of up to $3,000 for a four-year enlistment in any critical
skill area in any service.
? Made the bill effective Jan. 1, 1974.
? Allowed women to attend the service academies. /
BUDGET REFORM
Senate-March 21, by an 80-0 roll-call vote,
passed S 1541, reforming congressional budget pro-
cedures.
In passing its own version of budget reform legisla-
tion, the Senate joined the House in an attempt to devise
procedures giving Congress control over federal economic
and spending policies.
Essentially similar to a budget reform measure (HR
7130) passed by the House in December 1973, S 1541 would
create new budget committees and establish more orderly
budget procedures to enable Congress to set budget,
policy goals and harness its decisions on separate spend-
ing programs to that framework. (House action, 1973
Weekly Report p. 3174; Senate committee action, Weekly
Report p. 679)
While there were some differences-notably in provi-
sions setting a budget-making timetable and putting
controls on backdoor spending-between the House and
Senate versions, both bills followed the same general
approach in forcing Congress to adopt resolutions setting
budget targets and to reconcile those targets and its
separate spending measures before the fiscal year begins.
During four days of lengthy debate on S 1541, the
Senate made no major changes in compromise budget-
making procedures hammered out in the Rules and Ad-
ministration Committee after the Senate Government
Operations Committee reported the bill. The compromise
was the result of negotiations among staff representatives
of senators and committees concerned by the bill's sweep-
ing revisions in the way Congress handles the President's
budget. proposals.
Majority Whip Robert C. Byrd (1) W.Va.), who over-
saw the reconciliation of Senate interests during the Rules
Committee revision of S 1541, March 19 told the Senate
that the compromise bill would establish "a new frame-
work within which the existing decision-making processes
 Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000600080010-1
oil the F or - 12
Mansfield Reply to Nixon Charges
Replying to charges March 19 by President
Nixon in Houston, Texas, that Congress had been
sitting on 17 administration-backed energy bills,
Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D Mont.)
March 21 went to the defense of Congress by out-
lining the legislative action that had been taken on
each of his 17 proposals.
He said the administration -not Congress-was
the roadblock to passage of many of the bills at
issue, and he added that the House or the Senate
had already passed, or begun action on much of
the legislation. "I would point out that the initiative,
insofar as the energy legislation is concerned, has
been in the Senate and was there long before the
President. sent up his first proposal," Mansfield said.
Focusing on the 17 legislative requests cited by
Nixon in letters March 14 to both Mansfield and
House Speaker Carl Albert (D Okla.), Mansfield
said:
? Congress had included four of the proposals
(windfall profit taxes on the oil industry, unem-
ployment benefits for victims of the energy crisis,
energy conservation and rationing and manda-
tory reporting of energy information) in the emer-
gency energy bill (S 2589) which Nixon vetoed March
6. (Story, Weekly Report p. 632)
? Both houses had passed a bill (HR 11793), which
was currently in conference, to create a Federal
Energy Administration.
? Proposals to create an Energy Research and
Development Administration (S 2744, HR 11510) and
a Department of Energy and Natural Resources
(S 2135, HR 9090) were stalled because of conflict
between Roy Ash, director of the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget, and William Simon, Federal
Energy Office administrator.
? The Senate had passed legislation which was
nearing the final stages in the House (S J Res 176,
H J Res 832; S 425, HR 11500) to open the Elk Hills
Naval Petroleum Reserves and provide minimum
federal regulations on strip mining.
? A Senate committee had held hearings on
one of his proposals: to deregulate natural gas
(Senate Commerce Committee, S 2048, S 2506),
and the Joint Atomic Energy Committee had held
hearings on HR 11957, to revise nuclear licensing
procedures.
? The Senate had passed legislation (S 1276) to
require labeling of appliances and motor vehicles
for energy usage, and the House Ways and Means
Committee was considering legislation on three oil
tax proposals (drilling investment tax credit, foreign
depletion allowance and foreign tax credit).
A Senate committee was scheduling hearings on
the Mineral Leasing Act (S 1040) and was nearing
mark-up on deep water port, logilllaf.inll (,; I'll 1),
(The Senate Interior and Insular Affair's; CO,roiliI.k-e
held hearings on S 1.040 in March 1973 but took no
further action; two House committees reported bills
(HR 10701, HR 5898) in December 1973.
"In other words," Byrd continued, "I do not see this
bill as in any way diminishing the role or inhibiting the
operation of the Appropriations Committee ...tile Finance
Committee, or of other authorizing committees."
With most concerns evidently satisfied by the Rules
Committee compromise, four days of debate on S 15,11
produced little controversy over provisions that would
substantially alter both the pace and procedures with
which Congress and its committees have customarily
handled spending measures, With few senators on the
floor-and even fewer reporters in the press gallery--
proponents of the bill devoted most of' the debate to ex-
planations of how the Rules Committee compromises
would work.
The Senate adopted several amendments, most by
voice votes, but none made fundamental changes in the
bill's budget-making procedures. The bill's managers
accepted several of the amendments, which generally
added qualifying language or made minor revisions in
the bill's requirements.
By substantial margins, the Senate defeated auend-
ments that would have made more fundamental changes
in S 1541-some by liberals who wanted to loosen its
budget.-making requirements and some by fiscal conserva-
tives who wanted to tighten the process. Standing by the
Rules Committee compromise, the Senate rejected:
? By voice vote March 21 an amendment. by Govern-
ment Operations Committee member Sam Nunn (D Ga.)
restoring that en in in it tee's original proposal requiring
enactment of a triggering ceiling enforcement- bill before
appropriations bills could become law.
? By a 28-60 roll call on March 21 an amendment by
William V. Roth Jr. (R Del.) replacing file bill's anti-
impoundment provisions tightening the Anti-Deficicncv
Act of 1950 with language giving either the Ilouse or lie
Senate power to force the administrat ion to spend im-
pounded funds. (Vote 7.1, p. 781)
? By a 31-55 roll call on March 21 an alnendn!enI by
Abraham Ribicoff (1) Conn.) giving the Appropriations
Committee an opportunity to recommend spendint; linlils
on new entitlement. programs such as veterans or black.
lung benefits but, eliminating a requirenlcnl that entitle-
ment legislation reported by in authorizing committee Ile
referred to the Appropriations Committee for 10 days.
(Vote 75, p. 781)
? By a 24-56 roll call on March 22 an amendment by
Gaylord Nelson (D Wis.) and Walter F. Mondale (1) Minn.)
requiring rotation of membership on the Semite's budget
committee, setting a six-year term for each member.
? By a 23-57 roll call on March 22 an amendment by
Roth that would have restored the triggering procedure
and required a two-thirds vote in both the House and
Senate to raise the targets set. in the first, budget reso-
lution. (March 22 votes published in next Week/v Report)
Debate
While S 15,11 as it came to the floor Ililfered sob
tniit hilly rota the hill reporft'll Ir, filt' (r,l?J r?a fl rrIrill tlpF'1'll
1141111 l'! 11111t111t1t? It',''I to Ill 1ho1 1'1(N t1ljllr t. i'lll!1-+t {i-'1~1
in rrlarla};Irll, 1141t11, tlt?hat e. 1111 H W c11u1111111111:?1' t t'I;?Ilnl
The compromise bill, Government Operations Coln
mittee Chairman Sam J. Ervin Jr. (D N.C.)? said March
19, "is not a hurried response to `the battle of the budget'
rp oved For Release 2000/08/27: CIA-RDP75BOP38OR000600080010-1
RESSIONAt OUARIFRLY IN
G
COPYRIGHT 1974 CON
RoproJ~ction p,ohib,iM in whole n, n part -,,Ipf by ed-1-01 cbe~~ls
PAGE 786-March 23, 1974
 Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000600080010 in the Floor - 13
but a product of deliberate and open process of debate and
modification."
By failing to discipline its spending decisions to
budget requirements, Ervin argued, Congress had lost
power to the presidency. "A Congress that cannot control
spending cannot effectively control the executive branch
either," Ervin said.
As revised by the Rules Committee, added Charles
H. Percy (R Ill.), the top-ranking Government. Operations
Committee Republican, the bill "creates a workable new
process that will prove to be useful precisely because it
does permit latitude for flexible responses to changing
situations."
In modifying S 1541, the Senate adopted:
a By voice vote March 21 a Nunn amendment eliminat-
ing a provision permitting action on spending, revenue
or debt bills after June 1 even if Congress had not adopted
a budget resolution.
? By voice vote March 21 a Nunn amendment directing
the budget committees to study the need for use of a trig-
gering device before appropriations go into effect.
? By voice vote March 21 an amendment by Edward
M. Kennedy (D Mass.) requiring Senate budget committee
members to give up another major committee assignment
if they continued to serve on the budget committee after
1977 rather than 1979.
? By voice vote March 21 an amendment by Mondale
requiring budget. hearings on the first budget resolution.
? By a 55-26 roll call on March 20 an amendment by
Lawton Chiles (D Fla.) requiring that most Senate budget
committee meetings be open to the public. (Vote 72, p. 781)
? By voice vote March 20 an amendment by William
I). Hathaway (D Maine) requiring Congress to reconsider
its budget totals by March 1 if revenue or spending esti-
mat is had changed by 1 per cent or more.
? 11y voice vote March 20 an amendment by Bill Brock
(R "Penn.) directing the budget committees to continue
studying possible improvements in budget procedures.
? By voice vote March 20 an amendment by George
McGovern (I) S.D.) directing the President to include in
his budget, estimates for the advance funding of those
programs whose funds were required to be appropriated
one year before they were obligated.
M -4k f'kIv
034`Q)Q-IA
Chairman of the Board
Nelson Poynter
President
Eugene C. Patterson
Managing Editor
Wayne Kclloy
Sl'nior Editors
'hrvlyn A, 1, (Nnwv t,lilnr)
Mol, t t I. rc tl'~,Ill i.+)
Ii Ii I I Hii,, nll lRese e l,)
Itohelt A. ttiumand (Books)
Pater A. I Iurkness (News Service)
Michael D. Wormsor (Legislative)
Associate Editors
Alan Ehrenhalt
David M. Maxfield
Donald Smith
Elder Witt
Editorial Staff
Thomas J. Arrandale
Elizabeth Bowman
Bruce F. Freed
Janice L. Goldstein
Martho V. Gottron
Ian McNett
Robin D. Meszoly
Patricia Ann O'Connor
Peg O'1lot a
Bally Polsky
William O. Scallion
Suuul Wi,tlols
Research Staff
Wayne Walker
Edna Frazier (Librarian)
Susan A. Bischoff
House Education Bill Delayed
Consideration of amendments to HR 69, a bill
to amend and extend the Elementary and Second-
ary Education Act of 1965, was postponed at least
one week by Speaker Carl Albert (D Okla.) March 18.
The delay was announced after William A.
Steiger (R Wis.) objected to a March 14 request by
Education and Labor Committee Chairman Carl D.
Perkins (D Ky.) that the House put off consideration
pf amendments to the bill until March 26. The House
was originally scheduled to begin consideration of
amendments on March 19.
Perkins sought the postponement to give more
time to members who wished to offer amendments
to change the formula distributing funds for aid to
disadvantaged children. Members had complained
that the committee formula was unfair and that they
did not have sufficient time to determine the ef'fects
of alternative proposals on the amount of'
aid that would be granted to states and local school
districts. (House debate, Weekly Report p. 700)
As of March 19, Albert had not announced when
the bill would be re-scheduled, but an Education
and Labor Committee spokesman said the bill was
expected to be considered March 26.
The Senate rejected two amendments by Harry P.
Byrd (Ind Va.) that would have forced balancing of the
federal budget.. By a 29-57 roll call on March 20, the Sen-
ate defeated Byrd's amendment directing the President
starting in fiscal 1976 to submit a balanced federal funds
budget-excluding trust funds. (Vote 29, p. 781) By a :15-52
roll call on March 20, the Senate rejected Byrd's amend-
ment requiring that each budget starting in fiscal 1976
be in full balance on a unified basis, including trust funds.
(Vote 73, p. 781)
By a 48-29 roll call on March 22, the Senate tabled an
amendment by Armed Services Committee Chairman
John C. Stennis (D Miss.) exempting pay raises for Senate
employees from budget resolution totals. /
Kim W. Brace
F. Rhodes Cook
Prudence Crewdson
Oliver W. Cromwell
Walter E. Eling
Gary C. Hong
Diane Huffman
Diantha Johnson
James W. Lawrence
Andrea W. Loewenstein
Warden Moxley
Jane Wales
Proofreaders
Michael L. Pleasants
Robert E. Healy
David Loomis
General Manager
Paul P. Massa
Sales Manager
Robert C. Hur
Treasurer/Business Manager
John H. O'Heorn
Production Supervisor
Richard C. Young
Published weekly by Congressional Quar-
terly, Inc., 1735 K Street, N.W., Wash-
ington, D.C. 20006. All reproduction
rights, quotations, broadcasting publica-
tion, reserved for current editorial clients.
No part of this publication may be repro.
duced or transmitted in any form or by
any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopy, recording or any
information storage and retrieval system.
Second rights are reserved, including use
of Congressional Quarterly material in
campaign supplements, advertisements
and handbooks without permission, Rates
ore furnished on request. Second class
postage paid at Washington, D.C.
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000600080010-1
COPYRIGHT 1974 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.
R,pradoction proh,bned in whale or n pora ,pl by ,d'ie,,ol Climb March 23, 1974-PAGE 787
 Approve
ffi
UNCLASSIFIED
F I
OFFICIAL ROUTING SLIP
Approve
Approved
ms I I
cn) 1; 1)
W
m
m
0
-
-
-
MIT
CONFIDENTIAL
TO
NAME AND ADDRESS
DATE
INITIALS
1
A
2
3
4
5
6
ACTION
DIRECT REPLY
PREPARE REPLY
APPROVAL
DISPATCH
RECOMMENDATION
COMMENT
FILE
RETURN
CONCURRENCE
INFORMATION
SIGNATURE
Remarks :
I believe that your presentation on the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is factually
accurate and identifies issues of concern to the
Agency. With the bill now in conference and
unless you feel strongly otherwise, I imagine
we will just have to wait to see what develops
and adjust accordingly.
25X1 A'
Deputy Legislative Counsel
FOLD HERE TO RETURN TO SENDER
FROM: NAME, ADDRESS AND PHONE NO.
DATE
UNCLASSIFIED 3CO F D T A
FORM NO. 237 Use previous editions
1-A7
080010-1
080010-1
 or a L
Approve
0
899
CONFIDENTIAL SECRET
--T UNCLASSIFIED I I
OFFICIAL ROUTING SLIP
TO
NAME AND ADDRESS
DATE
INITIALS
1
Deputy Legislative Counsel
2
3
4
5
6
ACTION
DIRECT REPLY
PREPARE REPLY
APPROVAL
DISPATCH
RECOMMENDATION
COMMENT
FILE
RETURN
CONCURRENCE
INFORMATION
SIGNATURE
Remarks :
Lyle:
This is in the nature of a draft. Be interested
in your views on the factual accuracy of what is
said here as well as the issues identified for
further discussion.
Cam,
FOLD HERE TO RETURN TO SENDER
95X1 A ROM: NAME, ADDRESS AND PHONE NO.
DATE
Co t
'RrQl
3/28/74
UNCLASSIFIED CONFIDENTIAL
080010-1
080010-1
FORM NO. 237 Use previous editions
1_A7