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: 
Collection: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
CIA-RDP77M00144R000800070104-5
Release Decision: 
RIFPUB
Original Classification: 
K
Document Page Count: 
4
Document Creation Date: 
December 12, 2016
Document Release Date: 
November 26, 2001
Sequence Number: 
104
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
March 3, 1975
Content Type: 
OPEN
File: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon CIA-RDP77M00144R000800070104-5.pdf740.48 KB
Body: 
1296 Approved For ReleasCIECNIFILW82103TA-RINEGMODY1441141905993070104-5 4 s?tes require members of the state House of .7.1epresentatives to be 25 years of age (Ari- ona, 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 adtually 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 5) or from among the "people at large." 7. Age is not stated or implied. POPULATION STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES, 1974-75 (National Data Book and Guide to UB. Department of Commerce, Bu au of the Census) Population by age and sex, 1970 a 1973: 1970: 18-20 years, 11.2 million; 21- years, 13.5 million; 25-34 years, 25.8 milli? 1973: 18-20 years, 12.0 million; 21- years, 14.4 million; 25-34 years, 28.6 milli . Marital status of population by e and sex, 1973: Males: 18-19 years, 349,000 or 9.5 years, 3,510,000 or 41.3%; 25-29 year 000 or 76.4%. Females: 18-19 years, 923,000 o 20-24 years, 5,366,000 or 58,9%; 25 6,378,000 or 82.4%. High School and College Gradu s 1900-- 1974: 1971, approximately 1,011,000 duated from college; 1940, approximate 187,000 graduated from college. Labor Force: Percentage of Disti ution by age and sex; 1950-'73: 1973: Males, 20-24 years, 14. 0; 25-34 years, 23.8%. 1973: Females, 20-24 years, 16%; 25-34 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 3. 8 In school 40. 8 Labor force ? 18. 1 In school 55.4 Labor force 42.8 APPENDIX C-MINIMUM ELIGIBILITY AGES IN EARLY STATE CONSTITUTIONS Note: All ages In parentheses are Implied in the various State constitutions. State Age of Lower Upper majority house house Governor Connecticut: Constitution of 1818, (I could not locate an earlier Con- necticut Constitution)... Delaware: Constitution of 1776_ Constitution of 1792._ Constitution of 1831._ Georgia: Constitution of 1-777._ Constitution of 1789... Constitution of 1798._ Maryland: Constitution of 1776._ Constitution of 1851... Massachusetts: Constitu- tion of 1780 New Hampshire: Constitution of 1776._ Constitution of 1784... Constitution of 1792... New Jersey: Constitution of 1776._ Constitution of 1844... New York: Constitution of 1777._ Constitution of 1821._ North Carolina: Constitution of 1776._ Constitution of 1868._ Pennsylvania: Constitution of 1776._ Constitution of 1790._ Constitution of 1838._ South Carolina: ? Constitution of 1776... Constitution of 1778._ Virginia. Constitution of 1776_. Constitution of 1830... 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 1 "Council." 2 Mn change from previous Constitution. "President." Source: "The 'Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and other Organic Laws of the States, Territuries, and Colonies Now or Heretofore Forming the United States of America," Francis Newton Thorpe, editor, Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1909,7 %cols. 21 (21) 1(21) 30' gI) (21) '25 (25) I) 24 27 30 (2) (9) (2) (2) 21 21 1(21) (21) 21 21 21 30 21 21 25 30 21 21 25 25 21 21 25 30 21 (21) (21) (21) g11 (21) 1(21) I (21) 1) (21) 30 30 0) (2) (2) (2) 2 (21) GO (21) (21) (21) 21 30 30 (21) (21) (21) (21) (21) (21) (21) 30 g1) (21) (21) 30 1) (21) 25 30 21 (21) 1(21) ; (21) 21 21 25 30 (2) (5) (I) (21) 21 (21) a (21) 21 21 30 30 gi) (21) 25 (0) 1) 25 30 ? 30 (21) (21) (21) 20-24 ANNOUNCEMENT OF HEARINGS ON 5,639,- MARCH 5 BY GOVERNMENT IN- . FORMATION AND INDIVIDUAL 23.8%; RIGHTS SUBCOIVIMrrrEE-SE- years, CET 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 March 3, 1975 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 Intelligence Agency and the U.S. Secret Service 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 innpos.:ng re- strictions on agencies' use or disclosure of personal information contained in such records without the consent of the 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 com- puterized protective intelligence list of individuals by the Secret Service under authority of section 3056 of title 18, 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 nosed any threat . to the safety of the President or other governmental officials. In conceding the 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 is currently a member of the reorganized Government Information and Individual Rights Subcommittee, which I now chair In the 94th Congress, our subcommittee 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 CIA 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 collects about individuals that is totally unrelated to the national se- curity functions of the CIA." Since pas- sage of the privacy bill, there has, of Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800070104-5 March 3, 1975 ApprovElDRIMIRFAMON2W2KIIIMMIIAAMM100144R000800070104-%1 1295' lieved that our Government's representa- tives must age as well. As of 1970, one-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 and 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- out 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 a 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 is a definite moral aspect cif this issue as well. This entire debate really revolves around a basic question of fair- ness. Pvt. Gerald Springer of the U.S. Army Reserve, in testimony supporting the 18-year-old vote, made some poi quite relevant to the amendment p posed here: If someone has an interest in our s ety, we give him a right to express his oice. What hope do we have for the tutu if we turn off the very people who are ture? We ask them to be responsible wlaii -We deny them responsibility. We ask them to drop out, but we won't let them all way in! Is this the American tradition The lowering of elIgIbijr ages for service in the U.S. House oflIepresenta- tires and Senate is the nett logical step after the overwhelming *ssage of the 26th amendment. Amerilig's youth have been doing their fair shajte. A 22-member task force, headed be Representative BROCK of Tennessee, which studied the situation on Americatcollege campuses, strongly recorrmiendsd lowering voting ages to permit, "adtive involvement in the political process which can construc- tively focus youthful idealism on the most effective means of change in a free society." To betruly valid, this active involvement in ithe political process must also include Mt right to run for Federal elective office: Dr. Margaret Mead believes young people can "bring something to us in questioning the past and in establishing a partnership between young people and old people." Perhaps with such encour- aged resection and reevaluation, we can develop some positive future alterna- tives. Dr. .Iloy Menninger, president of the Menninger Foundation, says that? Giving 18 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 . . shotilti be engaged. Not only can they profit, from the participation as a means of learning, -hut they can also con- tribute a perspective, a vigor, an idealism which are all too often lacking. 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 o our great and vast resources. Isn't youth power much too precious to w e? CONCLUSION Mr.. Speaker, lowering the gibilitY ages for congressional s ice will simply, but importantly, c c the pos- sibility for younger me d women to be elected Representat and Senators. Congress will not be dated with im- mature members ntried ability and untested skill. ering the eligibility ages is not in way a lowering of congressional tandards. The same measure of mpetence, integrity, and general fit s for office will prevail and continueapply equally to all congres- sional ?,-'e ,seekers. The voters will still choose hom they think will best serve their d the Nation's interests. If, in the, Wisdoms, the voters decide that a cit n of 22?or 27?is the best candi- e, they will have exercised their 'fran- Ise as legitimately and freely as if they ad chosen someone older. Lowering the minimum age require- ments by three years will eliminate un- reasonable and anachronistic age levels founded in 18th century traditions and prejudicies that increasingly conflict with 20th century realities. Mr. Speaker, firmly 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. Consti- tution) are free to choose those whom they deem most fit to represent them. The proposed amendment is an im- portant -expansion of that basic freedom. If the amendment is adopted millions 'of young Americans would become eligi- ble to serve as Representatives and Sen- ators. A Nation founded on democratic principles can only be strengthened when more of its citizens are eligible fer full participation in its government. -Second. The Congress: Congress pe- 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 displa a wide rather than narrow distribu n of ages among its Members. Citi under 30 are indisputably unde epresented in Con- gress. The propo amendment will cre- ate the genui possibility for such a disparity to b rectified. In addition, I am convinc that younger citizens in Congress id bring new vitality, ideas, and idea into the national legislative proc-ss . Younger citizens: One of the chi causes of youthful alienation?a f-ig of being locked out of the sys- -would be significantly diminished if the possibility existed for more mean- ingful participation in government at an earlier age. The "22-27 amendment" wotild have the dynastic 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 he 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 ofItichmond in hi-toric petition to the Virginia Con- stitutional Convention of 1829 wrote: They alone deserve to be ealled free who participate in the formation of their politi- cal i ..stitutions. 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 au- thority, so succinctly said in regard to lowering the voting age?and this phi- lasephy can apply equally well to lower- ing eligibility ages for Congress: Wi should do it because there is no longer any legitimate reason not to do it.. . be- cans' arbitrary and unfair distinctions are repugnant to a democracy, and above all, because it is right. I include the following supporting material: A SI'MMARY OF THE CURRENT AGE REQUIRE- MI NTS SET EY THE SEVERAL STATES FOR SEAVICE LIV THEIR STATE LEGISLATIVE BODIES 18 States speCify no age requirement for eervice 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); 5 states specify no age requirement for servi-e in the etate House of Representa- tives (Louisiana, New Hampshire, North Car- olina, Vermont, West Virginia); He wait requires that a member of either How .3 in the state legislature be of the "age of majority" (Hawaii Constitution, Article III, Section 7); 24 states require members of the state Howe of Representatives to be 21 years of age (Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecti- cut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Mah c, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jers( y, New Mexico, North Dakota, Okla- hom i, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Caro- lina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Wyoming); 3 states require members of the state Houo of Representatives to be 24 years of age Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri); Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800070104-5 qttoiripawcarmswohrogaikkrb0800070104-5 Ma):Ch 3, /941I3roved For Rekiigi course, been the public disclosures of CIA's "domestic operations" allegedly involving some 10,000 Americans. Sev- eral different executive and congres- sional investigations have been author- ized to probe various intelligence gath- ering operations, including the CIA. However, our subcommittee's hearings will concentrate on the Privacy Act im- plications of such CIA domestic intel- ligence operations as they affect the pri- vacy rights of Americans and how they impact upon the general exemption pro- vided the CIA in subsection (j) (1) of the act. Similar revelations have 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 a title 18, United States Code. Also testifying that day will be CIA Director William E. Colby, who 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 k House. His remarks will appear hereafter In the Extensions of Remarks.] IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW CON- GRESSIONAL BUDGET PR DURES FOR FISCAL YEAlliwz The SPEAKER pro tempdr-Under a previous order of the ltouse, 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 1174?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 resolution S 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: BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE FISCAL YEAR 1976 BUDGET 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 complete action on a first concurrent resolu- tion on the budget by May 15. This resolu- tion would include the following five items, often referred to as "macro-economic" items: (a) recomm ded level of total budget au- thority for 976, (b) recom nded level of total outlays for FY 1976, (c) reco ended level of total revenues for FY 197 (d) re mended amount of deficit for FY 19 ecommended changes, if any, in the c 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- H 1297 oltion 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 the 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 authority 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. TJLLMAN, 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-RDP77M00144R000800070104-5 11 1298 Approved F6ORgrdirs610302Aal/RUXIIIIIRDPITY0)9144R00080007 Cr itnehf , 7-1 9% 7 5 excellent public service in our commu- nity. I feel certain that my colleagues would oe interested in knowing of this generous Initiative. 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, AFL-CIO. 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, 8J.) 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 or 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. "Becalm 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 mat 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 misunder- standings, suspicion and outright opposition. On the other hand, he h'ated 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 constructive 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. I 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 month 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 CANCER PREVENTION (Mr. DOMINICK V. DANIELS asked and was given permission to extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and o Include extraneous matter.) Mr. DOMINICK V. DANIELS. Mr. Speaker, it has often been said that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of ture. One area in which that adage cer- -ainly appears applicable today is in the battle aginst cancer. Consider in this light the thoughtful and timely article written by Peter Bern- ctein of the Newhouse News Service which appeared in the February 16, 1975, ;sale of the Washington Post. Mr. Bern- ;ten points out that recent findings in ,aricer 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 ;cods, and of pesticide residues in the :ood 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 t,tandards 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 ray 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 POLLETION 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 Irhortories across the country, researchers ar, the National Cancer Institute estimate that 60 to 90 per cent of al human cancers are caused by environmental factors?from vatraviolet 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-RDP77M00144R000800070104-5