ANNOUNCEMENT OF HEARINGS ON MARCH 5 BY GOVERNMENT INFORMATION AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS SUBCOMMITTEE-SECRET SERVICE AND CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY EXEMPTIONS IN THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974-PUBLIC LAW 93-579

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP77M00144R000800070103-6
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 26, 2001
• Sequence Number: 103
• Publication Date: March 3, 1975
• Content Type: OPEN

ann__Filitarteurus100800070103,-
arc 3, 1975
11 1296 Approved For REittURCALORANtatelleteaff
4 states require members of the state House
of Representatives to be 25 years of age (Ari-
zona, Colorado, South Dakota, Utah);
Utah specifies no age requirement for serv-
ice in the state Senate;
21 states require members of the state Sen-
ate to be 25 years of age (Alabama, Alaska,
Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Indi-
ana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Min-
nesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Car-
olina, South Dakota, Washington, Wyoming) ;
6 states require members of the state Sen-
ate to be 21 years of age (Connecticut, Flor-
ida, Illinois, Michigan, Oregon, Virginia);
6 states require members of the state Sen-
ate to be 30 years of age (Kentucky, Mis-
souri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Tennes-
see, Vermont);
Delaware requires that a member of the
state Senate be 27 years of age; and
Texas requires that a member of the state
Senate be 26 years of age.
With respect to the age of majority listed
for South Carolina (21), it should be noted
that the proposed constitutional amendment
approved by the South Carolina legislature -
lowering the age of majority in that state to
18 was voted upon favorably by the people
of North Carolina in November 1974, the
provision must still, however, be ratified by
the state legislature.
NOTES
1. No specific age mentioned in State Con-
stitution, and therefore the age of majority
is assumed to also be the minimum eligibility
age for election.
2. Age of majority is implied to be twenty-
one by certain wording in the State Constitu-
tion, e.g., "of full age", "fit person", "reputa-
ble freeholder", or. "freeholder." Twenty-one
was always the age of majority in any of the
early States Constitutions that specified an
age.
3. Since the Governor was chosen by the
Council from among its own members, the
minimum age is assumed to be the same as
for the Council.
4. This Maryland Constitution had the
word "above" in front of each of the specified
minimum ages. Therefore, it is possible that
the ages should actually read 22, 26, and 26
respectively. .
5. Since Council members were elected
from among the members of the lower house,
the minimum age is assumed to be the sames
as for the lower house. .
6. The President could be elected from
among the members of the Council (See Note
6) or from among the "people at large."
7. Age is not stated or implied.
POPULATIbN STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE
UNITED STATES, 1974-75
(National Data Book and Guide to Sources,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census)
Population by age and sex, 1970 and 1973:
1970: 18-20 years, 11.2 million; 21-24 years,
13.5 million; 25-34 years, 25.3 million.
1973: 18-20 years, 12.0 million; 21-24 years,
14.4 million; 25-34 years, 28.6 million.
Marital status of population by age and
sex, 1973:
Males: 18-19 years, 349,000 or 9.5%; 20-24
years, 3,510,000 or 41.8%; 25-29 years, 5,639,-
000 or 75.4%.
Females: 18-19 years, 923,000 or 23.8%;
20-24 years, 5,366,000 or 58.9%; 25-29 years,
6,378,000 or 82.4%.
High School and College Graduates 1900-
1974: 1974, approximately 1,011,000 graduated
from college; 1940, approximately 187,000
graduated from college.
Labor Force: Percentage of Distribution by
age and sex; 1950-73:
1973: Males, 20-24 years, 14.2%; 25-34
years, 23.8%.
1973: Females, 20-24 years, 16.3%; 25-84
years, 20.8%.
Percentage enrolled in school by level, sex
and age, 1973:
College: Males, .18-24 years, 27.7%; 25-29
years, 11.6%.
Females, 18-24 years, 20.5%; 25-29 years,
5.2%.
From 1960 to 1970 shows a 107.6% increase
in the number of students in college.
School enrollment and labor force status
of persons 16-24 years, 1973:
Percent
Armed Forces 8.8
In school
40. 8
Labor force
18. 1
In school
55.4
Labor force
42.6
APPENDIX C.-MINIMUM ELIGIBILITY AGES IN EARLY STATE
CONSTITUTIONS
Note: All ages in parentheses are implied in the various
State constitutions.
State
Age of
majority
Lower
house
Upper
house Governor
Connecticut: Constitution
of 1818, (I could not
locate an earlier Con-
necticut Constitution)...
21
(21)
1(21)
30
Delaware:
Constitution of 1776._
(21)
(21)
'29
(25)
Constitution of 1792._
(21
24
27
30
Constitution of 1831....
(1.
(1)
()
(2)
Georgia:
Constitution of 1777._
21
21
1(21)
(21)
Constitution of 1789._
21
21
21
30
Constitution of 1798...
21
21
25
30
Maryland: '
Constitution of 1776._
21
21
25
25
Constitution of 1851._
21
21
25
30
Massachusetts: Constitu-
tion of 1780
21
(21)
(21)
(21)
New Hampshire:
Constitution of 1776...
(21)
(21)
1(21)
(21)
Constitution of 1784._
(21)
(21)
30
30
Constitution of 1792._
(2)
(1)
(1)
(2)
New Jersey:
Constitution of 1776._
1(21)
(21)
(21)
(21)
Constitution 01 1844...
(21)
21
30
30
New York:
Constitution of 1777._
(21)
(21)
(21)
(21)
Constitution of 1821...
(21)
(21)
.(21)
30
North Carolina:
Constitution of 1776._
21
(21)
30
Constitution of 186s
21
25
30
Pennsylvania:
Constitution of 1776._
21
(21)
1 (21)
? (21)
Constitution of 1790._
21
21
25
30
Constitution of 1838._
(2)
(a)
(1)
South Carolina:
Constitution of 1776._
(21)
21
2(21)
8 (21)
Constitution of 1778
21
21
30
30
Virginia.
Constitution of 1776._
(21)
(21)
25
(7)
Constitution of 1830._
(21)
' 25
X)
30
Rhode Island: (No dele-
gate from Rhode Island
signed the Constitution.
Rhode Island apparently
did not participate in the
1787 Constitutional Con-
vention.) Constitution of
1842
21
(21)
(21)
(21)
a "Council."
2 No change from previous Constitution.
a "President."
Source: "The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial
Charters, and other Organic Laws of the States, Territories, and
Colonies Now or Heretofore Forming the United States of
America," Francis Newton Thorpe, editor, Washington, D.C.,
Government Printing Office, 1909,7 vols.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF HEARINGS ON
MARCH 5 BY GOVERNMENT IN-
FORMATION AND INDIVIDUAL
RIGHTS SUBCOMMITTEE-SE-
CRET SERVICE AND CENTRAL IN-
TELLIGENCE AGENCY - EXEMP-
TIONS IN THE PRIVACY ACT OF
1974-PUBLIC LAW 93-579
Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Speaker, for the in-
formation of our colleagues I would like
to announce forthcoming public hearings
by the Government Information and In-
dividual Rights Subcommittee of the
Government Operations Committee on
matters relating to the exemptions con-
tained in subsections (j) (1) and (k) (3)
of Public Law 93-579, the Privacy Act of
1974 enacted last year. These provisions
apply to the Central Intellige.nce_Azencx,
and the U.Sr. gecret Wervice and exempt
those agencies from access and disclo-
sure requirements permitting individual
Americans to examine their own records
maintained by Federal agencies, the right
to correct inaccuracies, and impos:ng re-
strictions on agencies' use or disclosure
of personal information contained in
such records without the consent of thd
Individual. This landmark law becomeS
effective on September 27, 1975.
The initial hearings will be held on
Wednesday, March 5, 1975, beginning at
10 a.m. in room 2203, Rayburn House Of-
fice Building.
Mr. Speaker, these hearings stem from
assurances given the House last Novem-
ber 21 in a colloquy between the then
chairman Of the Foreign Operations and
Government Information Subcommittee,
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
MOORHEAD) , acting as floor manager of
the privacy bill (H.R. 16373) and the
ranking minority member of the subcom-
mittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr,
ERLENBORN) (RECORD, p. H10961).
During the debate on my amendment
to eliminate the so-called Secret Serv-
ice exemption in the privacy bill, there
was considerable discussion over the col,
lection, maintenance, and use of a corn-.
Puterized protective intelligence list of
individuals by the Secret Service under
authority of section 3056 of title 1?4,
United States Code. Our studies of such
list indicated evidence of abuse in in-
cluding the names and personal in-
formation on individuals because of their
anti-war activities or other political be-
liefs, not because they posed any threat
to the safety of the President or other
governmental officials. In conceding fir;
likelihood of such abuses, the then chair-
man of the subcommittee promised to
hold hearings early in the new Congress
to fully pursue the matter. The ranking
minority member of the subcommittee
concurred with this procedure -and my
amendment was subsequently defeated.
Although neither of these gentlemen 13
currently a member of the reorganized
Government Information and Individual
Rights Subcommittee, which I now chair
In the 94th Congress, our subcommittepi
decided at our recent organizational
meeting to schedule these hearings in
order to fulfill the commitment made
last November so that the need for
amendments to the Privacy Act of 1974
could be put into proper focus.
Likewise, Mr. Speaker, I offered an
amendment last November 21 to elim-
inate from the privacy bill the general
exemption for the Central Intelligence
Agency. (RECORD, p. H10955). At that
time I argued that such exemption was "
too broad and that sensitive au rec-
ords could be protected under the spe-
cific exemption provisions of subsec-
tion (k) of the bill. I further commented
that "there is much information ... that
the CIA cpllects about individuals that
Is totally unrelated to the national se-
curity functions of th.A.t." Since pas-
sage of the privacy bill, there has, of
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800070103-6
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800070103-6
March 3, 1975 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? 1-101 TSE 111295
lieved that nue Government's representa-
tives must age as well
As of 1971), setae-half of our entire popu-
lation was under 25 years of age. Our
Government cannot be called truly
democratic when there exists such a
large group of citizens who must carry
the consequences of democratic decision-
making, but who are not given a full arid
equal chance of participating in that very
process.
An infusion of youthful citizens can
offer positive effects for Congress. The
new vitality, ideas, and idealism of
youth would enliven a political system
which often seems encrusted with worn-
ant traditions. Also, they would add a
vital sense of equity to the legislative
process. We ought to be trying to include,
not keep out, people who are deeply
affected by our Nation's problems. We
need to make our Government truly a
government of the people again, and this
amendment is a step in that direction.
Current eligibility ages prevent our
numerous younger citizens from fully
feeling u part of the governmental sys-
tem we all share. Giving youth a respon-
sible role in our representative, political
process may help to alter the sense of
frustration and defeat that quite possibly
may have contributed to the Irrespon-
sible behavior of some young Americans.
Greater participation could provide them
with a direct, constructive and demo-
cratic channel of access, and give them a
truly responsible stake in America's
future.
There 4 a definite moral aspect of this
Issue as Well. This entire debate really
revolves around a basic question of fair-
nese. Pvt. Gerald Springer of the U.S..
Army Reserve, in testimony supporting
:he I8-year-old vote, made some points
quite relevant to the amendment pro-
oosed here:
If someone has an interest in our society,
we give him a right to express his voice.
Whet hope do we have for the future if we
turn off the very people who are the future?
We ask them to be responsible While we deny
them revonsibility. We ask them not to drop
Alt, but we wen't let them all the way in!
fe this the American tradition?
The lowering of eligibility ages for
service en the U.S. House of Representa-
tives and Senate is the next logical step
after the overwhelming Passage of the
Oath amendment. America's youth have
been dating their fair share. A 22-member
task force, headed by Representative
Biome of Tennessee, which studied the
situation on American college campuses,
strongly recommended lowering voting
ages to permit, "active involvement in
the political process which can construc-
tively locus youthful idealism on the
moot effective means of change in a free
society." To be truly valid, this active
invnlvemeni In the political process must
sista huShide the right to run for Federal
elective office.
Dr. Margaret Mead believes Young
Peet* can nixing something to us in
questioning The past and in establishing
et partnership between young people arid
peopile.'" Perhaps with such enemy-
aged reflection and reevaluation, we can
-develop some positive future enema-
tines. Dr. Roy Menninger, president of
the Menninger Foundation, says that--
Giving 113 year olds the vote is one step
toward building more responsible citi-
zens . . but only one step. Others, not the
least of which is giving youth the oppor-
tunity also to be a part of government at
all levels . -should be engaged. Not only
can they profit from the participation as a
means of learning, but they can also con-
tribute a perspective, a vigor, an idealism
which are all too often laek1ng.
The immense problems our country
faces cannot possibly be solved by any
one group. We can only hope for solu-
tions when all groups are working to-
gether. We must meet the critical chal-
lenges of today by fully utilizing all of
our great and vast resources. Isn't our
Youth power much too precious to waste?
CONCLUSION'
Mr. Speaker, lowering the eligibility
ages for congressional service will
simply, but importantly, create the pos-
sibility for younger men and women to
be elected Representatives and Senators.
Congress will not be inundated with im-
mature members of untried ability and
untested skill. Lowering the eligibility
ages is not in any way a lowering of
congressional standards. The same
measure of competence, integrity, and
general fitness for office will prevail and
continue to apply equally to all congres-
sional office seekers. The voters will still
choose whom they think will best serve
their and the Nation's interests. If, in
their wisdoms, the voters deeide that a
citizen of 22?or 27?is the best candi-
date, they will have exercised their Iran -
obise as legitimately and freely as if they
had chosen someone older.
Lowering the minimum age require-
ments by three years will eliminate un-
reasonable and anachronistic age level;
founded in leth century traditions and
prejudicies that increasingly conflict
with 20th century realities. Mr. Speaker,
Iiirmly believe that the earlier maturity,
educational attainments, and extensive
political involvement of our younger
citizens are compelling arguments in
favor of lowering the congressional eligi-
bility ages. In the face of such over-
whelming statistical evidence, our society
must assume the burden of proof to show
why our young men and women should
continue to be excluded from election to
Congress.
Mr. Speaker, the proposed amend-
ment's ?major benefits are threefold:
First. The Nation: Madison pointed
out in the Federalist that?
The electors (under the new U.S. Cons' i-
tution) are free to choose those whom they
deem most fit to represent them.
The proposed smenchnent Is an lin-
Portant expansion of that basic freedom.
If the Amendment is adopted millions
of young Americans wand become ellen-
Ne to serve as Representatives and Sen-
ators. A Nation founded on democratic
principles can only be strengthened
when more of its citizens are eligible for
Lull participation in its government.
Second. The Congress: Congress po-
tential to be truly representative of all
of the people will be markedly and dra-
matically increased by the "22-27
amendment." An adequately diverse
Congress must display a wide rather
than narrow distribution of ages among
its Members. Citizens under SO are
indisputably underrepresented in Con-
gress. The proposed amendment will cre-
ate the genuine possibility for such a
disparity to be rectified. In addition, I
am oonvinced that younger citizens in
Congress would bring new vitality, ideas,
and idealism into the national legislative
process.
Third. Younger citizens: One of the
chief causes of youthful alienation?a
feeling of being locked out of the sys-
tem?would be significantly diminished
if the possibility existed for more mean-
ingful participation in government at an
earlier age. The "22-27 amendment"
would have the dynamic effect of pro-
moting a deeper sense of responsibility
among our younger citizens. By recogniz-
ing their maturity to participate, we also
will give them the disquieting responsi-
bility to participate maturely. .
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we must
ask ourselves if there exists any truly
valid reason why younger people should
not be allowed to fully participate in gov-
ernment. The very essence of democracy
demands that its basis be as broad as can
be reasonably and logically expected.
The nonproperty holders of Richmond in
a, historic petition to the Virginia Con-
stitutional Convention of n829 wrote:
They alone -deserve to be called free who
participate in the formation of their politi-
Cal institutions.
The real issue in a free society is not
why should they participate, but why
should they not participate? As Mr.
Theodore E. Sorensen, former counsel to
President Kennedy and a noted legal an-
ti-levity, so succinctly said in regard to
lowering the voting age?and this Phi-
losophy can apply equally well to lower-
ing eligibility ages for Congress:
We should do it because there is ai.o longer
any legitimate reason not to .do It . . . be-
'cause arbitrary and unfair distinctions are
repugnant to a democracy, and above all,
because it is right.
I include the following supporting
material:
A SUMMARY 03' THE OURRENT ACE REQUIRE..
SEENTS BET BY THE SEVERAL STATES FOR
SERVICE ne Tram STATIC LEGIEYLATIVE BODIES
13 States specify no age requirement for
service in either House of the state legisla-
ture (California, Idaho, Kansas, Massachu-
setts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Ne-
vada, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Wash-
ington, Wisconsin);
B states specify no age requirement for
service in the state House of Representa-
tives (Louisiana, New Hampshire, North Car-
olina, Vermont, West Virginia):
Hawaii requires that a member of either
House in the state legislature be of the "age
of majority" (Hawaii Constitution, Article
Section 7,);
24 states require members of the state
House of Representatives to be 21 yeses of
age (Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecti-
cut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, New
Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Okla-
home, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Caro-
lina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Wyoming);
3 states require members of the -state
House of Representatives to be 24 years of
age (Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri);
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800070103-6
March 3, 1975
Approved FtiditiftEgg10121M/IMiaMtalaPnati6t44R000800070103-6 H 1297
cou2;se, been the public disclosures of
"domestic operations" allegedly
irivolving some 10,000 Americans. Bev-
Aral different executive and congres-
sional investigations have been author-
ized to probe various intelligence gath-
ering operations, including the CIA.
However, our subcommittee's heaThigS"
will concentrate on the Privacy Act im-
plications of such CIA domestic intel-
ligence operations liririey affect the pri-
vacy rights of Americans and how they
impact upon the general exemption pro-
vided the$A in subsection (j) (1) of the
act.
Similar revelations haye surfaced con-
cerning the Internal Revenue Service's
Special Services Staff, which targeted
thousands of organizations and countless
individuals between 1969 and 1973 that
were considered by the White House to
be a "political activist" or "leftist" na-
ture. We understand that Commissioner
Alexander has since disbanded the polit-
ical intelligence gathering operations of
IRS. The subcommittee is anxious to
further explore the limited amount of
information now available on the IRS,
operation to ascertain whether or not
additional amendments may be neces-
sary to the Privacy Act of 1974 to pro-
tect the American public against such
types of abuses in the future.
The leadoff witness on March 5, 1975,
will be Assistant Secretary of the Treas-
ury David R. Macdonald, who will dis-
cuss the Privacy Act's exemption of the
Secret Service Protective Intelligence
record system and other similar systems
of personal information collected and
maintained pursuant to section 3056 of
title 18, United States Code.
Also testifying that day will be _M.
Director William E, Colby, Fho will dis-
,
cuss the exemption of the agency's 'per-
sonal records system, its domestic in-
telligence activities, and related matters.
Mr. Donald C. Alexander, Commis-
sioner of the Internal Revenue Service,
will also testify concerning the activities
of the IRS Special Services Staff, as well
? as other intelligence gathering and re-
search activities affecting individuals
that is or has been carried on by IRS.
The relationship of such activities to
provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 re-
lating to investigatory material compiled
for law enforcement purposes will also
be addressed by Mr. Alexander. The date
of Commissioner Alexander's appearance
will be announced.
Mr. Speaker, we trust that these in-
vestigative hearings by our subcommittee
will be of interest to our colleagues of
the Congress and to all Americans whose
right to privacy is involved.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a
previous order of the House, the gentle-
man from Mississippi (Mr. MONTGOMERY)
is recognized for 5 minutes.
[Mr. MONTGOMERY addressed the
House. His remarks will appear hereafter
in the Extensions of Remarks.]
IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW CON-
GRESSIONAL BUDGET PROCE-
DURES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1976
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a
previous order of the House, the gen-
tleman from Washington (Mr. ADAMS)
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I am sub-
mitting today on behalf of the Commit-
tee on the Budget a report on imple-
mentation of the new congressional
budget process in 1975.
As Members know, the Congressional
Budget and Impoundment Control Act
of 1.172r?Public Law 93-344?established
a new congressional budget process be-
ginning in 1976 with respect to the fiscal
year 1977 budget. However, section 906 of
the act provided for implementation of
the new process earlier?that is, with re-
spect to fiscal year 1976?if the Senate
and House Budget Committees agreed
to do so and to the extent required by
them in reports to their respective
Houses.
This report is filed pursuant to sec-
tion 906. A similar report is being filed
today in the Senate setting out identical
procedures. The provisions of the act
being implemented are effective im-
mediately.
In brief, the implementation plan
agreed to by the two Budget Committees
calls for the adoption by the Congress of
two concurrent resolutions on the
budget: The first, to be adopted by May
15; the second, by September 15; and
completion of a reconciliation process, if
practicable. In addition, new backdoor
contract and loan authorities would be
effective only to the extent provided for
in appropriations acts.
A more detailed summary of the im-
plementation plan is set forth at the
end of my remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members of the
House to study very carefully the report
being filed today. This first effort to im-
plement the new congressional budget
process is a most important one. The
budget and economic issues to be dealt
with?the size of the Federal budget, the
amount of the deficit, and so on?are
overriding issues this year. The new
budget process cannot succeed without
the full cooperation of all House Mem-
bers. The summary follows:
BR/EF SUMMARY OF THE FISCAL YEAR 1976
STIDOET PROCESS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
During 1975 the House and Senate Budget
Committees would implement the new budg-
et process in the following manner:
(1) Both Committees would hold hearings
on the FY 1976 budget and the economic
situation,
(2) All standing committees and joint
committees would submit their views and
recommendations on budget matters within
their jurisdiction to the Budget Committees
by March 15.
(3) Both Committees would report and
mplete action on a first concurrent resolu-
on on the budget by May 15. This resolu-
on would include the following five items,
often referred to as "macro-economic" items:
(a) recommended level of total budget au-
thority for FY 1976,
(b) recommended level of total outlays for
FY 1976,
(c) recommended level of total revenues
for FY 1976,
(d) recommended amount of deficit for
FY 1976, and
(e) recommended changes, if any, in the
public debt.
The figures contained in this first budget
resolution are "targets" only, which serve
to guide Congress' spending actions for FY
1976. The report accompanying this first res-
olution would, to the extent, practicable, al-
locate the budget authority and outlay tar-
gets by functional categories, so that House
committees could have relatively specific
guidelines to work with.
(4) Both committees would, if practicable,
report and complete action on a second con-
current resolution on the budget by Septem-
ber 15. This resolution would take into ac-
count' Congress' summer spending actions
and then current economic needs.
The figures adopted in this second resolu-
tion are "ceilings" in the following sense:
once adopted, neither House may consider
revenue or spending legislation that would
breach th6 ceilings in the second resolution.
Of course, a revised resolution may be ad-
opted at any time during the fiscal year to
accommodate new spending or revenue
measures.
The second resolution may require certain
reconciliation actions to be undertaken. If,
for example. Congress's total spending ac-
tions exceed the amounts provided for in
the second resolution, the House may direct
comittees with budget authority jurisdiction
to rescind a portion of the budget authority
made available in a particular spending bill.
Similarly, if estimated revenues are below
the amount called for in the resolution, the
House may direct the Ways and Means Com-
mittee to increase revenues by the necessary
amount. Such reconciliation actions must be
completed by September 25.
(5) Effective immediately upon submission
of the implemeneation plan to the House and
Senate, new contract and borowing au+hority
would be effective only to the extent approved
in appropriations acts; and new entitlement
authority may not take effect until July 1,
the beginning of the fiscal year.
SO-CALLED DEMOCRATIC ALTER-
NATIVE TO ADMINISTRATION'S
ENERGY PROGRAM RAISES MORE
QUESTIONS THAN IT ANSWERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a
previous order of the House, the gentle-
man from Illinois (Mr. MICHEL) is rec-
ognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, we now
have a so-called Democratic alternative
to the administration's energy program
In the form of a policy statement that
raises more questions than it answers.
In the first place, I understand Mr.
Um.ming, who was not included when the
Democratic leadership unveiled their
proposal, will be holding hearings soon
on his own energy tax program. It ap-
pears to be substantially different and
I am wondering how the two proposals
fit together?
Second. There appears to be no way
that the Democratic leadership pro-
posals will save more than 1 million bar-
rels per day by 1977. This means we will
be importing up to 2 million barrels
more per day from insecure sources.
Isn't this dangerous?
Third. The Democratic proposal sug-
gests a gas tax of 5 cents per gallon,
which will go into a trust fund. Since it
will take some time for this money to
get back into the economy, isn't it dan-
gerous to take $5 billion out of the econ-
omy right now?
Fourth. The Democratic proposal also
calls for more conversion of powerplants
from oil to coal, but fails to mention any
amendments to the Clean Air Act. How
can one be done without the other?
Fifth. The Democratic leadership
proposal would require a 50-percent im-
provement in automobile fuel efficiency
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800070103-6
II 1298
Approved For ReituiclatggymApiftm?000/%4M0800070103-6
by 1980 and 100 percent by 1985, but no
extension of current emission standards
is mentioned. Is this technologically pos-
-sible? What would be the estimate of
increased costs to the consumer of these
standards?
Mr. Speaker, these are just a few of
the questions I consider important and
tomorrow I will have several other ques-
tions to pose.
TRIBUTE TO LATE NICHOLAS
FERRANTE
(Mr. HANLEY asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD and to include ex-
traneous matter.)
Mr. HANLEY. Mr. Speaker, the year of
1971 took from our midst one of the
great leaders within the American labor
movement, Nicholas Ferrante, a resident
of my home city, Syracuse, N.Y. His 50
years of service to the labor movement
earned for him recognition as one of
the best informed labor relations repre-
sentatives in our Nation. He served as
assistant industrial commissioner for
the State of New York and for many
years served as executive secretary of
the Greater Syracuse Labor Council,
AFT.i-c10.
As I think of him frequently, I am re-
minded of the vacuum his passing pro-
vides, in recognition of his constant
availability for counsel on labor-related
matters. Recently, the Catholic Sun, the
Syracuse diocesan newspaper, printed
an article authored by another great in
the field of industrial relations, Rev.
Richard M. McKeon, S.J., of the faculty
of LeMoyne College. I commend its read-
ing to anyone who is interested in in-
dustrial and labor relations:
NICHOLAS FERRANTE
(By Rev. Richard M. McKeon, 5.3.)
Last December, Onondaga Community
College dedicated a magnificent building to
the memory of a great labor leader, Nicholas
Ferrante. It was a singular tribute to a man
who was devoted not only to advancing in-
dustrial peace but also to the promotion of
the common good within the community.
The eulogy of Mr. Ferrante given by David
M. Mawhinney Jr. touched both the minds
and the hearts of the large audience. I doubt
if any other labor leader has had a college
building costing over $8 million dedicated
to him.
Nicholas Ferrante, one of the original
members of Onondaga Community College's
board of trustees, was active in the labor
movement for nearly 50 years before his
death in 1971. He served as executive secre-
tary of the Greater Syracuse Labor Council,
AFL-CIO, from 1960 until the time of his
death and was considered by the State Labor
Department as one of the "best Informed
men on labor relations in Syracuse."
Mr. Ferrante began his career as a brick-
layer in 1933 and his first union office was
as business agent for Local 28, Bricklayers
Union. He was elected secretary for the for-
mer Syracuse Federation of Labor, AFL, in
1945, and held that post until 1955 when
he was named by Governor Harriman to be
assistant industrial Commissioner in charge
of the Syracuse district office of the State
Labor Department. He served subsequently
as supervisor of apprentice training until
he became executive secretary in 1960.
He lent his labor relations expertise to the
community in many ways, serving as presi-
dent of the Le Moyne College Industrial Re-
lations Council and as a member of the
Labor management Committee of the Syra-
cuse Community Chest, the dedication pro-
gram reports. During World War II, Mr. Fer-
rante was a panel member of the War Labor
Board and a member of the OPA Labor Ad-
visory Committee of Syracuse.
Mr. Ferrante was a member of the Urban
League, a director of both the Syracuse Boys
Club and Blue Cross-Blue Shield Corp., the
Citizens Housing Committee, the Syracuse
Housing Development Corporation, the
Onondaga Charter Commission and the Edu-
cational Television Council of Central New
York.
"Because of his interest in both Onondaga
Community College and Le Moyne College,
the Syracuse Basic Building Trades Council
has established a scholarship to either school.
Nicholas Ferrante Hall will serve as a lasting
monument to the man who made a great
contribution to his community and to his
profession as well as to this college," the
program said.
As a labor leader, Mr. Ferrante accepted
the high duty to promote industrial peace
while at the same time protecting the rights
and Improving the conditions of the 'work-
ingman. Such a task is really without limit
for "it is one which challenges all that Is
noble in the human heart."
Mr. Ferrante possessed the qualities which
signify the mature labor leader. There never
was question about his integrity and he knew
his associates as human beings and not as
Statistics. By hard effort and experience he
had become proficient in the field of collec-
tive bargaining.
Nick had patience---the exercise of sus-
tained endurance and perseverance?to a
high degree. He overlooked the faults of
others. He took unpleasant situations as a
challenge. At times he expected misuoder-
standings, suspicion and outright opposition.
On the other hand, he hated double-dealing,
subterfuge and all falsehood great and small.
He had an intuitive sense of recognizing the
phony and acted accordingly.
As noted, he gave long years of service to
the labor movement and to the community
of Onondaga County. Due to his efforts there
has been a fine record of cooperation between
labor and management. His c.onstructive
leadership should not be forgotten. TO him
we apply the biblical tribute: "Well done,
good and faithful servant."
DEEP CONCERN OVER THE AMERI-
CAN ECONOMY
(Mr. HANLEY asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD' and to include ex-
traneous matter.)
Mr. HANLEY. Mr. Speaker, it is fair
to say that all of us are deeply concerned
about the American economy. This, of
course, is evidenced in our everyday ac-
tivity here in the Congress as we search
for means which, hopefully, will alleviate
the problem. As I travel my congressional
district, this subject is, of course, No. 1
on the minds of all the people.
/ am deeply heartened by a very gen-
erous effort which was undertaken by
one of my area radio stations, Station
WHEN, in Syracuse, N.Y. This station
Instituted a program whereas it would
grant a $50 bonus to any employee who
Purchased a new car during the moiith
of February. The employee simply had to
present his receipt and pick up the $50
check.
We will all agree that this was indeed
a positive act on the part of this Radio
Station, which, incidentally, provides an
March 31975
excellent public service in our cortrmu-
,
nfty.
I feel certain that my colleagues woiti:d
be interested in knowing of this generouis
initiative.
CANCER PREVENTION
(Mr. DOMINICK V. DANIELS asked
and was given permission to extend his
remarks at this point in the RECORD and
to include extraneous matter.)
Mr. DOMINICK V. DANIELS. Mr.
Speaker, it has often been said that an
ounce of prevention is worth a pound of
cure. One area in which that adage cer-
tainly appears applicable today is in the
battle aginst cancer.
Consider in this light the thoughtful
and timely article written by Peter Bern-
stein of the Newhouse News Service
which appeared in the February 16, 1975.
Issue of the Washington Post. Mr. Bern-
stein points out that recent findings in
cancer research indicate that from 60
to 90 Percent of all human cancers are
caused by environmental factors.
This is not a statistic to be taken
lightly?not in these days of air and
water pollution, of on-the-job exposure
of carcinogens, of chemical additives in
foods, and of pesticide residues in the
food chain. It is a statistic which should
cause alarm and spur this Congress and
this administration into action to pre-
vent cancer. One obvious method of pre-
vention is to curtail job-related expo-
sures to toxic chemicals and industrial
byproducts which are known causes of
malignancies.
I have long advocated enforcement of
standards to protect the health of work-
ers who daily place their lives in jeopardy
because of exposure to dangerous sub-
stances. The Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 is aimed at protecting
this Nation's work force, and enforce-
ment of its provisions and establishments
of appropriate safety standards and ex-
posure levels are major methods of elim-
inating on-the-job exposure to daily
carcinogens.
The Subcommittee on Manpower,
Compensation and Health and Safety
which I chair last year held 16 days of
oversight hearings to monitor the ad-
ministration of OSHA, and we will con-
tinue these hearings during the 94th
Congress.
I commend Mr. Bernstein's article to
my colleagues. It is a clear and cogent
call for continued congressional over-
sight in the area of workers' health and
safety. The article follows:
CANCER POLLUTION LINK Is SEEN
(By Peter J. Bernstein)
Painstaking detective work by medical re-
searchers Is producing mounting evidence
that environmental impurities in man's
habitat are the primary cause of most
cancer.
Based on recent findings at a number of
labortories across the country, researchers
at the National Cancer Institute estimate
that 60 to 90 per cent of al human cancers
are caused by environmental factors?from
ultraviolet rays to plastics and pesticides.
The results show that while researchers
have made some progress in developing a
cure for certain forms of cancer, the most
promising advances have been in prevention
and early detection.
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800070103-6