BY MR. HUMPHREY: S.2290. A BILL TO ESTABLISH A JOINT COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP76M00527R000700100020-1
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 2, 2001
• Sequence Number: 20
• Publication Date: July 15, 1971
• Content Type: REPORT

S 11088 Approved For Release 9YO ONO.52 ",Q1,0100020-1 July 15, 1.971
Miners work hard to supply our Nation
with the coal which is used to generate
power. Theirs is a dangerous profession,
and many of those fortunate enough to
survive die slowly of pneumoconiosis-
the occupational disease that slowly in-
capacitates and finally kills. The proposal
I introduce today is intended to insure
that these men receive the disability pay-
ments they deserve.
. By Mr. HUMPHREY:
S. 2290. A bill to establish a Joint Com-
mittee on National Security. Referred to
the Committee on Armed Services.
JOINT COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. HUMPHRE Mr. President, I am
introducing a bill today which would es-
tablish a permanent Joint Congressional
Committee on National Security.
I believe this committee will enable
Congress to address itself in a more com-
prehensive way than ever before to a
thorough and ongoing analysis and
evaluation of our national security poli-
cies and goals.
I propose that the committee have
these main functions:
First, to study and make recommenda-
tions on all issues concerning national se-
curity. This would include review of the
President's report on the state of the
world, the defense budget and foreign as-
sistance programs as they relate to na-
tional security goals, and U.S. disarma-
ment policies as a part of our defense
considerations.
Second, to review, study and evaluate
the "Vietnam Papers," and other docu-
ments, whether published heretofore or
not, covering U.S. involvement in Viet-
nam.
Third. to study and make recommen-
dations on Government practices of clas-
sification and declassification of docu-
ments.
,Fourth, to conduct a continuing re-
view of the operations of the Central In-
telligence Agency, the Departments of
Defense and State, and other agencies
intimately involved with our foreign
policy.
For too many years, the Congress has
had inadequate ' orma ion on ma ers
concerning national EN. We in e
Congress have had to accept partial in-
formation, often in limited context, and
as a result have been unable to weigh the
total picture.
It is often difficult for Congress to ob-
tain adequate disclosure of Government
documents. On several important occa-
sions heads of the Defense and State De-
partments and members of the National
Security Council have claimed executive
privilege and have refused to answer
congressional inquiries on matters con-
cerning our national security.
While the President and key Govern-
ment officials meet occasionally with the
leaders of the Senate and the House of
Representatives on an informal basis,
there is no forum for a regular and frank
exc ange etween a ongrress'"a`nd~Fie`
executive branches on the vital dies
affecting our national security. I-dm par-
ticularly sensitive to this missing link,
having had the special experience of
serving as a U.S. Senator for 16 years
and as Vice President for 4 years.
The Joint Committee on National Se-
curity would provide that i
It would function inTTie national se-
curity field in a manner comparable to
the Joint Economic Committee, which
conducts a systematic review and anal-
ysis of the President's Annual Economic
Report.
Its unique feature would be the com-
position of its membership. It would
have representation from those indi-
vidual and committee jurisdictions that
have primary responsibility in military,
foreign relations and congressional lead-
ership.
It would include the President pro
tempore of the Senate; the Speaker of
the House; the majority and minority
leaders of both Houses, and the chair-
men and ranking minority members of
the Committees on Appropriations, For-
eign Relations, and Armed Services, and
the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy.
Itwould _ not user the legislative or
investigative functions of any present
committees,-liiit supplement and coordi-
iiate-their efforts-ink;-mOTL-camprehen-
sive frairiework- --- ~`-
Nor is it -designed to usurp the Presi-
dent's historic role as Commander in
Chief, or to put the Congress in an ad-
versary relationship with the executive
branch.
It is, rather, a new body, to be com-
posed of members of both parties and
both Houses of Congress, that will make
possible closer consultation and cooper-
ation between the President and the
Congress,
In recent years, we have seen a grad-
ual isolation and insulation of power
within the executive branch. The Con-
stitution, I suggest, intended something
quite different when it called for a sepa-
ration of powers.
I believe the divisiveness and the
search for scapegoats generated by pub-
lication of the "Vietnam papers," is at
least in part a result of this isolation.
We have not had the mechanism in our
national security apparatus for adequate
consultation between the two branches
in the formulation of national security
policy.
This point is illustrated very convinc-
ingly in Mr. Stephen Rosenfeld's article
which appeared July 9 in the Washington
Post.
Mr. President, I would like to quote
from that article as it relates to the point
I have been discussing and ask unani-
mous consent that the entire article be
printed in the RECORD.
In discussing our Vietnam experience,
Mr. Rosenfeld suggests that "national
security is too important to be left to the
national security apparatus."
The remedy he offers is in line with
my own thinking. We must have an
amount of institutional change "by pub-
lic demand and if necessary by legisla-
tion, the executive branch must be re-
quired to share some part of the special
information and to surrender some part
of the initiative which it now commands
in the conduct of foreign affairs."
There are reasons for the concentra-
tion of power which has developed within
the executive branch which are quite
understandable considering Our expert-
ence in World War II and afterward. But
times change, and so must our institu-
tions and responses.
In an article in Foreign Affairs, July
f959, I expressed my concern over this
development. I noted that the Congress
"with its power of the purse, and through
the right to investigate, to criticize, and
to advocate-does exert a significant in-
fluence on the quality and .direction of
U.S. foreign policy."
I found that the Congress must have
its own vehicle for educating itself and
expressing ideas on this question and the
more general issue of national security.
Such independent expertise is absolutely
necessary if the House and Senate are to
fulfill their Constitutional responsibility of
surveillance and initiative. Without compe-
tent independent sources of fact and wisdom
they cannot make discriminating judgments
between alternative programs and proposals.
I, therefore, suggested that "the Con-
gress prompt the executive to put its
house in order by itself creating a Joint
Committee on National Strategy, to in-
clude the chairmen and ranking minor-
ity members of the major committees
of the House and the Senate."
Such a committee's purpose would be
to look at our total national strategy-
military, political, economic and ideologi-
Cal. This committee would not usurp
the functions of any of the present com-
mittees, but supplement them by endow-
ing their work with a larger frame of
reference.
The Chairmen of the Committees repre-
sented would come away from the meeting
of the new Joint Committee with a greater
appreciation, for instance, of the relation-
ship between fiscal policy and national pro-
ductivity and how both factors relate to our
defense posture and our negotiating posi-
tion. Responsible statesmanship consists
precisely in the capacity to see complex
relationships in a perspective as broad as
the national purpose itself.
Mr. President, I made that proposal
in 1959. Had it been adopted, perhaps
the history of the past 12 years might
have been different. I cannot help but
believe that if we had shared more fully
in momentous decisions, like those in
Vietnam, we would be less divided as a
nation by the bitterness and hatreds
that confront us today.
But I submit, Mr. President, that now
is not the time for regrets. It is a time
for careful and responsible decision; it
it a time to adapt our institutions to
change; above all, it is a time to act.
It is not enough for the Congress to
insist upon its prerogatives if it is not
prepared to cope with its responsibilities.
The executive branch, recognizing the
deep interrelationships between issues of
foreign affairs, military policy, and some
crucial domestic issues prepared itself
to fulfill its responsibilities to the Con-
stitution by forming a National Security
Council.
It is fitting, therefore, that the Con-
gress adopt-a similar, parallel and coun-
terpart mechanism: a Joint Congres-
sional Committee on National Security,
which could draw on the experience and
expertise of legislative leaders in various
national security areas.
Our existing congressional committees
lack coor nation: The joint coinnilttee
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700100020-1
 July 15, 1971
Approve I AJ1/ ffi YA-RjRg70527R000700100020-,11087
think the measure that he has intro-
duced today should receive the most
serious consideration, particularly in the
light of statistics which I have reviewed
recently, which indicate that on the
West Coast of the United States as much
as 20 percent of the automobile market
is presently being taken up by imports
from Japan.
( think for too long, in the United
States, we havee.failed to see the neces-
sity, insofar as our position in interna-
tional trade is concerned, of integrating
our approach toward 'revenue measures
and the overall plan for our economy.
There can be no questiarl'. but that in
Japan, and indeed with our b411er major
There is a correlation between the tariff
laws, the tax laws, and the overall fl-
nancing of guarantees and encouraging
subsidies by the Federal Government
with respect to the overall situation of
Japan in international trade.
I recently put into the RECORD a state-
ment made by a distinguished represen-
tative of our State Department, in which
he reported a study of the comparative
position of Japan in this regard, and
showed how there had been an inten-
tional and very effective upgrading of
Japanese industry in areas involving
great skill such as auto production. I
think that we, in our tax policies at this
point, should take note of this. I have
long advocated and continue to advocate
that we take another look at restoring
the tax credit, or putting back into our
revenue. system some recognition of the
necessity of getting America's plant up
to date. We permit the writeoff of new,
overall thinking on international rade.
I think we had better wake up b fore it
is too late. This proposal is a ste in that
direction, and I think it is tim y.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I thank the ,Senator.
By Mr. HARTKE (fo himself, Mr.
THURMOND, and 10. CRANSTON) :
3. 2288. A bill to amend/section 5055 of
title 38, United States Code, in order to
extend the authority of the Administra-
tor of Veterans' Affair`s to establishand
carry out a program gf exchange of med-
ical information. R?ferred to the Com-
mittee on Veterans! Affairs.
Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, today I
introduce legislation to extend the au-
thority of the 4thministrator of. the Vet-
erans' Administration to establish and
carry out a program of exchange of med-
ical information. I am pleased to be
joined in this bipartisan effort by the dis-
tinguished,tenator from South Carolina
(Mr. THURMOND), and by the distin-
guished chairman of the Subcommittee of
Health and Hospitals of the Veterans'
Affairs Committee, the Senator from Cal-
ifornia (Mr. CRANSTON). This program,
which was put into effect in 1966, pro-
vides a, valuable educational tool both to
the medical community at large and to
the pe:^sonnel of the Veterans Adminis-
tration. Under this bill, the Administra-
tor may enter into agreements with med-
ical schools, hospitals, medical centers
and individual members of the medical
profen ion for the free exchange of medi-
cal information and techn:;ques. Utilizing
closed circuit television and other ad-
vanced methods of teaching instruction
this program has resulted in increased
medical knowledge throughout the
United States. Although its cost is small,
gram helps the Veterans Administra ' n
supply the finest medical care to ou de-
serving veterans. Since authority f this
bill expired the beginning: of thig fiscal
year, I hope that we can have pr pt ac-
tion in the next week so that/this pro-
Public Wel
years ago
Coal Nine
DISABILITY BENEFITS
Mr. President, almost 2
vised to that they would relate to
dilemma of disabled miners.
Unfortunately, the brief history of this
worthy program has proved otherwise.
For many of the applicants for disability
compensation under the Federal Coal
Mine Health and Safety Act, the appli-
cation process has been fraught with
frustration and disappointment. One of
the causes of this frustration is the def-
inition which is used to determine total
disability. Under the present interpre-
tation, no compensation will be granted
if-theoretically-the miner is able to
hold some job, some place.
The records of the Social' Security
Administration show that 32.2 percent
of the 286,100 claims for black lung
benefits which were filed through April
30, 1971, were denied because pneu-
moconiosis was not disabling. All too
many of these miners find that the de-
nial of their claim amounts to a sen-
tence of poverty. Unable to get black"
lung benefits, they return to the mines
only to discover that their nondis-
abling disease disqualifies them from
furthe:^ work. These are men who have
worked 20, 30, and even 40 years in un-
derground mines. They know no other
skills. They are unable to qualify for
any otaer employment.
Obviously, there is injustice in the
present definition of total disability under
title 4 of the Federal Coal Mine Health
and Safety Aot 2t is too strict, and it is
subverting th intent of Congress. Men
who have w ked in the mines for dec-
ades and ve contracted pneumoconio-
sis are t 6receiving the compensation
we lint ded them to have.
T legislation I am offering today
wo d require the Department of Health,
E cation, and Welfare to adopt more
eligibility of a miner for black lung dis-
ability benefits. Specifically, my proposal
defines "total disability" to mean in-
ability by reason of pneumoconiosis to
engage in substantial gainful activity re-
quiring skills or abilities comparable to
those of any gainful activity in which the
miner has previously engaged with some
regularity and over a substantial period
of time.
The clear intent of this legislation is
to treat as totally disabled any-miner
who, by virtue of pneumoconiosis, is med-
ically unfit to return to the'mines for
work. At the present time, miners who
are experiencing the early stages of
pneumoconiosis are literally forced to
work in the mines until their health has
completely deteriorated. Others whose
disease cannot be termed "complicated"
pneumoconiosis find that their former
employers consider their disease to be
more disabling than the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare. Because
they know no other skills, or because no
other work is available to them, they
must remain unemployed and in poverty.
Mr. President, not many weeks ago,
more than a dozen underground coal
miners paid a visit to my office. The sight
of these men-all of whom had worked
for at. least 25 years in the mines-made
a highly vivid impression. These men
asked only simple justice. Their concern
was not only for themselves, but for their
wives and children. While their com-
plaints were many and varied, all of them
indicated a total lack of trust in those
an to the thousands of miners they rep-
rese t, to assure that they receive the
bene Congress intended.
The 0,000 claims that have been ap-
proved s ce enactment of the 1969 law
represent ly about one-half of the total
number of aims which have been filed.
claims filed 7, 1971; 3,979 have
In my own \bbeennlloweed. ndiana, of the 5,317
been proceshose processed, only
1,368 have wed. On a national
basis, only t of the claims ac-
tually have to date. While it is
true that o00 disabled miners,
widows and is are now receiv-
ing monthly benefits, I believe
that this nho ld be increased
There is much that we o not yet know
about the experience unde title 4 of the
Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety
Act, and I am pleased to lea\m that the
General Accounting Office is bonducting
an investigation which may shed light on
this program. For the moment, however,
it is clear that we can take action to as-
sure that the purpose of Congress in es-
tablishing title 4 will not be subverted.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700100020-1
By Mr. HARTKE:
2, 89. A bill to ame
 July 15, 1hpproved For Re~ ~JR16PZALCI*-~%71jM0 )W700100020-1
would not, under my proposal, usurp any
of the functions of these committees of
the two Houses, but would address itself
to the broad-gaged issues that overlap
their jurisdictions and thereby assist the
congressional and executive decision-
making process.
Issues of defense, arms control, foreign
development and security assistance, na-
tional priorities, foreign policies, the de-
velopment of a global concept for our na-
tional interests, and a simultaneous eval-
uation of our security interests, classifi-
cation and declassification procedures-
all these and many more issues require
coordination and a broad focus.
The joint committee I am proposing
would concentrate on these and other
topics. Let me summarize why I believe
such a committee is desirable:
First, it would provide for a total analy-
sis and evaluation of national security
jointly by both Houses of Congress.
Second, it would permit closer consul-
tation and cooperation in national secu-
rity planning with the executive branch
than is now possible. This, I believe,
would help restore the intended balance
of power between the two branches and
strengthen the decisionmaking process.
Third, it would permit a comprehen-
sive review and analysis of our Vietnam
involvement and'help heal the divisive-
ness in our country that has resulted
from secrecy and fragmented decision-
making.
Fourth, the committee will have the
power to review and simplify classifi-
cation procedures and to declassify doc-
uments whose contents should not be
withheld from the public. Thus, we can
achieve greater understanding, support,
and public participation in the estab-
lishment of our objectives and policies.
The composition of the joint commit-
tee can be summarized as the following:
The Joint Committee-
First. There will be 25 members with
fully bipartisan representation. The ma-
jority party will have three members
more than the minority party.
Second. The experienced authority of
the Congress would be fully represented
on the joint committee.
Third. Each House also would have the
opportunity to be represented by out-
standing members who are not chair-
men or elected leaders through the pro-
vision for membership of two majority
and one minority Member from each
House.
For a more complete description of the
functions and composition of this com-
mittee, I ask, Mr. President, unanimous
consent that the bill to establish a Joint
Committee on National Security be
printed at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the bill was
ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as
follows:
A bill to establish a Joint Committee on
National Security
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That the
Congress declares that-
(1) it has been vested with responsibility
under the Constitution to assist in the
formulation of the foreign, domestic, and
military policies of the United States;
(2) such policies are directly related to
the security of the United States;
(3) the integration of such policies pro-
motes our national security; and '
(4) the National Security Council was
established by the National Security Act of
1947 as a means of Integrating such policies
and furthering the national security.
SEC. 2. (a) In order to enable the Congress
to more effectively carry out its constitu-
tional responsibility in the formulation of
foreign, domestic, and military policies of the
United States and in order to provide the
Congress with an improved means for formu-
lating legislation and providing for the
integration of such policies which will fur-
ther promote the security of the United
States, there is established a joint committee
of the Congress which shall be known as the
Joint Committee on National Security (here-
after referred to as the "joint committee'l.
The joint committee shall be composed of
25 Members of Congress as follows:
(1) the Speaker of the House of Represent-
atives;
(2) the majority and minority leaders of
the Senate and the House of Representatives;
(3) the chairmen and ranking minority
members of the Senate Committee on Appro-
rriations, the Senate Committee on Armed
Services, the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations, and the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy;
(4) the chairmen and ranking minority
members of the House Appropriations Com-
mittee, the House Armed Services Committee,
and the House Foreign Affairs Committee;
(5) three Members of the Senate appointed
by the President of the Senate, two of whom
shall be members of the majority party and
one of whom shall be a member of the mi-
nority party;
(6) three Members of the House of Repre-
sentatives appointed by the Speaker, two of
whom shall be members of the majority party
and one of whom shall be a member of the
minority party.
(b) The joint committee shall select a
chairman and a vice chairman from among
its members.
(c) Vacancies in the membership of the
joint committee shall not affect the power
of the remaining members to execute the
functions of the joint committee and shall
be filled in the same manner as in the case
of the original appointment.
SEC. 3. (a) The joint committee shall have
the following functions:
(1) to make a continuing study of the for-
eign, domestic, and military policies of the
United States with a view to determining
whether and the extent to which such poli-
cies are being appropriately integrated in
furtherance of the national security; and
(2) to make a continuing study of the
recommendations and activities of the Na-
tional Security Council relating to such
policies, with particular emphasis upon re-
viewing the goals, strategies, and alterna-
tives of such foreign policy considered by
the Council; and
(3) to make a continuing study of govern-
ment practices and recommendations with
respect to the classification and declassifi-
cation of documents, and to recommend cer-
tain procedures to be Implemented for the
classification and declassification of such
material.
(b) The joint committee shall make re-
ports from time to time (but not less than
once each year) to the Senate and the House
of Representatives with respect to its studies.
The reports shall contain such findings,
statements, and recommendations as the
joint committee considers appropriate.
SEC. 4. (a) The joint committee, or any
subcommittee thereof, is authorized, in its
discretion (1) to make expenditures, (2) to
S 11089
employ personnel, (3) to adopt rules respect-
ing its organization and procedures, (4) to
hold hearings, (5) to sit and act at any
time or place, (6) to subpena witnesses and
documents, (7) with the prior consent of
the agency concerned, to use on a reim-
bursable basis the services of personnel, in-
formation, and facilities of any such agency,
(8) to procure printing and binding, (9) to-
procure the tempol'ary services (not in excess
of one year) or intermittent services of in-
dividual consultants, or organizations there-
of, and to provide assistance for the train-
ing of its professional staff, in the same
manner and under the same conditions as
a standing committee of the Senate may
procure such services and provide such as-
sistance under subsections (i) and (j), re-
spectively, of section 202 of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946, and (10) to take
depositions and other testimony. No rule
shall be adopted by the joint committee
under clause (3) providing that a finding,
statement, recommendation, or report may be
made by other than a majority of the mem-
bers of the joint committee then holding
office.
(b) Subpenas may be issued over the sig-
nature of the chairman of the joint commit-
tee or by any member designated by him
or the joint committee, and may be served
by such person as may be designated 'by such
chairman or member. The chairman of the
joint committee or any member thereof may
administer oaths to witnesses. The provisions
of sections 102-104 of the Revised Statutes
(2 U.S.C. 192-194) shall apply in the case
of any failure of any witness to comply with
a subpena or to testify when summoned un-
der authority of this section.
(c) With the consent of any standing,
select, or special committee of the Senate or
House, or any subcommittee, the joint com-
mittee may utilize the services of any staff
member of such House or Senate committee
or subcommittee whenever the chairman of
the joint committee determines that such
services are necessary and appropriate.
(d) The expenses of the joint committee
shall be paid from the contingent fund of
the Senate from funds appropriated for the
joint committee, upon vouchers signed by
the chairman of the joint committee or by
any member of the joint committee au-
thorized by' the chairman.
(e) Members of the joint committee, and
its personnel, experts, and consultants, while
traveling on official business for the joint
committee within or outside the United
States, may receive either the per diem al-
lowance authorized to be paid to Members
of the Congress or its employees, or their
actual and necessary expenses if an itemized
statement of such expenses is attached to the
voucher.
Mr. HUMPHREY. With the establish-
ment of the committee, Mr. President,
we will be bringing this Republic closer
to Mr. Lincoln's ideal of government "of
the people, by the people, (and) for the
people."
We will be establishing a framework
for the formulation of national security
policy that can bring us closer to the
ideal we all share for lasting peace.
Mr. President, I would like to bring to
the attention of my colleagues two ex-
cellent articles which appeared in the
New York Times and the Washington
Post. I ask unanimous consent that they
be printed in the RECORD. These articles
underline the need to have the kind of
institutional reform I am proposing to-
day.
There being no objection, the articles
were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700100020-1
 S111090
Approved F e EPP7 A+FR0007001000 7~ 15, 1971
[From the New York Times, July 13, 1971
FREE PRESS, FREE PEOPLE
(By OGDEN R. REm)
Our democracy does not work well in
secret. The Pentagon Papers illuminate the
arrogance of those in high places and the
serious erosion, if not breakdown, of our
constitutional system of checks and bal-
ances.
At least two Administrations, if not three,
believed that they were not accountable to
the Congress and the American people for
watershed decisions taken about Indochina.
The present Administration has gone even
further and launched the most serious at-
tack on the press in our history: subpoena-
ing reporters' notes, threatening reprisals
against television and radio stations under
the power to license, and, for the first time
nationally, Invoking prior restraint against
the right to publish.
This precensorship was claimed to be justi-
fied because of an "immediate grave threat
to national security." Critical national se-
curity touching our very survival is not in
fact at issue here-nor is cryptographic in-
telligence.
While the Kennedy and particularly the
Johnson Administrations' failure to inform
Congress is-a shocking example of unilateral
executive decision-making, the attempted
effort by the Nixon Administration to pre-
vent what is essentially past history reach-
ing Congress or being published is hardly
more reassuring.
After six days of hearings before the Gov-
ernment Information Subcommittee of the
House of Representatives, certain remedies
are clearly called for if the Congress is to re-
assert its constitutional role.
First, the Congress must enact a new
statute governing classified documents. This
law must sharply limit that which should be
labeled secret and it must provide for auto-
matic declassification and Congressional
oversight. If a matter should remain secret
after a stated period, there should be an af-
firmative, positive finding as to why con-
tinued secrecy is necessary.
The Congress should explicitly reserve the
right to make public material improperly
classified by the executive contrary to statute
when its classification is not a matter of
national security and is simply a device to
avoid governmental embarrassment. Equally,
no Executive order on classification should
be issued that subverts the intent of the
Congress. Above all, there must be a vast re-
duction in the corps of 8,000 Defense Depart-
ment officers who now have authority to
originate top secret and secret designations.
Second, the Freedom of Information Act
should be tightened In two respects. The
types of information now permitted to be
withheld must be sharply limited, and time
permitted for Government response to a
court suit must be reduced from the present
60 days.
Third, the Congress must come to grips
with executive privilege. Here we are dealing
with a collision between the executive and
the Congress that has been going on since
George Washington assumed office. It should
be subject to accommodation, but that will
never happen if the Congress does not assert
the powers and- responsibilities given to it by
the Constitution.
Fourth, legislation may well be required
to protect the Fourth Estate, The press often
serves as a coordinate branch of our democ-
racy, especially when a breakdown occurs
between the other three. Specifically, we
need a national Newsmen's Privilege Act-
now law in six states-protecting the con-
fidentiality of sources, absent a threat to
human life, espionage, or foreign aggression.
Legislation should be enacted to prohibit the
issuance by the courts of injunctions against
publication, thereby removing prior restraint
from the reach of the executive.
Congressional legislation and assertion of
appropriate initiatives can help redress the
current situation. If need be, the power of
the purse can be more resolutely used vis-
a-vis an unresponsive executive. But more
f andamen,tally, what we need is government
with faith in the American people and in
t:leir right to participate in the great de-
cisions. If we do not see this now, alter the
Eay of Pigs, the Dominican Republic Inter-
v antion and the whole tragic history of In-
dxhina, then as a nation we do not really
understand democracy,
A DEADLINE FOR DECLASSIFICATION?
(By Henry Owen)
The current furor over secret Vietnam doc-
uments tits into a familiar pattern. The
pablic's view of the origins of each major
conflict (save Hitler's 'war) in the last cen-
tury has been market: by three successive
phases: Phase I, whet. the wartime official
view was readily accepted; Phase II, when a
spate of memoirs and other secret docu-
ments persuaded people that it was largely
the fault of their own wartime leaders; and
Phase III, in which professional historians
showed the truth to be a lot more compli-
cated than any of these "devil" theories
would suggest. We are now in Phase II on
Vietnam; the need for moving as soon as pos-
si ,le to Phase III can be better understood
if we look to past experience.
CASE ONE: In 1914-18, the view that the
Kaiser had single hancledly brought on the
war was universal outside Germany. Then
came postwar memoirs and the publication
of Austrian, German and Russian secret doc-
uments; this led such revisionists as the late
Harry Elmer Barnes to suggest that the war
wsss largely the fault of Poincare and the
Russian military. Finally, serious historians
get to work. While they differed among them-
selves In distributing the blame, a succession
of professional studies--culminating in Al-
bertini's definitive three-volume history pub-
lished in the 1940s-suggested that both the
wsxtime and revisionist theories were at fault.
Nc,ne of the statesmen involved had wanted
a general war; there were divided counsels
In each government; and there was a large
amount of miscalculation and at least as
m'ich incompetence as criminal intent all
around.
SASE TWO: On December 8, 1941, most
Ariericans were fairly char that Hirohito had
atacked a peaceful America out of the blue.
After the war smoldering hostility toward
President Roosevelt exploded in a burst of
re"isionist commentary, which suggested that
he had tempted and provoked Japan into fir-
Ing the first shot. The U.S. Government, in a
burst of candor, gave two eminent scholars--
William Langer and Ever ett Gleason-the run
of its archives and invited them to form and
write their own view. Phase III, which began
wi:h their two-volume work in the early
1960s, has been reflected in a succession of
scholarly studies ever Since. These studies
have reached varying 2onciusions, but no
one who reads all of them is likely to return
to the simplistic theories of the 1940s: The
failures of last-minute U.S. and Japanese
efforts to avert war are, as John Toland
po: his out in his recent work, too tragic and
complicated a business to be explained by
seeking out heroes and villains.
On Vietnam, we are now in Phase II. Secret
documents have been revealed; wartime
leaders are being discredited. But the re-
vealed documents are Inevitably a partial
record: They do not Include White House
files; and they do not indicate either the
context in which, or the tactical purposes for
which, the memoranda they cite were writ-
ter.. They cannot fully reflect the doubts
and torments of officials reaching for deei-
sioa-which are, by the very nature of the
government's operations, rarely committed
to paper. The authors who analyzed these
papers were not able to conduct interviews
with the participants; as indicated in these
volumes' preface, they sometimes lacked the
research experience - required to assess evi-
dence which was necessarily, as a Washing-
ton Post editorial has pointed out, neither
complete nor balanced. These are some of
the reasons why such men as George Ball and
Averell Harriman have warned against trying
to draw sweeping conclusions from these
documents.
One remedy was suggested by three noted
historians before the current storm broke. In
1969 Professor Ernest May of Harvard pro-
posed that all classified government records,
except for those few whose disclosureswould
directly, surely, and powerfully prejudice
national security, be opened after a fixed
period to qualified professional historians.
Professor James McGregor Burns of Wil-
liams followed with a similar, if more gen-
eral,- proposal and suggested that the wait-
ing period be fixed at eight years. In light of
recent events, this period might well be
shortened. The proposal was promptly en-
dorsed by Professor Langer, who pointed out
that "systematic declassification is patently
impossible: the records are so voluminous
that it would take large teams of highly
qualified personnel years to complete the
assignment."
Professor May had in mind that a group
of these historians, based In universities,
would then launch a major effort to produce
scholarly histories of U.S. postwar foreign
policy-perhaps under a foundation grant,
which might be managed by an appropriate
professional association or by a group of
these associations. Outlining the advantages
of such a historical program in persuasive
terms, Professor May concluded: "Policy-
makers and their staffs would possess more
reliable knowledge about events which they
use as trend gauges and action indica-
tors ... Legislators, journalists, and others
commenting on current actions would have
less excuse for basing comparisons on legend
rather than reality ... and students would
leave the classroom with somewhat more
awareness than now seems common that the
world is a complicated place and that the
color of truth Is often gray."
At the time these professors' proposals were
made, they attracted scant atention. In light
of current events, they warrant serious ex-
ploration. The President might appoint a
mixed commission of eminent American his-
torians and government officials to study the
matter and report back to him with specific
recommendations. This would be a different
operation from the Inter-agency study on de-
classification which is already underway in
the U.S. Government.
In the meantime, private studies can make
a modest contribution in pointing the way.
Leslie Gelb, who coordinated the compilation
of Pentagon documents, is embarked on a
three-year analytical history for the Brook-
ings Institution of how five successive U.S.
administrations perceived and acted on U.S.
interests in Indochina from 1940 to 1965. His
object is not to figure out who struck whom
and why, but to show the inter-relation be-
tween official decisions and the international
and domestic environment in which they
were taken. His research is based on public
sources: the first published results, pub-
lished recently in Foreign Policy and the
"Outlook" section of The Washington Post,
suggest that his conclusions will be both
more balanced and perceptive than those
now being widely drawn from the Pentagon
documents often by people who haven't even
read them, but have heard of them at sec-
ond or third hand.
Whatever may be the verdict of history in
Vietnam, one thing is sure: It will differ from
many of the verdicts now being pronounced
with such speed and enthusiasm on the basis
of scattered and incomplete returns.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700100020-1
 ,F6M:k7jQ00700100020-1
July 15, 19.7.ppproved For 'Jq917L: 8p
By Mr. McCLELLAN:
S. 2291. A bill to facilitate representa-
tion of persons having claims against the
United States by legal counsel of their
own choosing. Referred to the Commit-
tee on the Judiciary.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, I in-
troduce, for appropriate reference, a bill
to facilitate representation of persons
having claims against the United States
by legal counsel of their own choosing.
In both the 89th and 90th Congresses
the Senate unanimously passed bills-S.
1522 of the 89th Congress and S. 1073
of the 90th Congress-introduced by me
for the removal of arbitrary limitations
upon attorneys' fees for services ren-
dered in proceedings before adminis-
trative agencies of the United States.
No final action on either of these bills
was taken by the House of Representa-
tives. The bill which I am introducing to-
day is substantially the measure re-
ported by the House Judiciary Commit-
tee in the 90th Congress and identical to
S. 2387 of. the 91st Congress:
Section 1 of the bill provides for the,
repeal of section 2678 of title 28 of the
United States Code, which is the section
of the Code which presently limits attor-
neys' fees in Federal tort claims cases.
This section would remove the fixed
limits now in the law so that the attor-
neys' fees will be fixed in the same man-
ner as it is in tort litigation between pri-
vate parties.
Section 2 of the bill provides a stand-
ard procedure for supervising and ap-
proving attorneys' fees for services ren-
dered in connection with claims before
specified agencies and departments of
the Federal Government. These new pro-
cedures for determining attorneys' fees
would apply to: first, the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare under
title II or title XVIII of the Social Se-
curity Act; second, the Administrator of
Veterans' Affairs under title 38 of the
United States Code; third, the Foreign
Claims Settlement Commission under
any provision of law administered by
that Commission; fourth, the Secretary
of Labor with respect to the Federal em-
ployees compensation provisions of title
5 of the United States Code; fifth, the
Railroad Retirement Board under the
Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act;
and sixth, the President or his delegate
under the Trading With the Enemy Act.
The procedures in this bill for agency
review of reported fees provides that a
fee may be questioned if an agency "finds
cause to inquire as to whether a fee is
excessive" or improperly reported. After
the attorney has had an opportunity to
supply additional data and confer with
agency representatives, the agency may
determine a "maximum" fee.
Section 3 of the bill contains provi-
sions relating to the review and enforce-
ment of limitations on attorney's fees.
These include provisions concerning
jurisdiction in the Federal district courts,
venue, actions for determination of rea-
sonable attorneys' fees, the form of evi-
dence to be considered by the court, and
judgment by the court in such actions.
Sections 4 through 11 of the bill
amend existing law so as to incorporate
the new procedures specified in this
legislation.
Section 6 preserves the existing $10
limitation on "original claims" for Vet-
erans' Administration benefits. Attorneys
could be retained at fees subject to Vet-
erans' Administration review, as pro-
vided in Section 2 of the bill, only after
a claim had been disallowed by that
agency. In normal circumstances, there
is no necessity for an attorney at the
first stage of a claim for Veterans'
Administration benefits. However, once a
claim has been disallowed an attorney
may be desired by the claimant in
appealing the denial of a claim for bene-
fits. It should be stressed that this bill
does not seek to affect in any way the
present system of representation of vet-
erans by the various veterans organiza-
tions. The legislation would merely make
it possible to obtain counsel in those
cases where it appears to the claimant
that legal counsel would be helpful or
desirable.
When I originally introduced legisla-
tion on this subject in the 89th Congress
I stated that I did so "to correct what I
consider to be inequities in the allowance
of attorneys' fees in proceedings before
certain administrative agencies. Many of
the existing limitations are a direct out-
growth of the depression years. The
maximum amount now allowable reflects
the general attitude of that time." I have
worked closely with the American Bar
Association in the preparation of the suc-
cessive versions of this legislation. I
believe that the bill effects a proper bal-
ance of the interests of all parties con-
cerned, namely, the individual claimant the morale of the correctional officers
under a Federal statute, his private who man the institutions of the Bureau
lawyer, and the Government. I hope that of Prisons, and will make these jobs more
final action on this legislation can attractive to those individuals who are
taken during this Congress. 1:J best able to perform this role as an agent
By Mr. BURDICK (for himself
and Mr. Coox) :
S. 2292. A bill relating to minimum
and maximum limits of age within
which original appointments may be
made to positions as correctional officers
in the Bureau of Prisons, and for other
purposes. Referred to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mr. BURDICK. Mr. President, I am
introducing for myself and Mr. Coox
today, the Correctional Officer Act of
1971.
As my colleagues are undoubtedly
aware, one of the improvements in our
efforts to bring about the rehabilitation
of public offenders is the utilization of
correctional officers in a paraprofessional
role as agents of changing the behavior
of those in custody. The U.S. Bureau of
Prisons is today providing leadership for
the Nation in this field through the
unique training program which it has
established for new correctional officer
employees. The first of what I hope will
be a series of staff training centers is
located at El Reno, Okla. Although it was
only formally dedicated on March 25 of
this year, the 'concepts involved in this
staff training program are already being
adopted by State and local jurisdictions
in, the preparation of their correctional
employees.
The legislation which I introduce
today is intended to be a further step
S 11091
in enhancing the professional role of
Federal correctional officers, so that they
will continue to represent the high
standards necessary to fulfill their role
as agents of change.
In the day-in, day-out operation of a
correctional institution, it is the line cor-
rectional officers who have continual
contact with the offenders. Because of
this, these correctional officers stand in
a unique place from which they can in-
fluence the future behavior of those in
custody.
First, the legislation which I introduce
recognizes the declining average age of
the offenders in the population of the
Federal institutions, which has gone from
approximately 30 years to approximately
`L8 years of age.
The ability to set maximum age limits
for recruitments would insure that the
Bureau of Prisons is able to maintain a
young and vital complement of correc-
tional officers who can understand of-
fenders and who can work with them.
Second, this legislation further recog-
nizes the professional nature of this work
by eliminating the requirement that a
correctional officer who has reached age
50 and has completed 20 years of service
must be declared to be "no longer capable
of carrying on efficiently" in his job in
order to gain the annuity benefits which
Congress has already provided in recog-
nition of the dangerous nature of the
work. I believe that making these annu-
ity benefits available upon application
of change.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill
and analysis be printed in full at this
point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the bill and
analysis were ordered to be printed in
the RECORD, as follows:
S. 2292
A bill relating to minimum and maximum
limits of age within which original ap-
pointments may be made to positions as
correctional officers in the Bureau of
Prisons, and for other purposes
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That section
3307 of title 5, United States Code, is amend-
ed by designating the existing text of such
section as subsection (a), and by adding at
the end thereof the following new subsection:
"(b) Notwithstanding the provisions' of
subsection (a) of this section, the Attorney
General, with the concurrence of such agent
as the President may designate, is authorized
to determine and fix the minimum and maxi-
mum limits of age, within which original
appointments may be made to positions as
correctional officers in the Bureau of Prisons,
Department of Justice."
SEC. 2. Subsection (c) of section 8336 of
title 5, United States Code, is amended by
inserting immediately before the period at
the end of the first sentence thereof a comma
and the following: "except that in the case of
an employee the duties of whose position are
primarily the detention of such individuals
and who is so separated from the service,
such employee shall be entitled to an an-
nuity without such recommendation and
approval".
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700100020-1
 S 11092
Approved FoE8&1. S&4a' A9L07RE~ P7g (Q51R00070010002yi1y 15, 19 71
MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE CORRECTIONAL OF-
FICER ACT or 1971
SEC. 1. Provides authority for the setting
of maximum and minimum ages for re-
cruitment of correctional officers to be em-
ployed by the Bureau of Prisons.
SEC. 2. Eliminates the necessity provided
in statute and regulation that the Director
of the Bureau of Prisons and the Civil Serv-
ice Commission be required to make a de-
terminationof fact thatan individual seek-
ing retirement at age 50 with 20 years of
hazardous duty is no longer capable of
carrying on efficiently as a correctional of-
ficer.
By Mr. BURDICK (for himself,
Mr. COOK, and Mr. BAYH) :
S. 2293. A bill to amend title 18, Unit-
ed States Code, relating to assaults an
United States probation officers. Re-
ferred to the Committee on the Ju-
diciary.
Mr. BURDICK. Mr. President, I am in-
troducing for myself, Mr. Coox and Mr.
BAYH today, legislation that would ex-
tend to U.S. probation officers the pro-
visions of the criminal code which make
assault or murder of all other categories
of Federal law enforcement officers a
Federal crime.
Section 1114 of title 18, United States
Code, now provides that whoever kills
any of certain designated officers or em-
ployees of the United States while en-
gaged in, or on account of, the perform-
ance of official duties shall be punished
as provided in section 1111 and section
1112 of the code relating to murder and
manslaughter. A related provision, sec-
tion Ill of title 18, United States Code,
applies sanctions to anyone who forcibly
assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intim-
idates. or interferes with any person
designated in section 1114 while engaged
in, or on account of, the performance of
official duties. The legislation that is be-
ing introduced today would extend these
provisions to all probation officers of
the United States.
In performing their primary duties of
supervising Federal offenders placed on
probation or on parole from penal in-
stitutions, or preparing presentencing in-
vestigation reports for the courts, U.S.
probation officers are subject to personal
hazards above those faced by ordinary
government officers. By the nature of.
their work, they continually risk the
danger of assault, which could result in
injury or death at the hands of the
parolees, probationers, and persons from
whom they seek information.
Congress has in previous years pro-
vided such protection to agents of such
agencies as the Federal Bureau of In-
vestigation, Bureau of Narcotics and
Dangerous Drugs, Customs, Immigra-
tion, Bureau of Prisons, and others in-
volved in :field activities on various pub-
lic lands.
I believe that such legislation extend-
ing these two sections of this statute to
cover U.S. probation officers would be
an appropriate recognition of the
dangerous nature of their work. Enact-
ment of similar legislation has been rec-
ommended by the Committee on Proba-
tion of the Judicial Conference.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill
be printed in full at this point in the
RECORD.
S. 2293
.A bill to amend title L8, United States Code,
relating to assaults on United States pro-
bation officers
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
.3epresentatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That section
_114 of title 18. United States Code, is
amended by inserting immediately after the
words "Judge of the United States," the
'cords "any United States probation officer."
By Mr. EASTLAND (for himself
and Mr. HausxA) :
S. 2294. A bill to amend the Subversive
Activities Control Act of 1950, as amend-
ed. Referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, on be-
,ialf of the Senator from Nebraska (Mr.
:. RUSKA) and myself, I send to the desk
for appropriate reference a bill to amend
the Subversive Activities Control Act of
:.950, and ask that it may be appropri-
ately referred.
This is a bill which was transmitted to
I hd'two Houses of the Congress, in draft
form by the Attorney General of the
ljnited States. The ;purpose of the bill is
t o facilitate the performance by the Sub-
versive Activities Control Board of new
responsibilities which it must deal with
under the President's amendment of Ex-
ecutive Order 10450, on July 7 of this
"ear.
As I am sure Senators know, the
amended-Executive order will permit the
Board to deal with and make appropriate
determinations with regard to violent,
action-oriented organizations, whether
or not such organizations are Commu-
nists in nature.
In performing these new functions, the
Board will need to exercise, in proper
case the power of siibpena., and to hold
hearings and to take (testimony and keep
a stenographic record of its proceedings.
'these functions are now authorized by
statute with respect to the responsibili-
ties imposed upon the Board by the Sub-
versive Activities Control Act; and the
bill I have just sent forward will provide
authority for the exercise of these neces-
sary functions in connection with the
Board's new responsibilities.
The bill will also provide for changing
the name of the Board to the "Federal
Internal Security Board". I feel this is a
desirable step, for the fact is the Board
has never been greatly concerned with
controls, but rather with the quasi ju-
dicial adjudication of questions with re-
spect to the nature of subversive organi-
2 ations.
Mr. President, I ask that the text of
the letter transmitting this bill to the
'Tice President, as .he presiding officer
of the Senate, may be printed in the
RECORD at this point as a part of my
Iemarks, together with the full text of
the bill.
There being no objection, the letter and
bill were ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows: -
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Washington, D.C., July 7, 1971.
'HE VICE PRESIDENT,
United States Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. VICE PRESIDENT: There is attached
for your consideration and appropirate refer-
ence a draft bill to amend the Subversive
Activities Control Act of 1950, as amended.
In order to update the list of organizations
which have been designated by the Attorney
General, the President in accordance with his
constitutional and statutory powers, has
amended Sections 18 and 12 of Executive
Order 10450, to permit the Attorney General
to petition the Subversive Activities Control
Board to conduct appropriate hearings to
determine inter alia whether an organization
is one which seeks to overthrow the Govern-
ment of the United States or any state or
sub-division thereof by unlawful means or
unlawfully advocates the commission of acts
of force or violence to deny others their
rights under the Constitution or laws of
the United- States or of any state. This would
permit the Board to make an appropriate
determination with respect to violent-action
criented organizations.
The proposed legislation would amend Sec-
tion 12 of the Subversive Activities Control
Act of 1950, by renaming the Subversive Ac-
tivities Control Board the Federal Internal
Security Board. In addition the draft bill
provides that subsections (c). and (d) (1),
(2) and (3) of Section 13 and Section 14, of
the Subversive Activities Control Act of`1950,
as amended, shall apply to proceedings con-
ducted pursuant to Section 12 of Executive
Order 10450, as amended.
Misbehavior in the Board's presence is a
punishable offense under Section 13(d) (3).
Section 13(c) provides the Board with the
power of subpoena. Section 13 (d) (1) assures
certain respondent rights by requiring pub-
lic hearings, an accurate stenographic rec-
ord, the right to counsel, and the right to
cross examination. In addition to these "due
process" features, Section 14 specifically pro-
vides that an aggrieved party shall have the
right to petition the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia to have
the Board's findings set aside. The findings of
the Board must be supported by the prepond-
erance of the evidence.
The enactment of this legislation will also
provide a sounder basis for updating the At-
torney General's list of organizations de-
signated pursuant to Executive Order 10480.
The last consolidated list of such organiza-
tions was issued on November 1, 1955 and
many of the organizations listed thereon are
currently defunct.
The early enactment of this legislation is
recommended as a necessary complement to
the recently issued amendment to Executive
Order 10450 mentioned above, since the Ex-
ecutive Order cannot confer subpoena or con-
tempt powers on the Board.
The Office of Management and Budget has
advised that enactment of this legislation
is consistent with the objectives of this
Administration.
Sincerely.
JOHN W. MITCHELL,
Attorney General.
S. 2294
A bill to amend the Subversive Activities
Control Act of 1950, as amended
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That (a)
Section 3(11) of the Subversive Activities
Control Act of 1950 is amended by deleting
the words "Subversive Activities Control
Board" and inserting in lieu thereof the
words "Federal - Internal Security Board."
(b) Section 12(a) of the Subversive Ac-
tivities Control Act is amended by deleting
the words "Subversive Activities Control
Board" and inserting in lieu thereof the
words "Federal Internal Security Board."
(c) The caption to Section 12 of the
Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 is
amended to read "Federal Internal Security
Board."
SEC. 2. The provisions of subsections (c)
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700100020-1