COMMITTEE MEETINGS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 40
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 15, 2005
• Sequence Number: 11
• Publication Date: July 17, 1975
• Content Type: OPEN

July, 17, 19 pproved Fq c q( QjMPA/2 O&BDEUp P M4 0030011 D 889
An amendment was offered but later withdrawn that
sought to prohibit the development of political surveil-
lance files by the Internal Revenue Service.
Pages H6966-H69'5
Subcommittees To Sit: The Subcommittee on Con-
sumer Protection and Finance and the Subcommittee
on Transportation and. Commerce of the Committee
on Interstate and Foreign Commerce received permis-
sion to sit during proceedings under the 5-minute rule
today; and
Objection was heard to a request for the Committee
on Post Office and Civil Service to be allowed to sit
_during proceedings under the 5-minute rule today.
Pages H6975, H606
Federal Savings and Loan Associations: House
passed amended S.J. Res. 102, to amend the Home
Owner's Loan Act of 1933 so as to authorize Federal
and loan associations to act as custodians of
individual retirement accounts. Pages H6975-H6976
Select Committee on Intelligence: By a voice vote, the
House agreed to H. Res. 591, establishing a Select Com-
ittee on Intelligence.
Agreed to a technical amendment; and
Agreed to an amendment that prohibits the select
ommittee from undertaking its inquiry until it has
adopted security regulations and rules of procedure as
required by the resolution.
Rejected:
An amendment that sought to lower the membership
of the select committee from 13 to 7 members (rejected
by a recorded vote of 125 ayes to 285 noes with 3 voting
"present,);
An amendment that sought to limit the committee's
inquiry solely to activities of the CIA;
An amendment that sought to allow'. those Members
presently belonging to the select committee created by
H. Res. 138 to become members of the new committee
if they so choose (rejected by a recorded vote of 11g ayes
to 274 noes with 24 voting "present") ; and
An amendment that sought to limit the committee's
inquiry to certain activities of the CIA; the FBI, the De-
partment of Justice, and the Department of the Treas-
ury (rejected by a division vote of 34 ayes to 138 noes).
Pages H6976-H6992
Committee To Sit: The Ad Hoc Commi n tl e
Outer Continental Shelf received permission to sit
during proceedings of the House under the 5-minute
rule on Friday, July 18. Page H6992
Energy Conservation and Policy: House began con-
sideration under the 5-minute rule of H.R. 7014, to
increase domestic energy supplies and availability; to
restrain energy demand; and to prepare for energy
emergencies--but came to no resolution thereon. Fur-
ther consideration will continue tomorrow.
Pages H6992-H6993
Emergency Petroleum Allocation: By a yea-and-nay
vote of 239 yeas to 172 nays, the House agreed to the
conference report on H.R. 4035, to provide for more
effective congressional review of proposals to exempt-
petroleum products from the Emergency Petroleum
Allocation Act of 1973 - and certain proposed adminis-
trative actions which permit increases in the price of
domestic crude oil; and to provide for an interim exten-
sion of certain expiring energy authorities-clearing the
measure for the President. Pages H6993-H7001
Late Report: Committee on Science and Technology
received permission to file a report by midnight tonight
on H.R. 8674, Metric Conversion Act of 1975; and Com-
mittee on Ways and Means received permission to file
a report by midnight tonight on H.R. 8598, to amend
title IV of the Social Security Act to make needed im-
provements in the recently enacted child support
program. Pages H6995, H7001
Select Committee on Intelligence: The Speaker ap-
pointed the following Members to serve on the Select
Committee on Intelligence: Representatives Pike
(Chairman), Giaimo, Edwards of California, James
V. Stanton, Dellums, Murphy of Illinois, Aspin, Mil-
ford, Hayes of Indiana, McClory, Treen, Johnson of
Colorado, and Kasten. - Page H7001
Amendments Ordered Printed: Amendments or-
dered printed pursuant to the rule appear on pages
H7o37-H7o38.
Referral: One Senate-passed measure was referred to
the appropriate House committee. Page H7035
Quorum Calls-Votes: Three quorum calls, two yea-
and-nay votes, and four recorded votes developed during
the proceedings of the House today and appear on
pages H6966, H6967, H6968, H6969-H6970, H6973,
H6974-H6975, H6976-H6977, H699o, H6995, H7000-
1-17001.
Program for Friday: Met at io a.m. and adjourned at
6:1o p.m. until 1o a.m. on Friday, July 18, when the
House will continue consideration under the 5-minute
rule of H.R. 7014, Energy Conservation and Oil Policy
Act.
Committee Meetings
FOOD STAMP ACT
ommittee on Agriculture: Met and ordered reported
favorably to the House H.R. 7887 amended, to amend
the Food Stamp Act of 1964.
SUGAR
Committee on Agriculture: Continued hearings on the
possible need for sugar legislation. Testimony was heard
from sugar industrial users and consumer groups.
Hearings continue tomorrow.
BEEF RESEARCH AND INFORMATION ACT
Committee on Agriculture: By a vote of 15 to 12 turned
down a motion to reconsider the vote by which
i
Approved For Release 2005/04/27: CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
 D 890
Approved ONGRESSIONAL RECOR DA-RDPAILY DIGEST120003001 ~-uly 17, 1975
H.R. 7656, Beef Research and Information Act, was
ordered reported to the House.
FOREIGN OPERATIONS APPROPRIATION
Committee on Appropriations: Subcommittee on For-
eign Operations held a hearing on population program
and private and voluntary organizations.
VETERINARIANS AND OPTOMETRISTS' PAY
Committee on Armed Services: Subcommittee: on Mili-
tary Compensation held a hearing on H.R. 7642, to
extend the special pay provisions for veterinarians and
optometrists. Testimony was heard from Vernon Mc-
Kenzie, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Health and Environment; Irving O. Kanst, D.P.M.,
American Podiatry Association; and Richard Averill,
American Optometric Association.
MILITARY COMMISSARIES
Committee on Armed Services: Subcommittee on In-
vestigations met and approved for full committee
action H. Con. Res. 198, expressing the opposition of
the Congress to any change in the present method of
providing financial support for military commissaries
through appropriations to meet their payroll costs.
REGULATION OF INTEREST RATES
Committee on Banking, Currency and Housing: Sub-
committee on Financial Institutions Supervision, Regu-
lation and Insurance continued hearings on H.R. 8024,
relating to regulation of interest rates, electronic fund
transfers, and mortgage disclosure. Testimony was
heard from Comptroller of the Currency James E.
Smith.
Hearings continue Monday, July 21.
PRICES OF COMMODITIES AND SERVICES
Committee on Banking, Currency and Housing: Sub-
committee on Economic Stabilization met and ap-
proved for full committee action a clean bill in lieu of
H.R. 4594, to amend the Council on Wage and Price
Stability Act to confer additional authority on the
Council with respect to the prices of commodities and
services.
CONSUMER LEASING ACT ?
Committee on Banking, Currency and Housing: Sub-
committee on Consumer Affairs met and approved for
full committee -action H.R. 4657 amended, Consumer
Leasing Act of 1975.
Committee on the Budget: Task Force on National
Security held a hearing on the Air Force structure and
heard testimony from Air Force witnesses.
METRO TRANSIT POLICE FORCE
Committee on the District of Columbia: Subcommittee
on the Judiciary and Subcommittee on Commerce,
Housing, and Transportation held a joint hearing on
H.R. 4235 and 3423, to authorize the Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority to establish and
maintain a Metro Transit Police Force. Testimony was
heard from representatives of WMTA, D.C. Govern-
ment, and Council of Governments..
Following the hearing, the subcommittees approved
for full committee action a clean bill, Metro Transit
Police Force.
ARTS AND ARTIFACTS INDEMNITY ACT
Committee on Education and Labor: Subcommittee on
Select Education met and approved for full committee
action title II, part B, Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Act,
of H.R. 7216, amended.
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
Committee on Government Operations: Began markup
of H.R. 7575, Consumer Protection Act of 1975, and will
resume tomorrow.
MINERAL LEASING ACT
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs: Subcom-
mittee on Mines. and Mining held a hearing on
H.R. 8435, Mineral Leasing Act of 1975. Testimony was
heard from Jack Carlson, Interior Assistant Secretary
for Energy and Minerals.
Hearings continue tomorrow.
FOREIGN AID
Committee on International Relations: Continued
markup of foreign aid legislation.
ACTIVITIES OF AMERICAN MULTINATIONAL
CORPORATIONS ABROAD
Committee on International Relations: Subcommittee
on International Economic Policy held a hearing on
the activities of American multinational corporations
abroad. Testimony was heard from IRS Commissioner
Alexander; and SEC Commissioner Loomis.
MISSILE SALE TO JORDAN
Committee on International Relations: Subcommittee
on International Political and Military Affairs continued
hearings on the proposed missile sale to Jordan. Testi-
mony was heard from Representatives Bingham,
Drinan, Pepper, and Waxman.
REVIEW OF U.N. CHARTER
Committee on International Relations: Subcommittee
on International Organizations held a hearing on H.
Con. Res. 2o6, urging review of the United Nations
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
 H 6976 Approved For Relea-e
'OCTWirt ECORD -HOUSEvvvvvv July 17, 1975
der deto Senate be read joint resolution
third time, ass reaor- (Mr. d mission to revise asked extend s his pre-
the third time, and passed, and a motion marks.)
to reconsider was laid on the table. Mr. LAT7A. Mr, Chairman, this is a
PERMISSION FOR SUBCOMMITTEES
ON TRANSPORTATION AND COM-
MERCE AND ON CONSUMER PRO-
TECTION AND FINANCE TO SIT
TODAY WHILE HOUSE IS IN
SESSION
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. ;Mr, Speaker, I re-
new my unanimous consent request that
the Subcommittee on Transportation and
Commerce and the Subcommittee on
Consumer Protection and Finance be
be permitted to sit in, public session this
afternoon while the House is in session.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Cali-
fornia?
There was no objection.
RENEWAL OF REQUEST FOR PER-
MISSION FOR COMMITTEE ON
POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE
TO SIT TODAY DURING THE 5-
MINUTE RULE
Mr, CHARLES H. WILSON of Cali-
fornia. Mr. Speaker, may I renew the
unanimous coplsent request that the
Committee on Post Office and Civil Serv-
ice be permitted to sit-during the 5-min-
ute rule this afternoon?
The SPEAKER..The Chair will advise
the gentleman that the gentleman can-
not do that in the absence of the person
ESTABLISHING A SELECT COMMIT-
TEE ON INTELLIGENCE
Mr. BOLLING. Mr. Speaker, I move
that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union for the further con-
sideration of the resolution (H. Res. 591)
establishing a Select Committee on In-
telligence'
The SPEAKER. The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from
-Missouri (Mr. BOLLING).
The motion was agreed to.
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Accordingly the House resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the con-
sideration of the resolution (H. Res. 591),
with Mr. EVANS of Colorado in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the resolu-
tion.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Commit-
tee rose yesterday, the Clerk had read
through the first section ending on page
2, line 4, of the resolution.
Are there further amendments to the
first section?
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. LATTA
Mr. LATTA. 11Ir. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. LATTA: On page
1, line 6 after the words, "'composed of", strike
the word "thirteen" and insert in lieu there-
of "seven."
understood, _1 do not think we will need
a lot of time to debate it. This reduces
the members on this committee from the
proposed 13 to 7.
I might say that when the Committee
on Rules was discussing this proposed
select committee, the gentleman from
California indicated before the Commit-
tee on Rules that he had considered re-
ducing the then existing committee from
10 members to 7. To show that there
is nothing scared about the number, the
gentleman from Missouri came up with
the figure of 13, believing that perhaps
we could eliminate some of the problems
the prior committee,had had by increas-
ing the membership, i believe just the op-
posite is true, I believe that we can elimi-
nate some of the troubles by reducing
the membership. Not only that, I believe
that by reducing the membership the op-
portunity for leaks will be reduced. Since
we are dealing with our intelligence ga-
thering agencies, that is vital to the se-
curity of this Nation, I do not think we
should treat this amendment lightly.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I propose that
the proposed number of 13 be reduced
to 7.
Mr. BOLLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
LATTA).
Mr. Chairman, the number 13 is not
just drawn from the sky. It provides
room for those who might be reappointed
and some additional members. It seems
to me clear that a seven-member com-
mittee is simply not large enough to be
a representative cross section of the
House as seems to me to be very neces-
sary in this very important and compre-
hensive study.
I hope that we can move along on
these matters promptly. The gentleman
from Ohio has indicated that he agrees
with that notion, and I would hope we
could have a vote on the amendment.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BOLLING. I yield to the gentle-
man from Ohio.
Mr. LATTA, Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman for yielding to me.
When the gentleman indicated a
larger committee was necessary, namely,
13 members, that that would give us a
cross section of the House, it seems to
me that we do not have that many cross
sections in the House, and that 7 mem-
bers would be adequate.
For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I do
not think there is any logic or anything
sacred in the proposition that we have
13 rather than 7 members.
Mr. BOLLING. I have no pretense that
the matter is sacred; I just think it is
wiser.
Mr. Chairman, I hope the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. LATTA) will be defeated.
The CHAIRIAAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Ohio (Mr. LATTA).
The question was taken; and on a
division (demanded by Mr. LATTA) there
were-ayes 27, noes 44.
RECORDED VOTE
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman, I demand
a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic de-
vice, and there were-ayes 125, noes 285,
answered "present" 3, not voting 21, as
follows :
[Roll No. 4011
AYES-125
Abdnor
Emery Miller, Ohio
Alexander
Eshleman Moore
Andrews,
Florio Myers, Ind.
N. Dak.
Forsythe O'Brien
Armstrong
Frenzel Pettis
Ashbrook
Frey Peyser
Bafalis
Gaydos Poage
Bauman
Goldwater Pressler
Beard, Tenn.
Goodling Quie
Bell
Gradison Quillen
Biaggi
Grassley Regula
Broomfield
Guyer Rhodes
Brown, Ohio
Hagedorn Rinaldo
Broyhill
Hammer-
Robinson
Buchanan
Schmidt
Rousselot
Burgener
Hansen
Schneebell
Burke, Fla.
Harsha
Schulze
Burleson, Tex.
Hastings
Sebellus
Butler
Hebert
Shriver
Byron
Heckler, Mass.
Shuster
Carter
Hillis
Skubitz
Casey
Hinshaw
Smith, Nebr.
Cederberg
Holt
Snyder
Chappell
Hutchinson
Spence
Clancy
Ichord
Steiger, Ariz.
Clausen,
Jarman
Stratton
Don H.
Johnson, Pa.
Taylor, Mo,
Clawson, Del
Kelly
Thone
Cleveland
Kemp
Treen
Cochran
Ketchum
Van Deerlin
Cohen
Lagomarsino
Walsh
Collins, Tex.
Latta
Wampler
Conable
Lent
Whitten
Conlan
Lott
Wiggins
Coughlin
Lujan
Wilson, Bob
Crane
McCollister
Winn
Daniel, R. W.
McDade
Wydler
Dent
McDonald
Wylie
Derwinski
McEwen
Yatron
Devine
Madigan
Young, Alaska
Dickinson
Martin
Young, Fla.
Downing
Mathis
Zeferetti
Duncan, Tenn.
Michel
Abzug
Adams
Addabbo
Ambro
Anderson,
Calif.
Anderson, in.
Andrews, N.C.
Annunzio
Ashley
Aspin
AuCoin
Badillo
Baldus
Barrett
Baucus
Beard, R.I.
Bedell
NOES-285
Burke, Calif. English
Burke, Mass. Erlenborn
Burlison, Mo. Evans, Ind.
Burton, John Evins, Tenn.
Burton, Phillip Fary
Carney Fascell
Carr Fenwick
Chisholm Findley
Clay Fish
Collins, Ill. Fisher
Conte Fithian
Conyers Flood
Corman Flowers
Cornell Flynt
Cotter Foley
D'Amours Ford,.Mich.
Daniel, Dan Ford, Tenn.
Daniels. N.J. Frnmtaih
nennett Danielson Fraser
Bergland Davis Fulton
Bevill de la Garza Fuqua
Biester Delaney Gialmo
Bingham Dellums Gibbons
Blanchard Derrick Gilman
Blouin Dingell Ginn
Boggs Dodd Gonzalez
Boland Downey Green
Bolling Drinan Gude
Bunker Duncan, Oreg. Haley
Bowen du Pont ? Hall
Brademas Early Hamilton
Breaux Eckhardt Hanley
Brinkley Edgar Harkin
Brodhead Edwards, Ala. Harrington
Brooks Edwards, Calif. Harris
Brown, Mich. Eilberg Hawkins
Approved For Release 2005/04/27: CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
 Jtly 17, 1975
Byron
Carney
Carter
Casey
Cederberg
Chappell
Hays, Ohio
Hebert
Heckler, Mass.
,%Hefner
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-711 6975
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
Nowak
Oberstar
Obey
O'Brien
O'Hara
O'Neill
Ottinger
Paseman
Cay Holland
Cleveland Holt
Cochran Holtzman
Cohen Horton
Conable
Conlan
Conte
Conyers
Corman
Cornell
Cotter
Coughlin
Crane
D'Amours
Howard
Howe
Patten, N.J.
Pattison, N.Y.
Pepper
Perkins
Pettis
Hutchinson Preye'
Hyde Price
Ichord Pritcha
Jarman Quie
Jeffords Quillen
Jenrette Railsback
Daniel, Dan Johnson, Calif. Randall
Daniel, R. W. Johnson, Co10. Rangel
Daniels, N.J. Johnson, Pa. Regula
Danielson Jones, Ala. Reuss
Davis Jones, N.C. Rhodes
de la Garza Jones, Okla. Richmond
Delaney Jones, Tenn.
Dellums Jordan
Dent Kasten
Derrick Kastenmeier
Derwinaki Kazen
Devine Kelly
Dickinson Kemp
Diggs Ketchum
Dingell Keys
Dodd Kindness
Downey Krueger
Downing LaFalce
Drinan Lagomarsino
Duncan, Oreg. Landrum
Duncan, Tenn. Latta
du Pont Leggett
Early Lehman
Eckhardt Lent
Edgar Levitas
Edwards, Ala. Litton
Edwards, Calif. Lloyd, Calif.
Eilberg Lloyd, Tenn.
Emery Long, La.
English Long, Md.
Erlenborn Lott
Eshleman Lujan
Evans, Colo. McClory
Evans, Ind. McCloskey
Evins, Tenn. McCollister
vary McCormack
Fascell McDade
Fenwick McEwen
Findley McFall
Fish McHugh
Fisher McKay
Fithian McKinney
Flood Macdonald
Florio Madden
Flowers Madigan
Flynt Maguire
Foley Mahon
Ford, Mich. Mann
Ford, Tenn. Mathis
Forsythe Mazzoli
Fountain Meeds
Fraser Melcher
Frenzel Metcalfe
Frey Meyner
Fulton Mezvinsky
Fuqua Michel
Gaydos Mlkva
Glalmo Milford
Gibbons Miller, Ohio
Gilman. Mills
Ginn Mineta
Goldwater Mitchell, Md.
Riegle
Rinaldo
Risenhoover
Roberts
Robinson
Rodin
Roe
Rogers
Roncslio
Rooney
Rose
Rosenthal
Rostenk'owskt
Roush
Roybal
Runnels
Ruppe
Russo
Ryan
St Germain
Sarasin
Sarbanes
Satterfield
Schneebeli
Schroeder
Schulze
Seiberling
Sharp
Shipley
Shriver
Shuster
Sikes
Simon
Sisk
Skubitz
Slack
Smith, Iowa
Smith, Nebr.
Snyder
Solarz
Spellman
Spence
Staggers
Stanton,
J. William
Stanton,
James V.
stark
Steed
Steiger, Ariz.
Stephens
Stokes
Stratton
Stuckey
Studds
Sullivan
Symington
Talcott
Taylor, Mo.
Taylor, N.C.
Thompson
Thone
Thornton
Traxler
Treen
Tsongas
Ullman
Van Deerlin
Vander Jagt
Vander Veen
V anik
Vigorito
Waggonner
Walsh
Wampler
Gonzalez Mitchell, N.Y.
Goodling Moakley
Grassley Mollohan
Green Montgomery
Gude Moore
Guyer Moorhead, Pa.
Hagedorn Morgan
Haley Mosher
Hall Moss
Hamilton Motti
Hammer- Murphy, Ill.
schmidt Murtha
Hanley Myers, Ind.
Hansen Myers, Pa.
Harrington Natcher
Harris Neal
Harsha Nedzi
Hastings Nichols
Hawkins Nix
Waxman Wilson, C. H. Yates
Weaver Wilson, Tex. Yatron
Whalen Winn Young, Alaska
White Wirth . Young, Fla.
Whitehurst Wolff Young, Ga.
Whitten Wright Young, Tex.
Wiggins Wydler Zablocki.
Wilson, Bob Wylie Zeferetti
NAYS-18
Alexander Heckler, W. Va. Miller, Calif.
Brodhead Hughes Moffett
Carr Jacobs Nolan
Collins, Tex. Koch Rousaelot
Gradison. Krebs Scheuer
Harkin McDonald Sebelius
NOT VOTING-23
Archer Martin Rees
Brown, Calif. Matsunaga Santini
Burleson, Tex. Minish Steelman
Clancy Mink Steiger, Wis.
Collins. Ill. Moorhead, Symms
Each Calif. Teague
Hannaford Murphy, N.Y. Udall
Heinz Patterson,
Karth Calif.
o the bill was passed.
M vinaford naga with Mr. Burleson of Texas.
k with Mrs. Collins cii Illinois.
with Mr. Patterson of Call-
Mr. Min with Mr. Heinz.
Mr. Murp of New York with Mr. Archer.
Mr. Teagu +rith Mr. Moorhead of Cali-
Mr. Santini vw Mr. Steelman.
Mr. Karth with. Symms.
Mr. Udall with Steiger of Wisconsin.
Mr. Rees with Mr . Town of California.
The result of thete was announced
__A_ notion to reconsi . was laid on the
Mr. STEED. Mr. Speaker, Fsk unani-
mous consent that all Member % ay have
5 legislative days in which to rise and
extend their remarks, and inclu extra-
neous matter, on the bill just pas
The SPEAKER. Is there objecti , to
the request of the gentleman In
Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
REQUEST FOR PERMISSION FOR
SUBCOMMITTEES ON TRANSPOR-
TATION AND COMMERCE AND ON
CONSUMER PROTECTION AND
FINANCE TO SIT TODAY WHILE
HOUSE IS IN SESSION
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Mr. Speaker, I
ask unanimous consent that the Subcom-
mittee on Transportation and Commerce
and the Subcommittee on Consumer Pro-
tection and Finance be permitted to sit
in public session today while the House
is in session.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Cali-
fornia?
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Speaker, I
object.
The SPEAKER. Objection is heard.
tee on Post Office and Civil Service be
permitted. to sit today for the purpose
of deliberation during the 5-minute rule.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
Mr. THONE. Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER. Objection is heard.
AMENDING SECTION 5(c) OF HOME
OWNERS' LOAN ACT OF 1933 TO
CLARIFY AUTHORITY OF FEDERAL
SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIA-
TIONS TO ACT AS CUSTODIANS OF
INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT AC-
COUNTS -
Mr. ST GERMAIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent for the immediate
consideration of the Senate Joint Resolu-
tion (S.J. Res. 102) amending section
5(c) of the Home Owners' Loan Act of
1933 to clarify the authority of Federal
savings and loan associations to act as
custodians of individual retirement ac-
counts.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate
Joint Resolution.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the getleman from Rhode
Island?
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Speaker, reserv-
ing the right to object, would the gentle-
man from Rhode Island (Mr. ST GEx-
MAIN) assure us that the clarifying
amendment is necessary because there is
one phase of the law that is not clear?
Mr. ST GERMAIN. If the gentleman
will yield, yes, I can assure the gentle-
man from California that the purpose of
the resolution is to allow savings and
loan associations to act as trustees and
custodians of individual retirement
accounts.
Under the original act, the Home Loan
Bank Board's counsel objected to the
fact that there was not an amendment
to the Home Owners' Loan Act. Subse-
quently, an amendment was passed. This
included the word "trustee," but they
neglected to include the word "custo-
dian."
.custodian," so that the Federal Savings
al custodians of individual retirement
ac nts.
preci
and
the reque
Island?
the gentleman's explanation,
withdraw my reservation of
The Clerk
resolution, as
That the first sen-
aof section 5(c) of the
tence of the paragrap
Home Owners' Loan
REQUEST FOR PERMISSION FOR
COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND
CIVIL SERVICE TO SIT TODAY
DURING THE 5-MINUTE RULE
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the Commit-
(1) by striking out "
(2) by inserting after
section 408(a)";
954" the follow-
an individual retirement ac,71punt within the
meaning of section 408 of ft ph Code"; and
(3) by inserting "or account" after "such
trust".
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
 July 17, 1975 Approved For~~NAL I- [)P77K$QJ4#R001200030011-7
Hayes, Ind. Melcher
Roush
Hays, Ohio Metcalfe
Roybal
Hechler, W. Va. Meyner
Runnels
Hefner Mezvinsky
Ruppe
Heinz Mikva
Russo
Helstoski Miller, Calif.
Ryan
Henderson Mineta
St Germain
Hicks Mitchell, Md.
Sarasin
Hightower Mitchell, N.Y.
Sarbanes
Holland Moakley
Satterfield
Holtzman Moffett
Scheuer
Horton Mollohan
Schroeder
Howard Montgomery
Seiberling
Howe Moorhead, Pa.
Sharp
Hubbard Morgan
Shipley
Hughes Mosher
Sikes
Hungate Moss
Simon
Hyde Mottl
Sisk
Jacobs Murphy, Ill.
Slack
Jeffords Murtha
Smith, Iowa
Jenrette Myers, Pa.
Solarz
Johnson, Calif.-Natcher
Spellman
Johnson, Colo. Neal
Staggers
Jones, Ala. Nedzi
Stanton,
Jones, N.C. Nichols
J. William
Jones, Okla. Nix
Stanton,
Jones, Tenn. Nolan
James V.
Jordan Nowak
Stark
Kasten Oberstar
Steed
Kastenmeier Obey
Stephens
Kasen O'Hara
Stokes
Keys O'Neill
Stuckey
Kindness Ottinger
Studds
Koch Passman
Sullivan
Krebs Patman, Tex.
Symington
Meger Patten, N.J.
Talcott
alce Pattison, N.Y.
Taylor, N.C.
Landrum Pepper
Thompson
Leggett Perkins
Thornton
Lehman Pickle
Traxler
Levitas Pike
Tsongas
Litton Preyer
Udall
Lloyd, Calif. Price
Vander Jagt
Lloyd, Tenn. Pritchard
Vander Veen
Long, La. Railsback
Vanik
Long, Md. Randall
Vigorito
McClory Rangel
Waggonner
McCloskey Reuse
Waxman
McCormack Richmond
Weaver
McFall. Riegle
Whalen
McHugh Risenhoover
White
McKay Roberts
Whitehurst
McKinney Rodino
Wilson, C. H.
Macdonald Roe
Wilson, Tex.
Madden Rogers
Wirth
Maguire Ronealio
Wolff
Mahon Rooney
Wright
Mann Rose
Yates
Mazzola Rosenthal
Young, Ga.
Meeds Rostenkowski
Zablocki
ANSWERED "PRESENT"-3
Breckipridge
Milford Young, Tex.
NOT VOTING-21.
Archer
Mills
Rees
Brown, Calif.
Minish
Santini
Diggs
Mink
Steelman
Each
Moorhead,
Steiger, Wis.
Evans, Colo.
Calif.
Symms
Hannaford
Murphy, N.Y.
Teague
Karth
Patterson,
Ullman
Matsunaga
Calif.
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced
The CHAIRMAN. The .Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
SEC. 2. The select committee is authorized
and directed to conduct an inquiry into-
(1) the collection, analysis, use, and cost
of intelligence information and allegations
of illegal or improper activities of intelli-
gence agencies in the United States and
abroad;
(2) the procedures and effectiveness of co-
ordination among and between the various
intelligence components of the United States
Government;
(3) the nature and extent of executive
branch oversight and control of United
States intelligence activities;
(4) the need for improved or reorganized
oversight by the Congress of United States
intelligence activities;
(5) the necessity nature, and extent of
overt an.4 covert intelligence activities by
United States intelligence instrumentalities
in the United States and abroad;
(6) the procedures for and means of the
protection of sensitive intelligence infor-
mation;
(7) procedures for and means of the pro-
tection of rights and privileges of citizens of
the United States from illegal or improper
intelligence activities; and
(8) such other related matters as the se-
lect committee shall deem necessary to carry
out the purposes of this resolution.
SEC. 3. In carrying out the purposes of this
resolution, the select committee is author-
ized to inquire into the activities of the fol-
lowing:
(1) the National Security Council;
(2) the United States Intelligence Board;
(3) the President's Foreign Intelligence
Advisory Board;
(4) .the Central Intelligence Agency;
(5) the Defense Intelligence Agency;
(6), the intelligence components of the
Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air.
Force;
(7) the National Security Agency;
(8) the Intelligence and Research Bureau
of the Department of State;
(9) the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
(10) the Department of the Treasury and
the Department of Justice;
(11) the Energy Research and Develop-
ment Administration; and
(12) any other instrumentalities of the
United States Government engaged in or
otherwise responsible for intelligence opera-
tions in the United States and abroad.
SEC. 4. The select committee may require,
by subpena or otherwise, the attendance and
testimony of such witnesses and the pro-
duction of such books, records, correspon-
dence, memorandums, papers, and documents
as it deems necessary. Subpenas may be is-
sued over the signature of the chairman of
the select committee or any member desig-
nated by him, and may be served by any
person designated by the chairman or such
member. The chairman of the select com-
mittee, or any member designated by him,
may administer oaths to any witness.
SEC. 5. To enable the select committee to
carry out the purposes of this resolution, it
is authorized to employ investigators, attor-
neys, consultants, or organizations thereof,
and clerical, stenographic, and other assist-
ance.
SEC. 6. (a) The select committee shall in-
stitute and carry out such rules and proced-
ures as it may deem necessary to prevent
(1) the disclosure, outside the select com-
mittee, of any information relating to the
activities of the Central Intelligence 4gency
or any other department or agency of the
Federal Government engaged in intelligence
activities, obtained by the select committee
during the course of its study and investi-
gation, not authorized by the select commit-
tee to be disclosed; and (2) the disclosure,
outside the select committee, of any in-
formation which would adversely affect the
intelligence activities of the Central Intelli-
gence Agency in foreign countries or the in-
telligence activities in foreign countries of
any other department or agency of the Fed-
eral Government.
(b) No employee of the select committee or
any person engaged by contract or otherwise
to perform services for the select committee
shall be given access to any classified infor-
mation by the select committee unless such
employee or person has received an appro-
priate security clearance as determined by
the select committee. The type of security
clearance to be required in'the case of any
such employee or person shall, within the
determination of the select committee, be
commensurate with the sensitivity of the
classified information to which such em-
ployee or person will be given access by the
select committee.
(c) As a condition for employment as de-
scribed in section 5 of this resolution, each
person shall agree not to accept any hon
H 6977
orarium, royalty, or other payment for a
speaking engagement, magazine article, book,
or other endeavor connected with the inves-
tigation and study undertaken by this com-
mittee.
SEC. 7. The expenses of the select commit-
tee under this resolution shall not exceed
$750,000 of which amount not to exceed
$100,000 shall be available for the procure-
ment of the services of individual consultants
or organizations thereof. Such expenses shall
be paid from the contingent fund of the
House upon vouchers signed by the chair-
man of the select committee and approved
by the Speaker.
SEC. 8. The select committee is authorized
and directed to report to the House with re-
spect to the matters covered by this resolu-
tion as soon as practicable but no later
than January 3, 1976.
SEC. 9. The authority granted herein shall
expire three months after the filing of the
report with the House of Representatives.
SEC. 10. The Select Committee established
by H. Res. 138 is abolished immediately upon
the adoption of this resolution. Unexpended
funds authorized for the use of the Select
Committee under H. Has. 138 and all papers,
documents, and other materials generated by
the select committee shall be transferred
immediately upon the adoption of this reso-
lution to the select committee created by this
resolution.
Mr. BOLLING (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I ask that House Resolu-
tion 591 be considered as read, printed in
the recolg and open to amendment at
any poin .
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
the gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
AMENDMENTS, OFFERED BY MR. LATTA
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman, I offer
amendments.
The Clerk read as follows :
Amendments offered by Mr. LATTA: On page
2: On line 9, strike all after the word "of",
through line 10, and insert in lieu thereof:
"the CIA";
On line 11, strike all after the word "of",
through line 13, and insert in lieu thereof:
"the CIA";
On line 16, strike all after the word "of",
and insert in lieu.thereof: "the CIA";
On line 17, strike all after the word "of",
and insert in lieu thereof: "the CIA";
On line 19, strike all after the word "by",
through line 20, and insert in lieu thereof:,
"the CIA";
On line 25, strike all the language and in-
sert in lieu thereof: "the. CIA"; and
On .page 3, strike lines 1, 2, 3, 7, 8,- 9, 10,
12, 13, 14, 45, 16, 17, 18, 19,10, 21, 22, 23, 24,
and on page 4, lines 1 and 2.
Mr. LATTA (during the reading). Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
the amendments be considered as read
and printed in the record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendments
be considered en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
(Mr. LATTA asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman, these
amendments would restrict this inquiry
-to the CIA alone. Mr. Chairman, I think
that irreparable damage has been done
to the CIA, which is essential to the se-
Approved For Release 2005/04/27: CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030611-7
 H 6978
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE July 17, 1975
curity of this country. I know that the
CIA has done many things that are in
violation of law which many Members
of this Congress disagree with.
Let me just direct the attention of the
Members to the scope of the proposed
resolution, and ask them whether or not
they feel that a committee of this Con-
gress should be getting into these areas
that have not even been mentioned in
the press:
The National Security Council. Have
the Members heard or read of anything
about the National Security Council that
would cause this Congress to investigate
it?
The U.S. Intelligence Board. Have the
Members heard or read anything about
the U.S. Intelligence Board-I just over-
heard a Member say, "I never even heard
of it"-which would necessitate an in-
quiry into their intelligence activities by
the Congress?
The President's Foreign Intelligence
Advisory Board. I might say that this
Congress has unwisely gotten into cer-
tain foreign policy matters An the last
several months, perhaps to our regret,
and I cannot for the life of me under-
stand why we should be investigating
the intelligence activities of the Presi-
dent's Foreign Intelligence Advisory
Board.
The Defense Intelligence AWncy. Do
we really want to get into investigating
the intelligence agency in the defense es-
tablishment? Is this what this resolution
is all about? We have been hearing about
the CIA. Perhaps we do need, as the
gentleman from Illinois attempted to
provide a Joint Committee on Intelli-
gence, but we are not now proposing a
Joint committee on Intelligence.
The intelligence components of the
Departments of the Army, Navy, and
Air Force. Do we want to do that?
The National Security Agency. Have
the Members heard anything that would
lead them to vote to investigate the Na-
tional Security Agency? Yet it is in this
The Intelligence and Research Bureau
of the Department of State. Do we want
to get into the Department of State in-
telligence activities?
Oh, yes, recently we have seen where
the Federal Bureau of Investigation had
gotten into print and, just as I }mention-
ed when this matter was before the
Committee on Rules the other, day, all
we have to do to run scared is to have
something come out in print between
the time it came out in the Committee
on Rules and the time it got down on the
floor and, sure enough, we had something
in print about the Federal Bureau of In-
vestigation.
So now we want to investigate the Fed-
eral Bureau of Investigation. I think not.
The Department of the Treasury and
the Department of Justice intelligence
matters.
And here is one: On page 3, line 21,
item No. 11, the Energy Research and
Development Administration intelligence
activities. Do we want to get into that
matter?
And if they have not covered every-
thing, they do it in item 12, "any other
instrumentalities of the U.S. Govern-
ment engaged in or otherwise respon-
sible for intelligence operations in the
United States and abroad." Could one
have a. broader blanket of investigative
authority than is contained in that
item? Absolutely not.
I am certain that every Member of
this House realizes that intelligence ac-
tivities properly carried on are ab-
solutely necessary to the security of this
country.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. LATTA
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional
minutes.)
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman, I do not
believe we want to start investigating
agencies of our Government involved in
intelligence, that I have not even gotten
into print. As a matter of fact, I was
somewhat surprised the other day to
hear the Members say that what we
should do on intelligence matters is to
let the sunshine in. If we start doing that,
opening up the intelligence activities of
this country to the world, we might just
as well. see our intelligence estabishment
go down the drain. I do not believe we
want to make this investigation that
broad.
So I urge the Members, regardless of
partisanship--and I hope on this matter
we are not going to divide on partisan
lines-to ask themselves whether or not
this inquiry as set forth here is in the
best interests of your country and mine.
And I believe, as truly as I stand before
the Members now, that to get into all
of these intelligence agencies that I have
mentioned, and include item No. 12 that
makes it all-inclusive, is not in the best
interest of our country-and that is
your country as well as mine.
Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. LATTA. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. MARTIN. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
I ask the gentleman whether it would
be his understanding, referring to page
3, line 23, subsection (12), which says,
"any other instrumentalities of the U.S.
Government engaged in or otherwise re-
sponsible for intelligence operations in
the United States and abroad," whether
that might, for example; include such
diverse groups as the Democratic study
group, which has staff' members who are
employed from the salary accounts of
Members of the House of Representa-
tives, and which does have some respon-
sibilities for investigating?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LATTA) has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. LATTA
was allowed. to proceed for 1 additional
minute.)
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman, in all
truthfulness, as I read the item (12) on
page 3, it says: "any other instrumen-
talities of the U.S. Government * * "
and I would not' think that the Demo-
cratic study group would be classified as
an instrumentality of the U.S. Govern-
ment.
Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman.
Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, in rising on this sub-
ject, I want first of all to indicate I hope
this will not be a partisan decision which
we reach, but a bipartisan one. As a mat-
ter of fact, one of the principles we have
adhered to with respect to the selection
of staff for our select committee has been
to have a bipartisan professional staff
for this committee. Whatever becomes of
this select committee, I hope that prin-
ciple is adhered to.
The problems with the select commit-
tee have not been because of the scope of
the mandate. The problems have been
quite separate and apart from that. As a
matter of fact, it seems to me that the
most important part of the work that we
can do, the most important role that we
can fulfill is perhaps not to duplicate
what the Rockefeller Commission has
done or what the Church committee is
doing with regard to the CIA.
As a matter of fact, it would make
more logic, as far as I am concerned, to
eliminate our mandate with regard to
CIA and include all the rest of these in-
telligence agencies, because what we
have here is a widespread conglomerate,
a confused and uncoordinated intelli-
gence setup or intelligence community,
which certainly seems to be illogical and
which does not seem to be complying
with the congressional mandates and the
law now written.
Theoretically, all of these agencies are
supposed to be funneled in through the
CIA and the U.S. Intelligence Board and
then on to the President. But what has
occurred according to the reference ma-
terial from the Legislative Reference
Service, is that the Central Intelligence
Agency is circumvented in a number of
instances by a humber of intelligence
agencies. As presently existing we have
duplications, we have waste, we have ex-
pense, and we have inefficiency. That is
really unfortunate, as far as the intelli-
gence community is concerned.
Mr. Chairman, the authority of this
committee is not to go into details, not
to go into secret information with regard
to individual activities or projects, but
it is moreover, on the other hand, to go
into the question of the cost of intelli-
gence activities and other aspects of the
entire intelligence community.
Under paragraph 2 of the authority it
says: "To inquire into the procedures
and effectiveness of coordination among
and between the various intelligence
components of the U.S. Government."
In other words, the whole impact of
this mandate of the select committee's
authority is to cover the entire gamut
of our intelligence agencies and to try
to bring some order out of this complex
situation, and to try to bring some logic
and understanding into this area of le-
gitimate congressional concern.
It is certainly my hope that this
amendment will be defeated.
Mr. Chairman, I might say further
that we should determine whether or
not the law is being followed. Of course,
these agencies are operating in accord-
ance with the law which we have pro-
vided, but I think there may be some
question about that. That is the kind of
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
 July 17, 1975 Approved For C6NGAES06NAL k%6J77h1 QO tR001200030011-7 H 6979
inquiry we should make. And perhaps we
should make some recommendations on
how, we can oversee the intelligence
agencies, bring them together, and co-
ordinate them and see if. we can do a
better job.
Our purpose is not to sensationalize. I
do not think that is the purpose of this
committee, and I hope that will not be
the result of the reconstituting of this
committee. I hope we will do the kind of
responsible job which needs to be done in
order that we can conduct the kind of
oversight we need. We must come up
with the recommendations that can im-
prove the CIA and improve all the in-
telligence agencies so that we can have
them do what we intended for them to
do. They should not be overlapping, they
should not be getting in each other's
way, they should not be refusing to com-
municate with each other when they
should be communicating, and they
should not be invading individual rights
in violation of the legal and constitu-
tional rights of our American citizens.
The intelligence agencies should not be
doing these things; they should be per-
forming in the way the Congress in-
tended under the legislation we enacted.
(Mr. McCLORY asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?-
Mr. McCLORY. I yield to the gentle-
man from Ohio.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman for yielding.
Let me get clear in my mind what the
gentleman is saying.
Is the gentleman saying that this
resolution does not provide for an inquiry
into the activities of these various intel-
ligence groups and that this should be
confined to a matter of overlapping jur-
isdiction and costs, et cetera? Is that
what the gentleman is saying?
Mr. McCLORY. I am saying this, that
there is specific authority to establish
rules to prevent the disclosure of secret
and confidential information which is
received by the committee, and I hope
appropriate rules will be adopted and
will be adhered to. It should be.
Mr. LATTA. The gentleman from Il-
linois (Mr. MCCLORY) did not answer
my question. I am asking him for the
second time whether or not he believes
that this resolution, House Resolution
591, would not permit this committee to
get into an inquiry of the kind of ac-
tivities these various intelligence groups
are engaging in. Is that what the gentle-
man is saying?
Mr. McCLORY. Let me say in re-
sponse to that that. in my previous- dis-
cussions with the former chairman or the
existing chairman of the select com-
mittee, we agreed that insofar as names
of individuals, insofar as individual in-
volvement, and individual projects were
concerned that might jeopardize any in-
dividual.rights of any persons involved
in the intelligence activities, that those
rights and prerogatives would be
protected.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. MCCLORY)
has expired.
(On request of Mr. LATTA and by
unanimous consent, Mr: MCCLORY was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional
minute.)
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman, if the gen-
tleman will yield further, I would like
to call his attention to the language on
page 3, line 4, section 3,-which says:
In carrying out the purposes of this resolu-
tion, the select committee is authorized to
inquire into the activities of the following
Then it recites the intelligence groups.
That is just as plain as the English
language can be written.
Mr. McCLORY. Let me say to the gen-
tleman that in section 2 we find an out-
line of the work that we are directed to
perform. That is the mandate of the
committee, and section 3 gives the au-
thority. We are authorized or permitted
to inquire into the activities of these
agencies, but we do not have to. It is
permissive. We are authorized to do it,
and it does have wide scope, but it is an
overall limit, not a requirement, as to
what we can do.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that the amend-
ment will be defeated.
Mr. BOLLING. Mr. Chairman, I move
,to strike the requisite number of words.
I rise in opposition to the amendment,
and I hope we can vote on this matter
very quickly.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Mc-
CLOaY) has made the points necessary,
and T think he has made them very well.
The only thing that I would like to
emphasize is that what we want from
this committee is more than an investi-
gation. We want from this committee
recommendations for the improvement
of the whole process of intelligence-
gathering. We want to avoid having in
the future the kind of situation that we
have had in the past, where it would seem
that the intelligence-gathering agencies,
more than one, in fact, have gone be-
yond the mandate that I believe the
Congress expected them to pursue.
Unless they have the opportunity in
the select committee to deal with all the
different aspects of intelligence, I can-
not see how they could possibly pretend
to make a recommendation on improve-
ments to the Congress.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me, there-
fore, very important that the select com-
mittee have this broad writ, and I there-
fore urge that the amendment be voted
down.
Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. BOLLING. I will be glad to yield
to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. MARTIN, I would like to pursue
the meaning of _ the words at the bottom
of page 3, lines 23 and 24.
Does this language include such agen-
cies as the Bureau of the Census, which
does gather, collect, and analyze infor-
mation about U.S. citizens? And would it
include the Departments of Housing and
Urban Development and Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare, which also keep rec-
ords on private citizens, besides any other
U.S. agency as to which the standing
committees already have oversight
responsibility?
Mr. BOLLING. I think it would be easy
to speak of those and argue over' what the
intelligence activity is, but I doubt that
one would normally expect. routine sta-
tistical gathering for purposes other than
policymaking would . come under the
heading of intelligence activities.
I think that one would have to expect
that the committee, both sides of the
committee, the whole committee and its
members, would be reasonable as to what
was the intelligence activity. I think we
know rather well what we should require.
I do not think we are trying to deal
with the Bureau of the Census or a va-
riety of other entities.
It happened a long time ago that I was
a chairman of a seemingly unimportant
subcommittee of the Joint Economic
Committee, the Subcommittee on Sta-
tistics, which dealt with most of these
agencies. It would never occur to me to
include them as part of the investigation
and recommendation that would be made
by this resolution. I think we have to ex-
pect that the members of the committee
would be reasonable.
Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman will yield further, I would say
that that is a helpful reply because it
might very well occur to the members of
the committee to pursue some of these
agencies. The Department of HEW'col-
lects and analyzes data on specific indi-
viduals, not so much for policy purposes,
but for the day-to-day operation of decf-
sionmaking of grants, and so forth. I be-
lieve that the gentleman from Missouri is
saying that it is not his intention or ex-
pectation that the committee would delve
into these kinds of areas?
Mr. BOLLING. I would not expect it
to be involved in anything than what is
commonly associated with intelligence
gathering.
Mr. MARTIN. And if the purpose of
subsection 3(12) is a catchall, it is not
intended to catch anything?
Mr. BOLLING. The gentleman is cor-
rect, it is merely to give them broad
enough a base so they would not be lim-
ited in their investigation.
Mr. MARTIN. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BOLLING. I yield to the gentle-
man from Ohio.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman, then my
question is that this is the same resolu-
tion with very few changes, that appear
on page 6, that was previously brought
before this House, in addition to striking
the word "ten", and inserting the word
"thirteen"?
Mr. BOLLING. That is of course cor-
rect.
Mr. LATTA. That is correct.
The committee that will be dissolved
by the passage of this resolution was in
fact investigating the activities of the
CIA. Is the gentleman from Missouri
telling the House that if we pass this res-
olution they are not going to investigate
the activities of the CIA and these other
intelligence agencies?
Mr. BOLLING. I did not intend to do
that.
Mr. LATTA. I know the gentleman
-did not.
Mr. BOLLING. I have no intention of
suggesting that they are not going to
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
 H 6980
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE July 17, 1975
investigate any of the enumerated agen-
cies, and perhaps some others that are
not enumerated.
Mr. LATTA. What did the gentleman
mean by his statement that they had got-
ten into too many areas prior to this
time, and had gotten into trouble? What
does the gentleman mean by that?
Mr. BOLLING. I do not remember say-
ing that. I do not remember using words
to that effect.
Mr. LATTA. Then let us get back to
the language in this resolution.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman has expired.
(On request of Mr. LATTA, and by
unanimous consent, Mr. BOLtING was al-
lowed to proceed for 1 additional
minute.)
Mr. LATTA. On page 3, would the gen-
tleman from Missouri agree there is an
amendment to strike the inquiry into
the activities of these agencies?
Mr. BOLLING. There must be some
misunderstanding between the gentle-
man and me. I do not think I said any-
thing that would indicate that I wanted
to alter that aspect of it.
What I did try to say was that I hoped
we were going to get from this commit-
tee some recommendations, and those
recommendations could only be made if
they had the overall authority.
Mr. LATTA. And this would include
activities of those agencies?
Mr. BOLLING. They are part of the
overall picture.
Mr. LATTA. But this is still the lan-
guage in the resolution that created the
existing committee which is in trouble
now.
Mr. BOLLING. They may have to look
into the activities of another organiza-
tion's activities.
Mr. LATTA. I thank the gentleman
for clarifying that point, because I think
there was a misunderstanding among the
Members on this floor that we were not
giving the same broad authority in this
resolution as we,had given them prior
to this, and they are in fact given the
same authority.
Mr. BOILING. I would certainly not
have intentionally misled the Members.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a vote
on the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman has. expired.
(On request of Mr. MARTIN, and by
unimous consent, Mr. BOLLING was al-
lowed' to proceed for 1 additional min-
ute.)
Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BOLLING. I yield to the gentle-
man from North Carolina.
Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman. further
pursuing the point that was raised ear-
lier; could the gentleman clarify wheth-
er it would be his intention and expecta-
tion that the committee could look into
such agencies as the postal inspectors,
Bureau of Customs, the Border Patrol,
and so forth?
Mr. BOLLING. I do not think so, un-
less they led into one of the agencies
that gathers intelligence, such as for
postal purposes, the Postal Service
being used for mail covers, and
such, as was done in the past. I can
conceive of an examination of the Postal
Service activities where they are being
used by one of these intelligence gather-
ing agencies to gather intelligence. But
I cannot conceive of their just investigat-
ing the Postal Service, the Inspection
Service, just on its own in terms of its
responsibilities within the Postal Serv-
ice.
Mr. MARTIN. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. BOLLING. Mr. Chairman, I ask
for 'a vote on, the amendments.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendments offered by the gentle-
man from Ohio (Mr. LATTA).
The question was taken and the
Speaker announced that the noes ap-
peared to have it.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman, I demand
a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was refused.
So the amendments were rejected.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. MOSS
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Moss: On
page 1, line 7 and 8, strike out "to be ap-
pointed by the Speaker" and insert in lieu
thereof:", including those members of the
Select Committee established by House
Resolution 138 who choose to be members
of the select committee established by this
resolution, with additional members to be
appointed by the Speaker".
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from California
(Mr. Moss).
(Mr. MOSS asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer this
amendment from a sense of deep per-
sonal Conviction that the means being
employed here today are inappropriate to
the 'occasion. Actually what we are'do-
ing to attack one problem is to dissolve
a committee and create a committee
with the precise same jurisdiction and
three additional members. That may be
a very wise thing to do, but somehow it
offends my sense of justice. I would not
want to be deprived of membership on
any committee of this House by such a
circuitous method. I would far prefer, if
I were alleged to. have transgressed the
Rules of this House, to be brought before
the bar of this House and answer to the
Members of this House. I think that is
the appropriate way for us to deal with
matters of this type.
In my judgment, when I reach the
point where I have a matter of con-
science, I am. going to exercise my con-
science, rules or no rules, make no mis-
take. I think that is a, right that is, to
paraphrase Burke, a matter on which I
am answerable only to the Almighty God
and not to any Member of this House.
I think that we have a serious crisis in
this House as an institution. We have a
crisis of confidence, a crisis of credibil-
ity, and: I do not think these kinds of ac-
tions do anything to restore public con-
fidence in the credibility of this House
as a responsible and responsive institu-
tion of Government.
I think it is in the interest of the pub-
lic that this committee continue with its
members originally selected who desire
to continue to serve, and let the commit-
tee tackle the problem of resolving its
own crisis. There are many ways it can
do it. The committee does have the au-
thority to act against a recalcitrant
chairman, if that is the problem.
Or it has the authority where a Mem-
ber transgresses the rules of the House to
act against the Member.
I think this should have been handled
in a different manner. I know I will be
accused undoubtedly by my good friend,
the gentleman from Missouri, of coming
into this at a very late hour and perhaps
I did. But I have no less responsibility to
do what I feel is appropriate and to do
what I feel is right because I entered it
at a late hour. I still have to cast a vote
and I still have to render a judgment and
I do not want to have to select between
the Members who serve on this commit-
tee. I do not think there is one for whom
I have not great respect and I do not
think there is one that I cannot call a
friend. I do not want to be put in the
position of rendering a judgment
through the back door. That is what we
are doing here.
It will be alleged that we are now or
will be casting a reflection upon the
Speaker by the mere action of offering
this amendment. I want to say there is
not any intent on the part of this Mem-
ber nor should any conclusion inferring
that be drawn from the action of this
Member in offering this amendment.
It is very simple to me and I reaffirm
what I said as I opened my remarks. This
is,a simple matter of my conscience tell-
ing me what I feel is a just, a fair, a
decent way of dealing with my col-
leagues. It is the way I would want to be
dealt with. I would not want to be taken
off and deprived of any of my committee
assignments through this method and I
do not want this as a precedent for de-
priving Members of their rights.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from California has expired.
(On request of Mr. ECKHARDT, and. by
-unanimous consent, Mr. Moss was al-
lowed to proceed for 2 additional min-
utes.)
Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOSS. I yield to the gentleman
from Texas.
Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I
compliment the gentleman in the well
for devising this solution. I think it is a
cautious solution and it is one which
both breaks the deadlock and avoids the
condemnation of either side on the Com-
mittee.
It surprises me that we seem to have
given up that means we have always used
to break deadlocks here. When we had
deadlocks and had difficulties with the
old Rules Committee we enlarged the
Rules Committee. We did not destroy it
or abolish it or create a new committee.
When there were problems with the
Ways and Means Committee and it was
necessary to get enough Members to
break it into subcommittees we enlarged
that committee. We did not abolish the
old committee.
Why should we not use that tried and
tested means of breaking deadlocks,
simple enlargement?
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
 July 17, 197~pproved For R~SRESSI~NALlRD77MHOU1E001200030011-7
Mr. MOSS. The gentleman is correct.
In fact the great committee reporting
this resolution has gone through several
redoings where it has had its member-
ship enlarged rather than having the
committee abolished and reconstituted
with perhaps different membership. I
recall when we increased the member-
ship on the Rules Committee to achieve
what was recognized by everybody in the
House. I believe in fact my very good
friend, the gentleman from California
(Mr. SISK), was one of those who was
put on at that time, when the Rules
Committee was enlarged to break dead-
locks which-the House felt, the majority
of the Members of the House felt were
impeding the work of the House.
This is. a very bad precedent.
Mr. ECKHARDT. If'-the gentleman
will yield further, even such a bold
President as President Roosevelt did not
propose the abolition of the Supreme
Court and replacement by a "Paramount
Court." He tried to provide for enlarge-
ment.
Mr. MOSS. It was just a case of en-
largement. And this is one instance
where a little expansion, a little growth
could well lead to the development of the
solution which will not, deprive Members
of their rights.
Mr. YOUNG of Georgia. Mr. Chair-
man, I move to strike the requisite num-
ber of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
this amendment. I tried to rise early,
because I wanted to see if we could keep
this amendment on.target and keep the
discussion on target and hot let it be-
come a referendum on any particular
Member's conduct or character.
I have participated in the debate in
the Committee on Rules on this measure
and through a period of almost two
months there were constant meetings
with the Speaker and with the present
Select Committee on Intelligence and
there was a deadlock there that just
could not be resolved.
I would say that everybody that was
involved in it tried to offer a solution
and simply could not resolve the differ-
ence.
Now, I happen to respect the differ-
ence. I think there are going to be many
issues in this House and in the conduct
of the affairs of this Nation where good
men and honest men will differ on the
--basis of principles which they hold dear
to their own hearts. I probably will not
agree with one side or the other, maybe
with neither side; but I do think that
in spite of the fact there are differences,
we have got to as a democratic institu-
tion have the authority to find points
of reconciliation and if the principles are
so hard and fast in any given selection
of persons that they cannot be resolved,
then I would think It is in order to dis-
solve the committee and reconstitute it
among people who might have the same
principles, but who may just be able to
find ways of reconciling the points of
disagreement.
Now, interestingly enough, the Com-
mittee on Rules itself operates at the
pleasure of the Speaker. In fact, in the
Democratic caucus I supported the right
of the Speaker to name members of the
Committee on Rules each term, simply
because I felt that that would give a
measure of freedom of conscience, but so
long as I was locked into the Committee
on Rules and had been put on the Com-
mittee on Rules by the Speaker and the
Democratic caucus, there was a kind of
undue obligation that I would feel to
serve those interests if they could not
put me off. I voted for that resolution in
the Democratic caucus, beause I
wanted to be free to disagree with the
leadership, with the Speaker, whenever
I wanted to, and knowing that I was not
taking advantage of any authority vested
in me by the cauclis of the Speaker or by
the House, because they could remove
me. I. think the right of the leadership
to remove anybody or any group of peo-
ple in the interest of getting the job done
is something that I have got to respect.
Now, more than I want to protect the
Members of this committee, I want to
have a committee investigating the in-
telligence-gathering apparatus of this
Nation and given the choice of going
through any difficulties of resolving ten-
sions and proceeding ahead with the in-
vestigation, I am afraid that the inter-
est of this Nation and the interest of the
House have to rise above the interest of
any particular person or any group of
persons. It is on that basis that I oppose
this amendment and that I hope we can
vote it down.
Mr. DRINAN. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Georgia. I yield to the-
gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. DRINAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman for his comments.
I wonder if the same objective could
be achieved by enlarging the committee
even further. I do not know of any ex-
ample, at least in the recent history of
the House of Representatives, where a
committee has been dissolved and then
simultaneously reconstituted.
I worked for some 4 years to dissolve
a, particular Committee on Internal Se-
curity and it was a long, hard fight. I am
wondering whether or not to achieve the
objective the gentleman mentioned that
the committee could be enlarged,.as has
been suggested by our colleagues here
on the Committee on Ways and Means,
Means, the Committee on Rules and
similar examples. I wonder if the Com-
mittee on Rules had thought of that
particular possibility?
Mr. YOUNG of Georgia. Mr. Chair-
man, that is, in fact, what we did. We
enlarged the committee to 13 members.
We have not in any way stipulated who
those 13 members would be or called
for the abolitioi% or the ignoring of the
existence of the committee.
Mr. DRINAN. If the gentleman will
yield further, I think the key question
that keeps coming back to me and to
other Members is .that I recall that the
gentleman from, Connecticut (Mr.
GIAIMO) asked, "Why is it necessary to
dissolve the existing committee? Why is
not enlargement enough in and of it-
self?"
Mr. YOUNG of Georgia. Mr. Chair-
man, let me say why I think-and I am
not speaking for anyone but myself-
I think that in dealing with all kinds of
H 6981
sensitive material that this committee
has got to deal with,, even before any-
body has been appointed, especially, I
think, the chairman of the present com-
mittee, I think that there should have
been some discussion as to the nature of
this investigation, the kind of material
that it would be dealing with. I would
think that before people were even ap-
pointed to this committee, there should
have been some understanding.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from Georgia has expired.
(On request of Mr. GIAIMO and by
unanimous consent Mr. YOUNG of Geor-
gia was allowed to proceed for 1 addi-
tional, minute.)
Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Georgia. I yield to the
gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Chairman, as a
member of the original task force on
creating a select committee, I met with
many Members, including the present
chairman of this committee and almost
all. of the Members who are presently
members of the existing committee. We
had very thorough talks of what the
scope of the investigation would be of
looking into alleged improprieties by
members of the intelligence community.
There were those discussions. It is quite
clear-it is quite clear what the scope
and purpose was to be before any Mem-
bers were assigned to the committee.
Mr. YOUNG of Georgia. Then I stand
corrected.
Mr. GIAIMO. And, the question of the
suitability of any member on the pres-
ent committee never arose-never arose
until the very instant that there arose
a conflict, that there arose a conflict
with the present chairman of this com-
mittee.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Georgia has again ex-
pired.
(On request of Mr. DELLUMS and by
unanimous consent Mr. YOUNG of Geor-
gia was allowed to proceed for 2 addi-
tional minutes.)
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Georgia. I yield to the
gentleman from California.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman from Georgia, my distin-
guished colleague, and I reluctantly rise
to challenge the basis of my distinguished
colleague's arguments, but I must.
Let me first see if I can understand
exactly what the gentleman is saying.
First, the gentleman has suggested that
he would not, like to see -a vote that
would result in a referendum of any one
or several persons who are presently
members of the special select commit-
tee, if so I appreciate that thought by
the gentleman.
The second argument that the gentle-
man proposes is that the integrity of the
questions; this is, the ability of this
House to investigate and come to the
floor of the Congress with solutions in
dealing with the intelligence community,
outweighs any particular, single person-
ality or individual. Is that correct?
.Mr. YOUNG of Georgia. I think so.
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-ROP77M00144R001200030011-7
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE July 17, 1975
Mr. DELLUMS. I would simply sug-
gest to the gentleman that I would agree
that the integrity of the question; that
is, that we must investigate, evaluate
abuses, wrongdoings, violations of con-
stitution or charter, and come back with
recommendations, but' I would simply
suggest to the gentleman that in at-
tempting to address the integrity of the
question, we should not in any way
thwart the-legitimate rights of any one
individual.
Let me move with even greater candor.
It is clear throughout this House, on
both sides of the aisle, that the gentle-
man in controversy at this moment is
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
HARRINGTON), our distinguished col-
league. All I am suggesting to the gen-
tleman is that in his pursuit of protect-
ing the integrity of the investigation, we
should not in any way thwart the legiti-
mate rights of any distinguished Member
of this House to be challenged on legiti-
mate grounds rather than surrepitiously
being discredited by virtue of the fact
that we could remove that person from
this committee without an appropriate
hearing on the floor of the Congress.
That is my argument. On 99 percent of
the issues, the gentleman from Georgia
and I are in solid agreement on those,
but I am diametrically opposed to his po-
sition here.
Mr. MITCHELL of Maryland. Mr.
Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
(Mr. MITCHELL of Maryland asked
and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. MITCHELL of Maryland. Mr.
Chairman, I take to the well to sun-
port the amendment. Since being in the
Congres, I have seen a committee of the
Congress perform well, this committee
was accused of leaks to the press, com-
mittee members who were accused of
having prejudged the subject, committee
members were accused of having a bias
one way or another over the subject mat-
ter that it was to investigate. I have seen
that committee vilified, ridiculed,
scorned, laughted at, and insulted by
Members of this House. The committee
that I am talking about, the committee of
which I speak, was the House Judiciary
Committee and its inquiry into impeach-
ment. However, please remember that
the committee performed in such a man-
ner as to bring credit to every single
Member of this House. That committee
won the respect for this Congress from
the people because it saw a job that had
to be done and did it.
Let me go one step further. I think my
colleague from California (Mr. DELLUMS)
is absolutely right. The issue is one Con-
gressman MICHAEL HARRINGTON.
And let me say to YOU, MIKE, I pray to
God that I will have the courage to do
what you did, to move toward the highest
level of your conscience and therefore
benefit all of us.
But apart from that, let me try to speak
to the merits of this particular amend-
ment. What this amendment does is to
prevent this House from slandering,
smearing, impugning the motives of every
single Member who serves on that pres-
ent committee.
Unless we adopt the amendment of-
fered by the gentleman from California,
this House will have, in effect, tried every
single member of the committee and
without any sort of real investigation
will have found them guilty of not being
able to do the job mandated to be done.
If we do that, if we follow that pro-
cedure, all that we are doing is resur-
recting the days of the McCarthy era
when it was possible to smear and im-
pugn and lie on people, distort their
motives and discredit them so thoroughly
that they became almost nonentities in
a system.
I entreat the Members-I entreat
you-to protect the rights and integrity
of every Member who presently serves on
that committee. I urge the Members; do
not to destroy some of your colleagues in
this senseless? needless way. I urge this
House to overwhelmingly support the
amendment.
Mr. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MITCHELL of Maryland. I yield
to the gentleman.
Mr. TSONGAS. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding. I would like. to com-
mend the gentleman for his comments.
I think what he has done is to point out
that the larger issue here is not the. in-
vestigation of the CIA- the Church com-
mittee is doing that, and I think there
is real question as to what we can con-
tribute---the larger question is the be-
havior of a Member and his courage in
the situation referred to where none of
us know what we would have done in
that situation.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to asso-
ciate myself with the gentleman's re-
marks.
Mr. STEIGER of Arizona. Mr. Chair-
man, I move to strike the requisite num-
ber of words.
(Mr. STEIGER of Arizona asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. STEIGER of Arizona. Mr. Chair-
man, I think the previous speaker has
articulately and accurately nailed the
issue down in this amendment. I asked
for recognition to strike the requisite
number of words, which I guess was
really a subterfuge because I am opposed,
strongly opposed, to the amendment for
the very reasons that the gentleman
articulated, in that this is indeed a ref-
erendum of behavior.
I am very, very sorry that the amend-
ment was brought-I mean that very
sincerely-because I feel the House is in
a position in which the CIA and the in-
vestigation is secondary. What the au-
thor of the amendment has asked us to
do very unfairly is to sanction or dis-
approve! the actions of Members, about
most of which none of us have any spe-
cific idea except from the publicity.
So I share the concern of my friend
from Baltimore, the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. MITCHELL), that we would
slander a Member out of hand based
on minimal information.
On the other hand., I will tell my
friend that to ask us to sanction the
behavior that we know of and that we
have heard of is again to place the House
in a very- unfair position, because this
indeed is not the place to hear or try
this matter.
Mr. MITCHELL of Maryland. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STEIGER of Arizona. I yield to
the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. MITCHELL of Maryland. Mr.
Chairman, I assume. the gentleman has
made reference to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. HARRINGTON).
As I sat throughout these hearings,
one thing has been made manifestly
clear to me-whatever he did, whenever
he did it, it wa& not within the purview
of the proceedings of the committee. He
has the right to do as he. sees fit with
reference to his conscience and to a
higher authority. . .
Above and beyond., that, the House
has a remedy Pam not at all sure that
the committee which will hear the Har-
rington issue is the proper remedy,. but it
is offered as a. remedy.
Mr. STEIGER of Arizona. Mr. Chair-
man, my friend has stated his point well,
but I will just tell my friend; the gentle-
man from Maryland, that I just do not
agree it is that simple a matter.
If.I may, I would like to explain to my
friend what I think is the problem. with
this amendment. The gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. HARRINGTON) is in-
deed the problem. The gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. HARRINGTON) Is in-
deed the issue in the minds of those who
are concerned about the amendment.
My friend, the gentleman from Mary-
land, has stated he believes whatever the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
HARRINGTON) has done has no bearing on
the committee. In the minds of those
Members who are not on the committee
and who have not been associated with
the conflict therein, he has a great deal
to do with it.
By this amendment this House is be-
ing asked to sanction the membership of
the committee in advance and thereby
sanction indeed the same kind of blanket
amnesty, if you will, that so offended
people in the case of Mr. Nixon. That is
the view of this Member or that is at
least the position this Member feels he
is being placed In.
I will tell my friend that I am not alone
in this position. Therefore, I will tell my
friend further that I think the amend-
ment is patently unfair to the House and
to the, gentleman from. Massachusetts
(Mr. HARRINGTON). That is my first
point. I think it is patently unfair, be-
cause whatever is done here is going to
be seen either'as an approval or a dis-
approval of the gentleman from Massa-
chusetts (Mr. HARRINGTON). I will tell my
friend I think that is unreasonable.
By the same token, the gentleman
cannot ask this House and its member-
ship on a bipartisan basis to make a
judgment in this matter with no more
information than we have now.
Mr. MITCHELL of Maryland. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman. yield just
briefly? The gentleman has been very
patient with me.
Mr. STEIGER of Arizona. Certainly,
I yield to the gentleman from. Maryland.
Mr. MITCHELL of Maryland. Mr.
Chairman, I just wish to point out to the
gentleman that the mere fact that he
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
 pproved For Release 20 4/27: CIA-RDP77M00144RO01200030011-7
July 17, 19 7 CONGRE NAL RECORD -HOUSE
used the words "blanket amnesty," and
links those words to amnesty in Mr.
Nixon's case, really buttresses my argu-
ment. What the gentleman is saying in
effect is that somebody has already tried
every member of the committee prior to
any sort of investigation or any sort of
official proceeding. That is why I support
this amendment, because it will deny
that kind of prejudgment by. Members.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield to me for a ques-
tion?
Mr. STEIGER- of Arizona. I yield to
the gentleman from California.
Mr. DELLUMS. -Mr. Chairman, let me
ask a hypothetical. question.
If- one of the constituents of the dis-
tinguished gentleman from Arizona al-
leged crime on the part of the distin-
guished gentleman 'and that allegation
appeared in the local newspaper, would
the gentleman think itfair if the House
of Representatives voted, to remove the
gentleman from the floor of Congress,
precluding the gentleman from carrying
out his-duties as -a Member of Congress,
without due process?
Will the gentleman answer that ques-
tion?
Mr. STEIGER of Arizona. Mr. Chair-
man, if the gentleman is asking: Would
the allegation preclude me from partici-
pation in some sort of activity of the
House? I will say again I do not think
the House ought to be placed in the posi-
tion of making that judgment regardless
of how meritorious it might be or regard-
less of the lack of merit. -
I will simply tell the- gentleman that
I do not want to be in the position of
prejudging the so-called Harrington
case. I am being put in this- position by
this, amendment, and-that,I will tell my
friend, is what I think is patently unfair
in the amendment presented by the
author of this amendment, - -
The CHAIRMAN. The time , of the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. - STEIGER)
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr:: STEIGER
of Arizona was allowed to proceed for
1 additional minute.) -
'Mr. STEIGER of Arizona. Mr. Chair-
man, I have asked for the additional
time not to engage in colloquy, but I
want to make it very clear to niy friend
and colleague -*liat,'' in fact, it : is -my
earnest hope=and I know it is a base-
less one-that the author of the `amend-
ment will withdraw it for the very reason
which I have stated, because the author
of the- amendment is forcing people into
the position of appearing to either sanc-
tion or reject the behavior of one Mem-
ber in a very obtuse fashion. That is a
very unfair position for the House to
be placed in, and not to -recognize that
is a kind of sophistry which I do not
think is a credit to the House.
Mr. KOCH. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. STEIGER of Arizona. Yes, I,yield
to the gentleman from New York. -
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from Arizona (Mr. STEIGER) has
expired. -
(On request of Mr. KocH and by
unanimous consent, Mr. STEIGER of Ari-
zona was allowed to proceed for 1 addi-
tional minute.) -
Mr. KOCH. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. STEIGER of Arizona. I yield to
the gentleman from New York.
Mr. KOCH. Will the gentleman ac-
knowledge the fact that when the gentle-
man from Massachusetts (Mr. HARRING-
TON) was placed upon the committee, the
information that the gentleman now
brings up was a matter of public record
and the gentleman did not protest at
that time? Will the gentleman acknowl-
edge that as a fact? -
Mr. STEIGER of Arizona. I will say to
my friend, the gentleman from New
York, that I was not aware either of the
information or, at the time, of any con-
firmation of it. I will tell the gentleman
from New York that the focus of atten-
tion and the clear concern of this House
and many others, including the gentle-
man from Massachusetts (Mr. HARRING-
TON) himself, has been caused by the
treatment he has gotten, which has
focused new attention and given new
meaning to it. -
I am not questioning the legal situa-
tion with respect to what my friend, the
gentleman from New York, has said. If
my firend wishes to accuse me of being
less than attentive to my duty at that
time, I will stipulate to it.
The point is that what I am saying,
and saying as sincerely as I know how,
is that this amendment is unfairly ask-
ing the House really to render a judg-
ment that it is not prepared to render,
and that is very unfair.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. STEIGER)
has expired.
(On request of Mr. Kocn and by unani-
mous consent, Mr. STEIGER of Arizona
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional
minute.)
Mr. KOCH. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. STEIGER of Arizona. I yield to
the- gentleman from New York.
Mr. KOCH. Mr. Chairman, the fact is
that this House passed on that very ques-
tion when the Speaker appointed the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
HARRINGTON) to that committee with
other members.'
I want to reiterate, the matter which
the gentleman .has raised now for the
first time was a matter of common
knowledge, known to the Speaker, known
to the Members of this House, and did
not in anyway make a difference at-that
time and ought not make a difference at
this time because there is nothing that
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
HARRINGT'ON) did that violated the law.
Mr. STEIGER - of Arizona. 'Again I
would tell my friend, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. KocH) that that is not
the way this amendment appears.
The appointment of the committee
was a routine matter in which, as we
normally do, we respected the Speaker's
appointment.
I would simply tell the gentleman that
I am sorry that the amendment is here.
I am urging my friends and colleagues
to vote against it on the basis that they
H 6983
should not be asked to sanction activity
that has been seriously questioned.
.Mr. SISK. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words.
(Mr. SISK asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. SISK. Mr. Chairman, I think it
becomes very evident why this is a bad
amendment. Merely sitting here and lis-
tening to what has been said, unfortu-
nately, seemingly, at least, to my mind,
distorts what the basic issue is here. .
As the individual who introduced the
first resolution to abolish this commit-
tee back over a month ago now, I want
to make it abosolutely clear that my
intention at that time was to abolish the
committee, period, and then, hopefully,
to proceed as expeditiously as the Com-
mittee on Rules could-since it did have
the jurisdiction, to create a permanent
oversight committee in connection With
our intelligence community.
The reason for the abolishment of the
committee was the fact that it had ceased
to function; in fact, it had never func-
tioned - to any basic extent. After a cer-
tain period of time had gone on, a great
many discussions had been held, which
many of us were familiar with, and it
became evident in my mind that there
was no way that that particular com-
mittee was going to achieve any sub-
stantial results.
Let me hasten to say here that I do
not indict any member of. that comit-
tee because some of my very best friends
are on that particular committee, men
whom I have worked closely with, men
whom I know and appreciate. We are
not here challenging the integrity, the
patriotism or the loyalty of anyone, in-
cluding the gentleman from Massachu-
setts (Mr. HARRINGTON) and other Mem-
bers who from time to time may be men-
tioned. That is not the issue.
At the time that we held hearings in
the Committee on Rules in reference to
the initial resolution and in regard to
the matter that we have here before us
today, which is a substitute offered by
the distinguished gentleman from Mis-
souri (Mr. BOLLING) we had a number
of Members appear and testify. The gen-
tleman from Massachusetts (Mr. HAR-
RINGTON) appeared, and testified at con-
siderable length before the committee.
The gentleman from California (Mr.
DELLUMS) appeared and testified at
length.
To the extent that anyone is being
questioned or being challenged, I think
it very well goes to their judgment. I have-
no doubt but what every member of that
committee did those things which he
believed to be right in his own mind.
I recall hearing my friend, the gentle-
man from Massachusetts (Mr. HARRING-
TON) make a statement with reference to
what he believed to be his duty in con-
nection. with the revealing of matters
where an agency of the Government was
involved in what would be violations of
law. I firmly believe that the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. HARRINGTON)
was totally sincere in doing what he in
his conscience believed to be right. I
totally disagree with his judgment in the
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
 H 6984
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE July 17, 1975
matter, because it seems to me-and I
am not expressing any thought here that
I did not attempt to express at the time
the gentleman from Massachusetts was
before our committee-that neither the
gentleman from Massachusetts nor I, nor
anyone else, I believe, has the right to sit
as judge and jury in matters of this kind,
where we have very strict rules of proce-
dure to go by, as we have in connection
with the House of Representatives, as
we have in connection with procedures
and in connection with intelligence mat-
ters, and so on.
Let me say that the testimony offered
before the Committee on Rules dealing
with this matter caused me some con-
cern because the charge was made very
flatly that the fault was primarily that
of the Speaker.
Those who made that charge before
the Committee on Rules will have an op-
portunity if they wish to rebut anything
that I have said here. But as I under-
stand-and the record is a public rec-
ord-that he made a mistake, and that
he even was warned ahead of time by
virtue of the fact that he appointed the
distinguished gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. NEDZI) to be chairman of this com-
mittee.
Let me make it unalterably clear to all
my friends on the committee, as well as
other Members, that I for one-and I am
sure many of you will challenge this as
a matter of judgment or disbelieve me-
but I again say as individuals we have
to use such judgment as we have, that I
for one would not have voted to create
this committee had we not been, assured
ahead of time in the testimony that the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. NEDZI)
would be the Chairman.
I want to make that unalterably clear.
The Members can challenge my judg-
ment, maybe it was wrong.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. SISK was
allowed to proceed for 5 additional min-
utes.)
Mr. SISK. Mr. Chairman, let me go
back for a moment to the point at which
this issue first was raised in connection
with the investigation of the CIA. And I
hope my friends on the Republican side
will bear with me, because they were not
present at that time.
It was raised in a Democratic Caucus
in which the gentleman from Massachu-
setts proposed a resolution to investigate
the CIA. After some brief discussion, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. NEDzi)
arose and offered a substitute in the
Democratic Caucus, and that resolution,
that substitute offered by the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. NEDZI) was over-
whelmingly adopted. I do not recall the
exact vote. I am not certain it was a
recorded vote, but it was substantially
adopted, and that was to refer this mat-
ter to the Democratic Steering and Pol-
icy Committee.
A great many of us hoped-and I, for
one, voted for the referral of this mat-
ter in line with the gentleman's resolu-
tion to refer it-that a great deal of care
and concern will be given before we
moved on this matter. I think, to some
extent reflected in that,; again there was
never a question certainly in my mind,
and I doubt seriously in the minds of any
Democratic Member, of the integrity of
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
HARRINGTON) or of his loyalty, or of his
patriotism, or anything in connection
with it. But there could have very well
been questions of matters of lack of con-
fidence in his judgment in handling such
a committee. I think there is no point, it
seems to me, in pussyfooting around
about this situation. To a large extent,
as I say, I deplore the fact that this
amendment was offered., even though by
one of the best friends that I have in
this House, and a longtime personal
friend and colleague, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Moss). But I think it
was unfortunate because to some extent,
as the gentleman from Maryland and the
gentleman from Arizona in their collo-
quy pointed out, it really puts every
Member in a position, it seems to me,
where it could become a trial to these
people.
The intent of the Committee on Rules,
as the matter developed, is to hopefully
be able to proceed to complete as quickly.
as possible a reasonable investigation of
this matter and to bring it to a close with
a group of Members which the Speaker
of the House shall select.
I do not agree with a good deal of the
criticism that I have indicated already
was made of the Speaker, but then again
that is a matter of judgment. So I would
hope and urge my colleagues to vote
down this amendment because let me
say to them, if I understand the English
language at all, and if I understand what
Members have been saying to me for the
past months because of my involvement
in a matter where I introduced the orig-
inal resolution, and I say this with con-
siderable deliberation, if, in fact, the to-
tal membership of this committee were
reappointed, it would not operate and,
in my opinion, there would very well
shortly be another resolution to abolish
the committee and in all probability it
would be abolished. That is my belief.
Wrong it may be, but I would hope and
trust that we might proceed expeditiously
to vote down this amendment and to
proceed with. permitting the appoint-
ment of what we hope will be a number
of new faces on that committee.
I do not and will not interpret that as
any reflection upon good personal friends
of mine who at present are serving on it-
my good friend right here, the gentleman
from Illinois, whom I served with on the
Committee on Rules. One of the best
friends I have in the House is on that
committee. I see my good friend, the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
GIAIMO) with whom I worked very closely
in connection with a whole variety of
activities. I have a great deal of respect
for his integrity and knowledge and un-
derstanding.
I see my friend, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. JAMES V. STANTON) and oth-
ers-the gentleman from California (Mr.
EDWARDS) and so on.
I am not here indicting any one of
these men. I am hopeful, though, that
the Speaker of the House will see fit to
appoint to that committee men who are
objective enough and who have not
gotten themselves so involved.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. SISK was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional
minutes.)
Mr. SISK. Mr. Chairman, I hope the
Speaker in his deliberation and in his
judgment will appoint to this 13-man
committee, assuming it should pass, men
who have not become emotionally in-
volved to the extent that their objectivity
is in question. We all sometimes get up-
tight. I sometimes get up-tight. I have
seen that sometimes in statements before
our committee. I have great respect for
the gentleman from California (Mr. DEL-
r.uMS) and the gentleman from Massa-
chusetts (Mr. HARRINGTON) but they
made a most impassioned plea which
caused me some concern as to how deeply
they may have become involved emotion-
ally and how objectively they might be
able to look at these problems. But that
is beside the point, and if the Speaker
sees fit the gentlemen may be reap-
pointed, but I hope we do windup with
13 men and women-and' after all we do
not want to bar any women-who will do
an outstanding job.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield to me? He mentioned my
name.
Mr. SISK. I mentioned a number of
names and in view of that fact I am not
going to yield. I mentioned the gentle-
man from Massachusetts and the gentle-
man from Connecticut and others.
I think my time is up. I am going to
conclude because I think I have taken
enough time.
I urge the amendment be voted down.
Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment. .I have discussed this issue,
as some Members know, in the course of
this debate on the floor and proposed the
essence of this amendment for a very
special reason, most of which has become
quite clear in the debate here today. It
was my thought that the Members of
this House recognized that and should
not permit ourselves to make judgments
about individuals on the committee, that
they were duly appointed' by the Speaker
and they were duly competent men.
I indicated the other day that the
men-not women, it is true, and it might
have made it more interesting if we had
some variety-but in any case they were
duly appointed and duly constituted
members and all are duly competent
persons. A deadlock arose on the commit-
tee. Some people say it was because the
chairman was unwilling to investigate.
Some say it was because others were too
vigorous in what they wished to investi-
gate or to expose.
The chairman came in and offered his
resignation. The other members of the
committee were prepared to act despite
that. This House rejected the resigna-
tion. And yet the chairman who had
been reinstated in that way did not act
and there was a deadlock.
It seems to me if one wanted to make
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
July 17, 1975 CONGRESSIONL RECORD - HOUSE
certain there was a vigorous investiga-
tion-and we have all agreed that we
want that-there had to be some recon-
stitution of the committee. The normal
way would be to enlarge it. The way is
not first to put on trial members of the
committee, and I say this bearing in
mind that but for our not having been
appointed we might have been one of the
committee now being put on trial.
It seems to me despite what is being
said here, what we are being. asked to do
is to put these members on trial. I be-
lieve the main issue is that many people
here wish to punish the gentleman from
Massachusetts .(Mr, HARRINGTON) for
what I and others believe to have been
an important act of conscience and cour-
age. That is what:we-are seeking to do.
That is what many, in seeking to abolish
and reconstitute the committee, are try-
ing to do.
I would say simply this. What has this
led to? It has. led to, the following. On
the floor of this House some Member
got up the other day and criticized the
behavior of the gentleman from Cali-
fornia (Mr. DELLUMS), and criticized the
behavior of the gentleman from Wiscon-
sin (Mr. KASTEN), and criticized the be-
havior of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
JAMES V. STANTON). We are all Members
of the Congress of the United States.
This is not how we act toward our peers.
Why do we not simply use a resolu-
tion of expansion? Why should we con-
demn this one or that one. We disagree
with this one or that one and that is
why we want to reconstitute the commit-
tee. Well, that is not our right.
Members presently on the committee
will continue if they, choose and those
who are not interested in continuing
will not serve and the balance left will
be chosen by the Speaker. That is the
only fair way to reconstitute a commit-
tee which is presently deadlocked. We
have no right to make a judgment on
any member of this committee other than
competence and no one has raised that.
Without the other results have occurred.
This resolution has even resulted in my
colleague, the gentleman from Georgia,
saying we did not question whether the
persons who were put on this committee
are the right ones to deal with the mate
rial they have to 4eal with in this inves-
tigation.
Since when do we question the compe-
tence, the ability, the conscientiousness,
the capability or the devotion or loyalty
of any member of a committee? This is
not our responsibility. We only have to
be certain that the individual is prepared
to function.
I say that the resolution as it comes
before us is just forcing us to make judg-
ments about the individuals on this
committee. It is forcing the Speaker to
make judgments about the individuals
on this committee when he failstto ap-
point or reappoint those who are pres-
ently on the committee. I say this is in-
appropriate for us.
We are all in the same identical posi-
tion as every other member on this select
committee. If anyone on this commit-
tee thinks as, indeed, the Committee on
Armed Services thinks, that someone is
acting beyond their responsibilities or
by this body. I still say even the gentle-
man from Michigan should make a deci-
sion whether he can remain on this
committee, just as the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. HARRINGTON) has a
right to make a decision to remain on
the committee. The activities of both
these gentlemen were before us at the
time they were appointed to their respec-
tive positions on this committee. I believe
that those who do not recognize that we
ourselves are making judgment, even
though we are not in control of it, are
making a big error. All this amendment
says is there should be some change in
the committee because it is deadlocked.
This is an important investigation. It
must go forward, but the Members of this
House, not one of them-not the gentle-
man from Massachusetts (Mr. HARRING-
ToN) should be sacrificed by making be-
lieve that we are not being asked to make
a judgment on him in this way.
I beg the Members not to do that, be-
cause each Member could be in the ex-
act same position and this would be
many.
Mr. BOLLING. Mr. Chairman, I seek
to see if we could limit time in some rea-
sonable fashion. I would propose by
unanimous consent that all debate on
this matter conclude in 40 minutes, with
the last 5 minutes reserved to the
committee.
The CHAIRMAN. What matter is the
gentleman referring to?
Mr. BOLLING. On the whole matter
of this amendment and all amendments
thereto.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Missouri?
Mr. DE LA GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I
object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. PEYSER. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the last word.
(Mr. PEYSER asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
they can place this before an appropriate
forum to determine it, as was done with
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
HARRINGTON).
I think the gentleman from Massa-
chusetts. (Mr. HARRINGTON) recognized
that we were all being asked to partici-
pate in covering up illegal activities
and he refused to do that;I disagree that
he should be censured for it, but those
who think he should be will have another
opportunity to say so. HARRINGTON is en-
titled to a hearing. Do not use this reso-
lution for the purpose of expressing a
judgment about this. This would be an
unfair way. Everybody is entitled to his
or her day in court if, indeed, any wrong-
doing has taken place. and, indeed, none
has. MICHAEL HARRINGTON has shown
enormous leadership and courage. The
question is simply a matter of how would
we feel if we were on that committee.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tlewoman from New York has expired.
Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent to proceed for 2 ad-
ditional minutes.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, re-
serving the right to object, I do that
after this extension, I will object, simply
to bring the Congress together to get the
job done. It is my opinion we are doing
more damage than good. I cannot stop
the damage, but I can limit the amount
of time in which the damage is done.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentlewoman from
New York?
.There was no objection.
Mr. YOUNG of Georgia. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentlewoman yield?
. Ms. ABZUG. I yield to the gentleman
from Georgia.
Mr. YOUNG of Georgia. Mr. Chair-
man, I agree, everyone should have their
day in court, but I hope that we do not
constitute this' in any way as a day in
court for any member of this committee.
That is the reason I think the amend-
ment is inappropriate.
Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, it does just
the reverse. It says every member of this
committee is competent to serve on it.
There is no evidence to the.contrary. It
simply says the Speaker should appoint
an additional, number of persons because
there is a deadlock and if any person
desires to remain on the committee, that
person can remain and if that person
desires to remove himself, that person
can remove himself; but we should not
participate in removing any member
from this committee. That is the effect
of what we are doing when we pass the
resolution without it being amended.
It also forces the Speaker to make a
judgment as to the members on this
committee. There have been many
charges and countercharges which are
unproven and which an individual has a
right to take up in a proper forum. This
committee resolution is not the proper
forum. Let us not kid ourselves about this
resolution. It 'inherently forces a judg-
ment that none of us should be placed
in a position to make. I may not agree
with the way the gentleman from Michi-
gan (Mr. NEDZI) has conducted himself,
and I do not. I do not agree that his
H 6985
Mr. PEYSER. Mr. Chairman, I was not
going to take the floor on this issue. I
have listened carefully to debate and have
determined to vote against this amend-
ment, but my friend from Arizona, when
he took the floor, made his case quite
clear in his mind, that a vote against
this amendment was a vote against the
members on the committee.
I disagree with that because I do not
view the issue here as either the com-
mittee or its makeup. I think very hon-
estly that if the CIA itself had been
trying and aiming to confuse the whole
issue here, it could not have introduced
a better amendment than the one that
was introduced.
This amendment, as far as I -am con-
cerned, is simply striking at the Bolling
resolution that is going to let the Speak-
er create a new committee which can, as
I understand it, include any of the mem-
bers of the existing committee. If any
Member wants to correct me on that, I
will be glad to listen right now. The
Speaker, as I understand it, has the right
of appointing anybody to that commit-
tee, and so I do not view my vote of no,
and I do not think anybody ought to
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
 H 6986
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE July 17, 1975
view his or her vote of no, as a vote
against the gentleman from Massachu-
Setts, MIKE HARRINGTON, or anybody else.
The gentleman from Massachusetts is a
friend of mine, and I certainly hope he
remains a friend of mine, but my vote
has nothing to do with him or any other
member of the committee.
Mr. STEIGER of Arizona. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PEYSER. ' I yield to the gentle-
man from Arizona.
Mr. STEIGER of Arizona. Mr. Chair-
man, was the gentleman suggesting that
the gentleman from California (Mr.
Moss) was the CIA contact man in the
House? Was that the gentleman's in-
tent?
Mr. PEYSER. I thank the gentleman
for his comments. I was not making that
suggestion.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. PEYSER. I yield to the gentleman
from California.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, I think only
the gentleman from Arizona can pos-
sibly have reached that conclusion.
Mr. PEYSER. I thank both gentlemen
for their comments. I seem to have a
wonderful ability of getting caught be-
tween two people who want to get at
each other when I am up here. I would
hope that we can act on this measure,
only viewing it for what it is, an amend-
ment that is trying to amend the Bolling
resolution, that says the members who
are on the committee have a right of
staying on the committee. I think that
if we agree with that, that is fine, but it
has nothing to do with saying that some-
one on the committee did or did not do
his jab or that he is innocent or guilty
of anything.
If the Members vote against the
amendment, as I am going to do, they
are simply saying that they do not agree
with the amendment of the gentleman
from California to the Bolling resolution
and the action that it calls for is the
right way to proceed. I refuse to get
caught in this situation that says that I
am voting somebody guilty or innocent
because I am absolutely not, and I do
not believe any of us should be in that
position.
Mr. DE LA GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. DE LA GARZA. Mr. Chairman and
my colleagues, I take this time to try to
see if we cannot get back to the issue of
the amendment before us, and I do so
because I have had an experience, and
I am personally aggrieved that so many
of my dear friends on this side are speak-
ing now of a matter of right, that an
individual has the right to remain on a
committee. Those of us who have served
on committees on our side are the crea-
tures of the caucus and then generally
of this House, and no Member has a
right to serve or not to serve on the
committee because of his demeanor or
whatever one might bring up.
Ask the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
POAGE) if he had a right to remain as
chairman of the Committee on Agricul-
ture.
Ask the gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. HERERT) if he had a right to remain
as chairman of the Committee on Armed
Services.
Did the Members worry about their
integrity, about what it would, do to them
in their districts, about their reelection?
The Members did not.
I say to my dear friends-and I hate
to bring this out-there was something
called the Hansen committee in the
caucus of the Democrats to which I had
the honor to have been named by the
chairman of the caucus because of no
other attribute than that I was next in
line. Without informing me, I was taken
off of that committee. When I confronted
the chairman later, when I had. read in
the paper that someone else had been
appointed, he said, "'You would not
attend the meetings."
"Mr. Chairman," I said, "I did attend
the meetings. There has to be some other
reason why I was taken. off."
The chairman then informed me that
I had been taken off because he had to
name a black or a woman, and that was
the only reason that I was taken off.
And none of my friends from my Dem-
ocratic caucus came up to my defense
about right or not right. So do not talk
.to me today about the right of anybody.
My friend smiles. And they smiled at
me when I got taken oil of this Hansen
committee. But I was personally ag-
grieved. It could have been detrimental
to me in my reelection. Fortunately, it
was not, because I had no opposition.
But none of my friends here worried
about that. - .
So I say to the Members that we
should let the House work its will, and
no one has a right here, not in the
caucus and not in the House.
The whole issue of this committee, the
impasse and everything, I am not dis-
cussing. I am only discussing this amend-
ment. Does a Member have the inherent
right as a Member of this House to name
himself as chairman? No, no, no.
Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. DE LA GARZA. I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. GIAIMO. I thank the gentleman.
I admire the gentleman's thoughts
about whether or not a Member has an
inherent right, and I know there are
procedures for removing a Member, and
it has been done in the committees with
regard to chairmen and others. But is
the gentleman suggesting then, that
this is, in fact, an antiremoval amend-
ment of the gentleman from Massachu-
setts (Mr. HARRINGTON), or someone
else?
Mr. DE LA GARZA. I have not men-
tioned any names. I am, not saying any-.
one -is being removed. The resolution
speaks for itself. I did not get up to dis-
cuss the resolution. i got up to try to
refute my colleagues up here who keep
talking about a right, an Inherent right.
One of my colleagues said, "You might
be in the same spot some day." I have
been there. I have been there. And if
the Members want to vindicate me, they
will vote against this amendment. Now
is their chance.
Mr. BOLLING. Mr. Chairman, I would
like to see if we can set a limitation on
time, and I want to be entirely reasonable
about this.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con-
sent that all debate on this amendment
and all amendments thereto close in 40
minutes, with 5 minutes at the end re-
served for the committee.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Missouri?
Mr. ASHBROOK Mr.Chairman, re-
serving the right to abject, I wonder if we
can make the agreement or at least have
the understanding, that no.time will be
transferred, and that .only those Mem-
bers who really, desire to. speak will be
recognized?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will in-
form the gentleman that the Chair can-
not rule on that. - .
Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Chairman, fur-
ther reserving the right to object, I will
object to any request for transfer of time.
I will not, however, object at this
moment.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reserva-
tion of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Missouri?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Members standing
at the time the unanimous-consent re-
quest was agreed to will be recognized for
approximately. 1 I/2 minutes each.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will
state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, is it too late
to object to the unanimous-consent
request?
The CHAIRMAN. The answer is:
"Yes."
Mr. RYAN. I thank the Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from California (Mr.
RYAN).
Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, I regret the
fact that I only have this length of time
to speak, because I believe this whole
discussion has-been jarred so far off from
the real issue it is almost useless to take
this time.
This is a very simple matter. The
activities of the CIA and of other intel-
ligence agencies have come under ques-
tion in this country and before this
House. The question is whether this
House should look into this matter or
whether we should leave the matter to
the Senate alone. The answer to that
was given last week, by a vote of this
body and the answer was: Yes, we should
look into it.
Then the question arises: How shall we
do it? Shall we go over this matter with
the last committee we had, or shall we
begin all over with a new committee?
We have heard for some time in this
House arguments about whether we are
for or against individual Members. If
this continues, any investigation by this
House is absolutely useless, because it
will become a question of the right fight-
ing the left and the left fighting the
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
 July 17, 197'5pproved For RtM&J% IONALCRECORD7M -HOUSE O01200030011-7 H
6987
right; it will become a question of I know that the gentleman from Ari- which should have been the responsi-
whether we should get into the question zona agrees with that, but I know that bility of the Democratic Party to deter-
of prior. members conduct or not and none of us want the label of the cover- mine, rather than to have done it in this
whether the activities involved were legal up Congress. way.
or illegal. Mr. Chairman, I think that is where This could be the precedent for many
The fact is that we need to have some we are headed If we do not adopt the other dangerous situations which could
kind of general consensus by a commit= . amendment. confront us and certainly which could
tee that this House can accept, by a group The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- confront my friends in the minority. Rest
that starts from scratch and.starts anew. nizes the gentleman from Connecticut assured that there will be a time when
Mr. Chairman, that is the reason I op- (Mr. GIAIMO). they will have this type of dispute and
pose this amendment. (Mr. GIAIMO asked and was given would wish those of us in the majority to
If I were asked to vote for or against permission to revise and extend his re- absent ourselves.
the actions taken by the gentleman in marks.) I will say to my friend, the gentleman
question the
er.tle
r....-..
_ ter..
--_ ..... _
g
ma
Mass
GIAIMO
H
)
w Carla.
ARRINGTON
, I would vote
to absolve him of what he did, because I
do not think he did anything wrong.
In the same way, I would vote to ab-
solve the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
NF,nzI). But that is not the purpose of
the resolution. It is to investigate the
intelligence community, not convict or
vindicate individual Members.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Connecticut
(Mr. MOFFETT).
(Mr. MOFFETT asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. MOFFETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of the amendment offered by
the gentleman from California (Mr.
Moss).
I hope that we will keep in mind the
public perception of this Congress. We
do not really know, none of us knows,
what .the public wants on this particu-
lar issue, but we do know something
about the public perception of this situ-
ation.
Yes, we might say It does not reflect
on any individual Member and perhaps
we will be all right back home, but we
do know that the public has quite a
negative opinion of what we have been
doing here in general.
I think all of us are concerned and
legitimately concerned about that. We
also know that the public has seen on
this issue a committee with oversight
responsibility that did not do the job
that a special committee was created,
that there was a fight within that com-
mittee, that the chairman who, I believe,
had a conflict of interest, was recon-
firmed, for lack of a better word, and
that now we are in the middle of an-
other fight on. the floor in which we
seek to dismember the committee.
The public also knows that there have
been illegal bombings in Cambodia, em-
bassy break-ins, disrumtion of peace
groups, opening of mail illegally and the
Chilean intervention without nearly as
much attention given to incidents-those
gross Illegalities that the Congress knew
or should have known about-as has been
devoted to an alleged disclosure of such
illegal action.
support of the amendment. not want us helping to resolve it for the
I think it has been clearly identified minority, even though we might be most
as the Harrington amendment, as to happy to do so.
whether or not the gentleman from Mas- Therefore, I say, in simple fairness,
sachusetts should serve on this com- let us get on with the business of this
mittee. committee. It has fiddled and done noth-
As I said on an earlier day, I do not ing since February. Let us get on and
wholly agree with the gentleman from show the American people that this
Massachusetts (Mr. HARRINGTON). There House can do something, can conduct an
are many areas in which we disagree. investigation, and let us be fair to the
However, I find it very offensive that we gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
move in,this way to challenge the right HARRINGTON).
of a Member to sit on a committee. Mr. MAGUIRE. Mr. Chairman, I wish
I recognize that this is not the purpose to associate myself with the remarks of
of some members of the Committee on the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Rules or of others, but I do know that GIAIMO), and I urge the adoption of the
this is inherently what has been the amendment.
issue in this debate. This debate which The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
for many reasons, questions in the House nizes the gentleman from California (Mr.
not whether or not the intelligence DELaUMS).
agencies of the United States may have (Mr. DELLUMS asked and was given
in some way violated the law and in- permission to revise and extend his
fringed on the rights of American citi- remarks.)
zens, but instead of that, is used as a Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman and
vehicle by those who would divert us members of the committee, the gentle-
from that investigation. Instead they man from California thinks that in the
divert us from that by charging that last hour or so he has seen a great deal of
Members of Congress may have acted dust covering, where we confuse the is-
improperly and may have spoken on the sues. A great American, Frederick Doug-
floor of the House or elsewhere and in- lass, once said that dust covering is an
formed the people that a possible crime activity engaged in by those in pursuit of
had been committed by some govern- victory, not of truth.
mental agency. The gentlewoman from New York,
How reminiscent of other recent whom I think is in pursuit of the truth,
events in American history that is. has spoken eloquently and precisely as
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen- to what the issue is here. We should not
tleman from Connecticut (Mr. GIAIMO) in any way be engaged in trials of any
has expired. of the Members who have served on this
The Chair recognizes the gentleman committee. The only fair. and equitable
from New Jersey (Mr. MAGUIRE), thing to do is to reappoint all of the var-
Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Chairman, will the ious members of the original committee
gentleman yield? back to the committee. If the Members
Mr. MAGUIRE. I will be happy to yield want to expand the size of the committee,
to the gentleman from Connecticut. then they can do so. We should also al-
Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Chairman, I suggest low those Members who do not wish to.
that we not allow this to happen. I sug- serve on the comimttee to leave the com-
gest that if the gentleman from Mass- mittee. No one Member of the House,
achusetts (Mr. HARRINGTON) has violated even' my distinguished colleague, the
any rules or laws of the House, he be gentleman from California (Mr. SISK),
challenged in a proper place, but that has a right to remove my privilege. We
this is not the place to do it. His right both represent districts of some 464,000
to serve on this committee should have constituents. His constituents elected
been questioned when he first went on it him and my constituents elected me, and
and not months later. I presume that neither one of us could
I find somethi
et
re
l
l
t
d
.
ng e
e
ec
e
se very offensive g
were we to change our
I think that what the public is seeing here, and I must become political for a respective districts.
here i$ a very bad precedent if we do not moment, if I may. That is the question- None of us have any right to try
adopt this amendment, a bad smell of a ing of the right of any Democratic Mem- each other on the floor of the Congress.
witch-hunt and a bad impresssion on ber of this body to serve on any commit- I say that in fairness, with a sense of
the public. tee. I think the right of a Democratic equity and with the desire for the pur-
We have been called the aggressive Member to serve on this committee suit of truth, that we should pass this
94th Congress. Not many people believe should be decided by Democrats in this amendment, and allow all of the Mem-
that anymore. We have been called a House, and there has been altogether bers to return back to the committee who
veto-proof Congress. - We have been too much involvement by the minority were members of it. And if the gentle-
called the do-nothing Congress. party, the Republican Party, in a matter man from Michigan (Mr. NEDZI) or the
Approved For Release 2005/04/27: CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R00120003001
H 6988 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE My 17, 1975
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. this. I heard earlier that perhaps the should fulfill its role of investigating all
HARRINGTON) or the gentleman from gentleman from California (Mr. DEL- aspects of this subject, with due protec-
Connecticut (Mr. GIAIMO) or any other LTMS) could not serve on this committee tion to the agencies themselves, with due
member of that committee seeks to re- because he was impassioned, he was over- protection to the individual constitu-
move himself from that committee, or if enthusiastic; that also the gentleman tional and legal rights of all, and with-
the other Members desire to serve, then I from New York (Mr. STRATTON) could out any conflict of personalities wreck-
say give us the right and privilege to not serve on the committee, and the gen- ing the opportunity for our carrying out
do that. But I repeat that the Members tleman from Connecticut (Mr. GIAIMO) our legitimate prerogatives.
have no right to try us on the floor of the could not serve on the committee, and the Mr. Chairman, I yield back the bal-
House without due process. gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. ance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- HARRINGTON) could not serve on the com- The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. AsH- mittee. Let me tell the Members that I nizes the gentleman from Connecticut
BROOK). want impassioned people on this commit- (Mr. DODD).
(Mr. ASHBROOK asked and was given tee. I want them as impassioned and as (Mr. DODD asked and was given per-
permission to revise and extend his re- zealous in the protection of our liberties mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.) as those people they are investigating, marks.)
Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Chairman, I who have been alleged to have violated Mr. DODD. Mr. Chairman, I would like
think this very episode signifies and those liberties, because I have seen the to associate my remarks with those of
exemplifies just what is wrong with this work of those who violate our liberties the gentleman from California (Mr. MIL-
body. I think it is also a good example of and our civil rights, because they too are LER) and the gentleman from Connecti-
what the public perceives to be wrong overzealous in trying to restrict our free- cut (Mr. GIAIMO).
with this body. The Congress that rep- doms. I say that our country cannot I would like to point out to the Mem-
resents itself to be able to answer every- stand that sort of activity. bers of this body that there is only one
body's problems throughout the coup- So, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that issue facing us in this particular amend-
try now finds itself completely inade- whoever serves on this committee, while ment. The issue is clear, and we all know
quate when it comes to its own problems. I believe it should be the same committee, what it is. The issue revolves around
This special investigating committee has I hope that they can and will do their the propriety of certain alleged actions
been a problem, best to protect those liberties," because of a Member of this body, specifically,
I am sorry the gentlewoman from New I think that this is the most important the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
York (Ms. ABZUG) is not on the floor. I charge that they can have. I think that HARRINGTON).
was absolutely shocked when I listened is the most important thing we can do. If the Members of this body should de-
to the gentlewoman, because she totally I think that what we have seen as a cide that the actions of the gentleman
reversed the arguments she has made result of this resolution is a derogation from Massachusetts (Mr. HARRINGTON)
over the years. She absolutely swept them of many Members of this House without deserve investigation, then so be it. Let
under the rug in this particular instance. base, based upon innuendo, based upon the House work its will and proceed. But
She spoke in terms of the old buddy- slander, and I think it has been very to deny the gentleman from Massachu-
buddy system in Congress she talked detrimental to this House in the public setts (Mr. HARRINGTON) the opportunity
about the club approach-The "let us not eye.. I think that this committee can bring to defend himself, or to deny an oppor-
look into each other" arguments ap- great respect to this House and can bring tunity for a full hearing of this issue, is
proach which she so often discredited great trustworthiness by the American a backdoor, backhanded censureship of
before today's debate. The "everybody people :in the democratic process, but we a Member of this body. A vote against
has the right to set their own standards," cannot now start selecting Members of the amendment by the gentleman from
approach. The "every Member has the this House who .can serve and who can- California (Mr. Moss) will be tanta-
right to do what he wants" approach. not serve because they are overzealous, mount to such a backhanded censorship
She ratified this old guard, "we all look because they are enthusiastic, because we of Mr. HARRINGTON.
the other way" attitude the young re- are talking about the fundamental rights I think the Members ought to clearly
formers have rejected. of people in this country. understand that when they vote on this
All these attitudes are what the public The CHAIRMAN. The time of the amendment, they will be voting on the
perceive to be wrong with this body. gentleman has expired. propriety of alleged activities of a fellow
After I listened to my colleague from The Chair recognizes the gentleman Member without according to that Mem-
New York talk of the club approach, I from Maryland (Mr. BAUMAN). ber a most basic and fundamental guar-
remembered a few years ago when this Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield antee-the presumption of innocence
Member was raising questions about a back my time. until proven guilty.
committee chairman regarding non- The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- I would urge the Membership to sup-
existing staff people on the payroll of nizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. port this amendment.
my committee, I was told "No, no, do MCCLORY). The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
not do that. The chairman is all right. (Mr. McCLORY asked and was given tleman has expired.
Do not question what he is doing." permission to revise and extend his re- The Chair recognizes the gentleman
Well, I thought that is what we were marks.) from New York (Mr. KocH).
getting rid of, but it sounds like the Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, I think (Mr. KOCH asked and was given per-
arguments today are leading us in the the House has a legitimate role in the mission to revise and extend his re-
opposite direction: Let us not look into establishment and the operation of the marks.)
all of our own problems, let us just sweep Select Committee on. Intelligence. An Mr. KOCH. Mr. Chairman, there are
them under the rug. impasse has been reached on the other very few votes that come before this
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- side of the aisle. I have not involved my- House that can be deemed votes of con-
nizes the gentleman from California (Mr. self in that impasse. science in the classic sense-very few,
MILLER). I think the gentleman from Missouri perhaps 2 or 3 a year. This happens to be
(Mr. MILLER of California asked and (Mr. BoLLING) has brought forth a log- one of them.
was given permission to revise and ex- ical, workable solution under which this We really cannot destroy the gentle-
tend his remarks,) House of Representatives can exercise man from Massachusetts (Mr. HARRING-
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair- the authority that it should be exercis- TON). In his own district he is a hero,
man, I take the floor because I am truly ing. I feel strongly that we do need intel- and if this vote were to be adverse, he
disturbed by the discussion I have heard ligence agencies and a strong intelli- would be a hero in the country. But the
on the floor today; because I think my gence community. I agree that this is es- fact is that we can destroy the integrity
own worst fears and the worst fears of sential. for our own national security. I of the Congress if we do not vote to sup-
many others have been realized because agree also that the rights of individuals port this amendment. I say that because
of this resolution, in the way it is being should not be abused or denied because I believe that the gentleman from Mas-
handled. We have heard that the motives of excesses or illegal actions of any intel- sachusetts . (Mr. HARRINGTON) has done
of some of the committee members have ligence agency. nothing illegal. And we know that. In-
been questioned, and I am disturbed by I think that this select committee deed other Members, I have been told,
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
 July 17, 1975-Approved For CR,8I~b /~?~7 i I -R[$P77ffl0J4#R001200030011-7
have done exactly what he has done
without any questions of propriety -being
raised.
- The chairman of one of our distin-
guished committees has stated that he
has on a number of occasions refused to
be bound by secrecy classifications made
by the executive branch and in pursuit
of his duties has made public classified
information. He said that the executive
branch when it classifies material can
only impose that classification on mem-
bers of the executice branch itself and
cannot bind Members of Congress.
My friend, MICHAEL HARRINGTON, per-
formed his obligations as a Member of
Congress to uphold the Constitution by
bringing to the attention of the Congress
and the American public, acts of illegal-
ity performed by the executive branch.
I would hope that we would all, when
faced with a similar situation, perform
our obligations as well.
So if we are going to cast a vote of
conscience-which this one is-I do not
think we have any alternative but to
support this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentlewoman from New'York
(MS. HOLTZMAN).
(Ms. HOLTZMAN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms: HOLTZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of this amendment because
I think the issue is a very simple one.
I do not think the issue is the gentle-
man from Massachusetts (Mr. HARRING-
TON). I do not think the question is
whether what he did was right or wrong.
I think the issue is one of due process
and of fair play.
Somebody said the House of Represen-
tatives has no right to censure or punish
or discipline Members of the House. I
disagree. But I think it has to be done
at a proper time and place.
I think the integrity of the House is
involved here. This amendment permits
each member of the present Select Com-
mittee on Intelligence to serve on the
new committee. If we do-not adopt this
amendment we will have stigmatized
those members of the select committee
who are not reappointed and we will have
done so without giving them a fair hear-
ing. It seems to me that is unworthy of
the House of Representatives. Surely we
ought to afford all Members a right to
a hearing and to defend themselves and
to do it in an appropriate time and place.
I urge the House to follow its best
traditions and support this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Montana (Mr.
BAUCUS).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BAUCUS. I yield to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. OBEY).
I thank the gentleman from Montana.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, first of all
I want to associate myself with the re-
marks of the gentleman from Connecti-
cut (Mr. GIAIMO).
Let me say this amendment institu-
tionally has problems, I know. Some say
it is impractical. But on balance I am
going to support it because I am not
going to accept without challenge any
action, the practical result of which will
be to penalize an individual for doing
in this instance what Congress did col-
lectively last year on impeachment,
namely, to strip away the inappropriate
use of.terms like "national security" and
"secret" in order to reveal truth.
I may disagree with some specific
techniques used by the gentleman from
Massachusetts, MICHAEL HARRINGTON, but
on balance I honestly believe his revela-
tions about the CIA have done the coun-
try more good than bad.
I voted against the resignation of the
gentleman from Michigan, Mr. LucIEN
NEnzi. I did it not to be practical but
because I have confidence in the gentle-
man from Michigan (Mr. NEnzI). I dis-
agreed with those who said the gentle-
man from Michigan (Mr. NEDzI) should
not serve because he did not announce
publicly what he had learned about the
CIA.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from Montana has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Wisconsin' (Mr. OBEY)..
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I do not
think an individual hag an obligation
around here to always be a hero. I think
he has an obligation to use his best
judgment and I think that is what the
gentleman from Michigan, Mr. LuCIEN
NEOZI, did. Some perhaps might have
acted differently. Who knows. But I give
him credit for and have confidence in his
judgment and his integrity.
But it seems to me if some here feel
the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr.
MICHAEL HARRINGTON's action was wrong,
then the place to challenge it under the
normal rules and procedures of this
House is first of all not here, it is in the
Democratic Caucus. Second, it seems to
me the time to challenge it is not now
but when that action took place almost
a year ago, not now, a year later after
he had been appointed to this commit-
tee with the full knowledge of what his
past actions had been.
I think fairness requires we support
this amendment. I understand institu-
tionally it has some problems, as I have
said, but I think the country has a right
to see Congress act fairly and I do not
think we will act fairly in this instance
if we do not adopt this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
LONG).
(Mr. LONG of Louisiana asked and
was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Chair-
man, there is one point I would like to
make. In discussions we held before the
Rules Committee trying to work out a
solution to this problem and in the dis-
cussions that were held by many of us
outside the- Rules Committee, never once
was this possible solution even suggested
nor was it suggested by any witness that
appeared before the Rules Committee.
It was not suggested by any present
member of the committee as a possible
solution to this problem, and we on the
Rules Committee were looking hard for
a workable solution.
I must admit in all frankness I as an
individual did not think of this. But
H 6989
I do say that should we adopt this
amendment which has today or since
yesterday been presented as a possible
solution, that it does not necessarily re-
solve the problem. The reason it does
not is because should the chairman of
the committee decide that he wants to
stay on the committee, under this
amendment we would find ourselves in
exactly the same position that led us
to take the action that we in the Rules
Committee so reluctantly had to take.
Consequently, this is no solution to the
problem at all.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
BROWN.)
(Mr. BROWN of Michigan asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of Michigan. Mr. Chair-
man, I think it is truly unfortunate that
this amendment is before us. I think the
tenor of the debate would cause anyone
in the Chamber to believe it is unfortu-
nate that it is before us. What is the only
justification for it being before us? It is
that it is a tradition of the House that
when a committee is changed and ex-
panded that its present membership is
retained. Now, that is the regular and
ordinary thing. But is this a regular and
ordinary event? I suggest that it is not.
I suggest the reason the matter is before
us today is unprecedented. How many
times have we voted to reject the resig-
nation of a chairman of a committee?
I reject totally the discussions that
have been held on the floor here today
that this is an item that involves the
gentleman from Massachusetts. I think
it just as much involves my colleague,
the gentleman from Michigan, and there
is not a finer man in the House. But are
we as the membership in this House
going to, in effect, perpetuate ten-
thirteenths of a committee that found
itself at an impasse, that found itself
in an intolerable situation that led to
these unprecedented events? -I cannot
imagine the House conscientiously and
intentionally doing that, and that is the
only issue before us.
I urge defeat of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
HALEY).
(Mr. HALEY asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
[Mr. HALEY addressed the Commit-
tee. His remarks will appear hereafter
in the Extensions of Remarks. ]
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
BOLLING) to close the debate.
Mr. BOLLING. Mr. Chairman, I re-
gret that this amendment is offered for
two reasons. One, because it allows in
the minds of some this matter to turn
into a referendum on a Member.
I proposed the resolution and the
resolution was designed to avoid that,
if possible, simply because I thought
that any Member deserved the oppor-
tunity to go- through a process - more
rational than a floor debate, but that is
not really the reason I oppose this
amendment.
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
 H 6990
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE July 17, 1975
Corman
Howard
Rees
Cornell
Howe
Reuss
Cotter
Hughes
Richmond
Danielson
Jacobs
Riegle
Dellums
Jenrette
Rodino
Dent
Jordan
Roncalio
Dodd
Kastenmeter
Rosenthal
Downey
Keys
Roybal
Drinan
Koch
St Germain
Early
Leggett
Sarbanes
Eckhardt
Lloyd, Calif.
Schauer
Edgar
McCloskey
Schroeder
Edwards, Calif. McCormack:
Seiberling
Evans, Intl.
McHugh
Sharp
Fascell
Macdonald
Simon
Florio
Maguire
Solarz
Ford, Toxin.
Metcalfe
Stanton,
Giaimo
Meyner
James.V.
Gibbons
Mezvinsky
Stark
Green
Mikva
Stokes
Dude
Miller, Call!.
Studds
Hall
Mineta
Tsongas
Hamilton
Mitchell, Md.
Vanik
Hanley
Moakley
Waxman
Harkin
Moffett
Weaver
Harrington
Moss
Whalen
Harris
Mottl
Wilson, Tex.
Hawkins
Nolan
Wirth
Heckler, W. Va. Oberstar
Wolff
Hicks
Obey
Yates
Holland
Pattison, N.Y.
Holtzman
Rangel
NOES---274
Abdnor
du Pont
Landrum
Adams
Edwards, Ala.
Latta
Alexander
Ellberg
Lehman
Andrews, N.C.
Emery
Lent
Andrews,,
English
Levitas
N. Dak.
Erienborn
Litton
Annunzio
Each
Lloyd, Tenn.
Armstrong
Eshleman
Long, La.
Ashbrool.
Fary
Long, Md.
Ashley -
Fenwick
Lott
AuCoin
Findley
Luian
Bafalis
Fish
McClory
Barrett
Fisher
McDade
Bauman
Fithian
McDonald
Beard, Tenn.
Flood
McEwen
Bell
Flowers
McFall
Bennett
Ford, Mich..
McKay
Bergland
Forsythe
Madden
Bevill
Fountain
Mahon
Biaggi
Fraser
Mann
Blanchard
Frey
Martin
Boggs
Fuqua
Mathis
Boland
Gaydos
Mazzoli
Bolling
Gilman
Meeds
Bowen
Ginn
Meicher
Brademas
Goidwatex
Michel
Breaux
Doodling
Miller, Ohio
Brodhead
Gradison
Mills
Brooks
Gr,assley
Minish
Broomfield
Guyer
Mollohan
Brown, Mich.
Hagedorn
Montgomery
Brown, Ohio
Haley
Moore
Broyhill
Hammer-
Moorhead,
Buchanan
schnildt
Calif.
Burgener
Hansen
Moorhead, Pa.
Burke, Fla.
Harsha
Morgan
Burke, Mass.
Hastings
Mosher
Burleson, Tex.
Hays, Ohio
Murphy, Ill.
Burlison, Mo.
Hebert
Murphy, N.Y.
Burton, Phillip Heckler, Mass.
Murtha
Butler
Hefner
Myers, Ind.
Byron -
Heinz
Natcher
Carter
He.stoski
Neal
Casey
Henderson
Nedzi
Cederberg
Hightower
Nichols
Chappell.
Hillis
Nix
Clancy
Hinshaw
Nowak
Clausen,
Holt
O'Brien!.
Don H.
Horton
O'Hara
Clawson, Del
Hubbard
O'Neill
Cleveland
Hungate
Ottinger
Collins, Tex.
Hyde
Pasaman
Conable
Ichord
Patten, N.J.
Conlan
Jarman
Pepper
Coughlin
Johnson, Calif. Perkins
Crane
Johnson, Colo.
Pettis
Daniel, Dan
Johnson, Pa.
I eyser
Daniel, R. W.
Jones, Ala.
Pickle
Daniels, N.J.
Jones, N.C.
Poage
Davis
Jones, Okla.
Pressler
de la Garza
Jones, Tenn,
Prayer
Delaney
Kasten
Price
Derrick
Kazen
Pritchard
Derwinski
Keay
Railsback
Devine
Kemp
Randall
Dickinson
Ketchum
Regina
Diggs
Kindness
Rhodes
Dingell
Krebs
Rinaldo
Downing
Krueger
Risenhoover
Duncan, Oreg.
LaFalce
Roberts
Duncan, Tenn.
Lagomarsino
Robinson
Roe
Smith, Nebr.
Vander Jagt
Rogers
Snyder
Vander Veen
Rooney
Spellman
Vigorito
Rose
Staggers
Waggonner
Rostenkowski
Stanton,
Walsh
Roush
J. William
Wampler
Rousselot
Steed
White
Runnels
Steiger, Ariz.
Whitehurst
Ruppe
Stephens
Whitten
Russo
Stratton
Wiggins
Ryan
Stuckey .
Wilson, Bob
Satterfield
Sullivan
Wilson, C. H.
Schneebeli
Symington
Winn
Schulze
Talcott
Wright
Sebelius
Taylor, Mo.
Wydler
Shipley
Taylor, N.C.
Wylie
Shriver
Thompson
Yatron
Shuster
Thone
Young, Alaska
Sisk
Thornton
Young, Fla.
Skubitz
Traxler
Young, as.
Slack
Ullman
Zablocki
Smith, Iowa
Van Deerlin
Zeferetti
There have been a lot of arguments
made that are not valid. There has been
some conversation about how the Demo-
cratic Caucus should have dealt with it,
but I have worked pretty hard to have
a live Democratic Caucus that has some
power, but it is more than 30 days since
the House first acted on the impasse
and I have -not seen any very vigorous
effort to bring the matter before the
caucus for a vote.
As a matter of fact, I have gained the
impression, perhaps erroneously, that
nobody really wanted to have it in the
caucus for a vote.
But I oppose this amendment on nar-
row, procedural grounds. This could set
the worst possible precedent.
For all the time that the Congress has
existed, the House has existed, select
committees have been appointed solely
by the Speaker. There has never been a
direction to the Speaker that I can find
to put a Member on or keep a Member
off in connection with the appointment
of a select committee. As far- as I can
figure out, that is a direct line from the
beginning, from Jefferson's manual on;
and for the institution to decide sudden-
ly, as what may appear to some to be a
tactic, to change that approach not, only
to select committees but to conference
committees, seems to me a very, very
serious mistake.
I have spoken several times on this
matter, and r am not inclined to use
words loosely. In my first speech, I said
that I honored every member of this
select committee, and I repeat it now.
The issue today is very simple. Is the
House of Representatives going to have
a committee of its choice which success-
fully carries out the mission, given to the
?bommittee that we will abolish, some
months ago?
I think that is the only issue. I think
that is the fundamental issue, and I re-
peat a little of what I said on Monday
night, that I think this institution and
its successful performance is far more
important than all the other matters
that have been disc%ssed and all the
other individuals that are involved.
Mr. Chairman, I hope this amendment
will be roundly defeated.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate
has expired.
The question is on the amendment of-
fered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Moss).
The question was taken; and the
Chairman announced that the noes ap-
peared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, I demand
a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic de-
vice, and there were-ayes 119, noes 274,
answered "present" 24, not voting 17,
as follows:
[Roll No. 4021
AYES-119
Abzug
Beard, R.I.
Burton, John
Addabbo
Bedell
Carney
Ambro
Blaster
Carr
Anderson,
Bingham
Chisholm
Calif.
Bloutn
Clay
Anderson, Ill.
Bonker
Cohen
Badillo
Brinkley
Collins, 311.
Baldus
Brown, Calif.
Conte
Baucus
Burke, Calif.
Conyers
ANSWERED "PRESENT"-24
Aspin
Hayes, Ind.
Myers, Pa.
Breckinridge
Hutchinson
Pike
Cochran
Jeffords
Qule
D'Amours
McCollister
Quillen
Flynt
McKinney
Sarasin
Foley
Madigan
Spence
Frenzel
Milford
Treen
Gonzalez
Mitchell, N.Y.
Young, Tex.
NOT VOTING--17
Archer
Matsunaga
Sikes
Evans, Colo.
Mink
Steelman
Evins, Tenn.
Patman, Tex.
Steiger, Wis.
Fulton
Patterson,
Symms
Hannaford
Calif.
Teague
Karth
Santini
Udall
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. BOLLING
Mr. BOLLING. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. BOLLING: In
section 8, on page 6, line 8, strike out "Janu-
ary 3" and insert "January 31".
(Mr. BOLLING asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOLLING. Mr. Chairman, this is
the matter that the gentleman from 1111-
nois (Mr. MCCLORY) and I were discuss-
ing on Monday. It changes the dates from
January 3, 1976, to January 31; that Is
the correct date.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a vote
of approval on the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. BOLLING).
The amend was agreed to*
AMENDMENTS OFFERED BY MR. TREEN
Mr. TREEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer
amendments, and I ask unanimous con-
sent that they may be considered en
bloc.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Louisiana?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendments offered by Mr. TREEN: Page
1, line 4, after the word "oversight" strike
out the remainder of the sentence, and inr
sert: "Of certain intelligence agencies of the
United States Government."
Page 2, line 5, through line 3 on page 3
strike out all of section 2, and insert:
"SEC. 2. The select committee is authorized
and directed to conduct an inquiry into the
intelligence agencies identified in section 3,
with regard to-
(1) the collection, analysis, use, and cost
of intelligence information and allegations
of illegal or improper activities;
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01200030011-7
 July 17, 197 pproved For R _bMe fipa /2A7L ~&-5K77 H W
OUSE 001200030011-7 H 6991
. (2) the procedures and effectiveness of co- Force; the National Security Agency; the The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
ordination among and between said a encies;
(3) the nature and extent of a ecutive Intelligence and Research Bureau of the the amendments offered by the gentle-
(4) the need for improved or reorganized partment of justice, the Energy Re- vision (demanded by Mr. TREEN) there
oversight by the Congress of said agencies; search and Development Administration, were-ayes 34, noes 138.
(5) the necessity, nature, and extent of and then all other instrumentalities of So the amendments were rejected.
overt and covert intelligence activities of the U.S. Government engaged in or
said agencies; The CHAIRMAN. 'Are there further
responsible for intelligence activities. amendments?
(6) the procedures for and means of the My amendment would limit." this to protection of sensitive intelligence informa- those agencies that really have been ac- ervtErznnaExT oFFncEn BY MR. raEEx
tion by said agencies; and cused, rightly or wrongly, of improper Mr. TREEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer
(7) procedures for and means of the pro- amendment.
tection of rights and -privileges of citizens activities. My amendment would limit an
of the UnitedStates from illegal or improper the inquiries to the CIA, the FBI, the The Clerk read as follows:
intelligence. activities by said agencies." Department of the Treasury, and the De- Amendment offered by Mr. TaEEN: Page
Page 3, line 4, through line 2, page 4, strike partment of Justice; and, of course, in 3, after line 3, insert: "Provided, That the au-
out all of section 3 and insert: covering the Department of the Treas- thority conferred by this section shall not be
"SEC. 3. In carrying put the purposes of ury, we cover IRS. exercised until the committee shall have
this resolution, the select committee is au- adopted the rules, procedures, and regula-
thorized to inquire into the activities is the We have 5 months to do this job and tions required by section 6 of this resolution."
following: to report by January 31 of next year,
(1) the Central Intelligence Agency;
(2) the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
and,
(3) the Department of the Treasury and
the Department of Justice."
Page 4, line 20, strike out the word "Cen-
tral", and all of lines 21 and 22, and insert:
"intelligence agencies identified in section
3."
Mr. TREEN (during the reading). Mr.
Chairman, I.ask unanimous consent that
the amendments be considered as read
and printed in the RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the -request of the gentleman from
Louisiana?
There was no objection.
(Mr. TREEN asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TREEN. Mr. Chairman, I know
the hour is late, and we have been on
this matter a long time, I had prepared
this amendment several days ago be-
cause I think it is important that the
committee address the problem that the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LATTA) focus-
ed on, and that is the breadth of this
inquiry.
I have supported continuously, as a
member of the original Select Commit-
tee on Intelligence, that we go forward
with our investigation. I feel that when
we have these sort of allegations, found-
ed qr unfounded, that it is important for
the Congress of the United States, and
particularly the House, as well ac the
Senate, to respond with an inquiry.
I have supported an inquiry, but I do
think we have a very serious problem as
to the extent of the. mandate -set forth
in this resolution. Those Members who
have copies of the resolution available
might look at page 3, which lists the
14 different agencies that this commit-
tee is authorized to look into.
If the Members will look at section 2,
they will find language that provides
that the select committee is "authorized
an directed" to conduct an inquiry into
all intelligence activities of this Govern-
ment.
On page 3 we are directed to make an
inquiry into the National Security Coun-
cil; the U.S. Intelligence Board;
the President's Foreign Intelligence Ad-
visory Board; the CIA; the Defense In-
telligence Agency; the intelligence com-
ponents of the Army, Navy, and, Air
and it is impossible for us to do, it seems (Mr. TREEN asked and was given per-
to me, the job mandated by this resolu- mission to revise and extend his re-
tion if we cover all of these areas. I marks.)
think it is impossible to do a good job Mr. TREEN. Mr. Chairman, this is a
even with the four that are left in by very simple amendment. As a-matter of
my amendment if adopted. fact I hope the author of the- resolution
Some may say the committee can de- will accept it. I did not ask for a record
cide which agencies it will look into. I vote on the last amendment because it
committee will be criticized if it elects
not to investigate certain agencies, just
as the Rockefeller Commission was criti-
cized for not going further than it did.
Indeed, the language in section 2, as
I mentioned before, not only authorizes
but directs this committee to collect,
analyze, et cetera, all intelligence infor-
mation and allegations of illegal im-
proper activities of all intelligence agen-
cies in the United States and abroad. I
say let us confine our inquiry, at this
time, with the 5 months that we have left,
to these four agencies or departments.
Given the fact that we are going to have
13 people instead of 10 asking questions,
and given the fact that all of the com-
mittee members have other committees
on which they serve and other duties, it
is going to be extensively difficult to cov-
er even four areas. Let us be realistic
about how much this committee can
accomplish and accomplish satisfac-
torily. I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. BOLLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the amendment.
(Mr. BOLLING asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
was pretty obvious I would lose and I
do not want to prolong this discussion of
the resolution. but I think this is an
important matter.
What this amendment does is tell the
new committee that it shall not begin its
investigation or its inquiry until it has
done what section 6 of this resolution
states it should do."It is identical with
section 6 of the prior resolution. It man-
dates that we adopt rules of procedure.
It says the committee must adopt secu-
rity regulations; it must adopt the lan-
guage of a contract to prevent any staff
member from writing a book or an
essay or receiving an honorarium based
on information he receives as a member
of the staff, and it also mandates that a1L,
members of the staff have a security
clearance as required by the committee
before they begin the investigation. ,
The fact of the matter is that the pres-
ent committee hired staff, and the staff
has done a great deal of investigating,
taking statements, and receiving docu-
ments although the select committee
never adopted the security regulations
necessary for the control of the informa-
tion we received.
Mr. BOLLING. Mr. Chairman, I hope I really believe that this is one of the
we can vote on this matter very quickly, problems.that our committee faced in
and I will be very brief. - its functioning. We were interrupted in
I remain convinced that the select our consideration of the security regula-
committee should have the opportunity tions by the controversy over the chair-
to deal with the whole complicated dif- manship of the committee and never
ficult problem. Without that opportu- adopted security regulations. We have
nity and responsibility, I do not think it had a number of staff members going all
can acquit itself fully and bring forth around conducting investigations in the
the kind of report that I anticipate from name of our committee without there
it. I think that on Monday, if the com- ever having been security regulations
mittee is successful in . organizing and adopted.
beginning its processes, if it needs addi- Mr. BOLLING. Mr. Chairman, will the
tion time, no doubt the House will give gentleman yield?
it additional time, but I think it would Mr. TREEN. I yield to the gentleman
be a mistake to narrow the jurisdiction from Missouri.
to a limited number of agencies. Mr. BOLLING. Mr. Chairman, I have
I think it is imperative that we have consulted a variety of people who are
a thorough, complete, and full investiga- more expert in this matter than I. I can -
tion. I, therefore, urge the Members to - see no possible objection to this. It may
vote against the amendment, be redundant but it is harmless redun-
Approved For Release 2005/04/27,: CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
 H 6992
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE July 17, 1975
dancy. Therefore I am prepared to ac-
cept the amendment.
Mr. TREEN. I thank the gentleman
from Missouri.
I will say with respect to the ques-
tion of redundancy, one would have
thought so, but the fact of the. matter
is the committee proceeded without hav-
ing done this in the first instance, so I
think the history of the situation directs
that we mandate that the section 6 re-
quirements be met before the committee
commences its inquiry.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. TREEN. I yield to the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. QUILLEN).
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Chairman, this side
accepts the amendment.
Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. TREEN. I yield to the gentleman
from Illinois.
Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman for yielding.
I commend the gentleman for his
amendment. It is a'good amendment and
it should be adopted.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. There being no fur-
ther amendments, under the rule, the
Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and
the Speaker resumed the chair, Mr.
EVANS of Colorado, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union, reported that that
Committee having had under considera-
tion the resolution (H. Res. 591) estab
lishing a Select Committee on Intelli-
gence, pursuant to House Resolution 596,
he reported the bill back to the House
with sundry amendments adopted by the
Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the
previous question is. ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any
amendment? If not, the Chair will put
them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the
resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
PERMISSION FOR AD HOC COM-
MITTEE ON OUTER CONTINEN-
TAL SHELF TO SIT DURING 5-
MINUTE RULE TOMORROW
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the Ad Hoc
Committee on the Outer Continental
Shelf be allowed to sit tomorrow during
the 5-minute rule.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Louisiana?
There was no objection.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
(Mr. PICKLE asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1-
minute and to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Speaker, due to an
appointment with the doctor on Mon-
day, July 14, 1975, I was unavoidably
absent during a portion of the debate
on the Agriculture appropriations,
H.R. 8561.
During my absence, the House adopted
an amendment by Mr.. JOHN BURTON of
California which 'provided moneys to
the Farmers Home Administration re-
volving loan. fund for soil and water
conservation use.
Since most farmers are required to
have pollution control facilities built
within the next 2 years' to meet EPA
water standards, these 40-year loans at 5
percent, would be most beneficial.
Mr. BURTON's amendment called for
exacting standards for those seeking
loans and was wisely approved by the
House. If I had been present, I would
have voted aye on the amendment.
ENERGY CONSERVATION` AND OIL
POLICY ACT OF 1975
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I move
that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union for the further con-
sideration of the bill (H.R. 7014) to in-
crease domestic ene2`gy supplies and
availability; to restrain energy demand;
to prepare for energy emergencies; and
for other purposes.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from
Michigan.
The motion was agreed to.
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Accordingly the House resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further
consideration of the bill (H.R. 7014) with
Mr. BOLLING in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.'
The CHAIRMAN. When the Commit-
tee rose on Tuesday, July 15, the Clerk
had. read through the first section end-
ing on page 165, line 24, of the substi-
tute committee amendment.
The Clerk: will read..
The Clerk read as follows:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE I--FINDINGS, PURPOSE, AND
DEFINITIONS
Sec. 101. Findings.
Sec. 102. Statement of purposes.
Sec. 103. Definitions.
TITLE II-STANDBY ENERGY AUTHORI-
TIES AND NATIONAL CIVILIAN STRA-
TEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE
PART A-STANDBY EvrEItGY AUTHORITIES
Subpart 1-General Emergency Authorities
Sec. 201,? Conditions of exercise of energy
conservation and gasoline ration-
ing authorities.
Sec. 202. Energy conservation contingency
plans.
Sec. 203. Gasoline rationing contingency
plan.
Subpart 2-International Authorities
Sec. 211. International oil allocation.
Sec. 212. International voluntary agreements.
Sec. 213. Advisory committees.
Sec. 214. Exchange of information.
Subpart 3-Materials Allocation
Sec. 221. Materials allocation.
PART B-NATIONAL CIVILIAN STRATEGIC
PETROLEUM RESERVE
Sec. 251. Declaration of policy.
Sec. 252. Definitions.
Sec. 253. National Civilian Strategic Petro-
leum Reserve and National Civil-
ian Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Plan.
Sec. 254. Early Storage Reserve.
Sec. 255. Congressional review and imple-
mentation of the National Civilian
Strategic Petroleum Reserve Plan.
Sec. 256. Authorization and review of ex-
traordinary measures to imple-
ment the Plan.
Sec. 257. Purchase of petroleum products for
storage in the Reserve.
Sec. 258. Disposal of the Reserve.
Sec. 259. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 280. Coordination with import quota
system.
TITLE III-OIL PRICING POLICY AND
MEASURES TO MAXIMIZE AVAILABIL-
ITY OF ENERGY SUPPLIES
Sec. 301. Oil pricing policy.
Sec. 302. Limitations on pricing authority.
Sec. 303. Production of oil or gas at the
maximum efficiency rate and
temporary emergency production
rate.
Sec. 304. Federal oil, gas, and coal leasing
arrangements.
Sec. 305. Domestic use of energy-related
materials and equipment.
Sec. 306. Domestic use of energy supplies.
Sec. 307. Entitlements.
Sec. 308. Recycled oil.
TITLE IV-ENERGY CONSERVATION
MEASURES
PART A-ALLOCATION ACT AMENDMENTS AND
OTHER ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES
Sec. 401. Restructuring of Allocation Act.
Sec. 402. Conversion to standby authorities.
Sec. 403. Definitions in Allocation Act.
Sec. 404. Amendment to section 4 of the Al-
location Act.
Sep. 405. Mandatory gasoline allocation sav-
ings program. .
Sec. 406. Retail distribution control meas-
ures.
Sec. 407. Direct controls on refinery opera-
tions.
Sec. 408. Inventory controls.
Sec. 409. Hoarding prohibitions.
Sec. 410. Supplemental authorities to assure
reasonableness of petroleum
prices.
Sec. 411. Energy conservation in policies and
practices of Federal agencies.
Sec. 412. Public information program.
Sec. 413. Report on enforce lent of national
maximum speed limit.
Sec. 414. Energy conservation through van
pooling arrangements.
Sec. 415. Use of carpools.
PART B-INDUSTRIAL ENERGY CONSERVATION
Sec. 451. Findings.
Sec. 452. Definitions.
See. 453. Energy efficiency targets for major
industrial energy consumers.
Sec. 454. Dissemination of energy efficiency
guidelines.
Sec. 455. Effects on employment.
TITLE V-IMPROVING ENERGY EFFI-
CIENCY OF CONSUMER PRODUCTS
PART A-AUTOMOBILE FUEL MILEAGE
Sec. 501. Definitions.
Sec. 502. Average fuel economy standards ap-
plicable to each manufacturer.
Sec. 503. Determination of average fuel
economy.
Sec. 504. Judicial review.
Sec. 505. Information and reports.
Sec. 506. Labeling and advertising.
Sec. 507. Prohibited conduct.
See. .508. Civil penalty.
Sec. 509. Effect on State law.
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
 J 4y 16, 1975 Approve{jFMMMgq?(tOq("UR.SIA-BRPL7iMM F1001200030011-7 D 879
The nominations of Abner Woodruff Sibal, of Vir-
ginia, to be General ,Counsel of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission; and Frank R. Bamako, of
Pennsylvania, to be a member of the Occupational
Safety and Health Review Commission.
Also, committee tabled motion to report S. Con. Res.
46, proposing disapproval of the regulations of the De-
partment of Health, Education, and Welfare relating
to nondiscrimination on the basis of sex in education
programs.
Prior to these actions committee held hearings on the
nominations of Messrs. Sibal and Bamako, where Rep-
resentative Rooney of Pennsylvania introduced Mr. Bar-
nako, and the nominees testified and answered questions
on their own behalf.
HIGHER EDUCATION
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare: Subcom-
mittee on Education continued oversight hearings on
the role of higher educational institutions in the United
States, receiving testimony from Prof. Henry T. Yost
and Alfred D. Sumberg, both representing the Ameri-
can Association of University Professors; - Myles M.
Fisher IV, Dr. Charles A. Lyons, Jr., Fayetteville, N.C.,
and Dr. Milton K. Curry, Jr., Dallas, Tex., all repre-
senting the National Association for Equal Opportunity
in Higher Education; and Julia Jacobsen, Council of
Independent Colleges of Virginia.
Hearings continue tomorrow.
CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS
Committee on Public Works: Subcommittee on En-
vironmental Pollution continued in an evening session
to mark up proposed legislation which would amend
the Clean Air Act. ,
COMMITTEE FUNDING
Committee on Rules and Administration: Committee,
in closed session, continued consideration of committee
funding resolutions, and adjourned subject to call. .
VA PHYSICIANS' PAY COMPARABILITY
Committee on Veterans' Alairs: Committee ordered
favorably reported, with amendments, S. 1711, provid-
ing special pay and other incentives to enhance recruit-
ment and retention of medical and other health care
personnel in the Department of Medicine and Surgery
of the Veterans' Administration.
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS GIVEAWAYS
Select Committee on Small Business: Committee began
hearings to examine the practice of giveaways and sale
of merchandise by financial institutions, receiving testi-
mony from Dr. Harris C. Friedman, Director, Office
of Economic Research, Federal Home Loan Bank
Board; Allen L. Raikin, Adviser, Legal Division, Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, who was
accompanied by his associates; Sheldon I. London, Re-
tail Jewelers of America, Washington, D.C.; accom-
panied by Katherine Everhart, Everhart Jewelers, Fair-
fax, Va.; Edward C. Ritz, Ritz Camera Stores, Beltsville,
Md.; and David Ulrich, Tri City Pro Hardware, Oak
Creek, Wis.; John Daly, International Silver Co., Me-
riden, Conn.; James Van Wonterghem, J. Edward Con-
nelly Associates, Pittsburgh, Pa.; Nathaniel Bowditch,
First Pennsylvania Bank, Philadelphia; accompanied by
-Jerry S. Wayt, Huntington National Bank, Columbus,
Ohio; and A. Bruce Crowley, First Pennsylvania Bank,
Philadelphia.
Hearings were recessed subject to call.
Select Committee on Intelligence Activities: Committee
met in closed session on committee business and received
testimony from Edward H. Levi, Attorney General; and
Clarence M. Kelley, Director, Federal Bureau of Inves-
tigation, both of the Department of Justice.
Committee will meet again tomorrow in closed ses-
sion to consider committee business.
House of Representatives
Chamber Action
Bills Introduced: 32 public bills, H.R. 8661-8692; 3
private bills, H.R. 8693-8695; and 13 resolutions, H.J.
Res. 562-569, H. Con. Res. 342-345, and H. Res. 604
were introduced. Pages H6913, H6958-H6960
Bills Reported: Reports were filed as follows:
H.J. Res. 549, to approve the "Covenant To Establis
a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands i
Political Union With the United States of America
(H. Rept. 94-364) ; and
S. 846, to authorize the further suspension of prohibi-
tion against military assistance to Turkey, amended
(H. Rept. 94-365). Page H6958
Late Report: Committee on International Relations
received permission to file a report by midnight tonight
on S. 846, to authorize the further suspension of pro-
hibition against military assistance to Turkey.
Page H6865
Select Committee on Intelligence: House continued
consideration of H. Res. 591, establishing a Select Com-
mittee on Intelligence; but came to no resolution there-
Approved For Release 2005/
/27 : CIA-RDP77 M 00144R001200030011-7
 D 880
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-DAILY DIGEST July 16, 175
on. Proceedings under the 5-minute rule will continue
on Thursday, July 17.
By a recorded vote of 242 ayes to 162 noes, agreed to
a motion that the committee rise.
Rejected the following amendments in the Commit-
tee of the Whole :
An amendment in the nature of a substitute that
sought to abolish the present Select Committee on In-
telligence established by H. Res. 138 (rejected by a
recorded vote of 122 ayes to 293 noes with 2 voting
"present"); and
An amendment in the nature of a substitute that
sought to abolish the present Select Committee on In-
telligence and make it in order, immediately following
House action to create a permanent, Joint Committee
on Intelligence, to appoint House Members on the joint
committee and those Members would act as an ad hoc
House Committee until final enactment of legislation
to create the permanent joint committee (rejected by
a recorded vote of 178 ayes to 23o noes with i voting
"present"). Pages H61165-H6881
Committee To Sit: Objection was heard to a unani-
mous-consent request that the Committee on-Agricul-
ture be permitted to sit during the proceedings under
the 5-minute rule today. Page H6881
Subcommittee To Sit: Subcommittee on Energy Re-
search, Development and Demonstration of the Com-
mittee on Science and Technology received permission
to sit during proceedings under the 5-minute rule today.
Education Appropriations: By a yea-and-nay vote of
370 yeas to 42 nays, the House agreed to the conference
report on H.R. 5901, making appropriations for the
Education Division and related agencies for fiscal year
1976, and the transition period; clearing the measure
for Senate action.
Receded and concurred in Senate amendments Nos.
15, 16, and 17.
Receded and concurred with amendment in Senate
amendments Nos. io and 21.
By a yea-and-nay vote of 212 yeas to 211 nays, House
insisted on its disagreement to Senate amendment
No. 44. Pages H6881-H6895
Nurse Training: By a voice vote, the House agreed to
the conference report on S. 66, to amend title VIII of
the Public Health Service Act to revise and extend the
programs of assistance under that title for nurse training
and to revise and extend programs of health revenue
sharing and health services; clearing the measure for
the President. . Pages H6895-H6896
Treasury-Postal Service Appropriations: House
considered H.R. 8597, making appropriations for the
Treasury Department, the U.S. Postal Service, the
Executive Office of the President. and certain Inde-
pendent Agencies for fiscal year 1976, and the transition
period; but came to no resolution thereon. Proceed-
ings under the 5-minute rule will continue on Thursday,
July 17?
Took the following action in the Committee of the
Whole :
Agreed to an amendment that deletes language pro-
hibiting the use of funds by IRS to require the Nation's
private colleges and other organizations to prove they
have adopted racially nondiscriminatory policies
(agreed to by a recorded vote of 284 ayes to 122 noes).
A point of order was sustained against language that
permits access to IRS records by the Comptroller
General.
An amendment was offered and subsequently with-
drawn that sought to add $2 million for accounts, col-
lection and taxpayer service of the IRS.
H. Res. 6oo, the rule waiving points of order against
the bill, was agreed to earlier by'a voice vote.
Pages H6896-H6911
Subpena Duces Tecum: Read a subpena duces tecum
served upon James M. Powell, Chief of the U.S. Capitol
Police, in the case of Jeffery Simon against James M.
Powell et al. (civil action No. 75-0973) pending in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia;
requesting him to answer interrogatories. Subsequently,
agreed to H. Con. Res. 342, authorizing Chief Powell
to answer interrogatories. _ Pages H6911-H6913
Presidential Message-Hazardous Materials: Re-
ceived and read a message from the President wherein
he transmits the fifth annual report on Hazardous Ma-
terials Control covering calendar year 1974-referred
to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
Page H6913
Amendments Ordered Printed: Amendments ordered
printed pursuant to the rule appear on pages H-696o-
I-I-6963.
Referral: One Senate-passed measure was referred to
the appropriate House committee. Page H6957
Quorum Calls-Votes: One quorum call, and two
yea-and-nay votes, and four recorded votes developed
during the proceedings of the House today and appear
on pages H6865, H6874-H6875, H6879-H6881, H6888,
H6894-H6895, H69ii.
Program for Thursday: Met at 10:15 a.m. and ad-
journed at 6:5o p.m. until ro a.m. on Thursday, July 17,
when the House will continue consideration of H.R.
8597, making appropriations for the Department of
the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government
for fiscal year 1976;
Continue consideration of H. Res. 591, Select Com-
mittee on Intelligence; and
Continue consideration of H.R. 7014, Energy Con-
servation and Oil Policy Act of 1975.
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
House of Representatives
The House met at 10:15 o'clock a.m.
The Chaplain, Rev. Edward G. Latch,
D.D., offered the following prayer:
$ehold, I stand at the door and knock;
if anyone hears My voice and opens the
door, I will come in to him.-Revelatioins
3: 20.
0 God, who art ever knocking at the
door of our hearts seeking entrance to
our inmost being, we pause in Thy pres-
ence opening our lives unto Thee.
We thank Thee for the gift of prayer
and for this opportunity of turning to
Thee to receive strength for the day,
wisdom for sound decisions, understand-
ing when differences develop, and good
will amid the difficulties we face.
Bless Thou our Nation that out of the
depths of these disturbing days may
come a new_ life for our people. Help us
to help one another, teach us to trust
one another, and grant us grace to live
generously for the greater good, of all.
Abide with us, Lord, for in Thee do we
put our trust. Amen.
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER. The Chair has exam-
ined the Journal of the last day's pro-
ceedings and announces to the House
his approval thereof.
Without objection, the Journal stands
approved.
There was no objection.
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate by }12r.
Sparrow, one of its clerks, announced
that the Senate had passed bills of the
following titles, in! which the concur-
rence of the House is requested:
S. 1260. An act to authorize the Adminis-
trator of General Services to enter into
multiyear leases through use of the auto-
matic data processing fund without obligat-
ing the total anticipated payments to be
made under such leases;
8. 1849. An act to extend the Emergency
Petroleum Allocation Act; and
S. 1883. An act to conserve gasoline by di-
recting the Secretary of Transportation to
establish and enforce mandatory fuel
economy performance standards for new
automobiles and light duty trucks, to estab-
lish a research and development program
leading to advanced automobile prototypes,
and for other purposes.
CALL OF THE HOUSE
Mr. BAUMAN, Mr. Speaker, I make the
point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum
is not present.
Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, I move a
call of the House,
WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 1975
A call of the House was ordered.
The call was taken by electronic de-
vice, and the following Members failed
to respond:
[Roll No. 389]
Adams
Fuqua
O'Hara
Andrews, N.C.
Hanley
Ranges
Archer
Marsha
Riegle
Bell
Hebert
Risenhoover
Biaggi
Hefner
Rosenthal
Burton, Phillip Holland
St Germain
Butler
Jarman
Satterfield
Conlan
Karth
Scheuer
Conyers
Lent
Steiger, Wis.
Danielson
McHugh
Symms
Downey
Matsunaga
Teague
Drlnan
Meeds
Udall
Esch
Mills
Ullman
Eshleman
Mollohan
Wilson, C. H.
Fulton
Mosher
Zablocki
The SPEAKER. On this rollcall 389
Members have recorded their presence by
electronic device, a quorum.
By unanimous consent, further pro-
ceedings under the call were dispensed
with.
PERMISSION FOR COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS TO
FILE REPORT ON - S. 846, AS
AMENDED, TO AUTHORIZE FUR-
THER THE SUSPENSION OF MILI-
TARY AID TO TURKEY
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the Committee
on International Relations have until
midnight tonight to file a report on S.
846, as amended, to authorize further the
suspension of military aid to Turkey.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Penn-
sylvania?
There was no objection.
ESTABLISHING A SELECT COMMIT-
TEE ON INTELLIGENCE
Mr. BOLLING. Mr. Speaker, I move
that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union for the further con-
sideration of the resolution (H. Res. 591)
establishing a Select Committee on In-
telligence.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. BOLLrNG).
The motion was agreed to.
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Accordingly the House resolved Itself
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further
consideration of the resolution, House
Resolution 591, with Mr. EVANS of Colo-
rado in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the resolu-
tion.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Commit-
tee rose on Monday, July 14, 1975, all
time for general debate on the resolution
had expired.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Resolved, That (a) there is hereby estab-
lished in the House of Representatives a
Select Committee on Intelligence to conduct
an inquiry into the organization, operations,
and oversight of the intelligence community
of the United States Government.
(b) The select committee shall be com-
posed of thirteen Members of the House of
Representatives to be appointed by the
Speaker. The Speaker shall designate one of
the members as chairman.
(c) For the purposes of this resolution the
select committee is authorized to sit dur-
ing sessions of the House and during the
present Congress whether or not the House
has recessed or adjourned. A majority of the
members of the select committee shall con-
stitute a quorum for the transaction of
business except that the select committee
may designate a lesser number as a quorum
for the purpose of taking testimony.
Mr. QUILLEN (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con-
sent that section 1 of the resolution be
considered as read and printed in the
RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Ten-
nessee?
There was no objection.
AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE
OFFERED BY MR. QUILLEN
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment In the nature of a sub-
stitute.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by Mr. QUILLEN: Strike all after the
resolving clause and insert in lieu thereof
the following:
Resolved, That the select committee estab-
lished by H. Res. 138 is abolished immediate.
ly upon the adoption of this resolution; and
be it further
Resolved, That immediately upon the
adoption of this resolution, the Clerk shall
obtain all papers, documents, testimony, and
other materials generated by the select com-
mittee and transfer them to the General
Services Administration for preservation
subject to the order of the House.
(Mr. QUILLEN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr Chairman, this Is
a very simple amendment. What It does
is exactly what it says it does: It abol-
ishes the Select Committee on Intelli-
gence-period. But it does not entirely
close the door for future action by the
House.
This Is a very Important amendment.
It is offered as an amendment In the
nature of a substitute. If enacted, It will
abolish the 'Select Committee on Intel-
ligence, but, as I said, It does not com-
pletely close the door for the future.
H 6865
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
 H 6866
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE July 16, 1975
Mr. Chairman, let me read the head-
line in this morning's Washington Post:
"CIA Debate Seen Dead in Senate."
The article states:
Senator Frank Church said yesterday that
plans for a closed-door Senate debate on the
Central Intelligence Agency's involvement in
assassination plots may be abandoned be-
cause of the August recess.
It goes on to say that this report, if
completed, will be made public while the
Congress is In recess, but first of all the
report on alleged assassinations will be
given to the White House.
I think it is not logical for this House
of Representatives to go forward with
a Select Committee on Intelligence after
the Rockefeller Commission made a
thorough investigation of the CIA and
has already made its report, after the
Church committee in the Senate has gone
4 months in the investigation of the CIA
of alleged assassination plots, and the
committee is going to make its report on
these plots even while we are in recess
in August.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is important
that this committee and that this House
of Representatives look at the overall
picture. What will be accomplished if
we go into the investigation not only
of the CIA but of 11 other agencies with
less than 6 months remaining of this
year and of this session of the Congress?
The committee, as proposed by the
gentleman from Missouri, would expire
on January 31. Investigation of the CIA
and Investigation of 11 other agencies
would include the National Security
Council, the U.S. Intelligence Board, the
President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory
Board, the Central Intelligence Agency,
the Defense Intelligence Agency, the
Army, Navy, and Air Force intelligence
components, the Intelligence Research
Bureau of the Department of State, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, the De-
partment of the Treasury, the Energy
Research and Development Administra-
tion, and any other instrumentality of
the Government that this select com-
mittee decides to go into.
Mr. Chairman, I say to the Members
that this select committee was created
in February of this year. Because of in-
ternal problems and the constitution of
the committee itself, no action has been
taken. No meetings have been held in
any meaningful way. The committee has
not organized.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is important
that this committee be abolished because
the American people have, lost confidence
in that particular committee's going for-
ward with any meaningful investigation.
There have been leaks from other com-
mittees in past sessions of the Congress
of classified and secret material, and the
American people feel that in any inves-
tigation started by this select commit-
tee, there is a great possibility of future
leaks. I think this country is so impor-
tant, the future of this country as a dem-
ocratic system is so important that we
must take a break, so to speak, abolish
the committee, and then after the Senate
has made a full report, after the Church
committee has made a full report, review
the situation and see then if we need a
committee to plow new ground. Certainly
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
we do not need a committee to go over
the same testimony previously given by
Mr. Colby and the others.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from Tennessee (Mr. QUILLEN)
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. QUILLEN
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional
minutes.)
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Chairman, cer-
tainly this House of Representatives does
not need to go over the ground covered
by the Rockefeller Commission and the
ground covered by the Church committee
in the Senate. If there is new ground
to be plowed after the Church committee
has made its report, then. let us consider
whether or not we need a permanent
Committee on Intelligence.
After this measure was debated on the
floor of the House on Monday, the
American people had uppermost In their
minds not what this committee will un-
cover, but what the prices of groceries
are on the grocer's shelves, and what the
price of gasoline is going to rise to, and
what taxes are going to be levied upon
them. They are concerned with the do-
mestic problems, of our country. I think
this Congress Is leaving the wrong Im-
pression when our focus is on something
that really is not as Important as the
domestic problems facing us today.
I think Mr. Colby has been before
several committees and has presented all
the documents necessary to conclude
this consideration.
Mr. Chairman, I shall insist on a re-
corded vote on my amendment, and I
would urge the' Members of this body to
support this amendment in good con-
science. After all, the House of Repre-
sentatives, later on, can reconstitute a
new committee if necessary. But today
let us abolish this committee, and get
down to the business of lowering grocery
prices, lowering gasoline prices, and doing
the things that are necessary for the
people of this country.
Mr. BOLLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the amendment In the
nature of a, substitute offered by the gen-
telman from Tennessee (Mr. QUILLEN)
Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like
to deal briefly with a couple of pro-
cedural problems. There is a mistake in
the resolution which is before us that
was pointed out by the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. MCCLORY) that, by a print-
er's error, January 3 appears on page 6
as the final date, and it should be Janu-
ary 31. When we get to that section I
ani going to offer a technical amend-
ment which will bring this into con-
formity with the intent of everybody
involved so that the final date,of the
committee, when it is reconstituted, will
be the 31st of January.
Secondly, as we proceed with the de-
bate I am. not going in any way to try
to prevent; Members from having an op-
portunity to talk on particular amend-
ments, but I am going to try to proceed
in an orderly fashion and, with the co-
operation of the committee, I hope we
will be able to set time on each amend-
mcnt, at a reasonable time, soon after
we see how the debate is beginning to
develop, and so that we will not just go
on and on and on, talking about every-
thing on one amendment when there
are other amendments coming.
I am going to seek to achieve some
kind of an orderly discussion, amend-
ment by amendment and, of course, that
would also take into account the possi-
bility of amendments being offered to
amendments.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
express my opposition to the amend-
ment.
The argument that the gentleman
from Tennessee makes might be a more
forceful argument t# the committee were
just going to investigate, but the com-
mittee is going to make recommenda-
tions, I hope, and the recommendations
are terribly important. The House not
only needs to have an investigation, but
it needs to have recommendations made
on a variety of complex matters. The
committee can recommend, and they
may not be legislative recommendations.
The committee, I think, should recom-
mend in three areas. One, if anything
needs to be done about the rules of the
House; two, if anything should be done
about the laws governing security mat-
ters of the United States and its agen-
cies, and among its citizens; and three,
what kind of oversight should be estab-
lished for the future.
I think an expert committee that has
done some studying of the problems of
intelligence and really truly under-
stands them should do that kind of
work, should do the groundwork that
will lead to an effective set of recom-
mendations which the House will have
an opportunity to consider. Therefore,
I think it Is a good idea to roundly de-
feat the proposal of the gentleman from
Tennessee, no matter how well-inten-
tioned it is.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the re-
mainder of my time.
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, earlier this year the
House was confronted with the ques-
tion of whether or not it would abol-
ish the House Committee on Internal
Security. At that time the argument was
advanced by the proponents that this
particular committee was not needed,
that it wos superfluous, that it was ex-
pensive, that its jurisdiction was shared
by other committees in the House, and
that the Committee on the Judiciary
could just as well handle these matters.
If those arguments for abolition were
applicable then, they certainly apply now
to the pending resolution.
I want to remind the Members that the
Internal Security Committee this House
abolished was charged many years ago
by the House of Representatives with in-
vestigating Communist subversion and
subversion by other groups, anti-Amer-
ican and un-American groups. Last Jan-
uary the judgment was made by the ma-
jority party in this House that that com-
mittee should be abolished, that subver-
sion was no longer a threat. Now we are
being asked to create another commit-
tee to investigate executive agencies
whose role also has been to control sub-
version.
 July 16, 1975 Approved For ~~1Yti1: RI:"( UR17 7711JR001200030011-7 H 6867
The gentleman from Missouri says that
the amendment of the gentleman. from
Tennessee is unnecessary and is out of
place 'because the new committee pro-
posed by this resolution will have a very
important role, first of all, to recom-
mend amendments to the Rules of the
House dealing with national security and
how it should be handled, rules dealing
with a Member's right to information
and how each of us should handle secret
and confidential matters that come
within our purview. I submit that the
able gentleman from Missouri headed a
select committee which had a great deal
of time to devote itself to this and other
matters regarding changes in the Rules
of the House. There were substitutes,
amendments, all sorts of changes made
to the Rules of the Douse. Certainly the
Committee on Rules, or any select group
of that particular committee, could han-
die that question without any problem,
based upon their expertise and ability, in
a matter of weeks or months at the most,
I am quite sure.
I doubt that the composition of the
committee we propose to create here to-
day would be such that It would be so
finely tuned either temperamentally or
intellectually that it is going to come out
with any delicate rules to handle the
conduct of Members of the House in mat-
ters of secrecy. No, I think the new com-
mittee's bag, as they say In the vernac-
ular, Is going to be investigation; and in-
vestigation on a grand scale molded
along the lines of the prejudices of the
individual Members who serve on this
committee. We have already had a taste
of what is to come by the remarks heard
on this floor today.
I will say to the House I might be less
willing to support the pending amend-
ment if the speaker of the House would
announce to us now during this debate
who will be chairman of this new group
and what the composition of the mem-
bership will be. Last February I voted
against the creation of the present com-
mittee that will be abolished as part of
this resolution, because I did not think
it would do the job. I had heard the
names of some of the Members who had
been proposed to serve on it, and I had
misgivings. I must say my misgivings
have been borne out to a fine fare-thee-
well based on the conduct of this com-
mittee so far.
Second, do we need investigations of
our security agencies by this proposed
committee? I may not always agree with
the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
ABZUG) but she has exercised the juris-
diction of her Subcommittee on Govern-
ment Operations in e*ploring fully-and
will continue, I am sure, knowing her
predelictions-the CIA and its activities.
We may not agree with the way that she
does it in all respects, but it is within the
jurisdiction of her committee. Other
committees of the House already have
jurisdiction over various security agen-
cies as well, including the Committee on
Armed Services and the Committee on
Appropriations. Why must we have still
another group?
As far as future oversight is concerned,
the Committee on Government Opera-
tions has this within its jurisdiction.
There is no need for this House to create
a new committee, but there is a great
need to abolish the one we have.
I submit to the Members that the con-
tents of this resolution constitute a po-
litical solution to the internal problems
of the majority party in this House. This
is unfortunate because I think that there
has been raised valid questions regarding
the civil liberties of individual citizens
of the United States and whether gov-
ernmental agencies are overstepping
their bounds. It is unfortunate that we
are asked in this particular instance to
solve a political problem with a twofold
resolution abolishing a useless commit-
tee that, indeed, should be abolished,
and then creating another committee
that probably will have to be abolished
when it follows clown the same road.
But perhaps this unusual procedure will
ease the internal problems of the Demo-
cratic caucus.
I think the solution offered by the gen-
tleman from Tennessee is amply fair
and correct. The Rockefeller Commis-
sion has acted. The Church committee
in the other body is acting. Congress has
gone over this ground before, as the
gentleman from Arizona, the minority
leader said yesterday. There is a limit
to what we can do. The House is 6 months
late and $750,000 short. The House will
never catch up to the other investiga-
tions, nor should we try. Abolish this
committee and let the appropriate com-
mittees of the House to do their job.
The proper manner in which to deal
with this I think is to support the Quillen
amendment.
(Mr. BAUMAN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, as the ranking minority
member on the select committee that
was appointed in February I want at
least to advert to the responsible man-
ner in which I feel the Members on our
side have proceeded and have under-
taken to perform their jobs with vigor ?
and with determination In an effort to
fulfill the mandate of this House of
Representatives.
I think it is extremely important that
we do not have out activities frustrated
by the difficulties that have arisen on
the other side of the aisle. Our frustra-
tions would be complete if this amend-
ment were to be adopted.
There is an important and legitimate
role for us to perform. We recognized
that when we established this select com-
mittee. In the effort being made now by
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. BoL-
LING) he is trying to overcome the frus-
trations that have arisen because of dis-
agreements on the other side of the aisle
In order that this House of Representa-
tives might legitimately carry out one of
Its important functions, that of over-
sight.
We are not concerned here simply with
the CIA. The CIA, as a matter of fact Is
a small part of the overall Intelligence
community, but the complex intelligence
community does deserve some oversight.
There is tremendous confusion and over-
lapping and duplication. If the gentle-
man from Tennessee Is interested in sav-
ing the money of the taxpayers he ought
to be interested in having the activities
of the select committee carried on be-
cause the opportunities for savings are
tremendous.
Nobody knows how much the overall
intelligence operations cost. We should
find out and determine that and make
the entire intelligence community an effi-
cient operation, and not just allow it to
be one that goes on with various auton-
omous and independent operations with-
out control and without coordination.
It seems to me to be extremely impor-
tant, even though we move toward es-
tablishment of a joint committee, which
I would support, even if we support a
joint committee as an ultimate goal or
objective of our committee, we should
first of all study the framework and
background of this entire activity so that
we can move Into'that kind of oversight
operation i telligently.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. McCLORY. I yield to the gentle-
man from Tennessee.
Mr. QUILLEN. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
The gentleman says the committee
ought to. do certain things. Why has it
not? Up to now the members have not.
Mr. McCLORY. I do not want to say
that our efforts have not been frustrated.
They have been, but I am confident that
the Speaker is going to name a chairman
of the committee who is going to demon-
strate leadership and control of our com-
mittee. I am sure we are going to find
the chairman, whoever it happens to be,
will have the support of the Members on
our side and we are going to move for-
ward with our legitimate responsibilities
and do the kind of job we are charged
with doing, which includes the oversight
of all the Intelligence community.
Now, if the gentleman would get a
background paper from the Legislative
Reference Service of the Library of Con-
gress, he would see how complex an op-
eration this is. Our intelligence agencies
enter Into all kinds of subjects, not only
do they invade the private rights of
American citizens and not only is there
confusion which results from the CIA
and FBI not knowing where their lines
of demarcation lie, but let me suggest an-
other area requiring our close attention,
that of drug enforcement. This is an area
where we note a terrible increase in the
drug traffic, because in my opinion we
do not have the coordinated kind of com-
munication between our various agencies
with each other which they should have
if we are to stamp out the drug traffic.
They need help to stamp out the traf-
fic in drugs. This is one area, it seems
to me that deserves a thorough investi-
gation and it can only be done if the
committee is active and empowered to
carry on its job.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. McCLORY. I yield to the gentle-
man from Tennessee.
Mr. QUILLEN. That was my impres-
sion and opinion and consideration in
February of this year when this commit-
tee was formed by this House. I mean,
the dreams and aspirations and Ideas do
not formulate unless action is taken.
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
 H 6868
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD--HOUSE July 16, 1975
The committee has not taken any action.
Therefore, it should be abolished.
Mr. McCLORY. I do not think the gen-
tleman should blame the committee or
any of the Members on his side of the
aisle, because we have been ready and
able to go forward and we have gone
forward to the extent we have been ca-
pable of going forward, but we have been
frustrated, I recognize that. The purpose
of the resolution of the gentleman from
Missouri is to reactivate and restructure
this committee so that we can fulfill the
mandate that has been given to the
House and that we should fulfill.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words.
(Mr. DELLUMS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, as one
of the present members of- the commit-
tee, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment offered by the gentleman
from Tennessee.
I would first point out that the House
of Representatives and the Senate are
equal in their constitutional responsibili-
ties. The Constitution, in part, says that
we not only shall make laws, but we are
charged with the responsibility of over-
seeing the enactment of those laws. That
means that we have a responsibility. We
have a responsibility specifically in this
issue, because there are many questions
that have not been answered by the
Rockefeller commission and there are
many questions that may not be an-
swered by the Senate committee.
First of all, with respect to the CIA-
yes, we must explore with diligence and
depth the question of the allegation of
assassination as an instrument of foreign
policy. We must go further in determin-
ing the degree to which people's rights
have been abused domestically in this
country. That is our responsibility.. That
is our charge.
We must know, for example, why is it
that there are 200,000 American citizens
who have a CIA file. Why is it that a few
short weeks ago the Director of the CIA
said 5, 6, maybe 7 Members of Congress
had a CIA file; 3 weeks later he said 15
people. Now the record shows there are
at least 75 Members of Congress who
have a record and perhaps as time goes
on there may be 435 people that have a
record.
Weneed to know. That is our respon-
sibility. That is our constitutional charge.
We need to know, for example, why are
there allegations that some former mem-
bers of the intelligence community have
gone into the civilian community in
America, set up detective agencies or pa-
trol agencies or what have you, that are
still in some kind of network that would
allow this group, although not officially
on the payroll of the intelligence commu-
nity, who could act as a network trained
and capable to involve themselves in the
violation of constitutional rights, the
continued abuse of American citizens in
this country.
We need to know what is the "green-
light group" and what is their function
and what are the ramifications of that
group to our national security.
We need to know, for example, why
a young person employed by the CIA
could be arrested in possession of 100
pounds of heroin. That translates into
$3.5 million worth of death and destruc-
tion in the arms of many of our young
men and women throughout this coun-
try. The CIA can then go to the Justice
Department and say, "Do not prosecute
this person."
I any person in this Chamber were in
possession of 100 pounds of heroin, we
would not see the light of day.
The question is, is this a quid pro quo
or is this just one further abuse of em-
ployment in the CIA?
We need to know, for example how
many wholly owned CIA proprietorships
there are on the stockmarkets of
America.
We need to know who are the direc-
tors of these various corporations. We
need to know the nature of their politi-
cal and economic influence in the com-
mittee: Have they ever contributed to po-
litical campaigns? If so, what are the
ramifications? What happens to the
profits of these wholly-owned CIA pro-
prietary corporations when the law, the
Constitution, says that the Congress
shall authorize and appropriate funds?
Did these funds go to finance such things
as secret wars in Lao;; and Cambodia, to
violate the rights of human beings in
this country? We need to know; that is
our responsibility.
With regard to the FBI, what about
the counter-intelligence program with
eight different projects. Many of us in
this room do not know the function of
one of those projects. We need to know
all eight. We need to understand the
ramifications so that we can take ap-
propriatecorrective action.
It has been alleged that every single
telephone, telegram, Telex communica-
tion between this country and foreign
countries is monitored by some intelli-
gence agency. The enormous ramifica-
tions of that statement are shocking to
me. We need to understand that. We
need to know whether this is true. We
need to be able to take corrective action.
We now know that the IRS paid people
to peep through keyholes of American
citizens to determine their sexual ac-
tivity. How many of us in this House
would like to have their keyholes
peeped?
Mr. Chairman, I interject a slight bit
of humor into this debate which, prob-
ably through the next few hours, would
not be very humorous, but not because
the issue is frivolous. The issue is im-
portant and critical. We have a consti-
tutional responsibility. I would recom-
mend that we strike down this amend-
ment. It would seem to me that if the
House of Representatives passed an
amendment to abolish the investigation,
the American people would - have the
right to call for our 'Impeachment.
Mr. Chairman, I urge that We strike
down this resoution.
Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I merely wanted to ask
the previous speaker, if he would stay
near it microphone, what is it his com-
mittee has done in the last 5 months on
these vital questions that he raises?
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I can
say to the gentleman that the over-
whelming majority of the members of
the committee have been diligent in their
efforts to try to resolve these various
questions. As the gentleman is aware, a
so-called impasse has been reached on
this committee. My interpretation of that
impasse is not that the members of the
committee, nine of us, are not willing to
go into this matter on today, tomorrow
or yesterday.
But, what we are confronted with is a
chairperson who decided for various and
sundry reasons that he could not chair.
He offered his resignation on the floor
of the House. The House worked its will.
I voted to receive the gentleman's resig-
nation. The majority of the members
voted not to do so. So, we have a chair-
person who wanted to resign. The House
did not allow that.
He is not chairing the meetings. be-
cause he does not want to be the chair-
man, and I respect the gentleman's
right to make that decision. We now are
confronted with a committee that can-
not function. That is no reflection on the
nine members of the committee. We
want very desperately to engage .in the
pursuit of these questions and to make a
report and submit recommendations by
January.
Mr. ASHBROOK. Would it be fair to
say to the gentleman from California
that he took a long way of saying "No"
in answer to my question? Nothing has
been done?
Mr. DELLUMS. That is not true.
Mr. ASHBROOK. The total output of
the committee, the total result of the
committee, the total hearings of the com-
mittee, the total recommendations of the
committee add up to zero. Is that not
correct?
Mr. DELLUMS. The day the committee
called Mr. Colby, our first witness, before
the committee, I would suggest to the
gentleman that the persons on the other
side of the aisle did not come to the
meeting. The majority of the Democrats
were there, prepared to go forward in the
pursuit of the investigation of the In-
telligence Committee. The three members
of the gentleman's party did not come.
He has to answer that question of why
that action.
Mr. ASHBROOK. It still adds up to the
fact that as far as the total action of
the committee in response to the man-
date of the House earlier this year, the
answer is nothing, zero, absolutely
nothing. Is that not correct?
Mr. DELLUMS. If the gentleman wants
to ask a question and answer it for him-
self, then he can go forward and do it
I have tried to answer the gentleman's
question to the best of my ability.
Mr. ASHBROOK. What I sought to
get from the gentleman from California
was that although he raised many seri-
ous questions-many of which I think
ought to be answered also-my question
was : How many of these questions have
been answered? or even studied? What
has been the total sum output of that
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R0012000'30011-7
July 16, 1975 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
committee in the preceding 5 months? I
think the answer is zero.
Mr. DELLUMS. The committee has
not functioned, and that is a reflection
on the issue I have already laid out. We
have a committee which will not func-
tion. If the meetings would have been
called, we would have been far down
the road, and we would not be on the
floor of the House debating 'this ques-
tion today.
Mr. ASHBROOK. There is one prin-
ciple that I have learned as one who
has been around the House for a num-
ber of years and, having been a minor-
ity Member during that time, I under-
stand it. My learned friend, the gentle-
man from Missouri (Mr. BOLLING),
said on a number of occasions, which is
absolutely correct,-that there is no pos-
sible way in this body the will of the
majority can be thwarted. So if there is
a majority on that committee, it could
not be thwarted. That is one thing I
understand. If a majority of this House
and if a majority of this committee ever
really wants something, it can be accom-
plished. So I guess the answer to the
question I put to the gentleman from
California is that the majority evidently
did not want anything because they did
not accomplish anything in these pre-
ceding 5 months.
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ASHBROOK. I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. BAUMAN. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the
gentleman from California (Mr. DEL-
LUMS) a question, if he is still with us,
and I see he is.
Quite obviously, I will say to the gen-
tleman from California, the chairman
of the existing committee to investigate
these matters, the gentleman from Mich-
igan (Mr. NEnzI), acted in a manner that
displeased a number of the members of
the gentleman's committee. If the gen-
tleman from New York (Mr. PIKE) is, as
rumored, named by the Speaker as the
chairman of this committee and he too
acts in a manner that the gentleman
from California finds disagreeable, will
the gentleman's personal attitude be the
same? Will the gentleman's conduct be
the same as it was toward the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. NEDZI), regardless
of. the. impact it has on the committee's
activities?.
Mr. DELLUMS. Yes.
Mr. BAUMAN. The answer is "Yes"?
Mr. DELLUMS. I think that is an ab-
surd question. Someone said, "Do not
dignify the question with an answer,"
but I will answer it.
Mr. BAUMAN. I would be pleased if
the gentleman will dignify the question
with an answer because the gentleman is
always dignified.
Mr. DELLUMS. I thank the gentle-
man. I would say to my colleague that
I try to operate within the framework
of this House with integrity. If the
chairperson, whoever that person is, op-
erates in such a manner that my judg-
ment allows me to believe that that deed
or action or ipaction violates the con-
fidence of the committee or violates the
confidence of the House, yes, I would act
in the same manner. I would not pre-
judge the gentleman. The gentleman
who may very well be the chairman of
the committee is a friend of mine. We
do not always agree. There will be times
when he and I will fight, but as long as
that fight is open and honest, as long as
it is not a question of credibility, as long
as it is not a question of integrity, I will,
defend the gentleman.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ASHBROOK. I yield to the gentle-
man from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the
gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, in listening very closely
to the debate of the gentleman from
California (Mr. DELLUMS), several
thoughts come to my mind, most of
which I intend to keep to myself at least
for the present, but one very important
thought I should speak out on is this:
I do not think that the American people
believe a person should be immune from
prosecution or surveillance if that per-
son is a threat to the security of this
Nation or that a person who is a threat
to the security of this Nation should be
immune from prosecution and surveil-
lance just because he might be a Mem-
ber of the U.S. Congress.
Mr. ASHBROOK. I would say that is
correct. I think there is a fiction devel-
oping today that the will of the majority
has been thwarted. One thing I have
learned in this House, whether I agree -
with it or not, is that when the majority
wants something, they can get it. The
majority wanted to abolish the Internal
Security Committee and it did. The ma-
jority on the CIA oversight committee
could not possibly have been thwarted
had they expressed a will, and I think
this fiction should be answered at this
point.
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, I.
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. STRATTON asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise
somewhat reluctantly to support the
amendment of the gentleman from Ten-
nessee (Mr. QUILLEN). This is a difficult
decision to make. The theoretical and
philosophical reasons in support of this
resolution were eloquently outlined by
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
BOLLING) the other evening, and there is
a great deal of merit to them.
But unfortunately what we are con-
fronted with here is a condition 'and not
a theory. It is not a question of the
theory of the House or the theory of our
committees; it is a question of the par-
ticular committee that we are confronted
with and the particular intelligence sit-
uation that we confront.
I believe the best solution is to abolish
the committee. I say this not because I
do not believe the House has a respon-
sibility here. Certainly the House has a
responsibility, just as the Senate has a
responsibility. But I think the main re-
spons)bility today is not to plow over the
old investigative ground that has already
been plowed by the Rockefeller commis-
H 6869
Sion and the Church committee, and in
a rather responsible way too, I might say.
There is a more important responsibil-
ity, and that is to try to set up some of
the rules for future oversight procedures
of intelligence organizations in this
country by the Congress so they can be
effective and yet at the same time not
destroy our operating intelligence orga-
nizations.
But is that really going to happen from
this new committee? I think it is quite
clear that it is not going to happen. In-
vestigations have a great appeal, and I
dare say that once this committee gets
reconstituted, the temptations to look
into all the aspects the gentleman from
California (Mr. DELLUMS) has just out-
lined, with what he calls some humor, I
think, are going to be irresistible.
Mr. Chairman, let us recognize that we
simply cannot keep the intelligence or-
ganizations of the country on the front
page and detail one exploit after an-
other without doing severe damage to
the effectiveness of those intelligence or-
ganizations.
We have already reached the absurd
when the allegation is made that the
CIA in the Nixon administration infil-
trated the White House, although at the
very same time we have been making
the allegation that President Nixon was
running the CIA for his own purposes.
No, the important thing today is to get
on with what are really the serious and
responsible jobs that have to be done to
determine whether a democracy can in-
deed operate an effective and alert intel-
ligence operation.
I have very great confidence in the gen-
tleman from New York (Mr. PIKE), who
is rumored to become the chairman of
this new committee, but I think the gen-
tleman from Maryland (Mr. BAUMAN)
has put his finger on the real problem.
As outstanding as the gentleman from
New York (Mr. PIKE) Is, can he really
do a better job than the gentleman frdm
Michigan (Mr. NEDzI) did if he is going
to be faced with members of the com-
mittee who continue to believe they have
a higher right than the resolutions, the
rules of the House, and the requirements
of classification, so that they may, there-
fore, put anything they want to in the
newspapers? Of course, we cannot run
a responsible intelligence investigation
with that kind of thinking.
The gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
BOLLING) mentioned this problem the
other night when he said that he believed
we need an Official Secrets Act. Of course
we do. But the gentleman, I think, well
knew-rand perhaps that was the reason
he declined to yield to me at the time-
that we are not going to get any Official
Secrets Act recommended by this com-
mittee or probably even by this Congress.
So I am afraid that what is going to
happen is that this committee, if it is
reconstituted by the resolution before us,
and if it gets into all the matters the gen-
tleman from California (Mr. DELLUMS)
referred to a moment ago, will be in
operation down to December '31, 1976,
and still without any positive recom-
mendations.
What we need most are recommenda-
tions as to how we can have responsible
control over intelligence in a free, demo-
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
 H 6870
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE July 16, 1975
cratic society; how we can maintain the
basic secrecy that is essential; how we
can find out what the potential enemy
is up to with a minimum interference
with individual rights. Let us not just
continue to hash over the lurid past.
So I believe we ought to abolish this
commitee, and we ought seriously -to
consider the recommendation of the gen-
tleman from Illinois (Mr. ANDERSON)
that instead we set up some kind of new
organization to concentrate on these
important issues of the future.
After all, if we really believe in detente,
if we really believe in peace, then it is
imperative that we keep an effective in-
telligence organization. That is the early
warning system of our country.
And how else can we enforce the SALT
and other agreements we seek to enter
into in the name of peace if we do not
know with accuracy what the other side
is doing?
Mr. YOUNG of Georgia. Mr. Chairman,
I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. YOUNG of Georgia asked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Georgia, Mr. Chair-
man, I think that we have to vote this
amendment down and get on with the
investigation of our intelligence-gather-
ing apparatus in this Nation.
We are getting a strange mixture of
truth and fiction, and I would just like
to take a minute to try to set the record
straight. The important leaks that any-
body has read in the papers have come
from members of this committee.
The allegations against one of the
members of this committee did not occur
in the context of this committee at all.
Nor did they occur in this Congress. The
reported leaking of information to the
press on the CIA's involvement in Chile
occurred in the last Congress, almost a
year ago. We had heard nothing about
it in that Congress. There was no at-
tempt on the part of the Committee on
Ethics in -the past Congress to do any-
things about it. Now, at this time, we find
a merging of incidents which have oc-
curred over a year in an attempt to
malign the intentions and credibility of
a committee that I think was attempting
to do a job that is very much needed.
One other thing, if we read the papers
carefully over the last few months, the
majority of the so-called leaks about our
intelligence-gathering apparatus have
come from the directors of those agen-
cies themselves. They have not come
from congressional staff, either on the
House side or on the Senate side.
The release on yesterday that the FBI
had engaged in illegal break-ins came
from the Director of the FBI.
Mr. Chairman, I think what we see
here, both from the FBI and from the
Central Intelligence Agency, is an at-
tempt on the part of those agencies to
let the Congress know that they know
that they need some supervision and.
of this Nation invaluable to our national
security. At that time we heard no com-
plaints about the things that they were
doing or the manner in which they were
doing them because, in fact, they were
dealing with an intelligence apparatus
in the Soviet Union which was 10 times
larger than ours, so I hear. The very fact
that there was that kind of serious pp-
position kept our intelligence apparatus
in some kind of legitimate perspective.
When we have our intelligence ap-
paratus operating in a country like
Chile, I suggest that we get another thing
altogether. When we have our intelli-
gence apparatus operating in Laos and
Cambodia and Vietiaam, I suggest we get
some gray areas that need to be defined
morally, and that the civil servants in
any of our agencies are not the ones
charged by the American people to do
that definition. That definition has to
come from the Congress of the United
States.
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that
we are going to continue to get leaks
from the agencies themselves. We have
had at least three former CIA agents
and at least two former FBI agents, that
I know of, who have written books on the
agencies. The allegations and revelations
in those books are going to continue to
come forward to the American people,
and the American people are going to
look to their -elected representatives and
say: "Why did you let this go on? Is
this going on? It is your responsibility.
We want intelligence, but we do not want
dirty tricks."
Mr. Chairman, I think that unless we
have a responsible committee going on
with this kind of investigation, we are
going to find ourselves being blamed for
all of those things that have gone on in
the years before. I see, as I say again,
the intelligence community crying out to
us for leadership.
We had a situation not far from my
district, where a gentleman was run-
ning guns, not against a Communist
country or even against a country about
to become Communist, but against the
little Republic of the Bahamas. Nobody
was willing to bother him, in terms of
the local police apparatus, because
everybody in the local police in Georgia
knew that he was sort of a CIA subcon-
tractor and that he had been selling
arms all over Latin America, presum-
ably with CIA suggestion and clearance.
Now, what is to stop him from decid-
ing where this country gets involved? I
suggest that one cannot. let any Georgia
gunrunner determine the foreign policy
of the United States. That is what we
have got going on now, not the CIA be-
ing responsible, but about two or three
steps removed from the CIA. Most of the
things we are reading about in terms of
assassination and everything else were
two or three steps removed, from the
CIA.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. YOUNG
of Georgia was allowed to proceed for 1
1950's or 1960's, in the 1960's, when we Mr. YOUNG of Georgia. Mr. Chair-
were engaged in things like the Cuban man, because one cannot do the kind of
missile crisis and the blockade of Berlin, things that have been handled by de-
when we found the intelligence apparatus cent men without separating oneself
from the chain of command, what we
in the Congress have got to do is to
establish a chain of command which
makes us, as the Congress, responsible
for the intelligence activities of this Na-
tion, and which holds the people that we
employ through the CIA and any per-
sons that they contract with, directly
responsible, because that kind of a net-
work does not exist, and it will not exist
unless this Congress sets it up.
I hope we will vote down this amend-
ment, and go on with the investigation.
Mr. BOLLING. Mr. Chairman, I seek
to establish a time to vote on the amend-
ment.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con-
sent that all debate on this amendment
and all amendments thereto close in 15
minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Mis-
souri?
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Chairman, we have
several Members on this side who desire
to speak, which I would hope.the Chair-
man would recognize. But since the
Chairman has just recognized two Mem-
bers from the other side, I think we are
entitled to equal time. Therefore I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. STEIGER of Arizona. Mr. Chair-
man, I move to strike the requisite num-
ber of words.
(Mr. STEIGER of Arizona asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. STEIGER of Arizona. Mr. Chair-
man, I have listened to this debate in-
tending not to support the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Tennessee
(Mr. QUILLEN), and I can tell the Mem-
bers that in my relatively brief tenure of
9 years here this is the first time that
I can remember being completely turned
around and persuaded to support the
amendment offered by the gentleman
from Tennessee.
Why? Because of the testimony I have
heard here in the well by those who would
urge defeat of the amendment.
It is clear to me-and it must be clear,
if it is clear to me, then it must be clear
to everybody-the Members are a little
laggard this morning-it is clear to me
that the gentleman from California (Mr.
DELLUMS) has most eloquently stated
and given the prima facie laboratory ex-
ample of why this House must abandon
this particular effort. He has recited here
in the well every allegation that was ever
dreamed up against the CIA, or probably
ever will be. I think probably by the gen-
tleman's willingness to recite and give
credence to allegations which have been,
by the gentleman's own words, as yet to
be investigated, it seems to me to make
it clear that the members of this com-
mittee have no concern for the intelli-
gence community of this country. I guess
that is the reason we have the mecha-
nism we are putting into effect today
since these people are dealing apparently
by conscience, or desire for attention, or
whatever-and I will not presume to at-
tach a motive to it, it is clear that it is
the responsibility of the House to bring
them up short.
I would like to know from the Speak-
er, in the event the resolution offered
by the gentleman from Missouri is
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
 July 16, 1975 Approved For CORRell N~RESSIOONAL RECORD 771I O OUSER001200030011-7 H 6871
passed, what the membership of the
committee would be. But I suspect that
that is a question that. is not to be
answered before the vote, or one that
perhaps the Speaker is not prepared to
answer.
But I would submit that there is sim-
ply no question that even my good
friend, the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. YOUNG) for whom my undimin-
ished respect will stand, and my respect
for the gentleman will always remain
undiminished, but even that gentleman
has fallen into the trap of reciting al-
legations about some alleged CIA gun-
runner in the South.
It is this propensity to recite-with
whatever credibility the floor of the
House gives-this kind of garbage that
makes this committee unfit to continue
its investigatory capacity.
I submit to the Members that when
the gentleman from California (Mr.
DELLUMS) was in the process of reciting
his allegations, I was` very interested to
observe the press, particularly Mr.
Schorr, for whom I have a great deal of
feeling, I think would be a fair statement.
I nottced that Mr. Schorr could hardly
contain his pencil at that moment. I am
sure he found a great many new allega-
tions to recite.
The fact is that the CIA, whatever its
past, is a functioning, or used to be a
functioning entity of this Government.
The fact is that Mr. Colby has been up
on this Hill 39 times-that does not
count his appearances before the Rocke-
feller Commission-since this Congrss
convened, 41 percent of the time the
Congress has been in session.
I have the rare privilege of serving
on the committee chaired by the gen-
tlewoman from New York (Ms. ADZUG)-
and if one does not think that is a rare
privilege, I invite those who do not
share that privilege to join me on that
committee. The gentlewoman from New
York (Ms. AszuG) has had Mr. Colby up
before this august committee on two
occasions, mostly to declaim whatever
he was doing. In fact, his only purpose
vdas to declaim whatever he was doing.
The fact is the only way we are going
to resist this irresponsible kind of ef-
fort-which is exactly, unfortunately,
what this alleged investigation has
turned into-the only way we are going
to stop it, the only way we are going
to preserve whatever may be left of the
function of the CIA-and I know there
are people here who think the CIA ought
to be done away with. Let them do away
with it through proper legislative chan-
nels, not by slander, not by gossip, and
not by publicity.
I will tell my friends that really the
only protection that remains for the
CIA is to protect it from this House. The
only way to achieve that is to support
the gentleman from Tennessee-and I
tell the Members that with some reluc-
tance because I did believe that the
House ought to be able at least to ac-
cept the Anderson amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words.
(Mr. ICHORD asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, recog-
nizing that this is an issue upon which
reasonable minds can differ, I rise in
opposition to the amendment of the gen-
tleman from Tennessee and in defense of
the position of the gentleman from Mis-
souri (Mr. BOLLINO). I also rise in equal
opposition to the amendment that will
be proposed by the gentleman from Illi-
nois (Mr. ANDERSON) because I believe
for all practical purposes it presents the
same issue. For all practical purposes,
the Senate is not going to abandon an
ongoing investigation and substitute a
joint-House-Senate investigation. I am
equally opposed to the amendment that
will be presented by the gentlewoman
from New York as being completely
irrelevant.
Mr. Chairman, based upon a statement
that I have heard made on the floor
of this House and also off the floor of the
House, I am led to believe that there are
Members in this body who would abolish
the CIA or the FBI without further ado.
I am entirely convinced that there are
other Members in this.body who would
so severely restrict the FBI or the CIA
that they could not carry out their re-
sponsibilities in an effective but yet con-
stitutional manner.
Equally I am led to believe, Mr. Chair-
man, that there are Members in this
body, based upon the same observation,
who believe that extremism in the de-
fense of. liberty is not a vice. No such
Members should be permitted tp serve on
this committee. If there are Members
who may be afflicted with or could be-
come afflicted with "mikei'tis" or "cam-
eraitis" or "publicityitis," those Mem-
bers should not serve on this committee.
Mr. Chairman, the question before this
House is: Will the House carry out can
the House carry out its responsibilities?
Much of, the debate today and much
of the debate Monday was based upon
personalities. I am not going to get in-
volved in the argument whether the com-
mittee should be increased, whether
present members should continue to
serve, or whether certain members
should be removed. That is a question,
that is a responsibility for this House
to carry out through its leadership.
The sole question, as so eloquently put
by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
BOLLING), is: Is the House capable of
forming a committee to investigate and
make recommendations concerning the
reorganization of our intelligence and
security agencies?
Mr. Chairman, the responsibility of
this House is to legislate, to investigate,
and to conduct oversight activities. We
should carry out those responsibilities. A
great deal of legislation is going to come
before the House this session concerning
the FBI and the CIA and I submit that
the House should not deprive itself of its
power to investigate and to be equally
informed as the Senate upon these mat-
ters that will come before the House.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ICHORD. I yield to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. ANDERSON).
Mr.. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr. Chair-
man, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I asked the gentleman to yield because
I respectfully suggest he misapprehends
the provisions of the substitute resolu-
tion I intend to offer.' It would not be
necessary for the Senate to either aban-
don its present investigation or to adopt
a similar resolution before the House
members of a joint committee could be
immediately appointed by the Speaker
and suggested by the minority leader
and they could take up the unfinished
work of the select committee.
Mr. ICHORD. Does the gentleman feel
the Senate will abandon its ongoing in-
vestigation and set up a joint investiga-
tion? If the gentleman can assure me
that the ongoing investigations will con-
tinue, his idea does have merit. I cannot
believe the Senate will abolish its pres-
ent committee.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. It will not
be necessary for the Senate to do so un-
der the provisions of my substitute res-
gentleman yield?
Mr. ICHORD. I yield to the gentleman
from Tennessee.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Chairman, the gen-
tleman makes a very impressive talk in
favor of my amendment.
Mr. ICHORD. I cannot understand
that.
Mr. QUILLEN. I said the committee
should be abolished and then in due
process this House should come up with
a permanent committee for the over-
sight of all of the intelligence agencies
and go forward in that respect.
Mr. ICHORD. As I understand the
resolution of the gentleman from Mis-
souri it does abolish the present commit-
tee. We should not be talking about
whether present members will continue
to serve or whether one member should
be kicked off, or all the present member-
ship wip be terminated. This in effect
would abolish the present committee and
provide for formation of a new commit-
tee.
Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ICHORD. I yield to the gentleman
from Illinois.
Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman for yielding.
I concur with the statement of the
gentleman from Missouri. I think it is an
important function for this committee
to protect these intelligence agencies
while we study the abuses and the ille-
galities of the actions alleged.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from Missouri has expired.
(On request of Mr, SNYDER, and by
unanimous consent, Mr. IcHORD was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional min-
ute.)
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ICHORD. I yield to the gentleman
from Kentucky.
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I want
to ask the gentleman one question. What
jurisdiction would this new committee
have that is not now invested in either
the Government Operations Committee
or the Armed Services Committee or an-
other committee of the House?
Mr. ICHORD. I would state to the gen-
tleman from Kentucky, there is residual
jurisdiction over these matters in sev-
eral standing committees of the House,
but I do think under the circumstances
since we are going to have so much leg-
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
 ,H 6872
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE July 16, 1975
Islation dealing with the FBI and deal-
ing with the CIA that we are justified in
setting up a separate investigatory com-
mittee in this case.
I would prefer a joint committee, as the
gentleman from Illinois -is recommend-
ing, if I thought that would be possible;
but I think it Is not practical to believe
that the Senate Is going to abandon its
ongoing investigation and set up a joint
committee.
Mr. SNYDER. But the jurisdiction does
vest In the other committee, if they have
the time.
Mr. ICHORD. That is quite true.
Mr. BEARD of Tennessee. Mr. Chair-
man, I move to strike the requisite num-
ber of words.
(Mr. BEARD of Tennessee asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. BEARD of Tennessee. Mr. Chair-
man, I rise in support of the amendment
of my colleague, the gentleman from
Tennessee. I had not planned on taking'
the floor on this particular amendment,
but I felt it necessary as a result of re-
marks made by my colleague, the gentle-
man from Georgia.
I get a little upset and concerned when
I continue to hear statements being made
regarding the formal complaint that I
have made against my colleague, the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
HARRINGTON) to the Ethics Committee,
that this is part of a conspiracy or part
of an effort to disclaim the CIA Commit-
tee. I want to reassure or assure this
House for the first time that this is-no
part of a conspiracy, nor am I here to
stand and defend all the- actions of the
CIA, because I think that some of them
are Indefensible.
The point of the matter is that the
rules of the House were violated in this
particular case. This may seem out of
bounds in regard to the debate we are
having today, but I think it is very perti-
nent to the debate we are having as to
the make-up of the committee, as to the
direction of the restrictions the commit-
tee is going to operate under.
I think as a - result of my charges
against my colleague, the gentleman
from Massachusetts, we will now have
to face up to reality as to what will be
our responsibilities. I have heard that
our responsibilities were felt to be higher
than the rules of the House. I can ap-
preciate this, but by the same token, as
I have mentioned in the past, this is the
same type of philosophy that was pro-
jected by the "Plumbers Group," Halde-
man and Ehrlichman and the rest of
them. I find this unacceptable.
Now we are talking about creating
another committee. In the appointment
of the members of this committee, where
do we draw the line? Do we appoint
Members to the committee who have
stated they are against all covert activi-
ties, that they feel, as my colleague, the
gentleman from California, has stated
in defense of my colleague, the gentle-
man from Massachusetts, that it was his
right or responsibility as a Member of
Congress to make this ultimate decision
to violate the rules of the House or not?
What happens in our discussions of this
committee or in the testimony taken by
this new committee, if it is created at
this time? What happens when these
decisions are made by individual Mem-
bers that this is against the law, this
is criminal, and then take It upon them-
selves to relate it for public consump-
tion? What do we do then?
I think the way to go would be to
let us before we-create another commit-
tee establish guidelines. Let us have the
Ethics Committee establish the guide-
lines as a result of my formal complaint.
Let us face the issue head-on.
We are not just talking about the CIA.
We are talking about possible top secret
material that may be taken regarding
missile locations and someone who feels
this is bad and against the law, that it
would kill people, say, "I feel responsible
and have a responsibility to a higher
authority, that I should release this."
I feel a major problem today is that
we need to establish guidelines to the
members of the new committee, or what-
ever this committee is that is established,
as to what and how we are going to op-
erate. I do not think that is so unreason-
able. We had better all. be thinking about
our responsibility and what our reactions
are going to be if this complaint is
brought from the Ethics Committee to
the House floor, because it is a very real
possibility and it is one we are going to
have to face up to, not just today, not
just to a specific individual, whom I
have nothing against; but the fact Con-
gress needs to face this reality. How are
we going of operate, because if we have
435 Members of Congress representing
the most diversified constituency in the
world, making decisions upon their pref-
erence, upon what Is right or what is
wrong, with no respect or responsibility
to the House rules, then, gentleman and
ladies, we could have total anarchy.
So, 1: think we owe It to ourselves and
to our constituents and to the national
security of this country that we resolve
this question first before we get in-
volved in deciding whether we have a
committee of 10 members or 13 members
or 20 members, or no committee at all.
So, I say that now is not the time to
create another committee, but to re-
solve this first question of what guide-
lines we are going to operate under.
Mr. MOSS. I move to strike the neces-
sary number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I listened with con-
siderable dismay to the remarks just
made in this well by the gentleman from
Tennessee. There has been no violation
of the rules of this House by any per-
son who is a member of the committee
which is the subject of controversy. If
there had been, conceding for purposes
of debate only, a violation, it was a vio-
lation of the 93d Congress and not the
94th. I: think that should be borne clear-
ly in mind.
The rules do not carry over. We do not
bind by the action of the previous Con-
gress, nor are we answerable to a suc-
ceeding Congress for the role we may
have played as Members, because we are
elected here: in this House for one Con-
gress at a time. We do not continue until
someone qualifies to succeed us. We are
elected for 2 years, and 2 years only.
And, this Congress sits for 2 years, and
2 years only. And, its rules operate for 2
years, and 2 years only.
The other body operates on the theory
of being a continuing body. We do not.
We have no such illusions as to our role.
This is the 94th Congress of the United
States. It started on the third day of Jan-
uary; it adopted its rules; it elected its
committees and its Members then be-
came answerable to the 94th Congress.
If they breach the rules, if they violate
in any manner the requirements of mem-
bership here, then they are answerable
to this House.
But, for what I did in the 93d Con-
gress, or for what I did in the 92d or 91st
or 83d Congress, I will be damned,if I will
answer to you, sir, or to any other Mem-
ber of this House, and make no mistake
about It.
Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MOSS. I yield to the gentleman
from Illinois.
Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman for yielding. I do not want
to get Into the subject that the gentle-
man appears to be discussing, but I do
want to point out that in the resolution
which Is being offered by the gentleman
from Missouri, there are specific provi-
sions in section 6, with regard to con-
fidentiality and secrecy by the members
of the-committee.
Mr. MOSS. I do not challenge the
right of this House to impose any kind
of a rule a majority determines is neces-
sary or desirable.
Mr. McCLORY. I think It should be
pointed out that we will endeavor in the
working of the committee to maintain
confidential and secrecy within the com-
mittee.
Mr. MOSS. The gentleman from Illi-
nois is a very competent lawyer and a
very competent parliamentarian, and he
knows that that is an act of the 94th
Congress. I have stated that I would be
bound by any act of the 94th Congress,
but I will not be bound by actions of
the 93rd Congress.
Mr. McCLORY. I did not want to get
into a discussion of what the gentleman
is talking about, but only to point out
that in this legislation that we are con-
sidering provision is made for confiden-
tiality of material received.
Mr. MOSS. I recognize that, but again
I point out that it is the 94th Congress,
the one we are Members of now.
Mr. BEARD of Tennessee. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOSS. Yes, I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. BEARD of Tennessee. Mr. Chair-
man, I have a feeling that the gentle-
man was referring to n' statements.
Mr. MOSS. I hope it was not a feeling.
I tried to be very specific that I was re-
ferring to the gentleman's statements.
Mr. BEARD of Tennessee. I was quite
shocked at the language but, with no ref-
erence to that, let me just state that I
think, in regard to the gentleman's
statement, the gentleman may not have
to report to me, and I think the gentle-
man's statement represents the abso-
lutely total hypocrisy that is projected
by some Members of this House.
Mr. MOSS. I will not yield to the gen-
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
 July 16, 1975Approved For Cc~lv E U.RESSIONAL RECORD?MHOUSE001200030011-7
H,6873
tleman any longer. I will, not yield to the Mr. STEIGER of Arizona. I object. ture of a substitute offered by my good
gentleman. In fact, it is only because of The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard. friend, the gentleman from Tennessee
the rules that I so referred to the Mem- Mr. PEYSER. Mr. Chairman, I will (Mr. QUILLEN).
ber who has just spoken. yield for 1 minute tb the gentleman from The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, will New York (Mr. STRATTON), and I will still tleman from New York (Mr. PEYSER) has
the gentleman yield? ask for an extension of time. expired.
Mr. MOSS. Yes, I yield to the gentle- Mr. STRATTON. I appreciate the gen- (On request of Mr. HALEY and by
man. tleman's yielding his brief time. unanimous consent, Mr. PEYSER was al-
Mr. STRATTON. I thank the gentle- Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to lowed to proceed for 3 additional min-
man for yielding, point out that the statement has been utes.)
The gentleman said there has been no made twice this morning that no mem- Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, will
violation by members of the committee ber of the present committee has ever the gentleman yield?
in the 94th Congress. I think we ought leaked an Mr. PEYSER. I yield to the gentleman
to set the record straight. any information. The information
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. JAMES which the gentleman from Ohio gave to from Illinois.
V. STANTON) made a public announce- the press was clearly information re- Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, I thank
ment with regard to assassinations, and ceived in executive session in the 94th the gentleman for yielding.
two other gentlemen on the committee, Congress. As far as the former Governor I just wantof say in defense of the
Mr. DELLUms and Mr. KASTEN, I believe, of New York State, the present Vice Vice President of the United States that
just a week ago announced the infiltra- President of the United States, is con- I think his statements were clear. I do
tion of the White House by the CIA. cerned, he is not of course a Member of not believe he made the charges which
That information was taken in executive the House of Representatives are attributed to him, and I think this
session and under the rules of the House Mr. JAMES V. STANTON. I never was an erroneous interpretation. I think
cannot be released publicly. said I received that information in ex- his statements should stand for them-
Mr. MOSS. I am not willing yet to ecutive session, and let that be put in selves, not the interpretations that were
concede that there has been a violation the record. The gentleman from New put on his statements in earlier remarks
of the rules of this House. I stand on my York (Mr. STRATTON) does not attribute here today.
previous statements! it to me, either. Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Chairman, will the
Mr. PEYSER. Mr. Chairman, I move Mr. PEYSER. I thank the two gentle- gentleman yield?
to strike the last word. men for their comments. Mr. PEYSER. I yield to the gentleman
(Mr. PEYSER asked and was given I would like to say that I took the from Tennessee.
permission to revise and extend his floor of the House at this time because Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Chairman, con-
remarks.) I am still uncertain as to how I am going cerning the point that the gentleman has
Ma. JAMES V. STANTON. Mr. Chair- to ultimately vote on the issue, whether made that he thinks this committee
n om New York it is the Bolling resolution or the Ander- should act and do some investigation of
man, will the ge STAN
yield to me? son substitute. the CIA, does the gentleman recall that
Mr. PEYSER. Yes, I will yield for a I listened to the debate until nearly the Rockefeller Commission made a
moment. 10 o'clock the other evening, and I am thorough investigation of the CIA and
Mr. JAMES V. STANTON. I thank the going to stay on the floor so that I may has reported? And that committee was
geMr. JA for STANTON. to the rest of the debate today. headed by the gentleman's former Gov-
eman yielding.
I would like to state However, I do think that we in this ernor, who is at this time our Vice Presi-
Mr. . Chairman,
gentleman from New York state have a real obligation in this dent. Does the gentleman know that the
ST crusade in at the has made a New York the particular matter. Church committee is now underway in
th
loca I have been and am a supporter of the investigating the activities of the CIA,
l papers in Cleveland, Ohio, of CIA and its worldwide intelligence- both domestically and internationally?
attacking me for what he alleges to be gathering capabilities. My amendment would abolish the com-
a statement in which I said that the I have certainly
CIA was a party to an assassination. been a strong supporter, and continue mittee, but it would give the House time
did not a pr t any npeople or to be, of a strong defense for this coun- _to come up with what is needed so that
I dids. And the fact names,
the matter is try. However, I feel that I do not want we can then go forward with the crea-
places. been aI stand on to be part of a coverup of what may be- tion of a permanent committee.
that, having
n, and I attacked,
nyield from that and I stress "may be"-a coverup of the Mr. PEYSER. Mr. Chairman, I appre-
my positemeno do not t domestic activities of the CIA. ciate the gentleman's remarks. Obvious-
honement But act or tillegal hat Is no
act or less s a a dis- It is for this reason that I feel a com- ly I am well aware that the Vice Presi-
o f the le rules of this House. a violation should remain in existence, and dent and the Commission did submit a
was mentioned, but I Hdid seNo party
happen to see that a committee that is going to be report, but I believe very firmly that the
the Vice President of the United studying the operations of the CIA Vice President's report in no way in-
that ates, a MT. ice President did allege or did domestically in this country is of the ut- ferred that was the ultimate end of the
make reference to a former , id a eg President most importance. investigation of the CIA. I think in fact
and a former Attorney rneral by silent I do not see how we in this House can the Vice President would be among the a statement on a orn y telrl by say we have had enough of the CIA. in- first to support the position that there
gram, and I do nnational ot see the gentleman siopro- vestigations when in reality we have not would be perfectly logical grounds for
rom New York gtup and berating had any. I am very critical of this com- the House Of Representatives to conduct
fro VNe President e getting i the UStates, mittee for its lack of action over the an investigation, which we have not as
and I co Pot think of i the United te last 4 or 5 months. I am not going to yet had.
of the judgment of the secrets captive get into an argument about whose fault That is all I am saying, that any vote,
Congress of the United States. that was or whether the committee and particularly by my colleagues on the
Mr. PEYSER. I thank the gentleman wanted to act or did not want to act. Republican side, that would say we do
and, just so the record will be ntleman The net result is that we are here on the not want to know any more about what
and, being two gentlemen from straight, New floor of the House today because the has happened here, that we know
York here, the gentleman lfrom Ohio committee did not give us any informa- enough, I think, would be a mistake.
or. JAMES the Nwas referring tion concerning the CIA. Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members to ON) (M r. gentleman from New York (Mr.
I think it is time we take some posi- vote to defeat this amendment in the
STRATTON). tive action, and the positive action is nature of a substitute, and then we can
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask going to be to support a measure-and make up our own minds on the way we
unanimous TTOnt that the as I say, I am not prepared to say which want to continue with this, whether we
gentleman one I will support at this time-that will want to accept the Anderson amendment
from New York (Mr. PEYSER) be per- guarantee a continuance or a start by the or the Bolling resolution or something
mitted to proceed for 3 additional min- House of Representatives of the investi- that is ongoing.
utes. - gation of the domestic activities of the Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, will the
The CHAIRMAN, Is there obection to CIA. gentleman yield?
the request of the gentleman from New Mr. Chairman, I will, therefore, urge Mr. PEYSER. Yes, I yield to the gen-
York (Mr. STRATTON) ? the defeat of the amendment in the na- tleman from Illinois.
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
 H 6874
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
1975
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE July 16,
Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, I want Tennessee (Mr. QUILLEN) that there is answered "present" 2, not voting 17, as
to commend the gentleman from New ample room for the House to do this. follows:
let us rise [Roll No. 390]
Mr
.
Chairman
Therefore
,
,
PEYSER) on his position
k (Mr
Y
.
or
. I want to state further that if we were above a discussion of personalities, and
to adopt the Quillen amendment, we let us recognize that we were mandated
wouiu vu Clauun cIsilis uua avic a==u u= __ - -
tire job in this important area and saying investigation of our Intelligence com-
that we have no business being in it or nlunity..
that it belongs in a Presidential commis- We are faced with abolishing the pres-
sion or it belongs over in the Senate. ent Select Committee on Intelligence and
We do have a legitimate role here and creating a new one, albeit with 13 mem-
we can fulfill it. bers rather than 10. Of course, the ques-
Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentle- tion is going to arise with respect to the
man for his very forthright position. makeup of the membership of the com-
Mr. PEYSER. Mr. Chairman, I thank mittee. Why? Although some members
the gentleman for his comments. may want off' for their own personal rea-
(By unanimous consent, Mr. DENT was sons, it is suggested that an effort is be-
allowed to speak out of order.) ing made to force off of the committee
ALL CONGRESSIONAL CONTESTS NOW RESOLVED some members who do not want of.
There are other suggestions that an en-
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I asked for largement of the committee would be for
this time, for just 30 seconds, to an-
flounce that all of the contests against the purpose of changing the character of
the committee or broadening the respon-
Members of Congress as a result of the sibilities, whatever they may be.
last election have been resolved by our decide on the issues, but let us
committee, and all present Members of Let us
Congress are seated permanently. not get into the business of accusing
members of attributing bad motives with
I move
,
Chairman
Mr
.
GIAIMO
.
M
r.
he pur-
t
to the intentions and
ect
s
.
gg
oy
,
en
de Is Garza
. Derwinski Lott Walsh
p
to strike the requisite number of words. re
(Mr. GIAIMO asked and was given per- poses of members' activities. Devine McDonald Wampler
Mr. Chairman, let us rise above that. Dickinson McEwen Whitehurat
mission to revise and extend his re- Let us say no to this amendment. Duncan, Oreg. Martin Wiggins
marks.) Duncan, Tenn. Mathis Wilson, Bob
Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in Let us either keep in existence the Edwards, Ala. Michel Winn
present select committee or, if we will, Fithian Miller, Ohio Wydler
opposition to the amendment of the gen- create a new one, but let us get on with Florio Mitchell, N.Y. Wylie
tleman from Tennessee (Mr. QUILLEN). submit to the Members there Flynt Montgomery Young, Alaska
I urge the House to let us get on with the job. I Forsythe Moore Young, Fla.
our business, and let us not lose sight of is a need for a job to be done in this Frey Moorhead, Young, Tex.
Goodling Calif.
the very here important decision to be made area. For 25 years, since! the end of World NOES-293
he today. War III, it has been impossible for Mem-
If we get into the personalities of in- Abzug Cotter Hamilton
dividual Members, we could go on and bers and for the public to look into the Adams Coughlin Hanley
activities of the CIA, the FBI, or any Addabbo D'Amours Hannaford
on ad infinitum, assessing blame and at- of the other intelligence agencies of the A ro Daniel, Dan Harkin.
tributing credit. Loose claims of viola- Anderson, Daniels, Nn. Harrington
tions, where violations may or may not U.S. Government. Fortuitously at this Calif. Danielson Harris
ey Hay ki Iona.
have taken place, should not be made. particular period in history, perhaps be- AAnndee on, c. Davis Dan Hs,
Let us stick to the issues and" keep this cause of the Watergate investigation- drs, Dellums Hays, Ohio
debate on a high level. if the Members will excuse my making N. Dak. Dent Hechler, W. Va.
reference to that, although I would sug- -Annunzio Derrick Heckler, Mass.
M Chairman, the eentefman's gest that some Members on the other Armstrong Diggs Hefner
amen ndment deserves to be defeated. Ashley Dingell Heinz
There is ample reason for continuing in- side of the aisle also opposed some of Aspin Dodd Heistoski
vestigations of the intelligence agencies those investigations---we now have the Badillo Downey Henderson
ability in this Congress to look into these Baldus Downing Hicks
of the United States. which were once sacred cows, Barrett Drinan Hightower
Those of us who have served in this agencies Baucus du Pont Hinshaw
body know the cast of characters. We and which, literally, we could not touch Beard, R.I. Early Holland
Bedell Eckhardt Holtzman
know the motivations of those who want before. Bennett Edgar Horton
investigations, of those who were shocked We now have this rare opportunity to Bergland Edwards, Calif. Howard
by the allegations which have come out look into them, to analyze them, to see Biaggi Ellberg Howe
if, in fact, they are infringing on the Blaster Emery Hughes
in e newspapers, of those who would have us destroy the intelligence agencies, rights of the American people. I submit Bingham English Hungate
Blanchard Erlenborn Tchord
and of those who would tolerate any- to the Members that we not lose this Blouin Each Jacobs
opportunity to continue the investiga- Boggs Eshleman Jeffords
which the thing intelligence
ho howeveerr, , that t tion. Boland Evans, Ind. Johnson, Calif.
might do. . I like e t to believe, eliev Bolling Evins, Tenn. Johnson, Cola.
the overwhelming majority of us are The CHAIRMAN. The time of the Bonker Fary Jones, Ala.
somewhere in the middle and that we gentleman has expired. Bowen Fascell Jones, N.C.
I move Brademas Fenwick Jordan
Chairman
Mr
.
,
.
ROLLING
M
.
r
Kast
Findley
n
Breaux
recognize the need for an FBI and the to strike the requisite number of words, Brinkley
Kaste
meier
Fish
While we recognize the need for in-
Let us vote on the Quillen amendment. Brooks Flood
telligence operations, we also know, as Brown, Mich. Flowers
experienced legislators and as students The CHAIRMAN. The question is on Burke, Calif. Foley
of history, that many dangerous things the amendment in the nature.of a sub- Burke, Fla. Ford, Mich.
can happen in secrecy. It is our duty in stitute offered by the gentleman from Burke, Mass. Ford, Tenn.
Tennessee (Mr. QUILLEN). Burlison, Mo. Fountain
the Congress, as Representatives, to ex- Burton, John Fraser
ercise to a much greater degree than we The question was taken; and the Burton, Phillip Frenzel
have to date the oversight function. Chairman announced that the noes Carney ey Gayd s
Mr. Chairman, i want an intelligence- appeared to have it. Chisholm Gibbons
gathering function in this country, but I RECORDED VOTE Clay Gilman
Cleveland Ginn
want no secret government operating Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Chairman, I de- Cochran Goldwater
and deciding for itself what is right and mand a recorded vote. Cohen Grassley
what is not right. A recorded vote was ordered. Collins, m. Green
Conte Gude
This is what we are trying to look into. The vote was taken by electronic de- Conyers Haley
and I will suggest to the gentleman from vice, and there were--ayes 122, noes 293, Gorman Kau
AYES-122
Abdnor
Gradison
Murtha
Ashbrook
shbro
Hagedorn
O'Brien
A
Hammer-
Pettis
Bafalis
Schmidt
Poage
Bauman
Hansen
Pressler
Beard, Tenn.
Harsha,
ill
Q
n
B
Broomfield
astings
H
Hobert
e
u
Roberts
Brown
Calif.
Hillis
Robinson
,
Brown
Ohio
Holt
Rousselot
,
Broyhill
Hubbard
Santini
Buchanan
Hutchinson
Satterfield
Burgener
Hyde
Schroeder
Burleson, Tex.
Jarman
Schulze
Byron
Jenrette
Sebellus
Caseeyr
JoJohnson, nes, Ok as
Shuster
Cederberg
Jones, Tenn.
Sikes
Chappell
Kelly
Smith, Nebr.
Clancy
Kemp
Snyder
Clausen,
Ketchum
Spence
Don H.
Kindness
Steed
Clawson, Del
Krueger
Steiger, Ariz.
Collins, Tex.
Lagomarsino
Stratton
Conable
Landrum
Stuckey
Cornell
Lent
Talcott
crane
Levitas
Taylor, Mo.
Daniel, R. W.
Litton
Taylor, N.C.
T
n
Ll
d
onner
Wa
itazeu
Keys
Koch
Krebs
LaFalce
Latta
Leggett
Lehman
Lloyd, Calif.
Long, La.
Long, Md.
Luiaa
McCrory
McCloskey
McCollister
McCormack
McDade
McFall
McKay
McKinney
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
 July 16, 1975 Approved FoEB?Vff?ga/A27Ri~WP7MV~t4R001200030011-7
Macdonald
Madden
Madigan
Maguire
Mahon
Mann
Mazzoli
Meeds
Melcher
Metcalfe
Meyner
Mezvinsky
Mikva
Milford
Miller, Calif.
Mills
Mineta
Minish
Mink
Mitchell, Md.
Moakley
Moffett
Moorhead, Pa.
Morgan
Mosher
Moss
Mottl
Murphy, nl.
Murphy, N.Y.
Myers, Pa. -
Natcher
Neal
Nedzi
Nichols
Nix
Nolan
Nowak
Oberstar
Obey
O'Hara
O'Neill
Ottinger
Passman
Patman, Tex.
Patten, N.J.
Patterson, Skubitz
Calif. Slack
Pattison, N.Y. Smith, Iowa
Pepper Solarz
Perkins Spellman
Peyser Staggers
Pickle, Stanton,
Pike J. William
Preyer Stanton,
Price James V.
Pritchard Stark
Quie Steelman
Railsback Stephens
Randall Stokes
Rangel Studds
Rees Sullivan
Regula Symington
Reuss Thompson
Richmond Thone
Rinaldo Thornton
Risenhoover Trailer
Rodino Treen
Roe Tsongas
Rogers Ullman
Roncalio Van Deerlin
Rooney Vander Jagt
Rose Vander Veen
Rosenthal Vanik
Rostenkowski Vigorito
Roush Waxman
.Roybal Weaver
Runnels Whalen
Ruppe White
Russo Whitten
Ryan Wilson, C. M.
St Germain Wilson, Tex.
Sarasin 'Wirth
Sarbanes Wolff
Scheuer Wright
Schneebeli Yates
Seiberling Yatron
Sharp Young, Ga.
Shipley Zeferetti
Simon
Sisk
ANSWERED "PRESENT"-2
Breckinridge Gonzalez
NOT VOTING-17
Archer
Bell
Butler
Donlan
Evans, Colo.
Fulton
Fuqua Steiger, Wis.
Karth Symms
McHugh Teague
Matsunaga ' Vdall
Mollohan Zablocki
Riegle
So the amendment was rejected.
The Clerk announced the following
pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Symms for, with Mr. McHugh against.,
Mr. Conlan for, with Mr. Riegle against.
Mr. Teague for, with Mr. Zablocki against.
The result of the, vote was announced
as above recorded.
AMENDMENT TN THE; NATURE or A SUSSTrrUTE
OFFERED HY MR. ANDERSON OF ILLINOIS
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr. Chair-
man, I offer an amendment in the nature
of a substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment in the nature of g substitute
offered by Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois: On page
1, strike all after the "Resolved" clause and
insert in lieu thereof the following:
"That the Select Committee on Intelli-
gence is abolished immediately upon the
adoption of this resolution. However, funds
authorized for the use of the Select Commit-
tee under House Pesolutlon 138 may be ex-
pended for a period not to exceed thirty days
for the purposes of staff salaries and for the
payment of expenses incurred. by the select
committee prior to the adoption of this reso-
lution. An papers, documents, and other ma-
terials generated by the select committee
shall be transferred upon the adoption of
this resolution to the keeping of the Clerk
of the House pending their further disposi-
tion as provided by section 2 of this resolu-
tion.
"TRANSFER OF AUTHORITY, MATERIALS, AND
TUNDS
"SEC, 2. Upon the adoption by the House
G! Representatives of a bill or resolution es-
tablishing a joint committee on intelligence
(by whatever name), it shall be in order to
immediately appoint the House members to
that committee for the purpose of assuming
the full authority previously delegated to the
Select Committee on Intelligence, under the
provisions and conditions, and using the re-
maining available funds, of House Resolu-
tion 138. The House members of the joint
committee shall constitute an interim ad hoc
committee on intelligence of the House until
such time that final action is taken on the
bill or resolution establishing the joint com-
mittee or until January 10, 1976, whichever
is earlier. The papers, documents, and other
materials in the keeping of the Clerk of the
House under section 1 of this resolution shall
be transferred to the interim ad hoc com-
mittee upon its appointment."
(Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. M. Chair-
man and members of the committee, I
think the House has very convincingly
demonstrated by a vote of more than two
and a half to one that it does not desire
to simply abolish the present Select Com-
mittee on Intelligence and do nothing
more. I support that decision. However,
although I devoutly believe in the Res-
urrection that took place 2000 years ago,
I do not believe In the deatli and instant
resurrection of a select committee of
Congress. It seems to me that is what
we,are trying to achieve under the reso-
lution now before the House, House Res-
olution 591.
The gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
YOUNG) spoke, and very correctly so, of
the need to establish a chain of command
that would establish, as he put it, con-
gressional accountability for the intelli-
gence activities carried on by this coun-
try. I would suggest that this very worthy
purpose will not be accomplished simply
by the attempt to recreate the existing
select committee. Only when we come to
the point of being grilling to concede
that a Joint Committee on Intelligence
with continuing oversight responsibility
should be created, will we fully discharge
our responsibility in that regard.
Mr. Chairman, I want to answer a
couple of the arguments that have been
raised against this proposition today by
my friend from Illinois (Mr. MCCLOIY),
who seeks to preserve his present rank-
ing status an the select committee-and
I would support him, I will assure him,
on any future assignment in connection
with the intelligence investigation-but
he said that the House inquiry would be
out of business if the Senate would take
sudden action acquiescing in the crea-
tion of a joint committee.
I would point out that the Senate cer-
tainly is not going to do that because,
until the Church committee reports to it
at the end of the year, there is not going
to be any Senate action-I am convinced
of that. In the interim period, if the
House proceeds as I am sure it would
to, promptly adopt the resolution creating
a joint committee, the House Members
could be immediately appointed by the
Speaker and suggested for membership is no question there is a need before the
by the minority leader and function as country today.
an interim, ad hoc committee- to con- The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tinue and /carry out the work of this tleman has expired.
present Select Committee on Intelli- (On request of Mr. EROOMrIFS.D and by
gence. There would be no hiatus. unanimous consent, Mr. ANDERSON of Illi-
Second, the gentleman said that only nois was allowed to proceed for 1 addi-
the present committee or its successor tional minute.)
H 6875
will be in a position to recommend how
the Congress should proceed to go about
improving its intelligence oversight func-
tion. While I appreciate that one of the
mandates of the present select commit-
tee -is to address itself to the question of
improving or reorganizing oversight by
the Congress, I think to imply that the
Rules- Committee, which after all does
have original jurisdiction over this mat-
ter, does not have the capability of for-
mulating., sound and effective joint
committee proposal is to do a disservice
to the members of the Committee on
Rules.
Let me further point out that the dis-
tinguished chairman of the Rules Com-
mittee assured me this week, when we
were holding hearings on this proposi-
tion, that he would promptly schedule a
hearing before that committee on the
propositions now pending before the
Committee on Rules to set up a joint
committee.
In other words, there is no need to fear
a hiatus, a gap of any kind. The Com-
mittee on Rules can proceed promptly
with a hearing on how to best fashion
the instrumentality by which we can
assure the people of this country that
they are getting an effective, continuing
oversight on intelligence that we should
have.
To simply tinker with the present
membership of the Select Committee on
Intelligence, that-is the formula for
delay. 'lihere is no assurance whatever,
whether' you continue with the present
10 members or whether you take off
some members, that you` are going to
get the kind of down-the-line continu-
ing oversight that we have needed in
this country for the last 27 years, ever
since the CIA was established.
So I would suggest that that, rather
than the substitute which I am propos-
ing, is the real prescription for delay.
Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. I yield to
the gentleman.
Mr. McCLORY. I want to commend
the gentleman for his enthusiasm and
zeal regarding proposals for oversight,
and I think they are good recommenda-
tions for goals for the purpose of as-
suming the rightful role of responsibil-
ity of this House of Representatives.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Will the
gentleman let me reclaim my time?
A very distinguished former chairman
of his committee used to say that on the
street of by-and-by we come to the land
of never-never. We waited for 27 years
to get a joint committee. Let us show
the people of this country that we have
the initiative here and now, today, in
July 1975, to take the first step to put
the first stone in place to start erecting
the foundation that will create that
joint committee, not wait for some rec-
ommendation that might come a year
hence. The Rockefeller Commission on
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200.030011-7
 H 6876
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE - July 16, 1975
Mr. BROOMFIELD. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. I yield to
the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. BROOMFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of the amendment to
House Resolution 591 offered by the dis-
tinguished chairman of the House Re-
publican Conference, the gentleman
from Illinois.
During my period of service on the
Murphy Commission and in light of reve-
lations about the excesses of and lack
of control over the intelligence com-
munity, I became convinced of the clear,
urgent requirement for a Joint Commit-
tee on Intelligence Oversight. On
June 25, the chairman of the Committee
on International Relations and I intro-
duced H.R. 8199 to establish a Joint
Committee on Intelligence Oversight ef-
fective January 3, 1976, the deadline for
the current select committee to com-
plete its investigation. I note that the
gentleman from Illinois is a cosponsor
of similar legislation introduced the
same day.
In suggesting January 1976 as the ef-
fective date of the establishment of the
joint commission, our intention was not
to prejudice the status of the Nedzi com-
mittee or any investigation it might un-
dertake during this session of Congress.
We assumed, or at least allowed for the
possibility, that the select committee
would resolve its membership problems
and meet its January deadline. Recent
events have shown us to be strong on
oversight, but short on foresight.
.I now believe it is questionable indeed
whether the Select Committee on Intelli-
gence, as currently constituted, is going
to perform any useful function during
this session. I see little to be gained from
playing musical chairs with the members
of the committee which has become crip-
pled and suspect through no fault of its
chairman. Our approach to oversight
requires not a compromise solution, but
a new, creative assessment of the prob-
lem and a clean break from past efforts.
I believe the proposal of the gentleman
from Illinois is such an approach; it pro-
vides the most efficient and effective
means available for the House to begin
to seize upon the question of intelligence
oversight.
I sense general agreement in the House
on the need for a Joint Committee on
Intelligence Oversight-the sooner the
better. Let us now move promptly
toward a new beginning on this im-
portant issue. As a coauthor of H.R. 8199,
I believe this would be the appropriate
vehicle for the establishment of a joint
committee, but I am less concerned with
pride of authorship than with the prin-
ciple involved-the necessity for Con-
gress to offer a clear signal that we are
prepared to accept responsibility for
oversight. As long as an effective joint
committee with a comprehensive man-
date is established in the near future,
I am not particularly concerned about
who gets credit for the initiative.
In supporting the amendment of the
gentleman from Illinois, I am accepting
the assurance that the Rules Committee
will promptly report out a bill calling for
the formation of a Joint Committee on
Intelligence Oversight. I would strongly
resist any situation in which the select
committee is abolished without the
promise of a new joint committee to take
its place.
Intelligence oversight is an issue of
overwhelming urgency and public con-
cern. It must not become the object of
partisan infighting or legislative bicker-
ing. The issue before us is clear: How can
Congress most effectively move to estab-
lish control over all intelligence activi-
ties conducted by our Government? In
my opinion, the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Illinois provides the
best avenue of approach.
Mr. MYERS of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ANDERSON' of Illinois. I yield to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. MYERS of Pennsylvania. I would
also like to commend the gentleman for
presenting what has been the most logi-
cal position on intelligence oversight in
a long time to this House. I hope it does
not make too much logic so that it is
unacceptable to the House.
Mr. Chairman, I think now is the
time, as the gentleman stated, to do
what should have been done years ago.
Just because we have a special commit-
tee in place is no strong argument for
not doing what we should do to have a
permanent Joint Committee on Intel-
ligence.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. I thank
the gentleman.
Mr.- McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. I yield to
the gentleman.
Mr. McCLORY. I would ask the gen-
tleman this: How would this ad hoc
committee which would be set up, which
would presumably have a 9-to-4 or 7-
to-3 membership, be meshed into a
joint committee with the Senate, which
is composed of a 5-to-4 membership?
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. The gen-
tleman misunderstood the proposition.
There is no intention to mesh with the
present Senate committee.-That would,
obviously, be up to the Senate, by a reso-
lution which they adopt, to determine
how marry members they would contrib-
ute to this committee. I see no need to
mesh the Church committee with this
proposal,
Mr. BOLLING. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words,
and I rise in- opposition to the amend-
ment in the nature of a substitute.
Mr. Chariman, I feel that I should in-
form the committee of the facts con-
cerning the procedure in this situation.
This matter, as it was being followed to
a conclusion on Monday night, was post-
poned at the insistent demand of certain
Members on this side. Time was found
to consider this matter this morning.
I said on Monday night that the sched-
ule of the House is so heavy that it was
impossib'.'e to find any time to consider
this except on Monday night, and that
is why it was being brought up. We found
2 or 3 hours to consider it today, and as
J stand here stating this situation, I am
wasting 1 of the minutes that remain in
the last hour of our time on the floor here
today. I tried to close debate somewhat
early on the previous amendment which
was defeated by a vote of 21/2 to 1.
I have no intention of trying to in-
fringe on the right of the House to take
just as much time as it wants, but if we
wish to dispose of this matter today, we
must move expeditiously.
I oppose the amendment in the nature
of a substitute offered by the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. ANDERSON). I think it
is an ingenious way of prejudging some-
thing that should be judged by the select
committee. I think the amendment
should be voted down. I persist in the
view that we should have a select com-
mittee which would make a series of rec-
ommendations. I do not think the House
should prejudge a joint committee mat-
ter, no,matter how strongly I myself
support that position, any more than I
think the House should prejudge the
membership of the select committee or
the joint committee.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for a vote on the
Anderson amendment.
Mr. EDGAR. Mr. Chariman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words.
(Mr. EDGAR asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. EDGAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
support of the Anderson amendment. I
disagree with my colleague, the gentle-
man from Missouri (Mr. BOLLING). I
think that this particular direction
should be taken now.
Mr. Chairman, for many months we
have all been exposed to rumors and
innuendos about the excesses of a num-
ber of our intelligence operations, most
notably the CIA. Investigations by both
the Presidential Commission and the
Senate committee have verified that a
number of these incidents, once scoffed
at, have actually occurred, and may only
be the tip of a sinister iceberg.
The American people have been horri-
fied at violations of not only the letter
of the law, but also the spirit. Tragically,
there have bee} violations of the basic
human rights of individuals by our in-
telligence agencies. We know very little
about. the intelligence community, not
even an estimate as to how much this
chamber appropriates each year to the
CIA.
Mr. Chairman, I could go on and read
my statement at this time, but I think it
is probably more important for us to
focus on the real issue here. The cosmetic
repair the committee is offering, the pro-
posal to change the number of members
who serve on the Select Commitee from
10 to 13, is only that-a cosmetic repair.
The solution which has just been offered
to do away with any kind of investiga-
tion was soundly defeated.
The point we have to face is that the
logical solution to the problem of the
rumors, the innuendos, is to set up a
Permanent committee, an ongoing com-
mittee.
I would simply raise the point that the
oversight of our intelligence community
is not like that of a Joint Committee on
Aging or like a Joint Committee on
Energy or like a joint committee on many
of the issues that we have, but it is the
logical way in which the United States
of America, through both the House and
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
 July 16, 1975 Approved FoC yfAffiVI CCORD P7HOU 4,001200030011-7 H 6877
the Senate,- can oversee, review, and
analyze the intelligence agencies.
Mr. Chairman, for years, our over-
sight into these agencies has been mar-
ginal at best, and it is clear that the
American public wants to believe that if
a monster exists, at least it is being
watched and snared.
I believe we would be abrogating our
duty if we did not engage in an active,
purposeful investigation. So far, the in-
vestigation has been a sham. As a voter,
would you have confidence in a legisla-
tive body which after 6 months of in-
action, engaged in 2 hours of debate
upon whether the committee should
have 10 or 13 members or be totally abol-
ished? I think not. However, in listen-
ing to and participating in Monday
night's debate, it was clear to me that a
Joint Committee on Intelligence Opera-
tions would be formed eventually. There
is a broadening bipartisan consensus in
the House, supported by recommenda-
tions by the Rockefeller commission,
that there is at present no effective
mechanism for oversight.
Mr. Chairman, we have been bogged
down in personalities and internal con-
flicts at the expense of fulfilling our con-
stitutional responsibilities. I can only
ask-if we eventually agree that a,joint
committee will be necessary, why do we
not build the foundation right now when
it is most vitally needed?
My distinguished colleague from Il-
linois, Mr. MCCLORY, pointed out Mon-
day evening that the Rockefeller com-
mission concentrated upon domestic CIA
operations, and the well-oiled Senate in-
vestigation is concentrating upon for-
eign intelligence operations of the CIA.
This amendment offered by Mr. ANDER-
SON and Mr. BIESTER would extend these
investigations to provide oversight into
the entire range of intelligence com-
munity. A joint committee would avoid
overlap of a separate House and Senate
committee, while pooling financial re-
sources to integrate this oversight. A
joint committee would provide a com-
prehensive congressional reply with a
viable recommendation. We must avoid
the bickering among ourselves w}'iich has
frustrated any realistic House action.
I do not see how we can agree as a
body unless we are willing to concede
that our internal squabbling has failed
to produce results. A compromise that
will insure immediate action must be
accepted. To vote against this amend-
ment is an invitation to bring about con-
tinued conflicts, conflicts which may be
unresolvable because of the heavy legis-
lative demands on this Chamber.
Mr, Chairman, the question is over-
sight and I call upon my colleagues to
support this amendment. I also call for
the support of this Chamber for a joint
committee which will not be intimidated
when the heads of serpents peek out
from under the rocks which the com-
mittee may overturn.
The allegations which have been made
cannot be swept under the rug by the
House of Representatives. This should be
a bipartisan effort, and I feel that the
Anderson amendment goes to the very
heart of bipartisanship. We have made
some mistakes, in addressing these prob-
lems. The committee has made some
mistakes and individuals have made Mr. BRODHEAD. Mr. Chairman, I
some mistakes. But to paraphrase a great rise in opposition to the amendment of-
baseball pundit, the American people fered by the gentleman from Illinois
would rather see errors of enthusiasm, (Mr. ANDERSON).
than errors of indifference. It seems to me that too much atten-
I yield back the balance of my time. tion on this whole matter has been de-
Mr. BURGENER. Mr. Chairman, will voted to what has happened in the past
the gentleman yield? Too much time has been devoted to a
Mr. EDGAR. I yield to the gentleman discussion of misdeeds that may have
from California. happened 6, 8, 10, or 12 years ago.
(Mr. BURGENER asked and was given Too much attention has been devoted
permission to revise and extend his re- to the internal battles within the select
mars.) committee. TOG much attention has been
Mr. BURGENER. Mr. Chairman, I devoted, frankly, to the CIA.
would like to associate myself with the Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the
remarks of the gentleman in the well in issue facing us is, what can we, as the
support of the Anderson amendment. House of Representatives, do to improve
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the the oversight of the intelligence com-
amendment offered by the gentleman munity? What can we do to see that the
from Illinois (Mr. ANDERSON) because I work of these agencies is coordinated?
deeply believe that the long-range inter- What can we do to assure to each Mem-
ests of this Nation can best be served by ber of this House that he or she has a
a stable oversight structure that involves basic knowledge of what is going on in
the cooperation of both Houses of Con- the intelligence community so that we
greys. can stop improper actions and support
This Nation needs an effective intelli- the legitimate and necessary work that
Bence-gathering operation and a sophis- is being done?
ticated intelligence evaluation service. We must correct the abuses, the clear
We must not allow the very real and con- abuses, that have happened in the past.
tinuing need to insure against defects It is obvious that some of our intelli-
and mistakes to leave us without eyes gence agencies have engaged in Ina-
and ears in the world. But we must not proper and illegal actions. However,
allow this need to prevent us from pro- rather than focus on those actions that
viding those safeguards which can assure happened in the past, I think we must
the effective operation of a justifiable focus on how we can keep those kinds
intelligence effort without significant of things from happening in the future,
breaches of the basic tenants of our and I think an investigation is needed
society. and recommendations are needed as to
The other body is well underway in the what we can do, as the House of Repre-
task of investigating allegations of past sentatives, tp rectify the situation.
excesses. I am confident that the investi- The Senate Is proceeding with its own
gation will provide the facts necessary to investigation, and I think it is unrealis-
determine our future course. That is why tic to assume that the Senate is going to
I supported the Quillen amendment. We divert effort and money and staff from
do not need to duplicate the efforts of the investigation that it has ongoing to
that ongoing investigation, engage in the proposed joint venture
But we most assuredly do need to ad- with the House at this time. Perhaps it
dress the future stability of our intelli- would have been a viable solution 6
gence effort and the need for the proper months ago. I do not think It is viable
safeguards against misuses. This amend- today, since the Senate investigation is
ment would provide the means to that rather far along.
end.
? Mr. BIESTER. Mr. Chairman, will the Mr. Chairman, I think what we need
gentleman yield? to do is to go ahead and do what the
Mr. EDGAR. I yield to the gentleman Committee on Rules has suggested, to
from Pennsylvania. reconstitute the select committee with
Mr. BIESTER. Mr. Chairman, I also a larger number of members, with per-
desire to support the Anderson amend- haps some changes in the membership,
ment. It makes eminent good sense, and so that we can go ahead with a mean-
I applaud the remarks of the gentleman ingful investigation.
from Pennsylvania (Mr. EDGAR). Should this amendment be defeated,
As another gentleman from Pennsyl- I intend to oppose any further amend-
vania said previously, this solution rep- ments that might be offered to keep the
resents so logical and so rational an present membership of the committee.
answer that perhaps it may not receive I do not want to take sides in what has
sufficient support. It deserves our sup- occurred, but I do think that it should be
port, and this House can demonstrate clear to all of us that the select has not
that it is as interested in preserving worked; it has not worked so far, and it
something for the future as it is in prob- does not look as though it is going to
ing the past by supporting the amend- work in the future except with a new
ment in the nature of a substitute offered committee. I think we can go ahead and
by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. AN- do the job under those circumstances.
DERSON). Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the
Mr. EDGAR, Mr. Chairman, I thank chairman and to members of the exist-
the gentleman. Ong committee. I think they have
Mr. BRODHEAD. Mr. Chairman, I worked hard. I think they tried to do a
move to strike the requisite number of job. They just, found that there were
words. irreconcilable conflicts among the mem-
(Mr. BRODHEAD asked and was bers of the select committee.
given permission to revise and extend I say, let us go ahead and put those
his remarks.) matters behind us. Let us look to the
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
 Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
1116878 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE July 16, 1975 future and see whether we can do the out exception, to the idea of the creation committee so as to carry out the objec-
job that needs to be done and do it right. of a permanent Joint Committee on In- tives that have been raised in House
Mr. Chairman, I think the recom- telligence. Resolution 591, but then, in addition
mendation of the Committee on Rules it was urged from time to time thereto, by action of the Senate then
with respect to the setting up of a new throughout the discussion of this issue. they would become the House Members
committee is the best way to go and is And I for one on dedicated and would of the joint committee which could con-
far superior to the suggestion offered by publicly make a commitment that I tinue on with the more important task,
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. would move as expeditiously as possible I, think, of continued oversight responsi-
ANDERSON). so far as one member of that commit- bilities.
Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, will tee, to proceed in the direction of the Mr. SISK. Mr. Chairman, let me fol-
the gentleman yield? creation of such a committee. low that. up with the next question.
Mr. BRODHEAD, Yes, I yield to the I have had some problems with the ap- I assume, then, the gentleman from
gentleman from Illinois. proach of the gentleman from Illinois, Illinois proposes that the House would
Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, I thank though, in. view of the procedural ques- pass simply a House resolution appoint-
the gentleman for yielding. tion here. And if I could be, let us say, lug the House Members of such a joint
I think we see eye to eye on this, and a convinced that it would work, I would be committee.
joint committee would ultimately be an inclined to support his amendment Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. The gen-
appropriate thing. However, it would I do not believe there is any question, tleman is correct.
provide a very confusing situation, in- I would say, that my colleague, the gen- Mr. SISK. With the Idea in mind that
cluding the possible establishment of an tleman from Missouri (Mr. BOLLING), at the time when a joint resolution,
ad hoc committee and the effective who is handling this bill, is as dedicated which obviously is going to have to be
abolishment within 30 days of the pres- as I am, or any other member of the passed, is passed, we might very well have
ent committee. Committee on Rules, to the ultimate to Increase those memberships or de-
This ad hoc committee, it seems to me, establishment of a permanent oversight crease them, depending upon what was
would follow the provisions of House committee. And I am not trying to put finally agreed upon by and between the
Resolution 138, and would require the words in his mouth. other body and ourselves; is that not cor-
same composition as the select commit- As I understand his section 2, he says rect?
tee, which would be a very poor basis that. upon. the adoption by the House of Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. The gen-
upon which to establish at some uncer- Representatives of a bill or resolution tleman is correct, and I see no insuper-
tain later date-a joint committee. establishing a Joint Committee on Intel- able obstacles Involved in that.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, while I ligence, that then the members shall im- There are various proposals pending in
think the gentleman from Michigan med.iately be appointed. It would be my the Committee on Rules now. Some would
(Mr. BRODHEAD) and I support the idea understanding that this, of course, would call for a joint committee of 14 members;
of a joint committee ultimately to over- require-that is, the passage of such a some would call for a joint committee of
see our intelligence agencies, we should resolution, both House and Senate ac- 19 members. I am not personally dog-
have the advantages of the recom.- tion.. In other words, at what point are matic on the size of that committee. I
mendations of the select committee, in we going to proceed with the joint com- think that it ought not to be too large.
the first place, the recommendations of mittee, and that is what I would be- I serve presently on a joint committee,
the Rockefeller commission, and of the lieve, I am sure we ultimately will do, or the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,
Murphy commission. We support that, at least I would hope we will do, and which Is made up of 18 members, 9 from
but this is not the time at present, it Is what I understand the gentleman from the House and 9 from the Senate. I think
not the place, nor is it the way in which Illinois is pointing toward, but I am at we function very effectively, both as a
to carry out that objective. a bit of a loss as to how we can act inde- legislative committee and as an oversight
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman pendently from the standpoint of going committee.
for yielding. immediately ahead and setting up an ad Mr. SISK. If the gentleman would per-
Mr. BRODHEAD. Mr. Chairman, I hoc committee. mit me to continue, I agree with the gen-
thank the gentleman for his remarks. I would appreciate a little bit more In- tleman. I. have served on joint commit-
I think the gentleman is correct that formation on that, because it seems to tees. I think they do work very well. I am
a joint committee may ultimately be the me this will ultimately become a joint not wholly sold on as many joint commit-
answer, but I would like to have a rec- resolution of the two bodies, rather than tees as some people would be. I think we
ommendation from a House committee a unilateral action, by either body. have here to respect the integrity of each
first that that is the way they think we As the gentleman from Illinois knows, House, but in this case I think it is the
should go and that that is the way they there is a large group of Senators, in- only answer.
think we can best oversee the activities eluding Senator MANSFIELD, and a num- I agree with the gentleman. As I say, I
of the entire intelligence community. ber of both Republicans and Democrats am willing to pledge my support as a
Mr. SISK. Mr. Chairman, I move to who are proposing., basically, exactly the member of the Committee on Rules to
strike the requisite number of words. same thing from the other side. Will the proceed expeditiously in this direction.
(Mr. SISK asked and was given per- gentleman comment on that? That is why I am intrigued with the gen-
mission to revise and extend his re- Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr. tleman's proposal.
marks.) Chairman, will the gentleman yield? The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
Mr. SISK. Mr. Chairman, as one of Mr. SISK. Of course, I yield to the gen- tleman has expired.
those who became earlier-on involved in tleman from Illinois. (Mr. SISK asked and was given per-
this particular situation, I have listened Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr. Chair- mission to revise and extend his
with a great deal of interest to the dis- man, I thank the gentleman for yielding. remarks.)
cussion and some of the amendments, First of all let me say that I appreciate Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr.
and so forth, that have been going on. I his commitment to the concept of a Joint Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
well agree with the position taken by the committee on intelligence. number of words, and I rise in opposition
committee that the present Committee I think it would be perfectly possible to the amendment.
on Intelligence must be abolished. Where under the Rules of the House for this i do not want to let the debate end
we go from there, of course, I think is body to adopt a resolution, and which, without correcting the impression that
the question at issue. under its terms, Members could be ap- there is wide support for a commitment
Let me say at this point that I take pointed immediately, as I have said, by to a joint committee of the Senate and
this time primarily to direct a question the Speaker, to serve on a committee the House for intelligence oversight. It
or two to my colleague, the gentleman which would become a joint committee is a very complicated suggestion. The
from Illinois (Mr. ANDERSON). once the Senate had acted on that reso- Libary of Congress is loaded with arti-
First, Mr. Chairman, let me hasten to lution. Iles on the subject. There. are many
say that the Committee on Rules is really But pending action by the Senate, that strong arguments against having a joint
committed, and this was expressed by resolution would provide that the House committee. I would think that we would
every Member of the Committee on Members could be appointed immediately be making a great mistake to make this
Rules, as I recall, I believe almost with- to take up the work of the present select decision today, without debate or hear-
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
 ,July 16, 1975 Approved For IiECORDP7HS TWR001200030011-7 H 6879
Ings on a final commitment to a joint
committee.
We must address questions regarding
the destruction of our bicameral legisla-
tive system and the impairment of the
jurisdiction of the -current standing
committees of the House and the Senate.
I can assure that once a joint committee
is established regardless of the extent or
limits of its jurisdiction, the White House
will immediately instruct all the agencies
to deal only with that joint committee.
Then both Houses would be at the mercy
not only of the permanent members of
the joint committee but of the staffs,
also.
There are 10 joint committees now.
Can anyone here name all 10 joint com-
mittees?
The last point I want to make, Mr.
Chairman, is that the mandate of the
select committee includes a requirement
that it recommend to this House whether
or not there should be a joint committee
or some other arrangement for further
congressional oversight of U.S. intelli-
gence agencies.
I think that we should turn the Ander-
son substitute down and await the rec-
ommendations of the select committee.
Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDWARDS of California. I yield
to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. McCLORY. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding.
I just point out that in the first sen-
tence of the gentleman's amendment, the
committee would be abolished and the
committee would remain abolished until
such time as the joint committee was
provided for in a new House resolution.
I would like to point out further that
this business of adding members or sub-
tracting members, depending upon what
the Senate would do with any proposed
new joint committee on intelligence
would be something that would have to
be taken care of in the proposal by which
any such joint committee as set up. It
seems to me this amendment of the gen-
tleman from Illinois (Mr. ANDERSON) is
way premature. It is very confusing. It is
a great idea, and I support the idea as
an ultimate goal, but at this time it is
the wrong idea in the wrong place and
at the wrong time. I hope it will be voted
down, as the previous amendment was
voted down.
Mr. EDWARDS of California. I thank
the genteeman.
Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Chairman, the issue
presented to this body by House Reso-
lution 591 Involves a very weighty prob-
lem for me. I have always held the con-
viction that the very nature of intelli-
gence operations demands very compe-
tent and yet very discreet overview.
The avalanche of revelations that has
recently laid bare many previous activi-
ties of the CIA only goes to show that
permanent oversight capability vested in
a joint committee of this Congress is-
and has been-sorely missed by the two
Houses of Congress.
I myself first advanced this opinion
within a few years of my arrival in the
House. In 1955, along with my good
friend, the distinguished majority lead-
er, my colleague from Massachusetts
(Mr. O'NEILL), I proposed a joint com-
mittee to investigate and review the ac-
tivities of our intelligence community,
particularly the newly formed CIA.
Because of my belief that a permanent
joint committee is required, if we seri-
ously expect to prevent the kind of il-
legal and unconscionable acts that have
already been perpetrated in the name of
national security, I have reintroduced
my resolution.of 20 years ago.
At the same time, however, I sincerely
believe that the present House inquiry,
which, as we all know, has become criti-
cally bogged down, must continue.
The staff is there, as is the framework
for an exhaustive investigation. There
has never been any doubt as to the en-
thusiasm or commitment of the members
of the committee to pursue an investiga-'
tion.
Most importantly, this body is just as
competent as the Senate to conduct such
an inquiry, and it wishes to do so. The
reasons for this are obvious and com-
pelling. The House shares the respon-
sibility of enacting laws which will pro-
tect the citizens of this country from
threats both external and internal.
In every case, it must be on the alert
to insure that the laws of the United
States perform that duty or are
amended to insure that they do.
I have said that I believe that a per-
manent joint committee is one of the
long-range answers to the problems at-
tendant on the issues now before us.
I do not believe, however, that this
conviction should lead any member to
vote to cut off the present House select
committee's investigation-no matter
how unsuccessful its record has been to
date.
That would, to my mind, .constitute
an admission of the House's inability or
unwillingness to get to the heart of the
abuses that are reported to have been
committed.
Such a termination, . if approved,
would only fuel the fires of criticism
surrounding the Home with further evi-
dence of division and lack of direction.
I believe that the House must order
its household by itself or it will be un-
able to order that of other agencies of
government.
Accordingly, I oppose the amend-
ment offered by the gentleman from
Illinois-and I urge passage of House
Resolution 591 as proposed by the Com-
mittee on Rules.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment in the nature of a sub-
stitute offered by the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. ANDERSON) .
The question was taken; and the
Chair announced that the noes appeared
to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr,
Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic de-
vice, and there were-ayes 178, noes 230,
answered "present" 1, not voting 25, as
follows:
[Roll No. 3911
AYES-178
Abdnor Gaydos Murtha
Alexander Gilman Myers, Ind.
Anderson, 111. Goldwater Myers, Pa.
Andrews, Goodling Nedzi
N. Dak. Gradison O'Brien
Armstrong Grassley O'Hara
Ashbrook Guyer Paesman
Ashley Hagedorn Pettis
AuCoin Hammer- Poage
Bafalis schmidt Pritchard
Bauman Hansen Quie
Beard, Tenn. Harsha Quillen
Bevill Hastings Railsback
Biester Hechler, W. Va. Rees
Blanchard Heckler, Mass. Regula
Bowen Heinz Rhodes
Brinkley Hightower Rinaldo
Broomfield Hillis Robinson
Brown, Mich. Hinshaw Rostenkowski
Brown, Ohio Holt Rousselot
Broyhill Horton Ruppe
Buchanan Howe Santini
Burgener Hubbard Sarasin
Burleson, Tex. Hughes Satterfield
Carter Hutchinson Schneebeli
Casey Hyde Schroeder
Cederberg Ichord Schulze
Chappell Jacobs Sebelius
Clancy Jarman Shriver
Clausen, Jeffords Shuster
Don H. Jenrette Simon
Cleveland Johnson, Colo. Sisk
Cochran Johnson, Pa. Skubitz,
Cohen Kelly Slack
Collins, Tex. Kemp Smith, Nebr.
Conable Ketchum Snyder
Conte Kindness Spellman
Cornell Krueger Stanton,
Coughlin Lagomarsino J. William
D'Amours Latta Steiger, Ariz.
Devine Lent Stratton
Dingell Levitas Talcott
Duncan, Oreg. Litton Taylor, Mo.
Duncan, Tenn. Lloyd, Tenn. Thone
du Pont LuJan . Traxler
Edgar McCloskey Van Deerlin
Edwards, Ala. McCollister Vander Jagt
Emery McDade Walsh
English McDonald Wampler
Erlenborn McEwen Whalen
Esch McKinney Whitehurst
Eshleman Madigan Wiggins
Evans, Ind. Maguire Wilson, Bob'
Fenwick Mann Winn
Fish Martin Wydler
Fithian Mathis Wylie
Florio Michel Yatron
Flynt Miller, Ohio Young, Alaska
Forsythe Minish Young, Fla.
Frenzel Mitchell, N.Y. Young, Tex.
Frey Mosher
NOES-230
Abzug Carr Foley
Adams Chisholm Ford, Mich.
Addabbo Clay Ford, Tenn.
Ambro Collins, nl. Fountain
Anderson, Conyers Fraser
Calif. Corman Giaimo
Andrews, N.C. Cotter Gibbons
Annunzio Crane Ginn
Aspin Daniel, Dan Gonzalez
Badillo Daniel, R. W. Green
Barrett Daniels, N.J. Gude
Baucus Danielson Haley
Beard, R.I. Davis Hall
Bedell de la Garza Hamilton
Bennett Delaney Hanley
Bergland Dellums Hannaford
Biaggi Dent Harkin
Bingham Derrick Harrington
Blouin Derwinski Harris
Boggs Dickinson Hawkins
Boland Diggs Hayes, Ind.
Bolling Dodd Hays, Ohio
Bonker Downey Hebert
Brademas Downing Hefner
Breaux Drinati Helstoski
Brodhead Early Henderson
Brooks Eckhardt Hicks
BrowN, Calif. Edwards, Calif. Holland
Burke, Calif. Eilberg Holtzman
Burke, Fla. Evins, Tenn. Howard
Burke, Mass. Fary Hungate
Burlison, Mo. Fascell Johnson, Calif.
Burton, John Findley Jones, Ala.
Burton, Phillip Fisher Jones, N.C.
Byron Flood Jones, Okla.
Carney Flowers Jones, Tenn.
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
 H, 6880
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE July 16, 11 75
Jordan
Natcher
Sarbanes
Kasten
Neal
'Scheuer
Kastenmeier
Nichols
Seiberling
Kazen
Nix
Sharp
Keys
Nolan
Shipley
Koch
Nowak
Sikes
Krebs
Oberstar
Smith, Iowa
LaFaice
Obey
Solarz
Landrum
O'Neill
Spence
Leggett
Ottinger
Staggers
Lehman
Patman, Tex.
Stanton,
Long, La.
Patten, N.J.
James V,
Long, Md.
Patterson,
Stark
Lott
Calif.
Steed
McClory
Pattison, N.Y.
Steelman
McCormack
Pepper
Stephens
McFall
Perkins
Stokes
McKay
Peyser
Studds
Macdonald
Pickle
Sullivan
Madden
Pike
Symington
Mahon
Pressler
Taylor, N.C.
Mazzola
Preyer
Teague
Meads
Price
Thompson
Melchor
Randall
Thornton
Metcalfe
Rangel
Treen
Meyner
Reuss
Tsongas
Mezvinsky
Richmond
Ullman
Mikva
Risenhoover
Vander Veen
Milford
Roberts
Vanik
Miller, Calif.
Rodin
.Waggonner
Mills
Roe
Waxman
Mineta
Rogers
Weaver
Mink
Roncalio
White
Mitchell, Md.
Rooney
Whitten
Moakley
Rose
Wilson, C. H.
Moore
Rosenthal
Wilson, Tex.
,
Moorhead, Pa.
Roush
Wolff
Morgan
Roybal
Wright
Moss
Runnels
Yates
Mottl
Russo
Young, Ga.
Murphy, 111.
Ryan
Zeferetti
Murphy, N.Y.
St Germain
ANSWERED "PRESENT"-1
Breckenridge
NOT VOTING-25
Archer
Karth
Riegle
Baidus
Lloyd, Calif.
Steiger, Wis.
Bell
McHugh
Stuckey
Butler
Matsunaga
Symms
Clawson, Del
Moffett
Udall
Conlon
Mollohan
Vigorito
Evans, Colo.
Montgomery
Wirth
Fulton
Moorhead,
Zablocki
Fuqua
Calif.
So the amendment in the nature of a
substitute was rejected.
The clerk announced the following
pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Bell for, with Mr. Matsunaga against.
Mr. Symms for, with Mr. Vigorito against.
Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin for, with Mr.
Riegle against.
Mr. Del Clawson for, with Mr. MoIloiuui
against.
Mr. Conlan for, with Mr. McHugh against.
Mr. Zablocki for, with Mr. Karth against.
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
Mr. BOLLING. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the necessary number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I am forced to make
a statement. I understand from the lead-
ership that there is an absolutely essen-
tial matter that has to be considered be-
ginning no later than shortly after 2:30.
I understand it has something to do with
an HEW appropriation bill, the Treas-
ury, a variety of things. I am not privy
to all of the details, but the leadership
says they have to have the floor for other
uses at 2:30.
Therefore, I am going to ask unan-
imous consent, and after I have asked
unanimous consent, if it.is turned down,
I .am going to move, and if the House
turns that motion down, then we will rise
at once, and when we will get back to
this matter I have no idea.
First, I am going to ask unanimous
consent that the resolution be considered
as read, printed in the RECORD, and open
to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Missouri?
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. BOLLING. Mr. Chairman, then I
can only ask unanimous consent that all
debate on the resolution and all amend-
ments thereto close at 2:30.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
should be advised that that request can-
not be made until the resolution has been
read.
Mr. BOLLING. Mr. Chairman, I un-
derstand it is an improper request. I want
to demonstrate that I want to do every-
thing I can. Unless We get the resolution
considered as read and open to amend-
ment, there is no opportunity of making
a unanimous-consent request that all de-
bate on the amendments to the resolu-
tion and the resolution close at 2:30. We
have to get it read first. If we cannot do
that, we cannot do anything, and I will
move that the Committee rise.
Mr. Chairman, I will renew my unani-
mous-consent request. I ask unanimous
consent that House Resolution 591 be
considered as read, printed in the REC-
ORD, and open to amendment at any
point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Missouri?
Mr. BAUMAN. I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. BOLLING. Mr. Chairman, I move
that the committee do now rise.
The CHAIRMAN.. The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. BOLLING).
The question was taken; and on a divi-
sion (demanded by Mr. BOLLING) there
were-ayes 105, noes 39.
RECORDED VOTE
Mr. ER:LENBORN. Mr. Chairman, on
that I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic de-
vice, and there were-ayes 242, noes 162,
not voting 30, as follows:
[Roll No. 3921
AYES-242
Adams
Carney
Flowers
Anderson, nl.
Casey
Flynt
Andrews, N.C.
Cederberg
Foley
Andrews,
Chappell
Fountain
N. Dak.
Cochran
Fraser
Annunzio
Corman.
Gaydos
Aspin
Cornell
Ginn
AuCoin
Cotter
Gonzalez
Bafalis
Crane
Guyer
Baldus
Daniel, Dan
Hagedorn
Barrett
Daniel,. R. W.
Haley
Beard, R.I.
Danielson
Hamilton
Bedell
Davis
Hammer-
Bennett
de Is Garza
Schmidt
Bergland
Delaney
Hanley
Bevill
Dent
Hannaford
Blanchard
Derrick
Harris
Boland
Derwinaki
Harsha
Boiling
Dickinson
Hastings
Bonker
Dingell
Hawkins
Bowen
Dodd
Hayes, Ind.
Brademas
Downing
Hays, Ohio
Breaux
Drinan
Hebert
Breckenridge
Duncan, Oreg.
Hefner
Brinkley
Duncan, Tenn. Henderson
Brodhead
Eckhardt
Hicks
Brooks
Edwards, Ala.
Hightower
Broomfield
Eilberg
Hillis-
Brown, Calif.
English
Hinshaw
Buchanan
Eshleman
Holland
Burgener
Evans, Ind.
Howard
Burke, Fla. '
Evans, Tenn.
Howe
Burke, Mass.
Fary
Hubbard
Burleson, Tex.
Fisher
Hungate
Burleson, Mo.
Flood
Ichord
Byron
Florio
Jacobs
Jarman
Moorhead,
Satterfield
Jenrette
Calif.
Schroeder
Johnson, Calif. Morgan
Sebelius
Johnson, Pa.
Moss
Shipley
Jones, Ala.
Murphy, Ill.
Shriver
Jones, N.C.
Murphy, N.Y.
Sikes
Jones, Okla.
Murtha
Sisk
Jones, Tenn.
Natcher
Skubitz
Jordan
Neal
Slack
Kastenmeier
Nichols
Smith, Iowa
Kazen
Nolan
Smith, Nebr.
Kelly
Oberstar
Solarz
Ketchum
Obey
Spellman
Keys
O'Brien
Spence
Krueger
O'Hara
Staggers
Lagomarsino
O'Neill
Stanton,
Landrum
Passman
J. William
Latta
Patman, Tex.
Steed
Lehman
Patten, N.J.
Steiger, Ariz.
Levitas
Patterson,
Stephens
Litton
Calif.
Sullivan
Lloyd, Calif.
Pattison, N.Y,
Symington
Lloyd, Tenn.
Pepper
Taloott
Long, La.
Perkins
Taylor, Mo.
Long, Md.
Pickle
Taylor, N.C.
Lott
Pike
Teague
McCormack
Poage
Thornton
McEwen
Pressler
Traxler
McFall
Prayer
Ullman
McKay
Price
Van Deerlin
Madden
Quillen
Vander Jagt
Maguire
Randall
Vander Veen
Mahon
Rangel
Waggonner
Mann
Reuss
White
Mathis
Risenhoover
Whitten
Meads
Roberts
Wiggins
Metcalfe
Robinson
Wilson, C. H.
Meyner
Rodino
Wilson, Tex.
Michel
Rogers
Wright
Milford
Roncalio
Wylie
Miller, Ohio
Rose
Yatron
Mills
Roush
Young, Alaska
Mink
Rousselot
Young, Pla.
Moakley
Runnels
Young, Ga.
Montgomery
Ryan
Young, Tex.
Moore
St Germain
Moorhead, Pa.
Santini
NOES-162
Abdnor
Ford, Tenn.
Mosher
Abzug
Forsythe
Motti
Addabbo
Frenzel
Myers, Ind.
Alexander
Frey
Myers, Pa.
Ambro
Giaimo
Nedzi
Anderson,
Gibbons
Nix
Calif.
Gilman
Ottinger
Armstrong
Goldwater
Pettis
Ashley
Goodling
Peyser
Badillo
Gradison
Pritchard
Bauman
Grassley
Railsback
Beard, Tenn.
Green
Rees
,Biaggi
Gude
Regula
Wester
Hall
Richmond
Bingham
Hansen
Rinaldo
Blouin
Harkin
Roe
Brown, Mich.
Harrington
Rooney
Brown, Ohio
Hechler, W. Va. Rosenthal
Broyhill
Heckler, Mass.
Rostenkowski
Burke, Calif.
Heinz
Roybal
Burton, John
Helatoski
Ruppe
Burton, Phillip Holt
Russo
Carr
Holtzman
Sarasin
Carter
Horton
Sarbanes
Chisholm
Hutchinson
Scheuer
Clancy
Hyde
Schneebell
Clausen,r
Jeffords
Schulze
Don H.
Johnson, Colo.
Seiberling
Clay
Kasten
Sharp
Cleveland
Kemp
Shuster
Cohen
Kindness
Simon
Collins, Ill.
Koch
Snyder
Collins, Tex.
Krebs
Stanton,
Conable
LaFalce
James V.
Conlan
Leggett
Stark
Conte
Lent
Steelman
Conyers
Lujan
Stokes
Coughlin
McClory
Stratton
D'Amours
McCloskey
Studds
Daniels, N.J.
McCollister
Thone
Dellums
McDade
Treen
Devine
McDonald
Tsongas
Downey
McKinney
Vanik
du Pont
Macdonald
Walsh
Early
Martin
Wampler
Edgar
Mazzoli
Waxman
Edwards, Calif. Melcher
Weaver
Emery
Mezvinsky
Whalen
Erlenborn
Mikva
Wbitehurst
Fascell
Miller, Calif.
Wilson, Bob
Fenwick
Mineta
Winn
Findley
Minish
Wolff
Fish
Mitchell, Md.
Wydler
Fithian
Mitchell, N.Y.
Yates
Ford, Mich.
Moffett
Zeferetti
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
 it
July 16, 1.9 75 Approved 'For &"L OH RyW77 gfR001200030011-7
NOT VOTING 30
Archer
Fulton
Rhodes
Ashbrook
Fuqua
Riegle
Baucus
Hughes
Steiger, WIS.
Bell
Karth
Stuckey
Boggs
McHugh
Symms
Butler
Madigan
Thompson
Clawson, Del
Matsunaga
Udall
Diggs
Mollohan
Vigorito
Esch
Nowak
Wirth
Evans, Colo.
Quie
Zablocki
So the motion was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and
the Speaker having resumed the chair,
Mr. EVANS of Colorado, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consider-
ation the resolution (H. Res. 591) estab-
lishing a Select Committee on Intelli-
gence, had come to no resolution there-
on.
""QUEST FOR PERMISSION FOR
,,, OMMITTEE ON AGRIC TUBE
,TO SIT DURING 5-MINUTE RULE
THIS AFTERNOON
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani-
mous consent that the Committee on
Agriculture may sit during the 5-minute
rule of the House this afternoon.
The SPEAKER, 'Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Wash-
ington?
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr.
Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER. Objection is heard.
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 5901,
MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR
THE EDUCATION DIVISION AND
RELATED AGENCIES
Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Speaker, I call up the
conference report on the bill (H.R. 5901)
making appropriations for the Education
Division and related agencies for the fis-
cal year ending June 30, 1976, and the
period. ending September 30, 1976, and
for other purposes, and ask unanimous
consent that the statement of the man-
agers be ,read in lieu of the report.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Penn-
sylvania?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the statement.
(For conference report and statement,
see proceedings of the House of July 11,
1975.)
Mr. FLOOD (during the reading). Mr.
Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
further reading of the statement be dis-
pensed with.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Penn-
sylvania? _
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. FLOOD) is recognized.
(Mr. FLOOD asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. FLOOD. I yield to the gentleman
froip Washington.
PERMISSION FOR SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRA-
TION OP COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECH-
NOLOGY TO SIT DURING HOUSE SESSION THIS
AFTERNOON
Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the Subcommit-
tee on Energy Research, Development,
and Demonstration of the Committee on
Science and Technology be permitted to
sit this afternoon starting at 2 o'clock
p.m. while the House is in session.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Speaker, we bring
before the House today the conference
report on the education appropriation
bill. This is not the usual Labor-HEW
bill. This is a straight Education bill for
the fiscal year 1976.
If we adopt this conference report and
if the other body and the President co-
operate this will be the first regular ap-
propriation bill to be enacted for fiscal
year 1976. This is important to the people
at home and to all school districts. Mem-
bers should tell their people back home,
this will be the culmination of an effort
to provide an early appropriation for all
education programs.
This is something we have been try-
ing to do for years. All of the State and
local school officials and all the colleges
and universities need to know in advance
how much and what kind of Federal as-
sistance will be available to them before
they develop their education budgets.
I hope that explains to Members why
this is important to them today and im-
portant for their people at home?
Late appropriations for education have
been the biggest problem for the State
and local school administrators. Adopting
this conference report is a direct response
to that problem.
Some Members will say: "Wait a min-
ute, Flood. This conference report is
$1.3 billion over the President's budget.
Is that right?" It is right.
"How can we possibly vote for such an
excessive amount?" "How can the Presi-
dent sign this bill in view of the large
Federal budget deficit?"
I think the Members can and should
adopt this conference report. I think
the President can and should sign this
education bill. There is no need for any-
one to feel apprehensive about support-
ing this education bill when they find out
what is in it. Not at all.
All right. Certainly this bill is over the
budget and by a very large amount. That
is no accident. But let me point out to
the Members very quickly that almost
$800 ni llion of that chunk that is over
the budget is simply restoring reductions
and terminations proposed by the budg-
et for many of these education programs.
Do the Members notice that?
Now, this is what the budget proposed
to dQ:
Cut impact aid, a favorite pigeon, $390
million.
Cut aid to higher education $200
million.
Cut-hear this-programs for the
handicapped, $25 million.
116881
Cut-another of our favorites-voca-
tional education, $60 million.
Now, hear this, cut emergency school
aid-of all things-$140 million.
Cut library assistance, oh, yes-$60
million. How is that?
Cut bilingual. education, $14 million.
Now, is that what we want-wholesale
reductions like that in education? Well,
the conferences did not think the House
wanted us to do that.
Now, when this bill was brought to the
floor back on April 16, the committee rec-
ommended a total of $6,800 million, which
is about the same amount as 1975. Well,
what happened? Two hundred fifty-nine
Members right here said, "Whoa, that
is not good enough for education. We
will not take that"-259 Members. So
the committee bill was increased by a
floor amendment adding $487 million.
That is what we did.
It was clear then-and it is clear
now-that a great majority of this body
will not accept a standstill budget for
education-period. So the House passed
by a voice vote the total appropriations
of , $7,332,995,000 for fiscal year ending
1976.
Now, of course, the other body sup-
ports education just as much as we do
and they added $349 million to the bill.
The Senate bill totaled $7,682,511,852.
Now, the conference agreement, what
happened? The conference agreement is
$7,480,312,952. That is $147 million above
the House bill, but it is $202 million be-
low the Senate bill. So the conferees
came out of the conference with a bill
that is closer to the House figure than to
the Senate figure.
I want to call attention to the fact
that in this bill we include advance fund-
ing for fiscal year 1977. This is very im-
portant to bear in mind, as we reflect
upon the size of this bill. We are talking
about Federal assistance for the school
year which begins in September 1976.
The conference report includes $2,563,-
351,852 in advance appropriations for
the fiscal year 1977. That is an increase
of $11,600,000 above the House bill.
Now, we have included advance appro-
priations of over $2 billion for title I
grants for disadvantaged children; $184,-
500,000 for the consolidated grants for
support and innovation;, $110 million for
the grants to assist handicapped chil-
dren; $71.5 million for adult education;
$147 million for consolidated grants for
school libraries.
The major changes now from the
House bill which we agreed to in the con-
ference are: First, for elementary and
secondary education, the conferees
agreed to $21 million over the House bill.
About $11 million of that is to take care
of that problem caused by that new for-
mula on grant consolidation under title
IV of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act. The Members will recall
that the committee was aware of the
fact that 17 States would receive less
funds under the grant consolidation than
they received last year for comparable
purposes. The only. acceptable way we
found to resolve the problem is to add a
specific amount and a so-called hold
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
 H 6882
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE July 16, 1975
harmless and this would require $11 mil-
lion over the House bill to work that out.
The conferees also agreed to $2.5 mil-
lion more for bilingual education, for a
total of $97.8 million. Also, we increased
reading improvement-this Is impor-
tant-increased reading improvement
from $12 million to $17 million. I am sure
the Members have all heard about the
"right to read" program, and I will not go
into detail about that.
For impacted aid-oh, boy, and by the
way, this thing Is nearing Its 25th anni-
versary. Did the Members ever think that
it would last that long? This is the 25th
anniversary of impacted aid, and the
conferees agreed to $680 million, or $21
million over the House bill. Mr. Speaker,
over the years this program has grown
Into a very complicated monstrosity, if I
may understate it. When we first talked
about It 25 years ago, many of us had
no idea that It was going to be a can of
worms like this. The new provisions
enacted last year are now going Into ef-
fect. The costs of some of these under
this new law have not yet been deter-
mined, and it may be necessary to con-
sider a supplemental appropriation bill
later on in this year.
The conferees accepted $241.7 million
for emergency aid to desegregated
school districts. That is $15 million over
the House bill, but It Is the same amount
as the 1975 appropriation.
The major Increase over the House
bill is for higher education programs.
Here, the conferees agreed to about $2.4
billion, or $93.1 million over the House
amount.
We agreed to $715 million for basic
opportunity grants-we call it the BOG
program. That is $55 million over the
House bill, but it is $335 million below
the budget. This is the fourth straight
year where the budget proposed full
funding of this basic opportunity grants
program. Again, we refused to go along
absolutely with this proposal of the budg-
et because it is based on cutting back or
terminating very, very important exist-
ing programs of grants and loans to
college students. We would not have any
part of It. Someday, this program may
be fully funded but only if it has proved
to be a viable student aid program. So far
it has not shown all that.
The conferees accepted half of the $60
million increase proposed by the Senate,
for the college work study program,
which brings us to a total of $390 mil-
lion and will provide a substantial in-
crease for the next academic year. For
the library program, the conferees added
$9 million above the House bill, mainly
for undergraduate instructional equip-
ment-hardware.
The conferees accepted most of the
Senate decreases from the House bill. We
reduced administrative costs for the Of-
fice of Education by $2.6 million; sta-
tistics by $1 million; post secondary in-
novation by $2 million. We also agree
on the $10 million reduction for the Na-
tional Institute of Education. This gives
them $70 million, the same as last year.
The case for more funds for educational
research and development has yet to be
made. They have a new director down
there. Maybe the new Director in NIE
will change things around. I hope so.
I am aware of the disappointment that
some Members have expressed about the
$3.5 million deletion for the White House
Conference on Libraries. I want to make
it clear the conferees are not opposed to
this Library Conference. Not at all. They
are just as much for it as anybody. It is
just simply a, matter of timing on appro-
priations. Basic law allows the President
until 1978 to hold that Conference. We
understand the administration supports
it. What we are saying is this-let them
send a budget request so that we can act
on it in the regular manner, and we will
act on it promptly. This would have been
another case where the Congress appears
to be exceeding the budget simply be-
cause of the delay in the budget request.
Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. FLOOD. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Speaker, we
are accustomed to comparing bills, ap-
propriation bills particularly, to the Pres-
ident's budget request. But we have a
Budget Committee now in the Congress
which has worked up spending totals,
which we in this House approved, and
these totals were based on a division
among the various areas of spending, In-
cluding education.
Mr. FLOOD. That is right.
Mr. SEIBERLING. Can the gentleman
relate whether this bill is over or under
the totals that are allocated for that
purpose in the congressional budget.
Mr. FLOOD. No, we have no direct
comparison. The reason is mainly a prob-
lem of comparing the conference report
to the budget committee allocations. The
figures are not really comparable.
Mr. SEIBERLING. I am just wonder-
ing if we can.relate that to our own
budget totals.
Mr. FLOOD. I do not believe the fig-
ures are comparable to this appropria-
tion bill.
Mr. SEIBERLING. But is It within or
outside of the congressional budget total?
Mr. FLOOD. I am certain that we will
not be beyond budget totals.
I should also mention the bill includes
$464,683,000 for the transition period-
this is something new-between fiscal
year 1976 and the new fiscal year which
will begin with 1977. Under this new
Budget Act my friend was just talking
about, fiscal year 1977 will begin October
1, 1976, so appropriations, therefore, are
needed for that 3-month interim period.
The House and the Senate bills, by the
way, provide the same amount for this
transition period. So it was not a matter
In conference. We are about $196.4 mil-
lion over the budget request, but that Is
due almost entirely to the increases that
we recommend for fiscal year 1976.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. FLOOD. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank
the gentleman for yielding.
When the gentleman talked about im-
pacted aid he used some pretty strong
language.
Mr. FLOOD. Oh, yes. -
Mr. GOODLING. I agree whole-
heartedly with what I think the gentle-
man was saying. Does the gentleman
plan to do anything about that? And tl?a
reason I ask Is that I would like to th..'
about trying to do something about it
the gentleman does not plan to.
Mr. FLOOD. That, of course, the gen-
tleman will have to take up with the leg-
islative committee as to what should or
should not be done. We are merely at-
tempting to appropriate for the law as it
now stands.
We have been through this for many
years and it is difficult to control the cost
and keep the program from expanding.
Mr. GOOILING. Even keeping it to
our original costs?
Mr. FLOOD. Yes, it is a problem.
Now, finally, Mr. Speaker, I should
mention that there is one amendment
here which the conferees could not re-
solve. That is amendment No. 44. It re-
lates to sex discrimination and title IX
of the Education Amendments of 1972.
At the proper time, Mr. Speaker, I will
offer a motion that the House insist on its
disagreement and retain the language of
the House provision on this matter.
Believe me, It would be very, very un-
fortunate if this bill were delayed. I have
just told the Members of the timing prob-
lem with the other body. It would be very
unfortunate to have this bill, of all bills,
delayed by a subject that simply does not
directly involve the appropriation of
funds for the education program.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of
the conference report and the motions I
shall offer in connection with amend-
ments which are reported in disagree-
ment.
Mr. Speaker, I insert in the RECORD at
this point a detailed table showing the
amounts provided in the conference re-
port for each appropriation in the bill,
together with the appropriate compari-
son.
Approved For Release 2005/04/27 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001200030011-7