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: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020007-5.pdf2.4 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