SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS, 1975 - CONFERENCE REPORT
Document Type:
Collection:
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST):
CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020007-5
Release Decision:
RIFPUB
Original Classification:
K
Document Page Count:
16
Document Creation Date:
December 12, 2016
Document Release Date:
October 17, 2001
Sequence Number:
7
Case Number:
Publication Date:
December 9, 1974
Content Type:
OPEN
File:
Attachment | Size |
---|---|
CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020007-5.pdf | 2.4 MB |
Body:
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020007-5
December 9; 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE S 20851
debt governed the financing of most of our
public projects. The 1960's however, witnessed
several events concerning the incurrence of,
debt which have eroded the constitutional
right of the People to vote upon State In-
debtedness and which may severely curtail
our future financial flexibility: (a) a sig-
nificant quantity of financing State. projects
through specially-created agencies without
voter. approval; and (b) repeated legislative
authorizations for public authorities to incur
large-scale debt, accompanied by the State's
so-called "moral obligation" to maintain the
debt service reserve fund of each agency at
a sufficient level. In other instances, the State
has entered into lease-back arrangements
keyed to debt-service requirements.
Because of the growing significance of debt
financing. on the State's financial structure,
I have sent several special reports on debt to
the Legislature. The most recent is a study
entitled "Debt-Like Commitments of the
State of New York", issued in January 1973.
Significant facts about our debt structure
follows:
Our direct debt, to which the State has
pledged its full faith and credit by vote of
the People, has tripled in the last decade and
stood at $3.4 billion on March 31, 1974. Au-
thorized but unissued direct debt amounted
to an additional $2.8 billion. The outstanding
bonded debt will cost the State $5.1 billion
when fully paid off, including interest costs.
. Our indirect debt, supported by State
rental payments and earmarked revenues,
usually through lease-back arrangements,
and which began modestly at the start of
the decade, reached $2.9 billion at March 31,
1974. Rental and reserve payments are pres-
ently more than $200 million a year.
Other commitments, arising either because
the State has directly guaranteed the debt of
certain public authorities. or has undertaken
a "moral commitment", have increased
markedly during the decade and now stand
at $4.8 billion.
Statutory limits on the indirect debt and
other commitments do not exist in many
instances, reflecting a lack of legislative con-
trol over the potential magnitude of such
commitments. While the purposes are gen-
erally worthy and urgent, this does not justify
circumvention of the constitutional right of
the People of the State to vote on the in-
currence of public debt. As I have stated in
the past, the State of New York is mortgaging
its future to a point which approaches the
capacity of public burden. I am concerned
not only about the magnitude of our debt,
but about Its proliferation into unwieldy and
distorted forms.
We need to restore the controls and the
ing actions:
No debt proposition should
specific projects to be underta
rate of expenditure incurrence.
borrowings (direct, indirect, an
like commitments) should be
placed' within a scheme of prio
expenditures may be planned
ther debt-
iewed and
be modi-
mitations
t.
Mr. COOK. Mr. President, I am ready
to yield back the remainder of my time,
and have been authorized to state to the
Senate that the Senator from Virginia
(Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT) has authorized
me to yield back the remainder of his
time. If it is the desire of the presiding
officer, that the Senator from Virginia
be here, I would, suggest the absence of
a quorum; however, I have talked with
him and he has authorized me to yield
back the remainder of his time at the
time I yield back the remainder of my
own time.
Therefore, at this time I yield back
the remainder of my time, and I state
that I am authorized to yield back the
remainder of the time of the Senator
from Virginia (Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT).
Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I am
prepared to yield back the remainder of
my time, except for the 1 hour on the
nomination that was reserved until to-
morrow, of which I control one-half.
Mr. COOK. Mr. President, may I say
that the order was that there would be
5 hours today and 1 hour tomorrow, of
which 30 minutes would be reserved to
the chairman and 30 minutes would be
reserved to the ranking minority
HELMS). All remaining time for today
is yielded back. The 1 hour for tomorrow
remains.
Who yields time?
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that the Sen-
ate return to legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered. What is the
will of the Senate?
QUORUM CALL
Mr. ROBERT C. BY RD. 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.
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it Is so ordered.
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS,
1975-CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, I sub-
mit a report of the committee of confer-
ence on H.R. 16900, and ask for its im-
mediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
HELMS). The report will be stated by
title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The committee of conference on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on
the amendments of the Senate tp the bill
(H.R. 16900) making supplemental ap-
propriations for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1975, and for other purposes,
having met, after full and free confer-
ence, have agreed to recommend and do
recommend to their respective Houses
this report, signed 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 RECORD of November 26, 1974, at
p..H11156.)
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, the
conference report before us for consider-
ation would provide an appropriation of
$8,,659,352,078 in new budget authority.
This amount Is an increase of $380,710,-
900 over the budget request.
This first supplemental appropriation
bill for fiscal year 1975 Is a very large bill,
would normally be considered in connec-
tion with the regular, annual appropria-
tions bills. However, due to the lack of
timely legislative authorizations at the
time the regular bills were passed, many
of these items contained in this supple-
mental -bill had to be deferred until now.
These items and appropriations deal
mainly with housing and community de-
velopment programs and with the Ele--
mentary and Secondary Education Act
programs.
Mr. President, this conference agree-
ment Is $299,600,516 more than the
House-passed ball and is $94,374,600 un-
der the total amount of the bill as it
passed the Senate. In this connection, it
-should be noted that the Senate con-
sidered additional sunnTPmPntc,l budget
estimates totaling about $150 million
which the House did not consider.
-Mr. President, there were 85 amend-
ments of the Senate which had to be re-
solved in conference. Inasmuch as the
conference report was printed in the
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of November 26,
1974 and because the report itself was
printed and has been available for sev-
eral days, I do not Intend to discuss or
elaborate on all of the changes from the
Senate-passed 'bill. At this time, ,I ask.
unanimous consent to Include. In the
RECORD a table which shows the complete
conference action compared with the
House and Senate amounts and the
budget estimates.
There being no objection, the table was
ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as
follows:
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020007-5
S 20852
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020007-5
CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD - SENATE . December 9;;
CONFERENCE SUMMARY-SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1975-H.R. 16900
Increase (+) or decrease (-) conference
agreement compared with:
Conference Budget House Senate
agreement estimates bill bill
(5) (6) (7) (8)
Budget New budget New budget
estimate (obligational) (obligational)
of new authority
authority
budget recommended recommended
(obligational) in House in Senate
authority bill bill
(2) (3) (4)
TITLE I
CHAPTER I
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Community Planning and Development
Community development_________________________________________ 2,579,625,000 2,179,625,000 2,135,000,000 2.175,000,000 -4,625,000 -4,625,000 -f-46,091),000
R
h
t
ti
l
e
a
on
a
oans-----------------------=------------------------ ------------------------ 25,000,000 --------------------------------------
Housing Production and Mortgage Credit
Housing for theelderly orhandicapped (limitation onloans) -------------- --------- ------ (200,000,000) (10D, 000, 000) (+100,000,000) (+100,000,000) (-100,000,000)
State Housing Finance and Development Agencies
Grants to State housing or development agencies ----------------------- 25,000,000 -- --. ----------------------- --------------- -25,000,000
VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION
Assistance for Health Manpower Training Institutions
Grants to affiliated medical schools ____________________________________.__-______--____-___________
total, Chapter 1, new budget (obligational).authority........... 2, 179, 625, 000 2,179,625,000
CHAPTER II
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Manpower Administration
10,000,000 10,000,000 +10,000,000 +10,000,000 -------- -------
2.195,000, 000 2, 185, 000, 000 +5,375,000 +5,375,000 -10, 000, 000
Program administration (transfer) ______________-___-_______-_______-___________ -1,500,000 __.. 4-1,500,000
Comprehensive manpower assistance (transfer)------------------------- -------------------------- -5,600,000 -_ - ---__-------_-----_---_---------------- 4-5,boo, 000
Labor-Management Services Administration
Salarierandexpenses ---- --------------------------------------- 9,650,000 ---------------- 6,150,000 6,650,000 -3,000,000 +6,650,000 +500,060
By transfer ----------------------------------------------------- -------- ------------- -- - --------- (1, 500, 000)------ ------- (+1, 500, 000) (+1, 500, 000)
Employment Standards Administration
Salaries and expenses---. --_______-_-______________________ 480,000 480,000 1480.000 +480.000
By transfer-------------------------------------------------
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Salaries and expenses (by transfer) -------------------------------- (G00, 000)_ -
Departmental Management
Salaries and expenses (by transfer) ---------------------------------------------------------- (-300, 000) ----------------------------------------- (+300, 000)
Total, Department of Labor ---------------------------------- 9,650,000 ---------------- 5,130,000 - 7,130,000 -2,520,000
+1, 130,000
O6PARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Health Services Administration
Health service --------------------------------------------------- $5, 722,030 $3,722,000 $1,722,000. $2,722,000 -$3,000,000. -$3,000,000 +$1,000,0110
Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration
SaintElizabethsHospital ----------------------------------------- 1,789,000 1,789,300 11189,003 1,789,000_.________-___------- __.__------ __
Health Resources Administration
Health resources----------------------------------------------
Office of Education
Elementary and secondary education______________________________ 2, 180,218,000 2,054, 425, 000 2,160,825,000
Advance appropriation for 1976_______________________________ 2, 210, 218, 000 2, 210, 218,000 2, 190, 218, 000
col assistance in federally affected areas_________________ _____ 340, 300,000 656, 016, 000 656, 016, 000
Education for the handicapped____________________________________ 147,109,000 184,609,000 224,609,000
Advance appropriation for 1976_______________________________ 50,000,000 100,000,000 100,000,000
Occu ational, vocational, and adult education______________________ _ 63, 319, 000 63, 319, 000 69,309,000
Advance appropriation for 1976_______________________________ 63, 319,000 63, 319, 000 67, 500, 000
Library resources________________________________________________ 30,250,000 95,250,000 95,250,000
Salaries and expenses_______________________________ ---------- 718,000 ---------------- 750,000
Assistant Secretary for Human Development
Human development------------------------------------------- 111, 600, 000 125, 000, 000 135, 000, 000
Total, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare ----------- 5, 411, 819, 000 5, 706, 800, 000 5, 850, 912, 000
Total Chapter II, new budget (obligational) authority --------5, 421, 469, 000 5, 706, 900, 000 5, 856, 042, 000
Eonsistmg of:
Fiscal year 1975 appropriation ---------- ------------- 3, 097, 932, 000 3, 333, 263,000 3, 499, 324, 000
Fiscal year 1976 appropriation_______________________ 2, 323, 537,000 2, 373, 537, 000 2, 357, 718, 000
2, 148, 075, 000 -32,143, 000 +93,650,009 -12, 750, 000
2,210, 218, 000 ________________________________ +20,000,000
656016,000 +315,716,000 __------ ---------------------
199:609,000 +52, 500.000 +15,000I 000 -25, 000, 000
100,000,000 +50,000,000 ----------- ------------ ___.-_-.
69,300,000 4-5,981,000 +5,981,000 _--___-________-
67,500,000 +4,181,000 +4,181,000 ___..------- _...
95,250,000 -1-5,000,000 --------------------- -- __-._
---- ------ -718,000 ----------------- --750,000
135,000, 000 4 23, 400, 000 +10,000,000 --- . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
5, 833, 412, 000 +421,593,000 +126, 612,000 -17, 500, 000
5, 840, 542, 000 +419,073,000 +133,742,000 -15, 500, 000
3, 462, 824, 000 +364,892,000 +129, 561,000 -35, 500, 000
2, 377, 716, 000 +54,181,000 +4,181,000 -1-20,000,000
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020007-5
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020007-5
December 9, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE S 20853
CONFERENCE SUMMARY-SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1,975-H.R. 16900-Corttinued
Budget New budget New budget Increase (+) or decrease (-) conference
estimate (obligational) (obligational)
of now authority authority agreement compared with:
budget recommended recommended
(obligational) In House in Senate Conference Budget House Senate
authority bill bill agreement estimate: bill bill
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) -
CHAPTER III
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
SENATE -
Salaries, Officers and Employees
Office of the Secretary---------------------------------------- $7$,525 ------------- ___ $75,525
Committee employees------------------------------------------- 3499,980 ---------------- 349,980
Total, Salaries, Officers and Employees_________________
Contingent Expenses of the Senate
Inquiries and investigations__________________________________5,000 ________________ 5,000
Inquiries and investigations, 1974_________________________________ 250,000 ________________ 250,000
Miscellaneous Items, 1974________ 1,050,000________________ 1,050,000
Stationery (Revooring Fund) -------------------------------------- 300 ---------------- 300
Total, Contingent Expenses______________________________
Total, Senate---------------------------------------------
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Salaries, Officers and Employees
$75,525
----------------
+$75,526.----------------
349,980
----------------
+349,980 ----------------
425,505
-----------------
+425,505---_-____-____-
5,000
-----------------
+5,000 ----------------
250,000
------------- ----
+250,000 ----------------
11,050,000
-----------------
+1,050,000 ----------------
300
-----------------
+300 ----------------
House Democratic Steering Committee___________________________65,000 $65,000 65,000 65,000 -------------------------------- _----_______-_.
House Republican Conference------------------------------------- 65,000 _ 65,000 651.000 65,000 ------------------------------------------------
Total, Salaries, Officers and Employees----------------------- 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 -------------------------- -__--_----__--________
Committee on the Budget (Studies)
Salaries and expenses-------------------------------------------- 138,000 138,000 138,000 138,000 -______--_--__--___-_--_________,.__-_--_-------
Total, House of Representatives_____________________________ 268,000 268,000 268,000 268,000 ------------------------------------------------
JOINT ITEMS
Contingent Expenses of the Senate
Joint Committee on Printing -------------------------------------- 66,000 66,000 66,000 66,000 ---------------------------- --------------------
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
Capitol buildings and grounds---------------------------------------------------- 13,400 ---------------- 13,400 +$13,400 ---- ----------- - +$13,400
Construction of extension to New Senate OfficeBuilding_ --- ....... 16,322,000 ________________ 16,322,000 16,322,000 ---------------- +16,322,000 ----------------
Total, Architect of the Capitol------------------------------- 16, 322, 000 13,400 16, 322, 000 16, 335, 400 +13, 400 +16, 322, 000 +13, 400
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
Environmental impact study on the relocation of Government Printing
Office------------------------------------------------------ 300,000 ---------------- 300,000 300,000 ---------------- +300,000 ---------------
Total, Chapter III, new budget (obligational) authority---.-.... 18, 686, 805 347,400 18, 686, 805 18, 700, 205 +13, 400 +18,352, 805 +13,400
CHAPTER IV
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
Operating expenses______________________________________________ 54,700,000 ---------------- 59,700,000 25,500,000 -29,200,1100 +25, 500, 000 -34,200,000
Plant and capital equipment ----- :__------------------------------ - 18,300,000 ------ 18,300,000 9,150,000 -9,150,000 +9,150,000 -9,150,000
Total, Chapter IV, new budget(obligational)authority ---------- 73,000,000________________ 78,000,000 34,650,000 -38,350,1300 +34,650,000 -43,350,000
CHAPTER V
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Immigration and Naturalization Service
Restoring northern border activities---------------------------------------------------------------705,000 ---------------------------------------------`^ -7,05,000
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Economic Development Administration
Economic development assistance programs------------------------ 51500,000 51, 500, 000 74, 000, 000 62, 750, 000 +11,250,000 +11, 250, 000 -11, 250, 000
Administration of economic development assistance programs -------- 5:275,000 5,27 5, 000 5,275,000 5, 275, 000 ------------------------------------------------
Regional Action Planning Commissions
Regional development programs__________________________________ 7,005,000 __--:_-__= 7,005,000 3,502,000 -3,503,000 +3,502,000, ' -3;503,000
Total, Department of Commerce_____________________________ 63,780,000 56,775,000 86,280;000 71,527,000 +7,747,000 +14,752,000 -14,753,000
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020007-5
S 20854
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020007-5
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE December 9, Y 9?'.lb
CONFERENCE SUMMARY-SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL; 1975--it t 06900--Continued
CHAPTER V-Continued
THE JUDICIARY
Supreme Court of the United States
Care of the building and grounds--------------- -
Commission on the Revision of the Federal Court Appellate System of
Budget New budget New budget
estimate (obligational) (obligational)
of new authority authority
budget recommended recommended
(obligational) in House in Senate
authority bill bill
(2) (3) (4)
the United States---------------------------------------------- 351,000 --------------- 351,000
Total, The Judiciary _______________________________________ 609,500 258,500 609,500
RELATED AGENCIES
Small Business Administration
Increase (+) or decrease (-) conference
agreement compared with:
' onference Budget House Senate
agreement estimates bill bill
(5) (6) (7) (8)
$258,500 -----------------------------------------------
351,000 ---------------- +$351,000 ----------------
609,500 --------------- +351,000 ----------------
Total, Chapter V, new budget (obligation) authority.---- ------------ - 64, 389, 500 57, 033, 5D0
By transfer---------- -------------------- (20, 600, 000)---- ---------,
CHAPTER VI
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
6
rants-in-aid for airports (obligation limitation) ----------------------------------------- --_______-__-
Federal Railroad Administration
ra nts to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation-------------- - 84, 900, 000 -------- ------
Urban Mass Transportation Administration
RELATED AGENCIES
Interstate Commerce Commission
87, 594, 500 72,136, 500 +$7, 747, 000 +15,103,000 -$15.458, 000
(20,000,000) t20,000,000)---------------- (+20,000,000)-------_-------_
United States Railway Association
Administrative expenses----------------------------------------- 3,000,000
Total, Chapter VI, new budget (obligational) authority --------- ~93, 245, 000
CHAPTER VII
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Bureau of Government Financial Operations
4,000;000
4,170,000
Eisenhower College Grants -------------- -------------------- _-~-_--------- _------ ----------------=
U.S. Postal Service
8,000,000 7,000,000 -1,000,000 +3,000,000 -1,000,000
83,170, 000 77,170,000 -16, 075, 000
+73,000, 000 -6,000,000
9, 000, 000 9,000, 000 4-9, 000,000 +9,000,000 ----------------
Payment to the Postal Service Fond_________________________284,667,000 280,656,000 28% 656,000 _0,656,.000 -4,011,000 --------------------------------
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
Office of Management and Budget
Office of Federal Procurement Policy
Salaries sod expenses------------------------------------------ - .660,000 660,000 660,000 660,000 ------------------- _-......... _--_-------------
Council on Wage and Price Stability
Salaries and expenses -------------------------------------- -- - 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 ---------- ___,-------------- _----_-------------
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Civil Service Commission
Payment to Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund ------- --_-= 73,576,000 73,576,000 73,576,000 73,576,000________________________________________________
National Commission on Supplies and Shortages
Salaries and expenses_________________________ -------------_ 287.500 287,500 +287,500 +287,500 -_______________
National Commission on Electronic Fund Transfers
Salaries and expenses --------------------------------------c-~__-.--:- ------- --------- - 2, ON, 000 500,000 +500,000 +500,000 -1,500,000
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations
Full Deposit Insurance Study ---------------- --------------- -->_____~_-_ ----_____.____._--: 87,000 87,000 +87,000 +87?000 ----------------
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020007-5
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020007-5
December 9, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
CONFERENCE SUMMARY-SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1975-H.R. 16900-Continued
Budget
New budget
New budget
estimate
(obligational)
(obligational)
of new
authority
authority
budget
recommended
recommended
(obligational)
in House
in Senate
authority
bill
bill
S 20855
Increase (+) or decrease (-) conference
agreement compared with:
Conference Budget House Senate
agreement estimates bill bill
(5) (6) (7) (8)
CHAPTER VII-Continued
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES-Continued
General Services Administration
Real Property Operations
Federal Buildings Fund
Limitation on Availability of Revenue
Expenses, Presidential transition ---------------------------- $450,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 -$350 01)0 ______ _____:
_)
_0) _____ (-$ _10 -5 ,_ _000 _
(Limitation on nonreimbursabledetail) ---------------------------------------------- _---------- (220,000) (70,000) (-I- 7d, 000) (_ -_1-$70,00_
Allowances and office stall for former presidents-------------------- 400,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 -300,000 ---- __---------------- _________
Total, GSA--------------------- _____________-___.._-_--_- 850,000 200,000 200,000 _ 200,000 -650,000 ---------------------------------
Total, Independent Agencies________________________________ 74,426,000 73,776,000 76,150,50D 74,650,500 +224,500 +874,500 -1,500,000
Total, Chapter VII, New budget (obligational) authority -------- 360, 753, 000 356, 092, 000 367, 466, 500 365, 966, 500 +5, 213, 500 +9,874,500 -1,500,000
CHAPTER Vill
Claims and judgments-------------------------------- 51,472,873 50,5?9,662 51,472, 873 51,472,873 ---------------- +903,211 --------- ____
CHAPTER IX
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
Management of land and resources (by transfer) ..............c_:.-. (12,400,000)_______________ (12,400,000) (12,400,000) ----------------- (+12,400,000)-______---__-_-_
Office of Saline Water -
Saline water conversion---------------------------------------------------------- 2,900,000 2,900,000 2,900,000 +2,900,000 --------------------------------
Geological Survey
Surveys, investigations and-research (bytransfer) ___________________ . (2,600,000)--------------- - (2,600,000) (2,600,000)----- ------------ (+2,600,000)----------------
Operation of Indian programs -----_-, __________________________________________ 2,214,000 5,294,000 2,814,000 +2,814,1100 +600,000 -2,480,000
Construction------------------------------------------------------- - ---------------------- 100,000 ------------------------------------------------ -100,000
Road construction (liquidation ofcontract authority)--------------------------_____- (500,000) (500,000) . (500,000) (+500,000) --------------------------------
RELATED AGENCIES
Federal Energy Administration
Salaries and expenses-------------------------------------------- 16,000,000 ---------------- 8,000,000 8,000,000 -8,000,1100 +8,000,000 ----------------
Total, Chapter IX, new budget (obligational) authority---=_---- 16, 000, 000 5,114, 000 16, 294, 000
Liquidation of contract authority-------------------------- (500,000) (500,000)
By transfer___________________________________________ (15 000, 000)__________--____ 000,000)
Grand total: New budget (obligational)-authority -------------- 8, 279, 641,178 8,359,750,562 8'(15' 153;726,678
Consisting of:
Fiscal year 1975 appropriation---------------------- 5, 955,104,178 5,986,2 14562 6, 396 008, 678
Fiscal year 1976 appropriation - - - ------------------- 2, 323, 537, 000 2,373,537: 000 2, 351, 718, 000
By transfer- ______________________-------____- (42,400-000)-------- -_______ (40,900,000)
Liquidation of contract authority------------------ (500, 000) (500, 000)
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, most
Members, I believe, recognize and under-
stand how difficult it is to resolve the
differences between the two bodies, par-
ticularly on a bill that deals with many
departments and agencies such as this
supplemental appropriation bill. For the
most part, the conference agreement
dealing with the differences over fund-
ing levels for the various programs were
resolved and settled without a great
amount of controversy. The several sub-
committee chairmen and ranking Mem-
13, 714, 000 -2,286, 1100 +8,600,000 -2,580,000
(500, 000) (+500,1)00)___________________
(15,000,000)____________,.___ (+15,000,000)--------
59,352,078 _______
8, 6+380, 710, !100 +299, 600, 516 -94, 374, 600
6, 281, 634, 078 +326,529, 900 +295,419,516 -114, 374, 600
2, 377, 718, 000 +54,181, 000 +4,181,000 +20, 000, 000
(42, 400, 000)________________ (+42, 400, 000) (+1, 500, 000)
(500,000) (+500,1)00)--------------------------------
bers having jurisdiction over the items
that make up this supplemental worked
diligently in resolving these differences,
and will be able to comment on the is-
sues which any Member may wish to
inquire about.
Now, Mr. President, there are several
amendments in disagreement which are
not contained within the conference re-
port. These amendments, except for the
so-called Holt amendment, amendment
No. 17, and amendment No. 11, will be
called up for action after disposal of
the conference report. And, except for
the Holt amendment, I do not know of
any controversy involved with these
amendments. After adoption of the con-
ference report, it is my intention to move
to concur in the amendments of the
House to the amendments of the Senate,
separately and in regular order as the
amendments are reported. If there are
no questions, I yield.
Mr. YOUNGIr. Mr. President, I have
no comments, except to concur in the
views expressed by the distinguished
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020007-5
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020007-5
S20856 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE December 9,_i974
chairman of the committee that the con-
ference report should be apprdt'ed. We
are $95,874,000 below the Senate bill In
the conference report. It is $372,710,900
over the budget.
I may add it does have the support of
29 of the 31 Senate-House conferees.
Two of them, the distinguished Senator
from Massachusetts (Mr. BROOKE) and
the distinguished Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. CASE), have some objections
to one amendment. Other than that, I
think the conferees are all agreed.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, I
move that the conference report be
agreed to. '
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the conference,
report.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I understand
that motion is debatable.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the
Senator desire time?
Mr. CASE. I do not care whether it is
on the chairman's time or my time.
I would like, if I could, to address a
question to the chairman and to the ma-
jority leader.
Mr. McCLELLAN. May I suggest to the
distinguished Senator after the confer-
ence report is approved these amend-
ments will be offered.
I do not know whether the Senator ob-
jects to the conference report or to the
amendments. The amendments will be
offered sep1rately.
Mr. CASE. As the Senator knows, I was
a member of the conference and did not
sign the report. I am opposed to the re-
port because it contains the provision
which has been referred to.
Mr. McCLELLAN. The Senator is
within his rights.
Mr. CASE. Our colleague from Massa-
chusetts (Mr. BROOKE) also wanted to be
here to express his reasons for disagree-
ing. It is my understanding there might
be a possibility, and I ask this in the
presence of the distinguished Senator
from West Virginia, that the vote on
this amendment deleting the so-called
Holt amendment might occur tomorrow.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I have no informa-
tion about it. No one has consulted me
about it
Mr. COTTON. Will the Senator use his
microphone so- we can hear him speak?
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, all I
can say is no one has consultedme about
It. I have no idea when the vote will
come. I cannot predict it. No one can
predict when it is going to come, unless
we agree when it is going to come. That
is the way it can be established.
I hope we might agree that there might
be a back-to-back vote tomorrow on this
amendment, either before or after the
vote on the confirmation of the Rocke-
feller nomination.
Mr. HUGH SCOTT. Mr. President, if
the Senator will yield, I should like to
express the same hope.
As the Senator knows, I have an
amendment to offer on behalf of the
distinguished majority leader, Senator
MANSFIELD, and myself. As to whether
we can agree to a vote on that today or
tomorrow, I ale not aware of the wishes
of other Senators.
Mr. McCLELLAN. It is my understand-
ing that it is the desire of all of us In-
volved to have an agreement as to the
time when the Holt amendment and the
other amendment will be voted on and
when the amendment of the Senator
from Pennsylvania will be voted on. Is
that the problem?
Mr. HUGH SCOTT. That is right.
Mr. McCLELLAN. The Senator wants
that to be tomorrow?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. McCLELLAN. I yield.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. If I under-
stand what has been said so far, the
distinguished Senator from New Jersey
is interested in waiting - until tomorrow
for a vote on the Holt amendment. As I
also understood the distinguished Repub-
lican leader, it would be immaterial as
to whether it was tomorrow or today.
Mr. HUGH SCOTT. That is right.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. He would be
willing to go forward with his amend-
ment today.
. Mr. HUGH SCOTT. That is right-if
I am given a half-hour's notice.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. If I may sug-
gest, I would like, if it meets with the
approval of the distinguished leader and
the distinguished chairman, to proceed
with the amendment by Mr. HUGH ScoTT
today, dispose of It, andhave an agree-
ment that we vote on the Holt amend-
ment tomorrow, if the chairman would
approve of that procedure.
Mr. McCLELLAN. As chairman, I ant
willing to make any accommodating
agreement as to a time to vote. So far as
the Chair is personally concerned, I in-
quire of the distinguished minority
leader. with respect to the amendment
to be proposed by him and the majority
leader-cosponsored, I assume-whether
it is an amendment that is very contro-
versial. Is it anticipated that there will
be prolonged debate in opposition to It
orin support of it?
Mr. HUGH SCOTT. I have no informa-
tion as to that. I think it will develop
as the colloquy goes on.
I should have said that the amendment
by Senator MANSFIELD and myself is an
amendment to the Holt amendment.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Then, it would not
be in order until the Holt amendment is
before the Senate, I assume.
Mr. HUGH SCOTT. That is correct.
Mr. McCLELLAN. So it could not be
brought up until the Holt amendment
has been brought up.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. That is cor-
rect.
Mr. HUGH SCOTT. The distinguished
Senator from West Virginia and I did
not make that clear in the beginning. I
am sorry.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Are there
other amendments on which we could
proceed today?
Mr. McCLELLAN. I have not been ad-
vised of any, other than those -I have
reported.
I am willing to do anything within
reason to expedite consideration of this
matter.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I ask the dis-
tinguished Senator from Alabama
whether he has any suggestions in con-
nection with this matter.
Mr. ALLEN. I have no amendments to
offer. -I favor the conference report and
the report of the conferees on the action
to take, to send this matter to the Pres-
ident.
I am anxious to see the amendments
as recommended by the conferees ap-
proved by the Senate.
I might state that the Senate has the
power to act in this area and to send
this important bill to the President. Any
amendments such as proposed by the
distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania
and the distinguished Senator from
Montana would require the amendments
to go back to the House for further ac-
tion. It is my understanding, from those
who have felt the pulse of the House.
that they do not wantto yield on this
particular point, having voted twice
overwhelmingly to stand by their posi-
tion.
I understood that the distinguished
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
BROOKE) was in hopes that this matter
would not come up for a vote this after-
noon. I am wondering whether we might
make a request for the yeas and nays,
which, under the unanimous-consent
agreement, would probably postpone that
vote until 4 o'clock.
I request the yeas and nays on the con-
ference report, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on the adoption of the conference
report, and the yeas and nays are re-
quested.
The yeas and- nays were ordered.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, as we con-
sider this measure, it is appropriate to
note the continuing plight of the citi-
zens of Monticello, Ind. The April 3, 1974,
tornadoes severely damaged the business
districts of a number of American com-
munities, among them Monticello. Our
response was swift, and on April 10, 1974, -
the -Senate approved the Disaster Relief
Act Amendments of 1974, title V of which
establishes a comprehensive Federal pro-
gram to assist the economic recovery of
communities crippled by natural dis-
asters. That measure became Public Law
93-288 on May 22, 1974. To this day, how-
ever, the administration has failed to im-
plement title V of the act. The recon-
struction of Monticello must proceed, and
for that reason the Senate report to the
Department of Housing and Urban' De-
velopment Appropriation for fiscal year
1975 states: -
In view of the urgent need to proceed with
the reconstruction of communities ravaged
by the April 3, 1974 tornadoes, pending the
Implementation of the economic recovery
programs established by Title V of the Dis-
aster Relief Act Amendments of 1974, the
Committee encourages the use of urban re-
newal program funding for this purpose.
In accordance with this expression of
congressional intent, HUD has committed
$2 million to the reconstruction of Monti -
cello, and those funds are expected to be
available before the end of calendar year
1974. Unfortunately, Monticello remains
very much in a bind because implementa-
tion of the economic recovery program
of Public Law 93-288 is nowhere in sight
and the urban renewal program which
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020007-5'
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020007-5
December 9, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE S 20857
served as a source of Monticello's initial
$2 million commitment is being termi-
nated.
The Monticello Redevelopment Com-
mission estimates the total reconstruc-.
tion cost at $8 million over 4 years, with
a first-year requirment for $3 million.
Assistant Secretary of Housing for Com-
munity Development, David O. Meeker,
recently attended -a meeting in my office
with a number of Monticello's community
leaders who-came to Washington seeking
a resolution to their current funding di-
lemma; and at that time Mr. Meeker ex-
pressed a wilingness to consider provid-
ing Monticello with additional disaster
reconstruction assistance. This is consis-
tent with the Senate's stated intent re-
garding the interim use of urban renewal
funding for disaster relief, prior to the
termination of that program. ,
The reconstruction of Monticello can-
not wait, and I urge the continued con-
sideration of the use of interim funding
sources for disaster-torn communities,
pending the Implementation of title V of
Public Law 93-288. The measure before
us, for example, provides an urgent needs
transition fund of $50 million, as well as
a discretionary fund, either one of which
may lend itself to this purpose. -
It must be noted that any delay in the
rebuilding effort in Monticello, pending
the implementation of the new disaster
relief law, will jeopardize not only the
future well-being of the -community, but
the financial interests of the Federal
Government, which has already poured
a vast sum into Monticello, in the form
of debris removal; the provision of temp-
orary school rooms; funding to restore
and rebuild local government facilities,
such as the White County courthouse;
hundreds of thousands of dollars in low-
cost Federal loans to homeowners and
businessmen; and, of course, the more
than $2 million already committed to
launch the general economic recovery
program in downtown Monticello.
Clearly, it makes good sense for all
concerned to proceed with the rebuild-
ing of Monticello as quickly as possible,
and I urge - continued action by the De-
partment of Housing and Urban Devel-
opment in support of this goal.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I find my-
self in an unusual situation regarding
the vote on agreeing to the conference
report on H.R. 16900, the supplemental
appropriations bill. When this bill was
considered by the Senate - on November
20, I voted against its passage. I did so be-
cause I was convinced that it was a bad
bill-that it contained excessive and un-
justifiable expenditures`: Furthermore,
this bill comes at a time when we des?
perately need to reduce Government
spending rather than make appropria-
tions such as those contained in H.R.
16900. All together there were 18 nega-
tive votes. The bill passed with 65 af-
firmative votes. The House of Repre-
sentatives has agreed to the conference
report. It is now before the Senate, and
it appears obvious that it will pass.
But, - I mentioned an unusual proced-
ural situation. The provision regard-
ing the Office of Education-con-
ference amendment No. 17-was re-
ported in technical- disagreement.
Therefore, it is not a part of the
conference report proper. Because of this
situation, the conference report proper
is being considered by the Senate first.
Then, the provisions reported by the
conferees in disagreement will each be
considered. The aforementioned provi-
sion relating to- the Office of Education
contains language offered by Congress-
woman HOLT and approved by the House
of Representatives. This language is as.
follows:
None of these funds shall be used to compel
any school system as a condition for receiving
grants and other benefits from the appro-
priations above, to classify teachers or stu-
dents by race, religion, sex, or national
origin; or to assign teachers or studbnts to
schools, classes, or courses for reasons of
race, religion, sex, or national origin.
Because this language will, if approved,
help to return control of our schools to
local units of government and to the
people, I strongly favor it. In fact, I
offered substantially the same amend-
ment in the Senate on November 19. Be-
cause of the procedural situation, when
we vote on the conference report proper,
we will not know if the provision con-
taining the above language will be agreed
to by the Senate without, modification.
I am advised that there will not be a
final wrap-up vote on the entire matter
but that we will proceed on these matters
separately.
Because of my strong wish for the
Senate to retain in the bill the above
language offered by Congresswoman
HOLT and because it is evident that the
conference report will be agreed to, I am
voting in favor of concurring with the
House on the conference report proper.
I do so, in the sure knowledge that ex-
cessive appropriations are being made,
but the time to oppose them has passed.
We opposed them on November 20, and
proponents of the measures prevailed by
a vote of 65 to 18. Today, the primary
consideration is the language of the Holt
amendment and the great good that will
result for our schools and children if it
becomes law. -
For these reasons, I am voting to con-
cur with the House in the conference
report on H.R. 16900. I do so in the sin-
cere hope that the Holt language will be
retained by the Senate without modifica-
tion.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago
the Senate agreed to my amendment to
reduce Federal travel and transportation
expenses by 25 percent. Last week, after
a flood of objections from various depart-
ments and agencies and the hint of a
Presidential veto, Senate and House con-
ferees reached a compromise agreement
to cut Federal travel expenses by 10 per-
cent. -
I am happy that we have achieved this
reduction in view of the stiff resistance
this measure has met, but am also dis-
appointed, of course, that the amount cut
was not larger. However, I am pleased
with the stiff fight that the Senate con-
ferees made for the original amendment.
I am particularly appreciative of the sup-
port given by Chairman MCCLELLAN, who
deserves much of the praise and credit
for retaining this limitation on Federal
travel and for directing the Appropria-
tions Subcommittees to conduct a con-
tinuing review of - Government travel
costs with a view toward achieving fur-
ther reductions.
I also commend the conferees for
agreeing that this travel cut should also
apply to members of the legislative and
judicial branches. Although these two
branches combined spend less than 1 per-
cent of the total travel budget, it is im-
portant that every branch contribute to
the effort to economize.
I find some of the statements coming
out of the executive branch disturbing
and annoying, In the past 2 weeks my of-
fice has been bombarded with letters and
phone calls from the Federal bureaucrats
complaining about the inconveniences
the amendment would cause, or request-
ing specific exemptions for certain agen-
cies. These people seem to be getting their
priorities mixed up. Being a member of
the executive branch should not exempt
a person from the cost-cutting and fuel-
saving sacrifices that the President has
asked all Americans to endure.
The top officials in the -executive
branch have been recommending budget
cuts in a variety of Federal programs,
including social security, education, and
health programs. They have all stressed
the need for tough measures to reduce
excessive Federal spending. These same
officials have also been pushing for en-
ergy conservation, calling on the Amer-
ican people to cut their driving plans
and conserve energy. - -
But apparently some of these same
officials believe that budget cuts and fuel-
saving measures should apply to every-
one but themselves. While millions of
Americans cut back or cancel their own
travel plans, officials in the - executive
branch complain that a Government
travel cut would be inequitable. And
while virtually- every business and pri-
vate organization has been forced to re-
duce its travel budget to save fuel and
money, officials in the executive branch
claim a travel cut would be disruptive.
Despite all of the complaining by the
executive branch, I do not believe that
this travel cut amendment will put the
Government out; of business. Even with
a 10-percent reduction, the Federal Gov-
ernment.will still be spending about $1.8
billion this fiscal year on travel. If es-
sential Government travel cannot be
done with that amount of money, per-
haps they ought to hire some efficiency
experts, or, better yet, reduce the num-
ber of Government bureaucrats. -
And despite the protests, I want to em-
phasize that this is just the beginning of
my efforts to cut out the waste, ineffi-
ciency, and duplication in the Govern-
ment bureaucracy.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll. -
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. 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.
r
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020007-5
S,20858
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020007-5
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE December 91 1974
FIVE-MINUTE RECESS
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
stand in recess for 5 minutes.
There being no objection, at 3:10 p.m.
the Senate took a recess for 5 minutes.
The Senate reassembled at 3:15 p.m.,
when called to order by the Presiding
Officer (Mr. HELMS). -
REAL ESTATE SETTLEMENT PRO-
CEDURES ACT OF 1974-CONFER-
ENCE REPORT
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I sub-
mit a report of the committee of confer-
ence on S. 3164, and ask for its immedi-
ate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The re-
port will be stated by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The committee of conference on the dis-
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendments of the House to the bill (S.
3164) to provide for greater disclosure of
the nature and- costs of real estate settle-
ment services, to eliminate the payment of
kickbacks and unearned fees in connection
with settlement services provided in federal-
ly related mortgage transactions, and for
other purposes, having met, after full and
free conference, have agreed to recommend
and do recommend to their respective Houses
this report, signed by all the conferees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the consideration of the con-
ference 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 RECORD of December 9, 1974, at
pages H11392-H11395.)
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I sup-
port the conference report on S. 3164, the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of
1974. I do so because the Senate position
prevailed on the most important issue
before the conferees. That issue is
whether the Congress should repeal the
authority of the Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development to regulate set-
tlement charges on FHA-VA mortgage
transactions under section 701(a) of the
Emergency Home Finance Act of 1970.
This authority was first enacted by
the Congress as a way of curbing exces-
sive settlement charges. However, S. 3164,
as reported by the Senate Committee on
Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, re-
pealed HUD's authority under section
701. On July 23 of this year, the Senate,
by a vote of 55 to 37, approved my
amendment to preserve HUD's authority
to regulate settlement charges.
By way of contrast, the House bill re-
pealed HUD's authority under section
701. However, the House conferees re-
ceded from the House position and the
Senate position prevailed. I believe this
represents a victory for the homebuyer
and a defeat for the real estate settle-
ment lobby which tried so hard to repeal
HUD's authority to regulate settlement
charges.
I am also pleased that the joint ex-
planatory statement of the conference
committee clarifies the fact that HUD
really has authority to regulate settle-
ment charges throughout a particular
market area. Unfortunately, the record
of the Senate debate on this issue last
July is somewhat murky. Some Senators
who were on the losing side of the vote
inserted statements into the RECORD
claiming that Congress never really in-
tended to give HUD the authority to reg-
ulate settlement charges in the first
place.
However, these statements were merely
inserted into the RECORD and never actu-
ally delivered. The fact that these state-
ments were not challenged in the record
of the debate does not mean they were
agreed to by all participants in the de-
bate. Those who would have sharply dis-
agreed, including this Senator, had no
opportunity to voice their disagreement
because of the manner in which the
statements were inserted into the
RECORD.
It is entirely clear to me that Congress
did intend, in 1970, to give the Secretary
of HUD the authority to regulate real es-
tate settlement charges on FHA VA
mortgage transactions. This view is forti-
fied. by an opinion from the HUD gen-
eral counsel dated February 4, 1972, for
which I ask unanimous consent to have
inserted into the RECORD following my
remarks. Moreover, the conference report
on S. 8164 clearly reaffirms the view that
Congress intends to give the Secretary of
HUD authority to regulate settlement
charges.
For example, the joint explanatory
statement states that the continuation of
HUD's authority under section 701 "is de-
sirable for its deterrent effect and can, in
fact, facilitate the achievement of the
purposes of the act." In other words, the
mere threat of invoking HUD's regulatory
authority can deter excessive increases in
settlement charges. Obviously, If HUD
had no real authority to begin with, the
threat to invoke such nonexistent au-
thority could hardly constitute a realistic
deterrent.
Also, the joint explanatory statement
goes on to indicate that-
Nothing in the Act is intended to preclude
the Secretary's use of section 701 authority at
any time he finds it necessary to curb abuses
in specific market areas.
In other words, the Secretary of HUD
is free to act tomorrow to regulate set-
tlement charges throughout a particular
geographic area if he finds that settle-
mexlt charges in that area are substan-
tially out of line with the rest of the
country. I am hopeful that this new con-
gressional guidance to the Secretary of
HUD will convince him to use his author-
ity, on a selective basis, to protect the
public from excessive settlement charges.
It. should also be noted that the con-
ference report retains the broader defi-
nition of settlement charges included in
the present law. This definition has been
interpreted by HUD to include real es-
tate sales commissions. Congress at-
tempted, in 1972, to exclude real estate
commissions from the definition of set-
tlement charges but no legislation was
enacted. The National Association of
Realtors contacted members of the con-
ference committee on S. 3164 and urged
them to exclude real estate commissions
from the definition of settlement charges.
However, the conference committee
gave no consideration to this request. As
a result, real estate commissions along
with all other settlement charges are sub-
ject to HUD's regulatory authority under
section 701. I believe the inclusion of real
estate commissions is important because
they comprise nearly_$6 billion of the $14
billion in settlement charges paid by the
American public each year.
Mr. President, the reforms contained in
S. 3164 as it was finally agreed to by the
conference committee are, certainly a
step in the right direction. Even though
many - if them are already contained in
existing law or administrative regula-
tions, it is desirable for the Congress to
reaffirm its concern in this area. The bill
provides for a full and timely disclosure
of settlement charges, prohibits kick-
backs, limits payments into escrow ac-
counts, and achieves other improvements
in the real estate settlement process. It
should be clearly understood, however,
that this bill is by no means the final
answer to the settlement charge problem.
In my opinion, it does not go nearly far
enough in reducing excessive settlement
charges.
More disclosure is fine, but I do not be-
lieve more disclosure and the other pro-
visions of S. 3164 will appreciably reduce
settlement charges for the average home
buyer. This is because the real estate set-
tlement process is inherently an anticom-
petitive situation. The average person
buys or sells a home only once or twice in
his life-time. He is a babe in the woods
compared to the real estate settlement
professionals who deal in hundreds of
transactions a year. The typical home
buyer is not going to-be materially helped
by more disclosure when he has no basis
for judging the real need for particular
services, or the reasonableness of the
charge.
Moreover, price competition in real
estate settlement servicesIs deliberately
discouraged through minimum fee
schedules and similar devices. It is in-
teresting to note that President Ford
also does not think S. 3164 is the final
answer to excessive real estate settlement
charges. In his economic message to the
Congress on October 8, President Ford
pledged a more vigorous antitrust attack
against noncompetitive professional fee
schedules and real estate settlement fees.
Since S. 3164 does not go into effect
for i year, Congress will have ample op-
portunity next year to consider stronger
measures for reducing excessive settle-
ment charges. I believe we need to take
a close look at the antitrust enforcement
program proposed by the Ford admin-
istration. Perhaps this will do the job. At
the same time, I believe we need to ex-
plore in depth other approaches. One ap-
proach is to mandate the Secretary of
HUD to issue regulations by a specified
date to limit settlement charges on all
residential real estate transactions.
Another approach which has received
growing support from consumer organi-
zations and legal scholars is to require
the lender to pay for those settlement
charges which he requires as a condition
for making the loan. The superior eco-
nomic leverage of the lender will elimi-
nate unnecessary and excessive settle-
ment charges while, hopefully, cormeti-
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020007-5
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020007-5
December 9, 197 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE S 20859
tion between lenders will force these sav-
ings to be passed on to the general pub-
lic. Another approach suggested by Sen-
ator HATHAWAY is to require that HUD
furnish certain settlement services direct
to the buyer. All of these approaches
should be explored carefully next year.
Mr. President, I do not wish to deni-
grate the work that has gone into S.
3164. It is a good and worthwhile bill.
But we should not be deceived into
thinking that S. 3164 is the final answer.
It is merely a first step. The Congress
and the administration will have to give
further consideration to the problem
next year and in the years ahead.
I ask unanimous consent that a mem-
orandum on mortgage settlement costs
prepared by HUD be printed in the REC-
ORD at this point.
There being no objection, the memo-
randum was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
FEBRUARY 4, 1972.
Memorandum for: Eugene A. Gulledge, As-
. sistant Secretary-Commissioner.
Subject: Report on Mortgage Settlement
Costs, Regulation of Maximum Settle-
ment Costs.
In connection with the Report to the Con-
gress on Mortgage Settlement Costs, you have
asked our opinion as to whether this Depart-
ment has the legal authority to set maxi-
mums on settlement costs paid by both buy-
ers and sellers in connection with insured
mortgage transactions. For the reasons set
forth below, in our opinion, HUD does have
such legal authority based on Section 701 (a)
of the Emergency Home Finance Act of 1970,
which provides that:
"Sec. 701(a) With respect to housing built,
rehabilitated, or sold with assistance pro-
vided under the National Housing Act or un-
der chapter 37 of title 38, United States Code.
the Secretary of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment and the Administrator of Veterans' Af-
fairs are respectively authorized and directed
to prescribe standards governing the amounts
of settlement costs allowable in connection
with the flnaxcing of such housing in any
such area. Such standards shall-
(1) be established after consultation be-
tween the Secretary and the Administrator;
(2) be consistent in any area for housing
assisted under the National Housing Act and
housing assisted under chapter 37 of title 38,
United States Code; and
(3) be based on the Secretary's and the
Administrator's estimates of the reasonable
charge for necessary services involved in set-
tlements for particular classes of mortgages
and loans." (Emphasis added.)
From the legislative history of Section 701
it appears that Congress had both buyer
settlement costs and seller settlement costs
in mind. House Report No. 91-1131 to accom-
pany H.R. 17495 and Senate Report 91-761
to accompany S. 3685 both state:
"It is the committee's intent that the
study and recommendations on settlement
costs cover not only Government-assisted
mortgage transactions but also all residen-
tial real estate transactions, with particular
reference to those transactions involving
single-family homes where the unsophisti-
cated purchaser or seller is often unfamiliar
with the complex details of transferring real
The paragraph quoted indicates the con-
cern of the Congress with both the buyer and
seller. This concern provides an adequate
legal basis when coupled with the obvious
need to control both sides of the transaction
to prevent costs to the seller from increasing
as costs to the buyer decrease. Unless both
sides are controlled, the true cost to the buy-
er will be hidden in the sales price.
It is clear also that the authority in the
Emergency Home Finance Act includes the
authority to prescribe maximums. This is
because of the direction of Sec. 701(a) that
HUD and VA prescribe "standards governing
the amounts of settlement costs allowable."
(Emphasis added.)
The exercise of such authority constitutes
rulemaking governed by the Administrative
Procedure Act. The standards and maximums
must be promulgated as HUD regulations.
They must, therefore, in accordance with
HUD policy, be adopted through the normal
Federal Register procedure, which requires
published notice and opportunity for public
comment prior to adoption of the final rule.
Also, because under Section 701(a) (1), such
standards and maximums may be established
only after consultation between the Secre-
tary of HUD and the Administrator of the
Veterans' Administration, adoption of the
final rules probably should be by simultane-
ous issuance by HUD and VA.
Therefore, procedurally, it would appear
necessary first to determine tentative "rea-
sonable charges" for specifically delineated
"areas" of the country, in conjunction with
VA, and then to publish proposed maximum
charges for comment. After consideration of
comments, the rules could be adopted on an
area by area basis as they are approved. Final
approval of maximum reasonable charges
would have to be a central office function
of HUD and VA to assure a reasonable rela-
tionship between the maximums allowed in
different areas for similar services.
Some items of settlement costs, such as
transfer taxes and recording fees, are charged
directly by State and local governing bodies
and HUD should not attempt to regulate
such charges without further examination
of the relevant legal questions. Other items
of settlement costs, such as title insurance
premiums or attorney's minimum fees are
charged by private parties but may be set or
approved by States or other public or quasi-
public bodies. Any finding by HUD that such
privately-charged costs are too high must, of
course, be carefully documented to overcome
a presumption that they are "reasonable".
It should be noted that any attempt to
regulate seller settlement costs, particularly
real estate sales commissions, - undoubtedly
will lead to litigation. Although we believe
that such regulation would be supportable
on the reasoning discussed above, the ques-
tions presented would be novel and there
can be no final and absolute legal determina-
tion at this time. Regardless of the manner
in which the precise legal questions may be
presented in litigation, the outcome may well
hinge on how well this Department is able
to document and justify the basis upon
which the maximum allowable charges are
established from area to area.
DAvm O. MAxwEm.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the confer-
ence report.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield for a unanimous-consent
request?
Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield.
TRADE REFORM ACT OF 1974
AMENDMENT NO. 2000
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that amendment No.
2000, which has been printed and which
I sent to the desk last week, be con-
sidered as having been read. to meet the
reading requirements of rule XXII,
should cloture be invoked in connection
with H.R. 10710, the trade bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection?
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, reserv-
ing the right to object, may I ask tho
Senator from Washington what he is re-
(erring to?
Mr. JACKSON, This is the amendment
in connection with Russian emigration,
which must be offered to the bill in order
to authorize the President to waive the
present. ban in connection with most-
favored-nation treatment and credit,
should they not comply with the under-
standing that has been worked out on
emigration.
I would say to my good friend from
Michigan that my concern is a technical
one, that if I do not do this and cloture
its invoked, this amendment would not be
in order, and I would say that would
jeopardize the whole bill.
Mr. GRIFFIN. As far as I know, no clo-
ture motion has yet been filed.
Mr. JACKSON. No, this is anticipa-
tory.
Mr. GRIFFIN. As I understand it, I
think this is a subject that would ordi-
narily be considered as relevant, and I
do not object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, I ask unan-
imous consent that the following
members of the staff of the Committee on
Commerce be granted privilege - of the
floor during consideration and votes on
the trade bill and amendments thereto:
Lynn Sutcliffe, Henry Lippek, Ed Merles,
and Dave Freeman.
I ask unanimous consent that the same
privileges be granted to Colin Mathews of
my personal staff.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
REAL ESTATE SETTLEMENT PROCE-
DURES ACT OF 1974-CONFERENCE
REPORT
The Senate continued with the con-
sideration of the report of the Commit-
tee of Conference on the disagreeing
votes of the two Houses on S. 3164, the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
of 1974.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I
move the adoption of the conference re-
port.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the conference
report.
Mr. GRIFFIN, Mr. President, I suggest
the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proc-
eeded to call the roll.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
FEDERAL RESERVE POLICY
DEEPENS THE RECESSION
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, the
recession is being cruelly and unneces-
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020007-5
S 20860
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020007-5
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE December 9, 1974
sarily deepened by the continued high
interest rates caused by Federal Reserve
policy.
The recession has deepend and will, in
part, continue to deepen for the next
several months at least because of the
"super tight" money policies followed by
the Federal Reserve Board in the second
half of this year.
Since June the money supply has - in-
creased at a pitifully inadequate 3 per-
cent. This is an excessively tight policy
for two reasons: First, the economy has
been in a recession since December of
1973 with production in real terms fall-
ing sharply and consistently throughout
that period, and unemployment has In-
creased rapidly since June.
Second. an inflation led by oil, steel,
chemicals, and food has skyrocketed
prices at a 12 percent rate. Result, the
3-percent increase in the money supply
translates into a "real" contraction of
money of 9 percent.
If this were a demand type inflation
with too much money chasing too few
goods we would have an agonizing choice
between aggravating the inflation by
turning on the money spigot and crucify-
ing the unemployed by keeping It turned
off.
Fortunately, we do not have that cruel
choice. No one who has paid any atten-
tion to the economy calls this a demand
inflation. Retail sales-the prime evi-
dence of demand-are In real terms
down and have been consistently down.
Unemployment is increasing rapidly and
hoursof work are literally the shortest
in the history of the country.
Our problem is not too much but too
little demand. By refusing to provide the
credit our system needs, the Federal Re-
serve Board is restraining job-producing
activity in the private sector, and mak-
ing major public employment-including
even the possibility of a return to the old
WPA, a greater and greater political
probability.
The way to meet the problem of higher
prices and fewer jobs is to give the pri-
vate sector its head. Here the discipline
of competition, the necessity of holding
down costs, and especially the fact that
the private sector, unlike the military and
space programs for example, produces
economic goods means that more activity
will produce both jobs and the abundance
of goods that can reduce the rate of in-
flation. -
By persisting in its supertight mon-
etary policy the Federal Reserve Board
is responsible for increasing unemploy-
ment. It Is also assuring that the Federal
budget will be bigger and the Federal def-
icit greater. How else can Congress and
the President react except with increased
spending when 6 million of our fellow cit-
izens want work and cannot find it?
So I call on the Federal Reserve Board
to reconsider its tight money policy as
rapidly as it can and as rapidly as It
should.
Mr. President,- I suggest the absence of
a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative . clerk pro-
ceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded. -
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, It is so ordered. -
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous - consent that Mr.
HRUSKA proceed for 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
H.R. 6274-RELIEF TO PAYEES AND
SPECIAL ENDORSEES OF FRAUDU-
LENTLY NEGOTIATED CHECKS
DRAWN ON DESIGNATED DEPOSI-
TARIES OF THE UNITED STATES
Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, I ask the
Chair to lay before the Senate a message
from the House of Representatives on
H.R. 6274.
The PRESIDING OFFICER kMr.
H>.i.n[s) laid before the Senate a message
from the House of Representatives an-
nouncing its disagreement to the amend-
ment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 6274)
to grant relief to payees and special en-
dorsees of fraudulently negotiated
checks drawn on designated depositaries
of the United States by extending the
avafiability of the check forgery insur-
ance fund, and for other purposes.
Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, this bill
would grant relief to payees and special
endorsees of fraudulently negotiated
checks drawn on designated depositaries
of the United States by extending the
availability of the check forgery insur-
ance fund.
This bill was passed by the House of
Representatives In September of last
year. It came over to the Senate where it
was considered by the Committee on the
Judiciary-and was approved In the iden-
tical form In which it was approved and
passed by the House. -
However, on the floor of the Senate
the bill was amended so as to add a pro-
vison which sought to permit the con-
tribution of Federal surplus property to
the States for use in their criminal jus-
tice programs.
The House has disagreed with that
amendment., We are prepared-and this
is done after consultation with the sen-
ior Senator from Arkansas, who was the
principal sponsor of the amendment--to
recede from the amendment to this bill.
This is done on the basis of assurances
received from the other body that dur-
ing the conference committee meeting
on S. 821 that the House_ Committee on
Government Operations was taking up a
general revision of the subject of excess
and surplus property disposition. The
hope is expressed that this revision will
get consideration to the needs of law en-
forcement agencies in this regard.
Mr. President, for these reasons, I
move that the Senate recede from its
amendment to the bill. -
The motion was agreed to. -
Mr. HRUSKA. I thank the Senator for
yielding. -
REAL ESTATE SETTLEMENT PRO-
CEDURES ACT OF 1974-CON-
FERENCE REPORT The Senate continued with the con-
sideration of the report of the commit-
tee. of . conference on the . disagreeing
votes, of the two Houses on S. 3164, the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
of -1974.
. Mr. BROCK. Mr. President, I rise in
support of the conferencereport accom-
panying S. 3164, the Real Estate Settle-
ment Procedures Act of 1974.
Quick passage of this important con-
sumer protection legislation will be the
most meaningful step Congress can -take
this year to bring immediate relief to the
prosepetive home buyer from the high
cost of homeownership. The home buyer
has had to shoulder enormous financial
burdens in the past which really were
unnecessary and self-defeating. If this
legislation is enacted, the prospective
buyer will know exactly what he Is
paying for, and if he is really paying for
a necessary service.
This bill provides reforms In the -com-
plex real estate settlement process
needed to Insure that consumers are pro-
vided with greater and more timely in-
information on the nature and costs of
the settlement. It eliminates certain
abusive practices, such as kickbacks,
which increase the costs of real estate
settlements. Additionally, amounts that
home buyers are required to place in
escrow accounts will be limited.
The most significant difference be-
tween the Senate and House versions
was resolved when the conference com-
mitee agreed to retain section 701 of the
Emergency Home Finance Act of 1970.
That section gives the Department of
Housing and Urban Development and
the Veterans' Administration the au-
thority to prescribe standards governing
the amounts allowable in connection
with the financing of HUD and VA as-
sisted housing. The conference recog-
nized that section 701 authority is not
currently being used, but that it can be
retained as standby authority for the de-
terrent effect and can, in fact, facilitate
the achievement of the purposes of the
act.
Those of us who believe that section
701 ought to be repealed are convinced
on- the basis of the hearings and floor
debate that took place on S. 3164 that
HUD now recognizes that this section
does not authorize Federal rate regula-
tion. Moreover, we are convinced that
HUD will not arbitrarily use this standby
authority and that any "standards" de-
veloped by HUD under section 701 will
be based on a full and fair analysis of
the costs of rendering settlement serv-
ices. -
The Senate bill would: - -
Prohibit all kickbacks - and referral
fees paid or received in connection with
a real estate settlement;
Require HUD to develop special infor-
mation booklets to explain in under-
standable language the settlement proc-
ess and its-costs and these booklets will
have to be given by a mortgage lender
to a prospective home buyer at' the time
he files a mortgage loan application;
Require the lender to provide the home
buyer with a detailed estimate of his set-
tlement - costs sufficiently In advance of
the closing to allow the home buyer to
comparative shop for settlement services
and to be fully aware of the various
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020007-5
A proved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020007-5
December 9, 197. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 8 20861`
charges-such as-transfer taxes, record-
ing fees, et cetera=that he will have to
pay at closing;
Require HUD to develop a uniform
settlement statement for use in all fed-
erally related mortgage loans so as to
eliminate the confusion caused by the
tremendous diversity of forms presently
used throughout the country;
Place strict limitations on the amounts
lenders can require borrowers to pay into
escrow accounts established for the pur-
pose of insuring payment of real estate
taxes and insurance;
Require HUD to take steps to develop
model land recordation systems that can
subsequently be adopted by local govern-
ments to eliminate the present wasteful
and costly systems of recording and in-
dexing land title information; and
Require HUD to report back to the
Congress on what further legislative
measures may be needed to deal with
problems and unreasonable practices in
the settlement process.
All of these important provisions were
retained by the conference. The confer-
ence report contains the following House
provisions relating to property covered
by federally related mortgage loans;
In certain cases the seller would be re-
.quired to disclose to the buyer the pre-
vious selling price of the property;
Sellers of property would be prohibited
from requiring buyers who are the pur-
chasers of title insurance to use a par-
ticular title company;
The beneficial interest of a person in
a federally-related mortgage loan would
have to be revealed to the lender and ap-
propriate Federal regulatory agency; and
finally
States would be allowed to enforce
their settlement practice laws which are
not inconsistent with the act.
Quick action by the Senate and House
on the conference report and the sign-
ing of the act. into law by, the President
this year will bring needed relief to the
hard-pressed homebuyer.
I am delighted with the action of the
conferees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the conference
report.
The conference report was agreed to.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I move
that the printing of the conference re-
port as a Senate document be waived.
The motion was agreed to.
The - PRESIDING OFFICER. What Is
the will of the Senate?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll. '
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to' call the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Senator from Nebraska are in agreement ment described in subsection (b) of this
on, that there be a time limitation of 8 section, for 7 days over a period. of 2 weeks
minutes to be equally divided between in newspapers of general circulation of the
them. district in which the cases has been filed,
The PRESIDING OF'F'ICER. Is there in the District of' Columbia, and in such
other districts objection? The Chair hears none. With- court may et-
(i) a summary es of the the terms of the pro-
out objection, it Is so ordered. posal for the consent judgment,
"(ii) a summary of the competitive im-
pact statement filed under subsection (b),
ANTITRUST PROCEDURES AND "(iii) and a list of the materials and docu-
PENALTIES ACT ments under subsection (b) which the United
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, I ask the States shall make available for purposes of
meaningful public comment, and the place
Chair to lay before the Senate a message where such materials and documents are
from the House of Representatives on available for public inspection.
S. 182. "(d) During the 60-day period as specified
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. In subsection (b) of this section, and such
HELMS) laid before the Senate the additional time as the United States may
amendment of the House of Represent- request and the court may grant, the United
States
alives to the bill (S. 782) to reform con- ten comments relating shall receive and consider proposal for
fbr
sent decree procedures, to increase pen- the consent judgment submitted the p consent udgment submitted under sub-
alties for violation of the Sherman Act, section (b). The Attorney General or his
and to revise the Expediting. Act as It designee shall establish procedures to carry
pertains to Appellate Review, as follows: out the provisions of this subsection, but
Strike out all after the enacting clause and such 60-day time period shall not be short
insert: That this Act may be cited as the ened except by order of the district court
"Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act", upon a showing that (1) extraordinary cir_
UUMS&r,r I) iir:a rav.;k;UU as (2) such shortening is not adverse to the
SEc. 2. Section 5 of the Act entitled "An public interest. At the close of the period
Act to supplement existing laws against un- during which such comments may be re-
lawful restraints and monopolies, and for ceived, the United States shall file with the
other purposes", approved October 15, 1914 district court and cause to be published in
(16 U.S.C. 16), is amended by redesignating the Federal Register a response to such
subsection (b) as (1) and by inserting im- comments.
mediately after subsection (a) the following: "(e) Before entering any consent judgment
"(b) Any proposal for a consent judgment proposed by the United. States under this
submitted by the United States. for entry section, the court shall- determine that the
in any civil proceeding brought by or on be- entry of such judgment is in the public in-
half of the United States under the anti- terest. For the purpose of such determina-
trust laws shall be filed with the district tion, the court may consider-
court before which such proceeding is pend- "(1) the competitive impact of such judg-
ing and published by the United States in ment, including termination of alleged vio-
the Federal Register at least 60 days prior to lations, provisions for enforcement and mod-
the effective date of such judgment. Any iflcation, duration or relief sought, antici-
written comments relating to such proposal pated effects of alternative remedies actually
and any responses by the United States considered, and any other considerations
thereto, shall also be filed with such district bearing upon the adequacy of such judg-
court :and published by the United States ment;
in the Federal Register within such sixty-day "(2) the impact of entry of such judg-
period. Copies of such proposal and any ment upon the public generally and indi-
other materials and documents which the viduals alleging specific injury from the
United States considered determinative in violations set forth in the complaint includ-
formulating such proposal, shall also be ing consideration of the public benefit, If
made available to the public at the district any, to be derived from a determination of
court and in such other districts as the the issues at trial.
court may subsequently direct. Simultane- "(f) In making its determination under
ously with the filing of such proposal, unless subsection (e), the court may-
otherwise instructed by the court, the United . "(1) take testimony of Government officials
States shall file with the district court, pub- or experts or such other expert witnesses,
lash in the Federal Register, and thereafter upon motion of any party or participant or
furnish to any person upon request, a com- upon its own motion, as the court may deem
petitive impact statement which shall re- appropriate;
cite- "(2) appoint a special master and such
"(1) the nature and purpose of the pro- outside consultants or expert witnesses as
ceeding;. the court may deem appropriate; and request
"(2) a description of the practices or and obtain the views, evaluations, or advice
events giving rise to the alleged violation of of any individual, group or agency of govern-
the antitrust laws; ment with respect to any aspects of the pro-
"(3) an explanation of the proposal for a posed judgment or the effect of such judg-
consent judgment, including an explanation ment, in such manner as the court deems
of any unusual circumstances giving rise to appropriate;
such proposal or any provision contained "(3) authorize full or limited participation
therein, relief to be obtained thereby, and in proceedings before the court by interested
the anticipated effects on competition of persons or agencies, including appearance
such relief; amicus curiae, intervention as a party pur-
" (4) the remedies available to potential suant to the Federal Rules of Civil Proce-
private plantiffs damaged by the alleged vio- dure, examination of witnesses or documen-
lation in the event that such proposal for tary materials, or participation in any other
the consent judgment is entered in such manner and extent which serves the public
proceeding; interest as the court may deem appropriate;
"(5) a description of the procedures avail- "(4) review any comments including any
able for modification of such proposal; and obiections flied with the United States under
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that the Sen-
ator from California may be recognized
to call up a matter which he and the
natives to such proposal actually considered judgment and the responses of the United
by the United States. States to such comments and objections; and
"(a) The United States shall also cause "(5) take such other action in the public
to be published, commencing at least 60 interest as the court may deem appropriate.
days prior to the effective date of the judg- "(g) Not later than 10 days following the
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020007-5
S 20862
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020007-5
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE December - 9, 1974
date of the filing of any proposal for a con-
sent judgment under subsection (b), each
defendant shall file with the district court
a description of any and all written or oral
communications by or on behalf of such
defendant, including any and all written or
oral communications on behalf of - such de-
fendant. or other person, with any officer or
employee of the United States concerning or
relevant to such proposal, except that any
Such communications made by counsel of
record alone with the Attorney General or
the employees of the Department of Justice
alone shall be excluded from the require-
ments of this subsection. Prior to the entry
of any consent judgment pursuant to the
antitrust laws, each defendant shall certify
to the district court that the requirements of
-this subsection have been complied with and
that such filing is a true and complete de-
scription of such communications known to
the defendant or which the defendant rea-
sonably- should have known.
"(h) 'Proceedings before the district court
under subsections (e) and (f) of this sec-
tion, and the competitive impact statement
filed under subsection (b) of this section,
shall not be admissible against any defend-
ant in any action or proceeding brought by
any other party against such defendant un-
der the antitrust laws or by the United States
under section 4A of this Act nor constitute a
basis for the introduction of the consent
judgment as prima facie evidence against
such defendant in any such action or
proceeding."
PENALTIES
SEC. 3. Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Act en-
titled "An Act to protect trade and commerce
against unlawful restraints and monopolies",
approved July 2. 1890 (15 U.S.C. 1, 2, and 3),
are each amended-
(1) by striking out "misdemeanor" when-
ever it appears and inserting in lieu thereof
in each case "felony";
(2) by striking out "fifty thousand dollars"
whenever such phrase appears and inserting
in lieu thereof In each case the following:
"one million dollars if a corporation, or, if
any other person, one hundred thousand dol-
lars"; and
(3) by striking out "one year" whenever
such phrase appears and inserting In lieu
thereof in each case "three years".
EXPEDITING ACT REVISIONS
"SEC. 4. (a) The first section of the Act of
February 11, 1903 (15 U.S.C. 28; 49 U.S.C. 44),
commonly known as the "Expediting Act", is
amended to read as follows:
"SECTION 1. In any civil action brought in
any district court of the United States un-
der the Act entitled 'An Act to protect trade
and commerce against unlawful restraints
and monopolies', approved July 2, 1890, or
any other Acts having like purpose that have
been or hereafter may be enacted, wherein
the United States is plaintiff and equitable
relief is sought, the Attorney General may file
with such court, prior to the entry of final
judgment, a certificate that, in his opinion,
the case is of general public importance. Up-
on filing of such certificate, it shall be the
duty of the judge designated to hear and
determine the case, or the chief judge of the
district court if no judge has as yet been
designated, to assign the case for hearing at
the earliest practicable date-and to cause the
ease to be In every way expedited.".
(b) Section 2- of the- Act of February 11,
1903- (15 U.S.C. 29; 49 U.S.C. 45), commonly
known as the Expediting Act, is amended to
read as follows:
"SEC. 2. (a) Except as otherwise expressly
provided by this section, in every civil action
brought in any district court of the United
States under the Act entitled 'An Actto pro-
tect trade and commerce against unlawful
restraints and monopolies', approved June 2.
1890, or any other Acts having like purpose
that have been or hereafter may be enacted,
In which the United States is the complain-
ant and equitable relief is sought, any appeal
from a final judgment entered in any such
action shall be taken to the court of appeals
pursuant to sections 1291 and 2107 oftitle 28
of the United States Code. An appeal from an
interlocutory order entered in any such ac-
tion shall be taken to the court of appeals
pursuant to section 1292(a) (1) and 2107 of
title 28, United States Code, but not other-
wise. Any judgment entered by the court of
appeals in any such action shall be subject to'
review by the Supreme Court upon -a writ of
certiorari as provided In section 1254(l) of
title 28, United States Code.
"(b) An appeal from a final judgment en-
tered in any action specified in subsection
(a) shall lie directly to the Supreme Court if
the Attorney General files in the district
court a certificate stating that immediate
consideration of the appeal by the Supreme
Court is of general public importance in the
administration of justice. Such certificate
shall be filed within 10 days after the filing
of a notice of appeal. When such a certificate
is filed, the appeal and any cross appeal shall
be docketed in the time and manner pre-
scribed by the rules of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court shall thereupon either
(1) dispose of the appeal and any cross ap-
peal in the same manner as any other direct
appeal authorized by law, or (2) deny the
direct appeal and remit the case to the ap-
propriate court of appeals, which shall then
have jurisdiction to hear and determine such
case as if the appeal and any cross appeal in
such case had been docketed in the court of
appeals in the first instance pursuant to sub-
section (a).".
APPLICATION OF EXPEDITING ACT REVISIONS
Se,c. 5. (a) Section 401(d) of the Commu-
nications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 401(d)) is
repealed.
(b) Section 3 of the Act entitled "An Act
to further regulate commerce with foreign
nations and among the States", -approved
February 19, 1903 (32 Stat. 849; 49 U.S.C. 43),
is amended by striking out the following:
"The provisions of an Act entitled 'An Act to
expedite the- hearing and determination of
suits in equity pending or hereafter brought
under the Act of July second, eighteen hun-
dred and ninety, entitled "An Act to protect
trade and commerce against unlawful re-
straints and monopolies," "An Act to regu-
late commerce," approved February fourth,
eighteen hundred and eighty-seven, or any
other Acts having a like purpose that may be
hereafter enacted, approved February elev-
enth, nineteen hundred and three,' shall ap-
ply to any case prosecuted under the dhec-
tion of the Attorney-General in the name of
the Interstate Commerce Commission".
EFFECTIVE DATE OF EXPEDITING ACT REVISIONS
SEC. S. The amendment made by section 4
of this Act shall not apply to an action in
which a notice of appeal to the Supreme
Court has been filed on or before the
fifteenth day following the date of enactment
of this Act. Appeal in any such action shall
be taken pursuant to the provisions of sec-
tion 2 of the Act of February 11, 1903 (32
Stat. 823), as amended (15 U.S.C. 29; 49
U.S.C. 451 which were in effect on the day
preceding the date of enactment of this Act.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, on No-
vember 19, the House passed, with an
amendment, S. 782, the Antitrust Pro-
cedures and Penalties Act. During the
last 2 weeks, negotiations have resulted
in agreement among various Senators,
and with Members of the House, on cer-
tain changes which should be made in
the House-passed version of S. 782.
Today I will move, on behalf of Sen-
ator HRUSKA, to accept the House amend-
ments to S. 782, with a further amend-
ment. -By. means of this procedure, my
colleagues and I expect that the House
can then adopt the bill as revised and
send it to the White House for signature.
This will avoid the necessity of going to
a conference in these hectic, final days
of the session.
The amendment wthich I will propose,
makes some changes in the third title
of this bill, dealing with the procedures
for appeals of final judgments of anti-
trust cases. The provisions of the first
two titles of the bill, which contain re-
forms of the consent decree process, and
a major increase in penalties for anti-
trust violations, are unchanged.
Mr. President, our action today in re-
passing S. 782, with an amendment,
marks what I hope is the culmination of
more than 2 years of effort to strengthen
the antitrust laws. -
The genesis of this legislation came
during the hearings held by the Senate
Judiciary Committee on the nomination
of Richard - Kleindienst, the hearings
which quickly became known as the
ITT hearings, becsuse the major is-
sue involved allegations that a massive
behind-closed-doors campaign resulted
in halting the Justice. Department's
prosecution of the ITT case and its hasty
settlement favorable to the company.
During these hearings, I became con-
cerned with the apparent weaknesses of
the consent decree process, which could
allow this kind of corporate- pressures to
be exercised.
I asked many questions of the wit-
nesses at the ITT hearings concerning
the consent decree process, and I for-
warded these questions to the Depart-
ment of Justice. As a result of the infor-
mation generated during the,ITT hear-
ings, Senator GURNEY and' I introduced
a bill, in the- fall of 1972, to prevent back
room deals in the consent decree process
for the Department of Justice.
This bill was- reintroduced in the 93d
Congress as S. 782, and after several days
of hearings and unanimous approval by
the full Judiciary Committee, I was
privileged- to be Senate floor manager
when the Antitrust Penalties and Pro-
cedures Act was adopted by an unusual
roll call vote of 92-0 in July, 1973.
The Senate bill was the first signifi-
cant reform of the antitrust laws in 2
decades. It opened up the consent decree
process, by requiring the Justice Depart-
ment to file with the courtand publish
an "impact statement" explaining the
background, purpose, and effect of each
proposed consent- decree. The public
would then have 60 days to study and
comment on this impact statement, and
the Department would also have to file
with the court and publish in the Fed-
eral Register answers to all the public
comments. Relevant materials and docu-
ments would have to be- made available
by the Department to the public.
Under the Senate-passed bill, the de-
fendant will also have to file within 10
days after the proposed consent decree
is filed, . a statement detailing all - con-
tacts made by the -defendant's employees
or officials with officials of the Govern-
ment, concerning the consent decree.. An
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020007-5
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020007-5
December 9, 1971 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE S 20863
exemption was provided for contacts of antitrust cases. Under the bill as Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, I move
made by or in the presence of the coun- passed by the Senate, appeals from final the Senate agree to the engrossed amend-
sel of record. This provision was a con- judgments of Government antitrust cases ment of the House 'to the bill (S. 782) to
crete. response to the intensive lobbying will go to the courts of appeals, in con- reform consent decree procedures, to
of all levels of government officials-up trast to present law where appeals go increase penalties for violation of the
to the Vice President-which was re- directly to the Supreme Court. Sherman Act, and to revise the expedit-
vealed in the ITT case. The Senate-passed bill did provide for ing act as it pertains to appellate re-
After the 60 day period is over, the a special procedure to allow direct ap- view, with the following amendment to
judge would have the obligation to re- peals to the Supreme Court in cases of such engrossed amendent; namely,
view all the filed papers and comments, general public importance: The defend- striking at page 8, beginning with line 4,
and determine if the proposed consent ant or the Department of Justice could the balance of that amendment to the
decree is in the public interest. The judge file with the judge, within 15 days of end of the amendment and insert in lieu
could, if he felt necessary, call for more the filing of a notice of appeal, an appli- thereof the following, and I ask that the
documents or hold a hearing, although cation for direct appeal to the Supreme amendment which is at the desk be read
the usual case would not require any ad- Court. If the judge certifies the request, and considered.
ditional proceedings. the appeal would be docketed with the The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Through these reforms, I am con- Supreme Court following its rules, amendment will be stated.
vinced that the consent decree process The Court would then decide whether The assistant legislative clerk pro-
will be opened up to significant public to hear the case immediately, or remand ceeded to read the amendment.
President, I ask
scrutiny, and judges will take a more ac- it to the court of appeals for-normal ad- Mr.
tive role in assessing the worth of the judication, in which case a writ of cer- unanimous consent that further reading
proposed judgments. However, these new tiorari could be sought at a later time. of the amendment be dispensed with.
procedures will,not be burdensome, and The House version of this special pro- The PRESIDING OFFICER.' Without
will not interfere with the important role cedure_for direct appeal to the Supreme objection, it is so ordered.
which consent decrees have in disposing Court differs from the Senate version The amendment is as follows:
of the large bulk of antitrust cases. only in the way the decision is made. In- On page 8, beginning with line 4, strike
In adopting S. 782, the Senate also stead of allowing the district judge to out all through the end of the amendment
made two other changes in the antitrust decide, upon motion of either party, the and insert in lieu 'thereof the following:
laws, First, the fines for violations of the House version allows the Attorney Gen- EXPEDITIN,s ACT REVISIONS
Sherman Act were increased greatly, to eral alone to file a certificate accom- SEC. 4. Section 1 of the Act of February 11,
provide a greater deterrent to violations. plishing the direct. appeal, where the 1903 (32 Stat. 823), as amended (15 U.S.C.
The existing maximum fine of $50,000 Attorney General feels that immediate 28; 49 U.S.C. 44), commonly known as the
Expediting Act, is amended to read as follows:
was raised to a maximum of $100,000 for consideration of the appeal is of general "SECTION 1. In any, civil action brought in
individuals and $500,000 for corpora- public importance. any district court of the United states under
tions. I am willing to acceed, to the prefer- the Act entitled 'An Act to protect trade
Second, some amendments were made ences of my two colleagues for the Sen- and commerce against unlawful restraints
to the law governing the appeal of anti- ate-passed version of this provision on and monopolies', approved July 2, 1890, or
trust cases. direct appeals to the Supreme Court. It any other Acts having like purpose that have
After more than a year's consideration is this change alone which is accom- been or hereafter may be enacted, wherein
in the house>.S; 782 was finally passed pushed by the amendment which I offer therelief is sought, sought, States the is plaintiff Attorney G and equitable
General may.
by that body on November 19 of this at this time to the House amendment to file with the court, prior to the entry of
year. Given the preoccupation of the S. 782. I have been assured by Senator final judgment, a certificate that, in his
House Judiciary Committee with im- HRUSKA, that he is willing to accept the opinion, the case is of a general public im-
peachment and related matters over the other amendments made by the House portance. Upon filing of such certificate, it
past year, this action, demonstrated the to the bill. shall be the duty of the judge designated to
great interest and commitment of Chair- By making this amendment, and re- hear and determine the case, or the chief
Judge of the district court if no judge has
man Romso and his committee mem- turning the bill to the House, it is my as yet been designated, to assign the case
bens to this important reform measure. hope and expectation that further. for hearing at the earliest practicable date
The House has made several, mostly mi- changes in the bill can be avoided and and to cause the case to be in every way
nor, changes in the bill as passed by the the legislation sent to the White House. expedited."
Senate, but the consent decree and ap- It has been my intent to avoid a con- SEC. 5. Section 2 of that Act (15 U.S.C. 29;
peals portions of the bill remain essen- ference on this bill, if possible, since I 49 U.S.C. 45) is amended to read as follows:
tially unchanged in scope and effect. The know how busy all of us in both Houses "(a) Except as otherwise expressly pro-
House did take a major step in further are in the final days of this session. It vided by this section, in every civil action
brought in any district court of the United
increasing the maximum penalties for is my understanding that the chairman States under the Act entitled 'An Act to pro-
antitrust violations, following the wel- and ranking member of the House Judi- tect trade and commerce against unlawful
come expression of interest in this sub- ciary Committee, Mr. RODINO and Mr. restraints and monopolies', approved July 2,
ject by President Ford and Attorney HUTCHINSON, will be agreeable to the 1890, or any other Acts having like purpose
General Saxbe. In,line with.the recom- changes we are making today, and will that have been or hereafter may be enacted,
mendations made by the administration, act promptly to send this bill to the in which the United States is the com-
the House increased the maximum cor- White House. plainant and equitable relief is sought, any
I yield to the Senator from Nebraska. appeal from a final judgment entered in any
porate fine to $1 million, and increased such action shall be taken to the court of
the severity of violations from a misde= ' Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, 'may I appeals pursuant to sections 1291 and 2107
meanor to a felony; also increasing the inquire of the Senator. whether he has of title 28 of the United States Code. Any ap-
maximum jail sentence from 1 to 3 years. proposed the amendment or does he want peal from an interlocutory order entered in
I am in full agreement with these fur- me to propose it? any such action shall be taken to the court
.they increases, which will serve to dem- Mr. TUNNEY. Well, I was going to of appeals pursuant to sections 1292(a) (1)
onstrate the importance which the Con- propose it myself, but inasmuch as the and 2107 of title 28 of the United states
Senator is here and it is his amendment, Code but not otherwise. Any judgment en-
antitrust tand the enforcement cement as a branch means place o of f I do not see any reason why I should. tered by the court of appeals In any such
pertains to the action shall be subject to review by the
lowering costs of goods to the consumer, Mr. HRUSKA..That Supreme Court upon a writ of certiorari as
and making our economic marketplace amendment that is at the desk at the provided in section 1254(1) of title 28 of
more equitable. present time? the United States Code.
Although the work of the House on Mr. TUNNEY. That is correct. "(b) An appeal from a final judgment
this bill was generally most helpful, Sen- Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, I would pursuant to subsection (a) shall lie directly
ators HRUSxA and ERVIN have expressed like to make a few remarks on it. to the Supreme Court if, upon application
of a party filed within fifteen days of the
reservation about one change made by The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair filing of a notice of appeal, the district
the House. This involves the procedure would inquire if the Senator wishes the judge who adjudicated the case enters an
for handling appeals of final judgments amendment to be called up. order stating that immediate consideration
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020007-5
S 20864 Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020007-5
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE December 9, 19%
of the appeal by the Supreme Court is of If violations of the antitrust law are ial staff are subject to no review what-
general public importance in the adminis-
tration of to be put in the class of felonies there ever. In a case such as the Albrecht case
justice. Such order shall be be filed
within in all justice, be some qualification there is no legal bar to the bringing of a
within thirty days after the filing of a notice m
of appeal. When such an order is filed, the providing that only deliberate and in- government suit which would require a
appeal andany cross appeal shall be docketed tentional violations are to be considered district court, under the rule of law laid
in the time and manner prescribed by the criminal. As an Illustration of the tech- down by the Supreme Court, to brand
rules of the Supreme Court. The Supreme nieal and unpredictable nature of. the individuals as felons for actions taken
Court shall thereupon either (1) dispose antitrust laws let me refer to Albrecht openly and in good faith in an effort to
o
f the appeal and any cross appeal in the v. Herald Co., 390 U.S. 145 (1968), in offer products to the public at a lower
-anic manner as
au horized by law,aor (2)hin dir discretiieal which a newspaper publisher attempted price and upon a basis that was consid-
s
the direct appeal and remand the case to establish the maximum price at which ered perfectly legal by many lawyers
to the court of appeals, which shall then distributors could sell his newspapers and judges.
have jurisdiction to hear and determine to customers. A distributor who was ' Similiarly, with respect to controlling
the same as if the appeal and any cross charging higher prices sued the pub- the appellate forum the prosecuting staff
appeal therein had been docketed in the usher. The district court held that there of the Department of Justice can wait
court of appeals in the first instance pur- was no antitrust violation and the court until the trial court has rendered its de-
suant to subsection (a)." of appeals held that there was no anti- cision and then decide whether or not
SEc. 6. (a) Section 401(d) of the Cam- trust Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 401(d)) rust violation. However, the Supreme its position is more likely to be favorably
is repealed. Court, In a 7-to-2 decision, held that the received in a particular court of appeals
(b) Section 3 of the Act entitled "An Act fixing of maximum resale prices, in or in the Supreme Court before deciding
to further regulate commerce with foreign these circumstances, was per se an ille- whether to file a certificate authorizing
nations and among the States", approved gal restraint of trade under the Sher- direct appeal. As a practical matter this
February 19; 1903 (32 Stat. 849; 49 U.S.C. man Act. Justices. Harlan and Stewart, decision will ultimately depend upon the
lug43):-, is amended byin lieu striking. out "proceed- dissenting, said that the decision "stands prosecuting attorneys since they are the
" and inserting the Sherman Act on its head." In any ones familiar with the case and will nec-
lowing." and striking out thereafter the fol- event, of the 13 judges who passed on
lowing: "Provided, That the provisions of essarily be the ones to provide the infor-
an Act entitled 'An Act to expedite the hear- this case, 6 of them thought that there mation and advice upon which the As-
ing and determination of suits in equity was no violation of the Sherman Act sistant Attorney General and the At-
pending or thereafter brought under the Involved, and 7 held that there was. torney General will rely.
Act of July second, eighteen hundred and Under the House version of S. 782 the I respectfully urge upon you that it is
ninety, entitled "An Act to protect trade newspaper publisher in this case would ' completely contrary to the American
and commerce against unlawful restraints be branded as a felon and could be pros- concept of due process to give one of the
and monopolies," "An Act to regulate com-
merce," approved February fourth, eighteen ecuted as such by the Department of litigants in an adversary proceeding-
hundred and eighty-seven, or any other Justice, even if the litigant is a government em-
Acts having a like purpose that may be here- Numerous similar cases could be cited ployee-such a tremendous advantage
after enacted, approved February eleventh, but this is sufficient to make the point. over his adversary. furthermore, when
nineteen hundred and three,' shall apply to With respect to the right of appeal, this is coupled with the unbridled dis-
any case prosecuted under the direction of it must be recognized that the Depart- cretion to bring a felony charge against
the Attorney-General in the name of the merit of Justice is, properly, a highly individuals who may have lost a com-
Interstate Commerce Commission". partisan litigant. It must also be rec-
Src. 7. The amendment made by section pier and debatable issue of law, there
5 of this Act shall not apply to an action in ognized that neither the Attorney Gen- will exist the_ possibility for an abuse of
which a notice of appeal to the Supreme eral nor the Assistant Attorney General power whichI can morally certain will
Court has been filed on or before the fif- is in a position to make a personal judg- constitute a threat to the civil liberties
teenth day following the date of enactment ment on each one of the hundreds of of everyone engaged in commercial
of this Act. Appeal in any such action shall cases being tried continuously ' by the activities.
be taken pursuant to the provisions of sec- Department of Justice.
tion 2 of the Act of February 11, 1903 (32 Mr. President, while I object to, and
Stat. 823), as amended (15 U.S.C. 29; 49 The Senate version of S. 782 pro- would not vote for, the bill as a nerided
U.S.C. 45) which were in effect on the day vided that after appeal from a final with reference to the penalties or title
preceding the data of enactment of this judgment In an antitrust case the dis- 3. I would not agree necessarily with
Act. trict judge sitting on the case might title 1. But I- have no objections to the
Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, there enter an order permitting direct appeal consideration by the Senate at this time
are two provisions in Mr. this bill which seem to the Supreme Court. This provision and a vote to be taken thereon.
se m has been changed in the House version The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
a
to me t t o be very unwise and very unfair.
First, violation of the Sherman Act to a provision permitting the Depart- yields time?
was changed from a misdemeanor to a ment of Justice to present the appeal Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, I would
felony for individuals and, second, the directly to the Supreme Court merely like to say that I think this legislation
procedural law was changed so that ah upon the filing of a certificate by the At- that we are passing today, which the
peals u Government antitrust actions torney General. The other party has no Senate passed in July of last year, is
must be taken to the court of appeals right to seek or secure such a direct a very Important piece of legislation. It
rather ust than directly to court Supreme appeal' represents a significant reform of the
m
Court, except where the Attorney Gene Even assuming that permitting a di- antitrust laws.
Co
Co files a certificate within 10 days after rect appeal to the Supreme Court might I want to thank the Senator from
era date of any appeal stating a that ier be appropriate upon certification by the Nebraska for_his.courtesy and for his in-
mediate consideration the Supreme Attorney General in advance of trial that terest in helping develop the legislation
of general nside a public importance. Sup a case was of general public importance, and working out the procedure that we
Court is c
I submit that it is entirely unfair and presently are involved in, making sure
Mr. President, the first of those points unreasonable to put It In the hands of that there can beexpeditious considera-
is not altered by the amendment which one of the litigating attorneys in the tion of the bill by the Senate so that the
I have proposed. The second of those case to choose his appellate forum witli- House can pass it prior to adjournment.
points is affected by the amendment in out permitting either the trial court or It would have been impossible to have
that the House language on that second the adverse party to have any voice in received this expeditious consideration
point will be stricken entirely by this the matter. had it not been for the consideration and
amendment, and there will be inserted The combination of these two provi- courtesies of the Senator from Nebraska.
In lieu thereof the text of the amend- sions in the House version of S. 782 puts The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
ment which embodies the Senate-ap- antitrust defendants in a position of de- Senator's time has expired.
proved language In bill S. 782, as enacted. pending upon the discretion of the prose- Mr. TUNNEY. Will the Senator yield
I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Presi- cutorial staff to a degree that invites 1 more minute?
dent, that there be printed at this point abuse. The decisions of a trial court. Mr. HRUSKA. I yield.
in the REcoan some remarks commenting even though rendered by an impartial Mr. TUNNEY. I would like to thank
on those two points, to be treated as part official, are subject to appellate review, the Senator from Nebraska for the work
of my remarks. However, the decisions of the prosecutor- that he put in on this legislation, and for
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020007-5
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020007-5 ___ -.-..-....~.~~t ?T T Tlelr%ln" QV.T A'1 S 20865
helping to develop the final product in
its present form.
Mr. HRUSKA. I yield back the re-
mainder of my time on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time
has been yielded back. The question is on
agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President-
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from West Virginia has the floor.
He yielded to the distinguished Senator
from California.
Mr. TUNNEY. Will the Senator yield
further?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I yield.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, if there
be no further debate, I move that the
Senate agree- to the amendment of the
House as afnended by the Senate.
The motion was agreed to.
Silverstone, Paul Oesterhuis, and Bobby
Shapiro.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it Is so ordered.
RECESS SUBJECT TO THE CALL
OF THE CHAIR
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President.
I ask unanimous consent that the Sen-
ate stand in recess subject to the call of
the Chair, with the understanding that
the recess not extend beyond the hour
of 4 ! 10 p.m. today.
The motion was agreed to; and at
3:56 p.m., the Senate took a recess until
4:10 p.m.; whereupon, the Senate re-
assembled when called to order by the
Presiding Officer (Mr. HELMS).
Fannin
Kennedy
Percy
Fong
Long
Randolph
Goldwater
Magnuson
Ribicoff
Gravel
Mathias
Schweiker
Griffin
McClellan
Scott, Hugh
Gurney
McClure
Sparkman
Hart
McGee
Stafford
Hartke
Metcalf
Stevens
Haskell
Metzenbaum
Stevenson
Hathaway
Mondale
Symington
Helms
Montoya
Taft
Hruska
Moss
Talmadge
Huddleston
Muskl.e
Thurmond
Hughes
Nelson
Tower
Inouye
Packwood
Tunney
Jackson
Pastore
Williams
Javits
Pearson
Young
Johnston
Pell
NAYS-9
Allen Hollings Scott,
Byrd, Nunn William L.
Harry F., Jr.. Proxmire Stennis
Eastland Roth
NOT VOTING-11
Baker Hansen McGovern
Bartlett Hatfield McIntyre
Beilmon Humphrey Weicker
Fulbright Mansfield
So the conference report was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the
previous order, the amendments in dis-
agreement will be carried over until to-
morrow at 1 p.m. '
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS,
1975-CONFERENCE REPORT
The Senate continued with the con-
sideration of the report of the commit-
tee of conference on the disagreeing
votes of the two Houses on the amend-
ments of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
16900) making supplemental appropria-
tions for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1975, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on the adoption of the con-
ference report on H.R. 16900. On this
question the yeas and nays have been
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce
that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr.
FULBRIGHT), the Senator from Min-
nesota (Mr. HUMPHREY), the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. MCGOVERN),
and the Senator from New Hampshire
(Mr. MCINTYRE) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that the Senator
from Montana (Mr. MANSFIELD) is ab-
sent on official business.
I further announce that, if present and
voting, the Senator from Minnesota
(Mr. HUMPHREY) would vote "yea."
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER),
the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr.
BARTLETT), the Senator from Oklahoma
(Mr. BELLMON), the Senator from Wyo-
ming (Mr. HANSEN), the Senator from
Oregon (Mr. HATFIELD), and the Senator
from Connecticut (Mr. WEICKER) are
necessarily absent.
On this vote, the Senator from
Oregon (Mr. HATFIELD) is paired with
the Senator from Connecticut (Mr.
WEICKER).
If present and voting, the Senator
from Oregon would vote "yea" and the
Senator from Connecticut would vote
ORDER FOR VOTE ON SUPPLE-
MENTAL APPROPRIATIONS CON-
FERENCE REPORT AT 4:10 P.M.
TODAY
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I have discussed this, request with the
distinguished chairman of the Appropri-
ations Committee, the distinguished as-
sistant Republican leader, and the dis-
tinguished Senator from Alabama (Mr.
ALLEN).
I think it will meet with the approval
of all Senators.
The yeas and nays have been ordered
on the adoption of the supplemental ap-
propriations conference report. There
will be some discussion with reference to
amendments in disagreement. I think it
would be the better part of wisdom to
forgo until tomorrow the discussion on
those amendments in disagreement.
I, therefore, ask unanimous consent
that the vote on the adoption of the con-
ference report occur at 4 p.m. today, and
that discussion with respect to the
amendments in disagreement be delayed
until 1 p.m. tomorrow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection?
Mr. GRIFFIN. Reserving the right to
object, will the Senator consider making
that vote at 5 or 10 minutes after
4 o'clock?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes.
I amend my request, Mr. President, to
-
read, instead of 4 p.m., that the vote be
gin at 10 minutes after 4 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection? The Chair hears none and it
is so ordered.
TRADE REFORM ACT OF 1974--PRIV-
ILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I ask unani-
mous consent that during the considera-
tion of H.R. 10710, the trade reform bill,
including amendments, that the follow-
ing staff personnel be permitted the priv-
ilege of the floor:
From the Finance Committee: Michael
Stern, Bob Best, Dick Rivers, Mark
Sandstrom, Michael Rowny, Bob Willan,
Bill Morris; and Joe Humphreys.
From the Joint Tax Committee: Laur-
ence Woodworth, Mike Byrd, Howard
The result was announced-yeas 80,
nays 9, as follows:
[No. 523 Leg.]
YEAS-SO
Abourezk
Brooke
Cook
Aiken
Buckley
Cotton
Bayh
Burdick
Cranston
Beall
Byrd, Robert C. Curtis
Bennett
Cannon
Dole
Bentsen
Case
Domenict
Bible
Chiles
Dominick
Biden
Church
Eagleton
Brock
Clark
Ervin
HEALTH REVENUE SHARING AND
HEALTH SERVICES ACT OF 1974-
CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I sub-
mit a report of the committee of con-
ference on H.R. 14214, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
HELMS). The report will be stated by
title.
The legislative clerk, read as follows:
The committee of conference on the dis-
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
14214) to amend the Public Health Service
Act and related laws, to revise and extend
programs of health revenue sharing and
health services, and for other purposes, hav-
ing met, after full and free conference, have
agreed to recommend and do recommend to
their respective Houses this report, signed by
a majority of the conferees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
abjection to the consideration of the con-
ference 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 RECORD of' December 5, 1974, at p.
H11360.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on- -
Mr. CHILES. Mr. President, can we
find out what the question is before the
Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICES. Without
objection, the Senate will proceed to the
immediate consideration of the confer-
ence report on H.R. 14214.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this
legislation deals with community mental
health centers, neighborhood health cen-
ters, migrant health centers and other
health services programs. It is a bill that
was passed overwhelmingly by the House
and Senate-and we have reached an
equitable compromise in conference. We
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020007-5
S 20866
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020007-5
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE December 9, 174
have had 2 days of hearings before the
Health Subcommittee and additional
hearings before the full Labor and Pub-
lice Welfara Committee on the hemo-
philia program in the bill. It is a sound
piece of` legislation; one that is urgently
needed. I hope we can act on it favorably.
We have had strong support from both
sides of the aisle. It is legislation which
is long-overdue, and will benefit the dis-
tinguished Senator's constituents.
Mr. CHILES. I thank the distinguished
Senator from Masachusetts. There was
mumbling there, and I. just could not
understand it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the conference
report.
The conference report was agreed to.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. 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. HART. Mr. President, I ask unani-
mous consent that the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
ORDER OF BUSINESS TODAY
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. For the In-
formation of the Senate, there will be
no further action in connection with the
amendments in disagreement on the
supplemental appropriation bill until
tomorrow at 1 o'clock p.m. There may
be other business transacted by the Sen-
ate today. But so far as the conference
report on the supplemental appropria-
tions and the amendments In disagree-
ment thereto, there will be no further
action on that today.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence
of a quorum.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, will the
Senator withhold that?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. - Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the
Senator suspend. The Senate is not in
order. The Senator cannot be heard. The
Senator Is entitled to be heard. The
Chair solicits the cooperation of the
Senate and the staff members.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Would it be possible
for the benefit of Senators who are
here and wondering to give some indica-
tion of what might be taken up?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Right at the
moment-
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes, I yield
to the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr.
PASTORE).
Mr. PASTORE. The assistant leader
has been talking to me about the
reorganization of AEC, the supple-
mentary bill, and I am quite anxious to
have that matter brought up.
It just so happens that every time
we turn around those who are for have
another engagement, and those who are
against have another engagement, too, -
and it comes back.
At the present time, I am in con-
sultation with the proponents of the
authorization for testing, and if we can
reach a compromise agreement I think
we can do this this afternoon, if the
Senator will give me 111 or 15 minutes.
We are looking for Mr. KENNEDY, and
if we can find him maybe we can resolve
the question.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I think that Is help-
ful so that Members at least know
what may be coming up.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes.
There may be roiicaIl votes yet today.
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. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. W. Presi-
dent, for the information of the Senate,
there will be no more rollcall votes to-
day.
ORDER FOR ADJOURNMENT UNTIL
9:45 A.M. TOMORROW
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that
when the Senate -completes its business
today, it stand in adjournment until the
hour of 9:45 a.m. tomorrow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD subsequently
said: Mr. President, what is the conven-
ing hour for tomorrow?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair
advises the Senator that it is 10 a.m.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I thank the
Chair.
Mr; President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that when the Senate completes its
business today it stand In adjournment
until the hour of 9:45 a.m. tomorrow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
ORDER FOR CONSIDERATION OF
THE ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHOR-
IZATION BILLS. 4033
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that
Immediately following the remarks of
the distinguished Senator from Ohio
(Mr. METZENBAUM) tomorrow, for
whose recognition an order was en-
tered last week, the Senate proceed,
without any routine morning business,
to the consideration of S. 4033, the
Atonlie Energy authorization bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presi-
dent, 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. President,
I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. NEL-
soN). Without objection, It Is so ordered.
RULES OF EVIDENCE FOR
CERTAIN COURTS
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate
a message from the House of Representa-
tives on H.R. 5463.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. NEL-
SON) laid before the Senate a message
from the House of Representatives an-
nouncing Its disagreement to the amend-
ments of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
5463) to establishrules of evidence for
certain courts and proceedings, and re-
questing a conference with the Senate on
the disagreeing votes of the two Houses
thereon.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I move that
the Senate insist upon its amendments
and agree to the request of, the House
for a conference on the disagreeing
votes of the two Houses thereon, and
that the Chair be authorized to appoint
the conferees on the part of the Senate.
The motion was agreed to; and the
Presiding Officer appointed Messrs.
EASTLAND, MCCLELLAN, ERVIN, HART, BUR-
DICK, HRUSKA, HUGH SCOTT, and THUR-
MOND, conferees on the part of the
Senate.
ORDER FOR RECOGNITION OF
SENATOR BARTLETT
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President.
I ask unanimous consent that after Mr.
METZENBAUM has been recognized under
the previous order on tomorrow, the dis-
tinguished Senator from Oklahoma (Mr.
BARTLETT) be recognized for not to ex-
ceed 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE SECRE-
TARY OF THE SENATE AND FOR
THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE
OR THE ACTING PRESIDENT PRO
TEMPORE TO TAKE CERTAIN
ACTION
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that the
Secretary of the Senate be authorized
to receive messages from the House of
Representatives, and that the President
pro tempore or the Acting President pro
tempore be authorized to sign duly en-
rolled bills and joint resolutions during
the adjournment of the Senate over to
tomorrow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
ORDER FOR CONSIDERATION OF
S. 1988, ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER
10, 1974
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that on tomor-
row, after the disposition of the Atomic
Energy authorization bill, the Senate
proceed to consideration of S. 1988, the
bill to extend on an interim basis the jur-
isdiction of the United States over cer-
tain ocean areas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I suggest the absence of a quorum,
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020007-5