PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8085, AGE REQUIREMENTS FOR CIVIL SERVICE APPLICANTS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP73B00296R000400060003-9
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 12
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 16, 2000
• Sequence Number: 3
• Publication Date: January 27, 1972
• Content Type: OPEN

Januar~d For Rel~eg~~Q~~~~2 ~~I,e7~~~96R000400060003-~ 371
Mr. HALL. I do, until it is explained,
Mr. Speaker.
I wonder if the gentleman would take
time to explain the amendment, which
was a little more than I anticipated. I
+~ yield to the gentleman for that purpose.
Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. I do
not understand what my distinguished
friend from Missouri means when he
says it "was a little more .than I antici-
pated."
The effect of the amendment, I might
say to my friend from Missouri, is to
strike from the original resolution, House
Resolution 741, those who record-the
stenographers who record-the debates
or the colloquies such as we are having
now on the floor of the House, and those
who record-those House employees,
stenographers who record-the commit-
tee debates.
Mr. HALL. Is that because they are
now drawing excessive pay above the rate
of Level V of the Executive Schedule?
Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. I
might say to my friend from Missouri
they are not drawing excessive pay in any
sense or above what he states, but the
committee decided that their salaries at
the current level-at least the committee
insofar as 1t relates to this resolution de-
cided ghat the top is at about $35,000
and it goes down a little bit lower-that
their .compensation is adequate at this
time.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, Y certainly
agree with the gentleman insofar as his
last sentence is concerned, and I might
add that it is time we all considered re-
ductions in lieu of additions, if we are
serious about inflation and fiscal respon-
sibility.
Under my reservation, may I make one
further inquiry as to the general con-
tent of House Resolution 741, as amend-
ed? Am I to understand, Mr. Speaker,
that this does not involve the regular
employees, the Member-appointed em-
ployees on Capitol Hill, but that the sav-
ing clause there is "whose pay is dis-
bursed by the Clerk of the House and is
fixed at a specific rate by House reso-
lution?"
Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. The
gentleman is precisely correct, and if he
will withdraw his reservation so that I
can briefly explain the resolution, I shall
be glad to yield further for any other
questions that he might have.
Mr.. HALL. Mr. Speaker, that is all I
seek. I will withdraw my reservation of
abjection.
The SPEAKER. Without objection, the
committee amendment is agreed to.
There was no abjection.
So the committee amendment waS
agreed to.
Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. Mr.
Speaker, under the system long in exist-
ence here, a number of the employees of
the House who actually work here every
day, a number of whom I can see at the
desk now, are not within the overall Fed-
eral pay structure nor are they employees
of individual Members of this body. They
are, therefore, distinguished by that dif-
ference. Each and every time in past
years that committee staff or Member
staff allowances have been increased, the
-Committee on House Administration has
made an effort to keep these-I call them
rather isolated employees-at a level
commensurate with that of our own
staffs and the committee staffs.
Following the rule set dawn by phases
I and II of the President's economic pol-
icy, determination was made that Fed-
eral employees subject to the recommen-
dation of those for whom they worked
could get up to 5.5 percent raises on the
individual Member's recommendation or
on the recommendation of the respective
committee chairmen.
I have no statistics with respect to the
decisions made by the individual Mem-
bers, but I can report to the House that
every one of the committee chairmen
recommended 5.5 percent increases for
their employees.
This leaves this small group of 33 peo-
ple, excluding the official reporters, with-
out the benefit of that 5.5 percent raise.
The effect of this resolution would be to
give them that.
The total cost per annum of this reso-
lution is $23,857, approximately $20,000
per annum less than it would have been
had the Reporters been included.
Mr. Speaker, I reiterate that there is
a total of 33 majority and minority em-
ployees involved.
Does the gentleman from Missouri
have any further question?
Mr. HALL. No, Mr. Speaker. I appreci-
ate the gentleman yi@Iding, I think the
gentleman's explanation has been ade-
quate and it would appear to me that
this is equitable and just.
I compliment the Committee on House
Administration for being a good watch-
dog of the contingent fund.
As I understand it, this resolution is di-
rected to equity for those who do not
have statutory appointments?
Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. This
is precisely correct.
Mr. HALL. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. Mr.
Speaker, I move the previous question
on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table. -
AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF COM-
PENSATION FOR CERTAIN COM-
MITTEE E?MI'LOYEES
Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. Mr.
Speaker, by direction of the Committee
on House Administration, I call up a
privileged resolution-House Resolution
769-and ask -for its immediate consid-
eration.
The Clerk read the 1esolution as fol-
lows:
x. RES. 7ss
Resolved, That there shall be paid out of
the contingent fund of the House of Repre-
sent~.tives such sums as may be necessary
to pay the compensation for services per-
formed during the period beginning January
3, 1972, and ending at the close of January 31,
1972, by each person (i) who, on January 2,
1972, was employed by a standing' commit-
tee or any select committee of the Ninety-
second Congress and whose salary was paid
raider authority of a House resolution adopt-
ed during the Ninety-second Congress, or
who was appointed after January 2, 1972, to
fill an existing vacancy or a vacancy occur-
ring subsequent to January 2, 1972, and (2)
who is certified by the chairman of the ap-
propriate committee as performing such serv-
ices for such committee during such period.
Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. Mr.
Speaker, the effect of this resolution,
House Resolution 769, is very simple. The
effect of it is to allow all of the commit-
tees of the House to expend moneys at the
level at which the House authorized them
to spend last year for a period of 1 month.
This will enable the respective and dis-
tinguished committee chairmen to pre-
pare their budgets for this year and will
give the Subcommittee on Accounts an
opportunity to schedule hearings which,
indeed, we will do on their desires for the
current year.
I might report that all but one com-
mittee to my knowledge has carryover
money expended and moneys from last
year.
I might report also that the committee
chairmen and the ranking minority
members have been assiduous in comply-
ing with the House Administration re-
quirement that they report monthly all
of their expenditures, their list of em-
ployees, and activities.
To me this is particularly important
because the Members will remember that
in the series of resolutions authorizing
committee moneys for the past year we
emphasized the responsibilities that com-
mittees have under last year's Reorga-
nization Act to exercise their oversight
responsibilities. They have done so and I
think they have done so admirably.
Mr. Speaker, the one instance where a
committee is short of funds, in the
amount of approximately $31,000-that
is, without this continuing resolution-
they would be $31,000 short.
The subcommittee will take that into
consideration, and that amount will be
deducted from the amount that the com-
mittee requests in the next Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous ques-
tion on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
PERMISSION FOR COMMITTEE ON
RULES TO FILE PRIVILEGED
REPORTS
Mr, O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan-
imous consent that the Committee on
Rules may have until midnight tonight
to file certain privileged reports.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Mas-
sachusetts?
There was no abjection.
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION
OF H.R. 8085, AGE REQUIREMENTS
FOR CIVIL SERVICE APPLICANTS
Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, by direc-
tion of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 616 and ask for its ,
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-
lows: _
A{~proved For Release 2001/03/02 :CIA-RDP73,B00296R000400060003-9
 H 372 Approved For Rele~~~tG~E~~~~~~L ~~A-~7~~
H. RES. 616
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this
resolution it shall be in order to move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee,
of the Whole House on the State of the
Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R:
8085) relating to age requirements for ap-
pointments to positions in executive agen=
ties and in the competitive service. After
general debate which shall be confined to
the bill and shall continue not to exceed
one hour, to be equally divided and con-
trolled by the chairman and ranking minor-
ity member of the Committee on Post Office
and Civil Service, the bill shall be read for
amendment under the five-mime rule. It
shall be in order to consider the amend-
ment in the nature of a substitute recom-
mended by the Committee on Post Office and
Civll Service now printed in the bill as an
original bill far the purpose of amendment
under the flue-minute rule. At the conclu-
sion of such consideration, the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House
with such amendments as may have been
adopted, and any Member may demand a
separate vote in the House on any amend-
ment adopted in the Committee of the Whole
to the bill or to the committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on
the bill and amendments thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. O'NEILL) is recog-
nizedfor 1 hour.
Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30
minutes to the gentleman from Tennes-
See '(Mr. QUILLEN) ,pending which I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. O'NEILL asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks)
Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, House Res-
olution 616 provides an open rule with
1 hour of general debate for consider-
ation o: H.R. 8085 regarding age require-
ments for Federal employees. The reso-
lution also provides that it shall be in
order to consider the committee substi-
tute as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment.
The purpose of H.R: 8085 is to estab-
lish acongressional policy which will re-
quire the Government to promote em-
ployment or promotion of persons based
en ability rather than age, and prohibit
al'bi~trary age discrimination. Excepted as
well as competitive employees would be
covered.
The President would be authorized to
establish a maximum age requirement
for appointment in the civil service when
the requirement is established on the
basis of a determination that age is an.
occupational qualification necessary to
the performance of duties.
The present law stating the existing
policy against discrimination as, to age
and the present law authorizing the Sec-
retary of the Interior to set minimum
and maximum age limitations for em-
ployment by the U.S. Park Police would
be repealed.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of
House Resolution 616 in order that the
bill may be considered.
(Mr. QUILLEN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend-his re-
marks.)
Mr. f~UILLEN, Mr. Speaker, House
Resolution 616 will permit consideration
of H.R. 80$5 under an open rule with 1
hour of general debate. Ill addition, the
ru3e makes the language substituted by
the Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service ixl order as an original bill for
the purpose of amendment.
The purpose of the bill is to reaffirm
the present congressional policy against
discrimination with respect to age in the
competitive service of the U.S. Govern-
ment, and to extend this policy, with
necessary flexibility, to all Federal em-
ployment.
The bill establishes a policy which will
rCquire the Federal Government to pro-
mote employment of persons based upon
ability to perform the job in question
rather than age and will prohibit age
discrimination in all Federal employ-
ment.
At the same time the bill .authorizes
the President to establish a maximum
age requirement to any position in the
executive agencies or the competitive
service if it is determined that age is a
bona fide requirement for successful job
performance. If a maximum age limit is
established in any job category, the Pres-
ident is required to send to the two Post
Office and Civil Service Committees a
statement of justification and explana-
tion at least 60 days before the age re-
quirement goes into effect.
Finally, the bill repeals the existing
authority of the Secretary of Labor to
fix the minimum and maximum age
limits within which appointments may
be made to the positions in the Park
Police.
Existing law, which prohibits age dis-
crimination makes no allowances for any
exceptions. Therefore, Federal agencies
which meet such a situation must go to
Congress for relief. This is what the De-
partment of Interior did with respect to
its Park Police. Two other departments
have already requested exceptions in
particular cases, the Department of Jus-
tice-and the Department of Transporta-
tion. It seems far wiser to provide ad-
ministrative relief by statute so that in
exceptional cases where age is a factor
of, occupational qualification this fact
should be recognized.
No cost to the Government is antici-
pated except for minimal administrative
costs. The legislation is the outgrowth
of a requestby the Civil Service Commis-
sion.
Tllere are no dissenting views.
Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
CALL OF THE HOUSE
Mr. ROUSSELOT. 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.
A call of the House was ordered.
~96R00040~0600~03~,
anuary , Y972
The Clerk tailed the roll, and the fol-
lowing Members failed to answer to their
names
Abbitt
Evins, Tenn.
Murphy, N.Y.
Abourezk
Forsythe
Nelsen
Adams
Fraser
Nix
Alexander
Frey
O'Konski
Anderson,
Galiflanakis
Patman
Tenn.
Gallagher
Peily
Annunzio
Giaimo
Pettis
Arends
Gibbons
Railsback
Ashbrook
Goldwater
Rhodes
Aspin
Grasso
Rogers
Badillo
Gra.,y
Rosenthal
Baring
Green, Oreg:
Runnels
Bell
Gude
St Germain
Biaggi
Hansen, Idaho
Scheuer
Blanton
Harrington
Schneebeli
Blatnik
Hastings
Shipley
Bow
Ilawkins
Sikes
Brasco
Hays
Sisk
Brinkley
Hebert
Smith, Calif.
Camp
Heckler, Mass.
Smith, Iowa
Carey
Hicks; Wash,
Smith, N.Y.
Carney
Hosmer
Springer
Celler
Jacobs
Stanton,
Chisholm
Johnson. Pa.
J. William
Clark
Keith
Steele
Clay
Kemp
Steiger, Wis.
Cleveland
Kluczynski
Stephens
Conable
Landgrebe
Teague, Calif.
Conte
Landrum
Udall
Corman
Latta
Ullman
Culver
Leggett
Van Deerlin
Davis, Ga.
Lennon
Waldie
Dennis
Long, La.
Wampler
Denti@
McClure
Widnall
Derwinski
McKay
Wilson, Bob
Diggs
MoKinney
Wilson,
Downing
Mailliard
Charles H.
Dwyer
Martin
Wo1fI
Edmondson
Meeds
Wright
Edwards, Calif.
Metcalfe
Wydler
Edwards, La.
Mills, Ark.
Yatron
Esch
Mitchell
Young, Fla.
Eshleman
Moorhead
Zion
The SPEAKER. On this rollcall 305
Members have answered to their names,
a quorum.
By unanimous consent, further pro-
ceedings under the call were dispensed
with.
~GE REQTdIREMENTS FOR CIVIL
SERVICE APPLICANTS
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I
move that the House resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union for the considera-
tion of the bill (H.R. 8085) relating to
age requirements for appointments to
positions in executive agencies and in the
competitive service.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from
North Carolina, (Mr. HENDERSON) .
The motion was agreed to.
IN THE COMPQITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Accordingly the House resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole Hottse
on the State of the Union for the con-
side ation of the bill H.R. 8085, with Mr.
WAGGONNER in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
By unanimous consent, the first read-
ing of the bill was dispensed with.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the
gentleman from Nol?th Carolina (Mr.
HENDERSON) will be recognized for 1 hoar,
and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Gross) will be recognized for 1 hour.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. HENDERSON).
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I
yield such time as he Inay consume to the
distinguished Chairman of the full Com-
Approved For Release 2001/03/02 :CIA-RDP73B00296R000400060003-9
 January ~~,p1~~~d For ReeUR2~~~~2R~I~I~Qe~~~96R0~00400060003-~~ 3~3
mittee on Post Office and Civil Service,
the gentleman from New York (Mr.
DULSKI) .
(Mr. DULSKI) asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Chairman, I spon-
sored H.R. 8085 on the basis of an official
recommendation sent to Congress by the
Chairman of the U.S. Civil Service Com-
mission.
There main two main objectives:
First, it reaffirms the Government's
strict policy against discrimination be-
cause of age in employment in the com-
petitive service and extends that policy
to all employment in the Federal serv-
ice. ,
Second, the bill recognizes the need
for providing some flexibility in this area
by authorizing the President, or his
agent, to establish maximum age limits
for appointments to positions in execu-
tive agencies where age is found to be a
necessary qualification.
The authority granted to the Presi-
dent under this bill would be similar to
that now held by the Secretary of Labor
with respect to positions in private in-
dustry.
At the present time the4~e is an out-
right statutory ban against the estab-
lishment of a maximum age limit for
employment in the competitive service.
Since the existing law does not provide
for administrative exceptions, any
agency that feels it has positions need-
ing exception must now look to the Con-
gress far individual relief.
A ntunber of agencies have indicated
that they will seek authority from the
Congress to establish maximum age
limits for certain types of positions.
Our Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service believes that instead of action on
individual requests, it would be far more
desirable to authorize the President, or
his designated agent, to set maximum
ago limits for such positions.
In view of the strong desire of the
Congress to eliminate age discrimination
in ? Federal employment, except where
absolutely necessary, this legislation pro-
vides for advance co"ngressional review
of any proposed exception.
Thus, there is no danger that the pro-
posed authority to set maximum age
limits will be abused by the President or
his designated agent.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that the
authority to establish maximum age re-
quirements, where necessary, should be
vested in the President, subject to con-
gressional review, and I, therefore, urge
the passage of H.R. 8085.
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I
yield myself such time as I may con-
sume.
{Mr. HENDERSON asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of H.R. 8085, a bill re-
lating to age requirements for appoint-
ments to positions in executive agencies
and in the competitive service.
First, may I say that this bill before
us has. no cost implications. Secondly,
it is an administration proposal; and,
thirdly, all it does, basically, is to pro-
vide an orderly and uniform procedure
for establishing age requirements for en-
trance into Federal Government posi-
tions.
BACKGROUND
There is at present an outright ban
on establishing maximum age limits for
entry into the competitive service. This
present policy against age discrimina-
tion in Federal employment dates back to
1956 when Congress wrote into the In-
dependent Offices Appropriation Act (70
Stet. 355) a prohibition against the use
of appropriated funds to pay the salary
of any Federal employee who sets a
maximum age for entry into any posi-
tion in the competitive service.
There has been an exception when
the Secretary of Interior, in 1969, was
granted the authority to set minimum
and maximum age limits for U.S. Park
Police. The legislation did not go through
the Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service.
So far in this session of Congress our
c9mmittee has had requests from the
Attorney General for authority to set age
limits for several of his law enforcement
positions and from the Secretary of the
Department of Transportation to set age
limits for air controllers. In time, there
will undoubtedly be more such requests.
On Monday, September 27th, the
House Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service voted out an air controller bill,
I3.R. 8083, with a section relating to age
requirements in the original bill deleted
to conform to the principles detailed in
the legislation before us today.
FLEBIHH.ZTY
Age, by itself, should never be a bar to
employment, either in private industry or
in the Federal Government. In keeping
with this principle, H.R. 8085 reaffirms
congressional policy against discrimina-
tion as to age. But, it is equally desirable
that a degree of flexibility, similar to
that already existing for positions in pri-
vate industry, be provided for Federal
positions to permit exceptions without
the necessity for congressional action in
each case when age is found to be a bane
fide occupational qualification,
The primary effects of the bill before
you would be to give the President an
administrative authority, with congres-
sional control, that is parallel to the au-
thority granted to the Secretary of Labor
for positions in private industry-Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of
1967, 81 Stat. 602.
CONGRESSIONAL CONTROL
To insure continued congressional in-
terest a"nd central, the President or his
agent is required to give notice to the
Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service of the House and Senate at least
60 days prior to establishing a maximum
age requirement. The report to the two
committees must include a full and com-
plete statement concerning the need for
such a maximum age requirement.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
The Subcommittee on Manpower and
Civil Service in July took testimony on
H.R. 8085 from the chairman of the Civil
Service Commission and representatives
of several Federal Government employee
organizations.
Chairman Hampton fully supported
the proposed legislation. The employee
,organizations objected to the bill so long
as there -was no congressional control.
The bill was amended in subcpmmittee
to provide this congressional control.
cosT
The only cost involved, as I stated
earlier, would be minimal, arising from
general administrative costs..
6UMMARY
Mr: Chairman, this is a noncontro-
versial bill, sponsored by the administra-
tion, with little or no costs. It emphasizes
ability rather than age as a prerequisite
for a Federal Government job. But, H.R.
8085 provides for flexibility in Federal
personnel management where age be-
comes abona fide occupational qualifi-
cation by authorizing the President to set
a maximum age in making an appoint-
ment to a position in an executive agency
as in the competitive service.
Congressional control is guaranteed by
giving the Post Office and Civil Service
Committees of the Senate and House at
least 60 days advance notice with full
justification for the proposed Presidential
action.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members'
sup"port of this bill.
APPLICATION OF H.R. 8085 TO THE POSTAL SERV-
ICE
I wish to call attention to the state-
ments appearing in the first full para-
graph on page 5 0~ the committee's re-
port on H.R. 80$5.
The last Sentence of that paragraph
states that the U.$. Postal Service is
specifically excluded from the definition
of "independent establishment" in sec-
tion I04 of title 5 of the United Sta"tes
Code, and, therefore, is not covered by
the provisions, of the new section 7155.
The new section 7155, as added by
H.R. 8085, authorizes the President to es-
tablish maximum age r"equirements in
connection with appointments to posi-
tions in an "Executive agency" or in the
"competitive service," when such require-
ments are necessary.
After the report was filed, the ques-
tion arose as to the correctness of the
statement on page 5 of the report, con-
cerning applic&tion of the new provisions
to the Postal Service.
Section 410(b) of title 39, United
States Cade, specifically provides that the
provisions of chapter 71 of title 5 shall
apply to the Postal Service. It would ap-
pear, therefore, that any amendments
to the provisions of chapter 71 of title
5, likewise would be applicable to the
Postal Service unless specifically pro-
videdotherwise.
Since the first section of H.R. 8085
adds a new section 7155 to chapter 71,
and in view of the doubts which arose
after the Committee Report vas filed,
Chairman DULSKI requested the Post-
master General to furnish his comments
on this question. I will insert at the end
of my statement the letter Chairman
Dul.sxl addressed to the Postmaster Gen-
eral, and the reply dated September 28,
1971, from the Senior Assistant Postmas-
ter General and General Counsel, David
A. Nelson.
The reply agrees with our conclusion
Approved For Release 2001/03/02 :CIA-RDP73B00296R000400060003-9
 Approved For Release 2001/03/02 :CIA-RDP73B00296R000400060003-9
H 374 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE Jane-c.ary ~ i, 19?
that the statement in the report is er-
roneous, but does not agree that a'11
amendments to chapter 71 of title 5,
United States Code, enacted hereafter,
would automatically apply to the Postal
Service.
The letter points out that subsequent
amendments might not be azthin th~~
framework created by the Postal Reor-
ganization Act, and, would be conflicting
and completely contrary to other provi-
sions in the Postal Reorganization Act.
The Postal Service recommends that
specific provisions be included if it is
the intent of Congress that the Postal
Service be subject to amendments to
chapter 71 and other provisions specifi-
cally referred to in section 410 of the
Postal Reorganization Act.
The questions raised in this matter
are not easy ones to answer. We do not
need to resolve the issue at the present
time. -The committee hereafter can es-
tablish a policy, as it may desire, ill
making subsequent amendments to the
appropriate provisions of title 5 appy-
cable to the Postal Service. In this par-
ticular case, it is not important.
The Postal Service in its reply stated
that the amendment proposed by this
legislation is in harmony with the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of
1967, and its extension to the Postal
Service would not be inconsistent with.
the concept tklat employment within
the Postal Service should be more nearly
comparable to employment in the private
sector.
It is stated that, as a practical matter,
the Postal Service undoubtedly would.
follow the policy embodied in H.R. 8085.
even though the legislation does not spe-
cifically apply to the Postal Service.
Mr. Chairman, in view of the position
taken by the Postal Service, I see no
need to offer a specific amendment to
the bill, making it apply specifically to
the Postal Service.
The letters that T referred to above
a1?e set forth below:
SEPTEMBER 17, 1971.
HOn. WINTON M. BLOUNT,
Postmaster General, U.S. Postal Service,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. POSTMASTER GENERAL: A gneStiOTl
has arisen as to the application to the United
States Postal Service of certain ,provisions
that are contained in pending legislation.
Section 410(b) of tftle 39, United States
Code, specifically provides that several pro-
visions of law shall apply to the Postal Serv-
ice, including the provisions of cllapter 71
title 5, United States Code.
H.R. 8085, whfcll was ordered reported by
our Committee and !s now pending before
the house, proposes to acid a new section
7155 to chapter 71 of title 5. ?
It is the purpose of this provision to au-
tllorize the President to establish maximum
age requirements in connection with ap-
pointments to a position 1n an "Executive
agency" or in the "competitive service".
The Committee report on the Legislation.
(House Rept. No, 92-416) , fn the last sentence
of the first full paragraph on_page 5, states
that the United States Postal Service is spe-
cifically excluded from the definition of "in-
dependent establishment" in section 104 of
title 5, and, therefore, is not covered by the
new section 7165.
I believe that this statement is incorrect.
It certainly does not coincide with the in-
tent expressed by represeatatfves of the Pos-
tal Service when they testified on the legis-
lotion, or w^th the intent of the Committee
in cansiderxlg section 410 of title 39.
It is my belief that section 41p(b) has the
effect of applying alt provisions of chapter 71
of title 5, and the provisions of other sec-
tions mentioned Sn that subsection, to the
United States Postal Service, without regard
to any definition that may be included in the
actual provisions of chapter 71, or the other
provisions made applicable to the Postal
Service by section 410.
The identical question has now arisen in
connection with another bill the Committee
is n.ow considering, which adds a new sub-
chapter o chapter 71 of title 5, relating to
th.e rights of privacy for Federal:. employees.
During the Subcommittee markup of this
legi:;Iation, a motion was made, and ap-
proved, to include provisions in the new sub-
chapter 3. and in title 39, making the pm-
visions of the new subchapter 3 applicable
specifically to the United States Postal
Service.
It is my view that the provisions of section
410(b) have the effect of applying the pro-
visions oi' the new subchapter 3 to the
United States Postal Service, and that the
provisions of the new seotion 7155, proposed
by H.R. 8085, will apply to the United States
Postal Service, without any specific refex'-
ence to the inclusion of tale Postal Service
in the new legislation.
I would appreciate having your comments
on this matter at the earliest opportuxlity
as the Subcommittee on Employee Benefits
will meet next week for the further coh-
side:ration of the legislation, and it is ex-
pected that H.R. 8085 will be considered on
the Floor of the House in the very near
future. _
Copies of the material to which I have re-
ferred are enclosed for your information.
With kixx~ciest personal regards,
Sincerely yours,
TH:IDDEUS J. DULSKL,
CTxai-rman.
U.S. POSTAL SERVCE,
Washiu{~ton, D.C., Se~tenxber 28, 1571.
Haxl. TIIADnF:L'S J. DUL5KI,
Chaia?anan, Committee on Post OjJEce and
Civil Ser?+iee, Honse of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CxArRMAN: The Postmaster Gen-
eral has 'asked me to respond to pour letter
oS September 17, 1971, requesting our com-
ments on the question whether certain pra-
pased recisions in chapter 71 of title 5,
United States Code, would, if enacted, apply
to the Posit al Service.
Wo agree. with your conclusion that the
exclusion of the Postal Service from the defi-
nition of an "independent establishment" in
5 U.S.C. ? 104 does not provide a complete
answer to the question of haw far the Postal
Service might be bound by amendments to
those provisions of title 5 that now apply to
the Postal Service. 39 U.S.C. ? 410(b) makes
chapter 7i of title 5 applicable to the Postal
Service, and insofar as this provision may
manifest a Congressional intent that the
Postral Service be subject to subsequent
amendments of chapter 71, the statutory ex-
clusion of the Postal Service from the defi-
nition of axi independent establishment for
the purpose of ttile 5 would appear to be
immaterial.
The scope of 39 U.S.C. ? 410(b) cannot be
properly assessed, it seems to me, without
reference to the considerations that led to
the enactment of seotion 410(a). That sec-
tion, which exempts the Postal Service from
all but a limited number of Federal laws
"dealing with`- public or Federal contracts,
property, works, officers, employees, budgets,
or fttnds;" was manifestly designed to help
the Postal Service improve ..the quality anti
efficiency.of,its services by grantilg the new
independent establishment llroad relief_fram
the intricate network of .public laws and.
administrative regulations to-which the Post
Office had been subjeo~ as an executive de-
partment. In the light of that objective, i
would not interpret seotion 410(b) as mean-
ing that any and all amendments to the
provisions cited in that sec:tfon will auto-
matically apply to the Postal Service, rega.r~a-
less of the consistency of such amendme~tts
with the framework created by the Postal Re-
organization Act and regardless of whetlxer
they have a logical connection with the pro-
visions to which the Postal Service was made
subject at the outset. If Congress amended
chapter 71 of title 5 to prohibit executive
agencies from negotiating agreements with
labor organizations, far example-an amend-
ment that would conflict with the employce-
management provisions of the Postal Reorg;a-
nizatlon Act and would introduce a subject
not within the purview of chapter 71 as in
effect at the time of adoption of the Postal
Reargaxxization Act--I do not believe that i.he
amendment could reasonably be read as
applying to the Postal Service unless the
amendment itself contained language ex-
pressly bringing the Postal Service within fts
terms.
On the other hand, an amendment to
chapter 71 dealing with matters that were
covered by that chapter when the Postal Re-
organization Act was passed, and doing so in
a manner not inconsistent with the provi-
sions of the Act, might well be deemed to
apply to the Postal Service even though the
amendment did not so state.
It is a close question, I think, whether then
Postal Service would be covered by H.R. 8085,
iP that bill were enacted in the form in which
it was reported by your Committee. In pro-
hibiting arbitrary maximum-age require-
ments for entrance into the Federal service,
the bill deals with a type of discrimination
that was not covered by chapter 71 oP title
5 when the Postal Reorganization Act cvas
passed. On the other hand, the amendment
is in harmony with the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act of 19Fi7, and its exten-
sion to the Postal Service would thus not be
inconsistent with the concept that employ-
ment within the Postal Service should in
general, be made more nearly comparable to
employment in the private sector. Asa prac-
tical matter, I suspect tlxat the Pascal Service
would try to comply with the policy embod-
ied in H.R. 8955 regardless of its legal obli-
gation to do so; but if. it is the intent of
Congress that the Postal Service be subject
to the bill as a matter cP law, it would seem
desirable to include an express provision to
that effect..
With respect to the proposed addition to
chapter 71 of a-new subchapter III, deflnialg
a broad new category of employee rights and
estabUshing a detailed statutory mechanism
for handling complaints oP violations of such
rights, I do not believe that the proposed
subchapter, as presently drafted, would apply
to the Postal Service. The subject matter of
the new subchapter has little in coxnmo:x
with that of the two subchapters that were
in effect when the Postal Reorganization Act
was passed, and it has no analogue ix> the
body of federal lacv applicable to private ea3x.-
ployers. If the measure were held to be ap-
plicable to the Postal Service, moreover, it
would have the effect of withdrawing from
the collective bargaining process a number
oP matters-both substantive and proce-
dural-that would have been subject to ecil-
lective bargaining under the Postal Reorga-
nization Act. Such an intent should nnl.,
I think, be inferred lightly.
The applicability to the Postal Service of
any amendment to the provisions specified in
39 U.S.C. ? 410 (b) depends, in the flnai
analysis, upon an interpretation of the fax-
tent of Congress in adopting the amendment.
The Courts would be hard put, I believe, to
impute to Congress an intent to bring titC
Postal Service within the coverage of an
amendment that makes no reference to ti;e
Postal Service, that is inconsistent with t11c
Approved For Release 2001/03/02 :CIA-RDP73B00296R000400060003-9
 ~Tanuar~,?rQ~~ For Rel~~~~~~(~~ :~~~~P7~Q~~96R000400060003-9~ J75
principles underlying the Postal -Reorgani-
zation Act, and that deals with subjects not
eovered'in the provisions that were made ap-
~licable to the Postal Service when section
41U(b) was enacted. The question raised in
your letter is not an easy one, and I hope
that you will find these comments helpful.
With kindest personal regards, ,.
Sincerely.
DAVID A. NELSON.
At the present time, there is no pro-
hibition against establishing a maxi-
i11um age limit for appointments to po-
sitions in the excepted service. The ex-
isting statutory prohibition-5 U.S.C.
3307-applies. only to positions in the
competitive service.
Under the provisions of this bill,
maximum age requirements for positions
in both the competitive service and the
excepted service could be established
only by the President or his agent.
A1P positions in the FBI are in the ex-
cepted-service. A maximum age require-
ment of 4p years has been established
for an appointment to the position of
special agent in the FBI. Under the pro-
visions of this bill, the maximum age
limit of 40 would have to be established
by the President or his agent, subject to
congressional approval. The FBI could
iro longer exercise such authority.
Under the authority of Fublic Law
81-73, the Secretary of the Interior has
established a maximum age limit of 30
years for appointments to the U.S. Park
Police. This authority is repealed by
H,R. 8085. Such age limit would have
to be established by the President or his
agent.
The committee has received letters
from two agency heads seeking author-
ity to establish maximum age limits for
appointments to certain positions.
One letter is from the Attorney Gen-
@ral, seeking authority to establish min-
imum and maximum age limitations for
appointments to the following posi-
tions-
First. Border Patrol Agent-Immigra-
$ion and Naturalization Service;
Second. Criminal Investigator-Bu-
reau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs;
'T'hird. Correctional Officer-Bureau
of Prisons; and
Fourth. Deputy U.S. marshal.
Tl~e other letter is from the Secretary
of Transportation, seeking authority to
establish a maximum age limit for ap-
pointments to the position of Air,Trafi"ic
Controller.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, would the
distinguished gentleman from North
Carolina yield?
Mr. HENDERSON. I am delighted to
yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. HALL. I appreciate the gentle-
man's statement. I have listened intently.
I must say that this is a problem that
has bothered me for a long time. In the
days of my active practice of medicine
and surgery, when I was of necessity re-
quired to advise people to retire and live
graciously, and try to explain to them
why, as well as haw, to live graciously,
I would often say that a man has a right
to elect to die with his boots on. But un-
fortunately it is not always given to us
to know when we -are going to continue
to be able to pull our boots on or even
take them off.
There is nothing that is more sad than
perhaps aself-appointedly indispensable
individual who has the ravages of physi-
cal disease to the point where he is no
longer rational, equitable, or exercises
good judgment. By the same token, I
would hasten to add that there is nothing
more beautiful than some grandmother
who is an octogenal?ian,. who may be
ravaged physically, but who remains
mentally acutely aware, awake, and
agile.
I do not know how we can fix this. I
am worried about three things. I wonder
if we are not giving to the executive
agency and to the Chief Executive, the
various heads of the departments and
bureaus, a power which rightly should
remain in the Congress to the point
where we are eliminating management's
tools of discelnment.
I am conscious of the fact, as I am
sure the distinguished gentleman is, that
in recent months and years we have
taken away practically all bars to Fed-
eral emplaymexlt-in turn, race, social
and national origin, sex-land now we
are taking away, in fact, age as a bar
to employment-not in the exceptional
case alone, but by this action, as I read
it, in all oases. It would seem to me that
management, whether it be in public
trust or whether it be in private enter-
prise, should have some rules of dis-
cernment based on means or averages,
with which they could lay an average
or make a generally applicable rule.
Mr. HENDERSON. If the gentleman
would permit me on that point, his re-
marks are very much in keeping with the
consideration that our subcammi~ttee
members gave to this legislation. Here
the problem is whether or not the Presi-
dent or his agent, and I believe the Presi-
dential authority granted here would be
delegated to the Civil Service Commis-
sion-ar whether Congress should set
maximum entry age for employment in
the federal system. The Congress has
done this in the past for the Federal
Bureau of Investigation. I think a very
good case was made than and could be
made for the continuation in that in-
stance. As I mentioned in my statement,
in 1969, we granted this authority to the
Department of the Interior for the Fark
-Police. I persollally think that through
the action of our subcommittee, in re-
porting this bill and by granting this au-
thority to the President or his designated
agency, we will get the real expertise
that I think the gentleman is talking
about. An age limit for entrance in the
Federal service, must be based solely on
job-related qualifications. I thank if we
do not pass this bill, the Congress from
time to time in aoting will have no sort
of uniformity for the entrance require-
ments as opposed to uniform action by
the Civil Service Commission.
Mr. HALL. I hope the gentleman is
correot, because the ravages of disease
and time hanging over all our heads be-
comes mare and mare apparent the older
one gets, if he is honest with himself; and
we face the same problem, of course,
right here in our own operation. As a
matter of procedural fact, do I correctly
understand from the gentleman that if
the Secretary of,Defense would come in
here acid ask far an age limitation for
entry and/or retirement of the members
of the Armed Forces, we would have only
60 days in which to veto such a request?
Mr.'HENDERSON. This would not af-
fect the uniformed military but only our
civil service employees within the De-
fense Department. The Secretary would
make the request, I assume, to the Civil
Service Commission, if designated by the
President, and the Commission would
hold the. proper hearings and receive the
evidence. If based on that record, they
decided to make an age limitation in a
particular job, they would report that
fact together with the justification to
the committees of the Congress 60 days
before it would go into effect in order
to provide the Congress an oppor?ttmity
to act.
Mr. HALL. And that would be the so-
called veto in reverse. If we acted arbi-
trarily then, it would not go into effect,
and it would have the effect then of the
Reorganization Act of 1949?
Mr. HENDERSON. The way it is pre-
sented, Iwill say to the gentleman, it
does not require congressional action,
so in the absence of such action, the pro-
posal would become a requirement. I
reiterate, however, that the Congress
would have the opportunity by virtue o?
the 60 days'- notice to act before that
did become effective.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, T certainly
appreciate the gentleman's forebear-
ance. I, of course, historically am against
the veto in reverse where the Legisla-
tive body, instead of assuming the re-
sponsibility and acting in fulfilling its
responsibility, allows the executive body
to act and then reserves unto itself or
one or .other of the bodies, so many days
in which to act.
Finally, could this not be a two-edged
sword, would the gentleman from North
Carolina agree, to the effect that if the
limits are set too high, it may kill incen-
tive because of the "hangers on" over and
above the normally prescribed age of re-
tirement iii any one division, department,
or operating branch of the Government?
Just a few years ago we here were low-
ering constantly the ages. for retirement,
and, of course, retirement is involved. I
do not see how we can sad, as the report
does, that there is practically no cost in-
volved; because if we set the a.ge younger,
there is much less contribution of the
employee, and the Federal Government
and the Federal taxpayers contribute
that much more. But be that as it may,
my point is the sword cuts both ways, and
if people hang around too long, or are
extended by the President or his Cabinet
membel?s, would it not ruin therncentive
within the service?
Mr. HENDERSON. I think the best
evidence that the committee received was
pertinent to the air traffic controllers
under the FAA in the Department of
Transportation. A clear case was made
because. of the unique pressures of that
particular job. An air traffic controller is
required to suffer pressures that are in-
herent only in the course of that career.
I am sure our comlxlittee would have
adopted minimum ages for entrance if we
had not anticipated the enactment of this
legislation. Or, to say it another way, if
Approved For Release 2001/03/02 :CIA-RDP73B00296R000400060003-9
 x 37s
Approved For Release 2001/03/02 :CIA-RDP73B00296R000400060003-9 =
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE January?y ~ i, 19 i:`~'
this bill is not enacted into law, I feel
sure our committee will come back and
present to the House at least in that in-
stance the minimum age requirement.
The objective there would be to insure
that we get young men into the service
so that they could complete a full course
and retire before the job-related prob-
lems just get to them and make it im-
possible for them to perform.
Mr. HALL. I do understand that, and
I appreciate the gentleman yielding. My
point though is just the reverse. Suppose
a future Administrator of the FAA came
back and said, "No, we erred," as we nod
during a recent administration when we
began to lower the ages for retirement.
The Administrator will say, "Let us in-
crease the ages for requirement. Experi-
cove is of great value. It is not so dif-
flcult any more. Therefore we will re-
quire these people to stay until they are
70." At the same time we may find the
young air traffic controllers would resign
en masse becauge they could not expect
to go to the top brackets in that"cir-
cumstance. Iknow it is far-fetched. It
does happen with jet fliers, and it could
in other matters of severe nerve and
physical strain.
Mr. DULSKI. Mr.,Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HENDERSON. Y yield to my chair-
man on this point, the gentleman from
New York.
Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Chairman, I appre-
cfate the chairman of the subcommit-
tee yielding.
The gentleman from Missouri is re-
ferring to retirement. There is nothing
in this bill relating to retirement. It is
only a maximum entry age for appoint-
ment to a position in the competitive
service. Would the gentleman from
North Carolina agree?
Mr. HENDERSON. That is correct.
I might say further to the gentleman
from Missouri that- we had the proposal
before us for earlier retirement for the
FAA controllers only,
.Of course, I believe it would be far
more expensive to the Federal Govern-
ment if we were to have that early re-
tirement without a requirement for entry
age. If we were to grant full retirement
for less than a normal 20-year .period, it
would be more expensive than setting
minimum entrance ages allowing for a
f uil career, where possible.
Mr. HALL. I appreciate these informa-
tive comments, but things equal to each
other come out the same in the end.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr, HENDERSON. I am delighted to
yield to the gentleman from Texas, a
member of the committee.
Mr. WHITE. There are three prob-
lems in connection with this particular
bill, as I see it, and which are addressed
by an amendment I will show the gen-
tleman, which I hope to offer for accept-
ance.
First, as mentioned by the gertleman
from Missouri, there is a delegation of
authority by the Congress and an ab-
dication of this :power to '.the President.
q.'hat qualification as to ~e has always
been traditional. in 'the Congress.
Second, in the term of native to the
Congress. the bill speaks of fi0 days. How- course, Congress could exercise its leg-
ever, it is not said, "while Congress fs in islative authority. The gentleman is cor-
session." It, just says to notify the cam- rect.
mittees 60 days prior to its enforcement The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman fro'rs
or its going into being. That is another Nor'tYr Carolina has consumed 20 minutes.
pitfall. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield.
Another itfall I see is that there is a myself such time as I may consume.
question're~ating to the validity of no- (Mr. GROSS asked and was given
tices tp committees instead a'f to the permission to revise and extend his re-
Congress, The amendment I have would _m~a,~?ks. i
call for notice to the Congress, and it :~"-Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, again I.
would give,a 90-day notice to the Con-find myself in the unpleasant position
gress. of opposing a bill from the committee of
One other section of the amendment which I am a member.
I have reaches to what I regard to be a Mr. Chairman, this bill has only one
hazard. Suppose a new President came real purpose and that is to delegate
into office, .and he therefore had many authority to the President to set maxi-
obligations to fill positions for those who
had helped him. This is a practical po-
litical rea.Iity. Suppose he decidgd he
wanted to find spots far these faithful
supporters and that he set a lower level
for the occupational age .limit, thereby
creaking new positions, for those who
reach the ceiling and therefore have to
retire.
Mr. HENDERSON. The gentleman is
getting far off the .point. Let me say that
we are setting only entrance .ages. Do
not confuse that with those who are in
service. Alcyone in service would oat be
affected. This only affects the age a per-
son entering the seTVice.
Mr. WHITE. For legislative. history,
the gentleman is saying this would not
affect the need for an individual to leave
that employment. In other words, it has
mum age requirements far employment
with the Federal Government.
The so-called reaffirmation of congres-
signal policy against age discrimination
is totally superfluous in that it has been.
national policy since 1956 when Con-
gress wrote into the statutes strict pro-
hibitions against age discrimination far
employment with the Federal Govern-
ment.
Additionally, in 1967, Congress enacted
the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act, making it unlawful for any employer
in the private sector to refuse to hire an
against age discrimination in Federal.
employment on one hand, turns right
around and specifically gives car?tc
blanche authority to the President, or
to his agent, to establish age require-
ments for any and all of the 1,500 job
occupations which compose the Federal
a built-in grandfather clause with respect
to those already in service?
Mr. HENhERSON. This has absolutely
nothing to do with employees who have
already entered the service or with re-
gard to their retirement.
With regard to the gentleman's first
point, I have no objection to the gentle-
man offering an amendment requesting
a 90-daY notice for reports made to the
Congress. I would be glad to discuss this
amendment with him.
Mr. WHITE. I should like to go a lit-
tle further. What'would be the feeling of
the gentleran in the well, a very dis-
tinguished chairman of this committee,
as to this notice to be made fo the Con-
gress, .giving either House of the Con-
gress the right to veto?
Mr. HENDERSON. I believe the gen-
tleman knows I have opposed that, and
would do so on the floor. Of course, that
is a decision for the Committee of the
Whole to make as we debate the amend-
ment.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will my
friend from North Carolina yield?
Nlr. HENDER;SON. I am delighted to
yield to the distinguished gentleman
from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. In response to a ques-
tion asked by the gentleman from Mis-
souri (Mr.'Hntr.) the gentleman pro-
vided ananswer but I believe it could
be.more specific. Is it not true that in the
case df review as set forth irr this legisla-
tion it would still take the enactment
of a law by Congress to upset any abuse
of what is here provided as to age for en-
trance into Federal employment?
Mr. HENDERSON, The gentleman is
absolutely right. It would take legislative
action within 60 days; or thereafter, of
~ I can see some need for a measure of
flexibility wherein some machinery might
be created to set maximum age require-
mentsfor certain specific positions. Types
of jobs, for example, where age could
possibly be a factor include certain law
enforcement personnel, firefighters, and
air traffic controllers.
However, Mr. Chairman, I am opposed
to the provisions of this bill, which pro-
poses to further abdicate the historic re-
sponsibility of Congress in a vital area of
national concern, and to bestow this au-
thority upon the President, any Pres-
dent. And particularly since the bill pro-
vides for no meaningful congressional
oversight of the determinations thai
might be made by the President.
The one thing that disturbs me most.
Mr. Chairman, about this bill is that it
is another, in what has become a Ions
series of bills from the committee, of
which I am a member, which require the
Congress to completely abdicate its his-
torical and constitutional prerogatives
and turn those prerogatives over to the
executive branch.
For example, in the last 4 years---
We have turned over to the President
the authority to set the salaries of Mem-
bers of Congress, all Federal judges, and
all Cabinet officers, and other Federal
executives.
We have turned over to the President
complete authority'to set the pay of all
other employees-the so-called rank-
and-file employees of the Federal Gov-
ernment-under the statutory salary
systems.
Approved For Release 2001/03/02 :CIA-RDP73B00296R000400060003-9
 January ~~~rlg~f~d For Re~~~~'~f~~ R~?1~`D,~~~296R000400060003-~ 377
:: W e have turned over to the Postmaster
t~'ener~7 the authority to negotiate the
rut's of pay for all postal employees.
LL'~Pe 13ave turned over to a so-called in-
dependent Postal- Rate Commission the
authority to set postal rates. I might
point out here that the same postal rate
increase proposal which this Commis-
sion has been considering since last Feb-
ruary, under a procedure that has taken
over 16,000 pages of printed testimony
and involvement by practically every
attorney ixi Washington, is the same
postal rate increase which this Congress
was ready to approve a year and a half
ago, until the Postmaster General stated
that postal reform was then more impor-
tant to him than a postal rate increase.
By reason of the action of the commit-
tee of which I am a member, the Presi-
dent of the United States today sets the
pay of every officer and employee of the
entire Federal Government with the ex-
ception of his awn pay and that of the
Vice President.
I have consistently opposed each of
these delegations of authority to the
President. I think our actions have not
only been unwise but extremely danger-
ous, and certainly not in the best inter-
ests oP the American people and constitu-
tional government.
F[owever, getting back to this particu-
lar bill, I must emphasize that it repre-
sents adramatic departure from a long-
time firm policy wherein the Congress
has flatly prohibited all age discrimina-
tion in Federal employment and wherein
the Congress itself has determined if and
where exceptions to that policy should
be made. _
is bill is opposed, and properly so, by
the large employee unions who are most
concerned that the wide discretion it im-
poses an a President, any President, could
be abused,
cannot support the bill and I urge its
defeat.
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I
have no further requests for time.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. ROUSSELOT) .
(Mr. ROUSSELOT asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Chairman, once
again we in the Congress are being asked
to approve legislation to diminish the
role of the legislative branch by turning
over to the executive branch authority to
set maximum age limits for appoint-
menu in the Federal service. I da not
intend to be a part of that effort. This
is exactly what H.R. 8085 purports to
do and I oppose it on these grounds
alone.
Mr. Chairman, let us examine the rea-
sons for this recommendation. We are
told that a number of Federal agencies
have indicated, and properly so, that they
will seek authority from the Congress
tp set maximum age limits for entry into
ssveral types of jobs and, therefore, in
the interest of uniformity and appropri-
ate control, it is far better tq have this
authority vested in the President or his
agent. I tgtally disagree. In 1969, the
Congress heard the request of the De-
partment of the Interior far setting max-
imam age limits for the U.B. Park Police
and enacted Public Law 91-73. This ac-
tion clearly indicates the willingness of
the Congress to take action and that--
it was receptive to the arguments pre-
sented by the Interior Department and
approved their request an the basis of
logic. What is there in the record to be-
lieve that in the future the Congress will
not be receptive or that it will not be
judicious in its consideration of the views
of other agencies in similar exceptions?
I, for one, am not satisfied with the an-
swer that we are given, that we must
constantly turn over mare and more
power to the executive branch of Gov-
ernment. Because that branch is the only
one capable of dealing with special age
r blems.
Mr. Chairman, I say the time has come
o say "no," I submit that any agency
that feels it needs relief from the strict
letter of the law can present its case to
the Congress and expect to receive a fair
hearing. We do it all the time.
Mr. Chairman, I recognize the nee
far providing flexibility in this area in
place of the present outright ban on age
limits for entry into the competitive
service, but I do not subscribe to the
theory which seems to be quite preva-
lent today, that the executive branch is
omniscient and can do a better job than
the legislative branch. I believe that in
many caves the opposite is true and I
will not be a party here today of an ef-
fort to turn more of our responsibilities
over to the executive branch.
Mr. Chairman, I appose this legisla-
tion.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I y~eid 3
minutes to the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. McCLOaY> .
(Mr. McCLdRY asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
maxks. )
Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman for yielding. I know that
one of the principal aims of our older
citizens these days is to find useful em-
ployment, and that seems to be even more
prominent in their needs than even in-
creased social security and other bene-
fits, including hospitalization and other
things of that nature.
The thing that concerns me about this
legislation is whether or not it is going
to provide more opportunity for useful
employment for these older citizens who
are seeking that kind of outlet, and who
have such tremendous talents that
should be utilized, and whether or not
this will discourage them or derive them
of the chance of such employment.
So I would like to have some answers
to that question from someone who is on
the committee, and who would be able to
answer whether or not this would deprive
persons, far instance, who have com-
pleted asuccessful career in business, and
who might be utilized fn various capac-
ities in the Federal service.
Would this encourage their employ-
ment, and give them greater opportunity
and give us a better chance to utilize
their skills, experience, and talents, or is
it going to leave things about the same,
or diminish those chances?
Mr. I3ENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCLORY. I yield to the gentIe-
man from North Carolina.
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, in
reply to the inquiry of the gentleman
from Illinois let me state that it is en-
visioned by the hearings and the legisla-
tive intent here that the authority
granted to set entrance age requirements
would be job. related clearly, as to
whether the age ought to be 35 or 40 is
envisioned,-the same as we have done for
the FBI, and in other positions in the
Department of Justice for such as the
Border Patrol, the Narcotics Agents, and
so on. The only other exception to law
enforcement that I know of is the FAA
flight controllers. So we do not antici-
pate that there would be requests for
large numbers of positions to be covered
under the minimum age entrance
requirement.
It is for that reason that we believe
that the reporting of their proposed ac-
tions to the Congress could give tas suffi-
cient oversight in these areas.
Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, it
seems to me that if we would simply
abolish or repeal the age discrimination
which exists in the law, just flatly, per-
haps with exceptions in the area of law
enforcement and a few areas like that
which -the Congress could speak upon,
that then we would be responding to the
needs and. desires of these older citizens.
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, if
the gentleman will yield further, I do
not quite understand the gentleman's ar-
gument because the law now clearly says
that there should be no discrimination
because oP age. So in the Federal law en-
forcement agencies where clearly there
ought to be some age at which you would
require the officer or the employee to en-
ter the service that we have got to have
either specific legislative authority or
this authority to set those ages. And ob-
viously the gentleman is not arguing that
a retiree of age 65 ought to have the
right to enter the law enforcement field.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from Illinois has expired.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2
additional minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois.
Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman for the additional time,
and I hope the gentleman from Iowa
can enlighten me on this subject because
I do not seem to be satisfied with the
answers so far in regard to my inquiry.
What is the opinion of the gentleman
fi?om Iowa with regard to eliminating age
as a barrier-as a source of discrimina-
tion by this Congress? What is the ef-
fect of this legislation on that kind of
discrimination which I think is flagrant
today, and which is not only depriving
our older citizens of their opportunity,
but is depriving the Nation of the serv-
ices, talents, and experience of our older
citizens.
Mr. GROSS. I believe the gentleman
has addressed the question to me. I
think there are a few areas that we ought
to take care of, and the Congress ought
to take care of those areas, such as law
enforcement officers and firefighters,
and as I have stated previously here this
afternoon, as well as air traffic control-
lers, those limited areas, but I think we
Approved For Release 2001/03/02 :CIA-RDP73B00296R000400060003-9
 H 378 Approved For Rele~s~~~~(g~~ALC~~73~a6R000400~a~i~~~C~~-~~'; X97`.2
ought to take care of it as far as wiping
it out altogether. The point I am trying
to make here is that whatever is done
ought to be done consistently throughout
the Federal Government, and it ought
to be done by Congress.
I think it is most inconsistent coming
here today and delegating this kind of
power to the President or to any Presi-
dent of the United States-present or fu-
ture. Ithink we ought to look ourselve:~
in the face if we are going to have this
and we ought to set the age requirements
for the Congress-why not begin right
here among ourselves?
Mr. McCLORY. It seems to me from
the gentleman's answer that what we
are doing is delegating to the executive
branch a responsibility that historically
and constitutionally belongs with the
U.S. Congress.
If any request for maximum entry age
limits are desired. by the Federal Gov-
ernment, then it should be the duty of
the V.S. Congress to receive testimony by
all interested parties and proceed in an
orderly and responsible manner. This
subject is far too important to be dealt
with in any summary fashion.
We, the elected Members of Congres,
should and must decide on any maximum.
entry age limits because too much is at
stake for our senior citizens. For these
reasons, I must oppose this bill.
(Mr. McCLORY asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks. )
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I
yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
I think we want to get on the point
that the gentleman is making and I do
not think any of us have quite gotten on
it.
Mr. Chairman, I will put it this way,
The law now provides that there shall
be no discrimination because of age. If
the gentleman knows any older citizens
who have been discriminated against in
Federal employment, then that matter
ought to be brought to the attention of
the Civil Service Commission, and we on
the committee would like to have it. But
what the gentleman is saying is that
older citizens are discriminated against
because they are older citizens. We have
all the laws we need on the books on that;
and this legislation has nothing to do on
that point.
(Mr. McCLORY asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks)
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman I yield the
gentleman 1 minute and if the gentleman
will yield to me I will appreciate it.
Mr. McCLORY. I yield to the gentle-
&Yl.
Mr. GROSS. Let me quote from section
3307, title V.
This reads as follows:
? 3307. Competitive service: maximum-age
requirement; restriction on use of
appropriated funds
Appropriated funds may not be used to pay
an employee who establishes amaximum-age
requirement for entrance into the competi-
tive service.l (Pub. L. 89-554, Sept. 6, 1966,
0 Stat. 419.) ~
What this bill seeks to do is to repea.I
this section of the law.
Mr. McCLORY. That is my under-
. standing.
Mr. GROSS. And if we defeat this
bill, we will have preserved the statute.
Mr. McCLORY. I thank the gentle-
man.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCLORY. I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Chairman, I
thilik the point the gentleman from Illi-
nois is making is a correct one. That is
we in Congress are delegating away from
ourselves the power to make selective and
individual choices in given areas where
it may be proper to set maximum and
minimum age limits. But under this legis-
lation we are now delegating that au-
thority away to the executive branch. I
think it is an abandonment of our re-
sponsibility to our constituents and to
all others involved in Federal employ-
ment. Ithink it is wrong and I think the
gentleman from Illinois is making a good
point.
Mr. LLOYD. Mr. Chairman, the Wash-
ington Post recently published an edi-
torial which pointed out that the 1970
census found 3.5 million more Americans
over the age of 65 than in the census
oaken 10 years previously. The same cen-
sus further revealed 5 million less per-
sons under the age of 5 years in 1970
than in 1960: This further emphasizes
the very dramatic increase in the aver-
age age of Americans and underscores
the vital necessity of eliminting discrim-
inations in employment based upon age
wherever feasible. Older Americans have
been and are handicapped in their ef-
forts to retain and secure employment
which they are perfectly capable of ~ul-
filling. We must increase our concentra-
tion on the job of making older citizens
feel integrated rather than segregated
from the responsible activities of society.
Therefore, I wish to take this oppor-
tunity to voice my support for H.R. 8085,
which will establish a congressional pol-
icy that will require the Federal Govern-
ment to~romote the employment of per-
sons on their ability, rather than age,
and which will prohibit arbitrary dis-
crimination on the basis of age in all
employment in the Federal service.
Age by itself should never be a bar to
employment, either in private industry
or in the Federal Government, and Con-
gress must do all that it can to insure
that the Federal Government does not
discriminate on the basis of age in its
own hiring practices.
This bill is'an extension of a congres-
sional policy established in 1956 that pre-
vents the establishment of maximum age
ceilings for appointments in the Federal
competitive service. At the present time,
owever, there is no such provision that
pplies to positions in the excepted serv-
ces: In keeping with the Government's
okay against age discrimination, it
eems to me highly desirable that Con-
gress should extend the prohibition of
age limits to the excepted services.
Passage: of this bill will reaffirm and
strengthen our commitment to fight age
discrimination and will help guarantee
that qualified persons are riot excluded
from Government service merely because
they are older than other applicants for
the same position.
This bill is flexi~~, however,. in that it
provides that the }resident can establish
maximum age requirements, but ;pinly
when age is found to be a bona fide or,-
cupational qualification.
With the passage of H.R. 8085, we will
take another step forward in eliminating
age discrimination in Government em-
ployment.
Mr. BADILLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to H.R. 8085, a bill whose pas-
sag'~as been sought by the administra-
mission, to establish a mandatory legal
maximum age for the initial employment
of Federal civilian personnel. In my view,
this would be an unwarranted relaxation
of the 1956 and 1957 acts which prohibit-
ed discrimination in Federal employment
on the basis of age.
In examining the record of the hear-
ings on this legislation, I find no adequate
justification far imposing a maximum
entry age. It seems to me that the pres-
ent medical examinations for entry into
the Federal service are ample safeguards
to determine conclusively whether an ap-
plicant can properly perform on the job.
If the medical departments of the vari-
ous agencies find applicants flt for duty,
no other official or agency should be in a
position to invoke arbitrary legal maxi-
mum age requirements to deny free ac-
cess to all jobs of professionally and
physically qualified applicants.
In view of the tremendous potential for
misuse of such authority,. as well, as the
very limited number of occupations
which might properly be subject to-such
a requirement, I believe this legislation
must be rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule,
the Clerk will read the substitute oonl-
mittee amendment printed in the re-
ported bill as an original bill for the pur-
pase of amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States o} Amer-
ica in Congress asembled, That (a) sub-
chapter II of chapter 71 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end
thereof the following:
"? 7165. Maximum-'age entrance requirement
"It is the policy of the United States to
promote e~mplayment of persons based on
their ability rather than age and to prohibit
arbitrary age discrimination in employment
in the Federal service. A maximum-age re-
quirement may be applied in making an ap-
pointment to a position in an Executive
agency or in the competitive service only
when the President, or such agent as he may
designate, has established and pleced in ef-
fect this requirement on the basis of a deter-
mination that age is a bane fide occupa-
tional qualification reasonably necessary to
the performance of the duties of the position.
Not later than the 60th day before establish-
ing and placing in effect amaximum-age re-
quirement under this section, the President
or his agent ehall transmit to the Committee
an .Post Office and Civil Service of the Sen-
ate and the Gommittee on Post Office and
Civil Service of the House of Representatives
a report which includes a full and complete
statement justifying the need for that maxi-
mum-age requirement.".
(b) The analysis of subchapter iI of chap-
ter 71 of title 5, United States Code. is
amended by inserting the fallowing new item
aster item 7154:
Approved For Release 2001/03/02 :CIA-RDP73B00296R000400060003-9
 January~~~`~~d For Re~~~~'~~~ g~F?1~P~296R000400060003-~ 379
"7155. Maximum-age entrance requirement: '.
SEC. 2, (a) Section 3307 of title 6, United
States Code, is repealed.
(b) The analysis of subchapter I of chap-
ter 33 of title 5, United Staten Code, is
amended by striking out-
"8302 Competitive service; maximum-age
requirement; restriction on use oY
appropriated funds.".
SEC. 3. Public Law 91-73 approved Septem-
ber 26, 1969 (83 Stat. 116) is repealed.
Mr. HENDERSON (during the read-
ing) . Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the committee amendment
irl the nature of a substitute be consid-
ered as read, printed in the RECORD, and
open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection,
ft is so ordered.
There was no objection.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. WHITE
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. WHITE: On
page 2, line 19, insert "(a)" immediately
before the word "It".
On page 2, line 22, strike out the word
"A" and insert "Subject to the provisions
of subsections (b) and (c) of this section,
a" in lieu thereof.
On page 3, line 4, strike out the word
"Not" and all that follows down through
the second period in line 11 on page 3 and
insert in l~u thereoY the following:
"(b) When the President or his agent has
determined that it is necessary to establish
a maximum age requirement fora particu-
lar position in an Executive agency or 3n
the competitive service, he shall transmit
to the Congress his. recommendation con-
cerning such maximum age requirement to-
gether with a statement explaining the need
for such requirement.
"(c) The maximum age requirement rec-
ommended by the President or his agent
and transmitted to the Congress under sub-
section (b) of this section shall become ef-
fective at the end oY the first period of 90
calendar days oY continuous session of the
Congress alter the date on which the recom-
mendation is transmitted. The continuity
oY a session is broken only by an ad-
journment of the Congress sine die. The
days on which either House is not in session
because of an adjournment of more than
S days to a day certain are excluded in the
computation, of the 90-day period.".
Mr. WHITE (during the reading) .
" Mr, Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the further reading of the amend-
ment be dispensed witYl, and I would
like to explain the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection,
it is so ordered. ,
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from
Texas (Mr. WHITE) is recognized in sup-
port of his amendment.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman and mem-
bers of the committee, this amendment
follows in line with the colloquy I had
with the chairman of the subcommittee.
While the bill provides 60 days notice
to the House Post Office and Civil Service
G`ommittee and -the Senate Post Office
and Civil Service Committee, this
amendment provides for 90 days notice
dux?ing a session of the Congress, with the
allowance for days of recess of the Con-
gress. This "is consonant with the rules of
the House.
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITE. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, in
behalf of the majority, we accept the
amendment.
Mr. WHITE. I thank the gentleman
very much.
The purpose of the amendment is to
give the Congress more opportunity to
look at the Presidential recommenda-
tion. Ninety days will enable the Con-
gress, either body-of Congress, to initiate
legislation to rectify or reverse a Presi-
dential order to keep it in line with what
the Congress deems should be a proper
age requirement, or to nullify the Pres-
ident's order. So I urge the committee
to accept the amendment.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the necessary number of words.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from
Iowa is recognized for 5 minutes.
(.Mr. GROSS asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I take this
time to ask the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. WHITE) if the language which I
shall read has not been stricken from
his original statement. This is the lan-
guage-
Unless, between the date of transmittal
and the end of the 90-day period, either
House adopts a resolution disapproving the
maximum age requirement so recommended
and transmitted.
Mr. WHITE. I did because of the fear
that the sentiment of the House would
be against a reverse veto; that is, a veto
by the House of a Presidential order, So
I limited my amendment as offered to
the House to call fora 90-day notice to
the Congress.
Mr. GROSS. Then I will have to say to
my friend from Texas, whom I hold in
high regard and esteem, that his amend-
ment to this bill is little more than
window dressing.
Mr. WHITE. It would give the Con-
gress more time to act. The bill as it
stands provides a BO-day period.
Mr. GROSS. But if Congress wants to
disapprove-what a President does by way
of this delegated authority with respect
tb age requirements far entrance into
Federal employment, it would have to
pass a law.
Mr. WHITE. If the gentleman feels
like a substitute amendment would be
in order, I would be happy to vote for
such a substitute in line with the word-
ing contained in the original amendment.
Mr. GROSS. I should like to have same
immediate recourse on the part of Con-
gress. Yau have stricken that language
from your amendment, and as ineffective
as that would be, it would still be some
brake upon the executive.
I urge defeat of the pending amend-
ment, my colleagues, because it does
nothing except provide something on the
order of a half-baked review. It adds
nothing to this bill, which is bad on the
face of it.
The CHAIRMAN. Tl}e question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. WHITE) ,
The question was taken; and the
Chairman being in doubt, the Committee
divided, and there were-ayes 17, noes
32.
So the amendment was rejected.
AMENDMENT OFFERED EY MR. WHITE
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:-
Amendment offered by Mr. WHITE: on
page 2, line 19, insert "(a) " immediately
before the word "It".
On page 2, line 22, strike out the ward
"A" and insert "Subject to the provisions
of subsections (b) and (c) of this section,
a" in lieu thereof.
On page 3, line 4, strike out the word
"Not" and all that follows down through
the second period in line 11 on page 3 and
insert in lieu thereo: the following:
"(b When the President or his agent
has determined that it is necessary to estab-
lish amaximum age requirement for a, par-
ticular position in an Executive agency or in
the competitive service, he shall transmit
to the Congress his recommendation con-
cerning such maximum age requirement
together with a statement explaining the
need for such requirement.
"(c) The maximum age requirement rec-
ommended by the President or his agent and
transmitted to the Congress under subsec-
tion (b) of this section shall become effective
at the end of the first period of 90 calendar
days of continuous session of the Congress
after the date on which the recommendation
is transmitted unless, between the date of
transmittal and the end of the 90-day period,
either House adopts a resolution disapprov-
ing the maximum age requirement so rec-
ommended and transmitted. The continuity
of a session is broken only by an adjourn-
ment of the Congress sine die. The days on
which either House is not in session because
of an adjournment of more than 3 days to a
day certain are excluded in the computation
of the 90-day period.".
Mr. WHITE (during the reading) . Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
further reading of the amendment be
dispensed with and that it be printed in
the RECORD. I shall explain the amend-
ment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, this
amendment is precisely the same as the
originally-prepared amendment to which
attention was called by the. gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Gross) . I have restored
the wording with the one sentence which
would give the Congress the right to veto
a Presidential order for a change of age
requirements. In other words, in totality
this amendment ~svould call far the Pres-
ident, upon making a finding, to present
his recommendation to the Congress 90
days prior to the instituting of the age
limit change.
At that time either Hause of Congress
could then veto the Presidential order
and it would be annulled. That is the
effect of this amendment.
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to the amendment of-
fered by the gentleman from Texas. I
think the Members who have been on the
floor understand exactly what the situa-
tion is, so I do not think it is necessary
for us to repeat that the Congress must
act to disapprove the recommendation of
the President in this paI?ticular instance.
Approved For Release 201/03/02:CIA-RDP73B00296R000400060003-9
 H 380 Approved For Rele~~~~~~~~ ~~~73~~~~6R00040~~~~ ~~ ls~ti
But the provision of the amendment that 73> to fix the minimum and maximum
the committee Just turned down, which, limits of:age within which original ap-
I might add, this side was willing to pointments to the U.S. Fork Police may
accept, still reserved to the Congress the
right to act. So really what we are saying
is we either do it by disapproving the
President's action or-pass a bill setting
the age that we think ought to be set, if
any, in that particular instance.
It is not a matter of great importance
but only of procedure. I still think the
bill reported from the committee is much
better without the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Texas. I hope
the amendment will be defeated.
(Mr. DULSKI asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks J
Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the amendment and I move
to strike the requisite number o~f words.
Mr. Chairman, I think in my opening
remarks on this bill I stated that this
gives authority to set a maximum age
limit, which we feel will not be abused
by the President or.his designated agent.
The provisions of the bill that were
ordered reported by the committee in-
clude a requirement, in the sentence
beginning in line 4 on page 3 of the re-
ported bill, that before any age require-
ments may be placed into effect a report:
must be transmitted to the Post Office'
and Civil Service Committees of the
House and the Senate. The report is re-
quired to include a statement justifying
the need for any maximum age require-
ments, and must be transmitted at least
60 days prior to the date that a maximum
age requirement is placed into effect.
The committee felt that 60 days' ad-
vance notice for establishment of such
age requirements was sufficient to afford.
the committee an opportunity to examine
the matter and take such action as may
be appropriate, but the language does not.
provide any veto authority by either of
the committees or by the Congress.
The amendment pending before the
committee at this time would strike out
such language bf the reported bill, and
establish a procedure that would permit
a congressional veto of the proposed
maximum age limitation.
Mr. Chairman, this same amendment
was offered by the gentleman from Texas
when the Subcommittee on Manpowel?
and Civil Service was marking up the bill..
An amendment was offered as a substi-
tute amendment the provisions whicYR
require the proposal to be reported to the'
committees, but the amendment did now
contain any veto authority. The substi-
tute was adopted by the subcommittee,
with one dissenting vote. The same
amendment was then offered again in the
full committee, and was defeated by ~
record vote of 7 to 8.
Mr. Chairman,, while I have supported
in the past proposals that provide con-
gressional vetoes of recommended actions
by the executive branch; I see no justifi-
cation for extending that authority in
this case. I am convinced that we have
provided adequate safeguards in the bill
by requiring the reporting to the Con.-
gress. It is a .greater safeguard than is
required by existinl~ law, applying, far
example, to the Secretary of the Interior, measure.
who is authorized under Public Law 91- Mr, Griner said:
We see no justification whatsoever to es-
ta~blish a mandatary legal maximum age for
the initial employment of Federal civilian
personnel.
He continued, an page 16:
You know, Mr. Chairman, I have said maaiy
times, some people are old at age 50 while
other people are young at age 65.
I see no need for this legislation, Mr.
Chairman, and urge that it be defeated.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is an
the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment, in the na-
ture of a substitute, as amended, was
agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the
Camxnittee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and
the Speaker having resumed the Chair,
Mr. WAGGONNER, Chairman of the Com-
mittee of the Whole House on the State
o~f the Union, reported that that Com-
mittee having had under consideration
the bill (H.R. 8085) relating to age re-
quirements far appointments to positions
in executive agencies and in the competi-
tive service, pursuant to House Resolu-
tion 616, he reported the bill back to the
House with an amendment adapted by
the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the
previous question is ordered.
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The question i? on the
engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, and was read the
third time.
The SPEAKER. The question is an the
passage of the bill.
The question was taken.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I object to
the vote on the ground that a quorum
is not present and make the point of or-
der that a quorum. is not present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is
not present.
The Sergeant at Arrns will notify ab-
sent Members, and the Clerk will call
the roll.
The question was taken; and there
were-yeas 81, nays 249, not voting 101,
as follows:
[Roll No. 10]
YEAS-81
Abernethy
Gibbons
Mallory
Aspinall
Griffin
A2elcher
Baker
Halpern'
Miller, Ohio
Betts
Hamilton
Minish
Biester
Hammer-
Mollohan
Boggs
schmidt
Montgomery
Bolling
Hastings
Morse
Bray
Hathaway
Mosher
Broomfield
Hechler, W. Va. Pike
Brotzman
Henderson
Poff
Brown, Mich.
Hogan
Preyer, N.C.
Burlisan, Mo.
Ichord
Purcell
Caffery
Jacobs
Quie
Chamberlain
Johnson. Calif. Randall
Chappell
Jones, Ala.
Rees
Collier
Jones, N.C.
Reid
Colmer
Kee
Robison, N.Y.
Cotter
Leggett
Rodino
Curlhi
Lloyd
Rosenthal
Davis, S.C.
Luian
Roush
Dingell
McCollister
Schwengel
Dorn
McCormack
Smith, N.Y.
Dulski
McDonald,
Taylor
Erlenborn
Mich.
Thone
Fascell
McKay
Waggonner
Ford, Gerald R. McKevitt
Ware
Frelinghuysen Macdonald,
White
Gettys Mass.
Wylie
Approved For Release .2001/03/02 : ClA-RDP73B00296R000400060003-9
 January ~~~9~`.~d For Re~~~~~/~2 R~Ie~P~~~~296R000400060003-~.~ ~~~
Abourezk .
Abzug
Adams
Addabbo
Anderson,
Calif.
Anderson, Ill.
Andrews
Archer
AsYiley
Badfl~o
Barrett
Begich
Belcher
Bennett
Bergland
Bevill
Bingham
Blackburn
Boland
Brademas
Brooks
Brown, Ohio
Broyhill, N.C.
Broyhill, Va.
Buchanan
Burke, Fla.
Burke, Mass.
Burleson, Tex.
Burton
Byrne, Pa.
Byrnes, Wis.
Byron
'?abell
~rter
asey, Tex.
~derberg
'er
holm
~y
Gallagher
Garmatz
Gaydos
Giaimo
Goldwater
Gonzalez
Goodling
Green, Pa.
Griffiths
Gross
Grover
Gubser
Gude
Hagan
Haley
Hall
Hanley
Hanna
Hansen, VC'ash.
Harskia
Harvey
Hawkins
Heinz
Helstoski
Hicks, Mass.
Holifleld
Horton
Howard
Hull
Hungate
Hunt
Hutchinson
Jarman
Johnson, Pa.
Karth
Kastenmeier
Kazen
Keating
Keith
Kemp
King
Koch
Kuykendall
Kyl
Kyros
Landgrebe
Lent
Link
Long, Md.
du Pont ` r~11i.
Eckhardt, ~ , .d.
Edwards, gle,.
Edwards, CiLIff.
Eilberg
Each
Evans, Colo.
Findley
Fish
Fisher
Flood
Flowers
Foley
Fraser Patxgall
Frenzel Pattgn
Fuqua Pelly
NOT VO1
Abbitt Camel
Alexander Carey, N.Y.
Anderson, Carney
Tenn. Clark
Annunzio Cleveland
Arends Conte
Ashbrook Corman
Aapin Culver
Baring Davis, Ga.
Bell Dennis
Biaggi Dent
Blanton Derwinski
Blatnik Digge
Bow Downing
Brasco Dwyer
Brinkley Edmondson
Hicks, Wash.
Moss
Stanton,
Pepper
Hillis
Murphy, N.Y.
J. William
Perkins
Roamer
Nelsen
Steele
Pickle
Jonas
Nix
Steiger, Wis.
Pirnle
Jones, Tenn.
O'Konski
Stephens
Poage
Kluczynski
Pettis
Stokes
Podell
Landrum
Peyser
Stuckey
Powell -
Latta
Pryor, Ark.
Udall
Price
nl.
Lennon
Railsback
Waldie
,
Tex.
Price
Long, La.
Rhodes
Wampler
,
Pucinski
McClure
Rogers
Wilson,
Quillen
Mailliard
Roy
Charles H.
Rangel
Martin
Runnels
Wolff
Rarick
Metcalfe
St Germain
Wright
Reuss
Michel
Schneebeli
Wydler
Riegle
Mikva
Sikes
Yatron
Roberts
Mills, Ark.
Sisk
Young, Fla.
Robinson, Va.
Mitchell
Smith, Calif.
ZSon
i,,,e
Moorhead
Smith, Iowa
Roncalio So the bill was rejected.
Rooney,N:Y.
Rooney, Pa.
Rostenkowski
Rousselot
Roybal
Ituppe
Ruth
Ryan
Sandman
Sarbanes
Satterfield
Saylor
Scherle
Scheuer
Schmitz
Scott
Sebelius
Seiberling
Shipley '
Shoup
Shriver
Skubitz
Slack
Snyder
Spence
Springer
Staggers
Stanton,
James V.
Steed
Steiger, Ariz.
Stratton
Stubblefield
Sullivan
Symington
Talcott
Teague, Calif.
Teague, Tex.
Terry
Thompson, Ga.
Thompson, N.J.
Thomson, Wis.
Tiernan
Ullman
Van Deerlin
Vander Jagt
Vanik
Veysey
Vigorito
Whalen
Whalley
hitehurst
4~~ittten
V~ldnall
wi gins
l~l~ams
i~ , _
w~i's~, La.'
}lemon
Evins, Tenn.
Flynt
Forsythe
Frey
Fulton
Galiflanakis
Grasso
Gray
Green, Oreg.
Hansen, Idaho
Harrington
Hays
HEbert
Heckler, Mass.
The Clerk announced
pairs
Mr. Annunzio with Mr. Arends.
Mr. Hebert with Mr. Bow.
Mr. Hays with Mr. Rhodes.
Mr. Biaggi with Mrs. Dwyer.
Mr. Blatnik with Mr. Ashbrook.
Mr. Brasco with Mr. Mailliard.
Mr. Kluczynski with Mr. Michel.
Mr. Mikva with Mr. Conte.
Mr. Wolff with Mr. Cleveland.
Mr. Sikes with Mr. Young of Florida.
Mr. Sisk with Mr. Martin.
Mr. Blanton with Mr. Bell.
Mr. Carey of New York with Mrs. Heckler of
Massachusetts.
Mr. Clark with Mr. Peyser.
Mr. Moorhead with Mr. Dennis.
Mr. St Germain with Mr. McClure.
Mr. Fulton of Tennessee with Mr. Nelsen.
Mr. Evins of Tennessee with Mr. Latta.
Mr. Flynt with Mr. Derwinski.
Mr, Dent with Mr. Schneebeli.
Mr. Davis of Georgia with Mr. Jonas.
Mr. Lennon with Mr. Frey.
Mr. Jones of Tennessee with Mr. O'Konski.
Mr. Stephens with Mr. Hillis.
Mr. Yatron with Mr. J. William Stanton.
Mr. Charles Wilson with Mr. Eshleman.
Mr. Moss with Mr. Hosmer.
Mr. Murphy of New York with Mr. Pettis.
Mr. Gray with Mr. Railsback.
Mrs. Green of Oregon with Mr. Forsythe.
Mr. Rogers with Mr. Smith of California.
Mr. Stuckey with Mr. Hansen of Idaho.
Mr. Smith o'f Iowa with Mr. Steiger of Wis-
consin.
Mr. Arpin with Mr. Steele.
Mr. Abbitt with Mr. Wampler.
Mr. Edmondson with Mr. Camp.
Mr. Anderson of Tennessee with Mr. Wydler.
Mr. Baring with Mr. Zion.
Mr. Corman with Mr. Stokes.
Mr. Roy with Mr. Nix.
Mrs. Grasso with 14Fr. Mitchell.
Mr. Metcalfe with Mr. Diggs.
Mr. Carney with Mr. Hicks of Washington.
Mr. Udall with Mr. Waldie.
Mr. Wright with Mr. Alexander.
Mr. Brinkley with Mr. Long of Louisiana.
Mr. Culver with Mr. Downing.
Mr. Galiflanakis with Mr. Pryor of Arkan-
sas.
Mr. Runnels with Mr. Mills of Arkansas.
Mr. Harrington with Mr. Landrum.
Mr. LEGGETT changed his vote from
"nay" to "yea."
Messrs. BARRETT, HANNA, BURKE
of Massachusetts, MILLER of California,
BEGICH, LENT, DONOHUE, GAR-
MATZ, CLANCY, HORTON, MILLS of
Maryland, TERRY, PEPPER, and
GREEN of Pefmsylvania changed their
votes from "yea" to "nay: '
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr: Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that all Membel?s
may have 5 legislative days in which to
extend their remarks on the bill H.R.
8085 and to include extraneous matter.
TYIe SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from North
Carolina?
There was no objection.
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
(Mr. GERALD R. FORD asked and
was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker,
I take this time for the purpose of ask-
ing the distinguished majority leader the
program for the remainder of this week,
if any, and the schedule for next week.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. I yield to the
distinguished gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Speaker, in response
to the question of the distinguished mi-
nority leader, we have completed the
legislative program for this week.
Next week, on Monday, we have sched-
uled H.R. 10086, national park appl?o-
priations ceilings and boundaries, un-
der an open rule with 1 hour of debate.
Tuesday there will be a call of the
Private Calendar, to be followed by con-
sideration of S. 748, Inter-American De-
velopment Bank, under an open rule, with
1 hour of debate; S. 749, Asian Develop-
ment Bank, under an open rule, with 1
hour of debate; and S. 2010, Interna-
tional Development Association, under
an open rule with 1 hour of debate.
For Wednesday and the balance of
the week we have scheduled:
H.R. 7987, Bicentennial Commission
medals, subject to a rule being granted;
H.R. 11394, U.S. district judgeships,
under an open rule with 1 hour of de-
bate; and
H.R. 12089, Special Action Ofl3ce on
Drug Abuse, subject to a rule being grant-
ed.
Conference reports may be called up
at any time.
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker,
may I ask the distinguished majority
leader a question? It would appear from
that schedule, as well as the general ar-
rangements that we talked about last
week, there would not be a session on
Friday?
Mr. BOGGS. I? believe that is a rea-
sonably safe assumption. I would expect
to conclude this program on Thursday.
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. I thank the
gentleman.
ADJOURNMENT OVER TO MONDAY,
JANUARY 31, 1972
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani-
mous consent that when the House ad-
journs today it adlourn to meet on Mon-
day next.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Louisiana?
There was no objection,
Approved For Release 2001/03/02 :CIA-RDP73B00296R000400060003-9
 H 382
Approved For Rele'~~~~ ~~73~~~6R00040C~~~~;~~',
DISPENSING WITH CALENDAR WED-
NESDAY BUSINESS ON WEDNES-
DAY NEXT
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Speaker, Z ask unani-
mous consent that the business in order
under the Calendar Wednesday rule be
dispensed with on Wednesday of next
week, February 2.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Louisiana?
There was no objection.
PERMISSION FOR COMMITTEE ON
INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
TO FILE REPORT ON H.R. 8382
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the Committee
on Interior and Insular Affairs may have
until midnight Friday, January 28, to
file a report on H.R. 8382, a biljl to pro-
vide for the establishment of the Buffalo
National River in the State of Arkansas,
and for other purposes.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request oY the gentleman from North
Carolina?
There was no objection.
THE WAR IN VIETNAM
The SPEAKER Pro tempore (Mr. Hurv-
cexly) . Under a previous order of the
House the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
WHALEN) is recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. WHALEN. Mr. Speaker, when I
was sworn in as a Member of Congress
on January 10, 1967, I accepted the Viet-
nam war as an unhappy fact of life. I
neither supported it, nor did I Publicly
oppose it.
Eighteen months later, after a great
deal of serious study and deep soul-
searching; Icame to the conclusion that
this Nation's military involvement in
Vietnam was contrary to our own in-
terests, Therefore, I determined that we
should terminate our activties in South-
east Asia.
Since then, I have enunciated my
opinions on this subject many times in
speeches on the House floor and by other
means. Essentielly, my position has cen-
tered on two Points. First, every stated
objective for our presence in Vietnam has
been repudiated. Thus, it is clear we do
not know why we are there. Second, aside
from that fact, any benefits which have
accrued to us from this conflict have
been far outweighed by the human, eco-
nomic, and Political costs we have sus-
tained.
These views have led pie to engage ac-
tively in efforts to bring an expeditious
end to our participation in the Vietnam
war.
In 1969, I stated on the House floor
that I could not support the fiscal year?
1970 Department of Defense Appropria-
tions bill unless "it was amended to re-
quire complete U.S. troop withdrawal,
effective December 31, 1970."
In 1970, I was among the original
sporrsors of the resolution which later
became known as the Vietnam Disen-
gagement Act.
~In 1971, it Pell my lot, by virtue of my
position on the House Armed Services
Committee, to carry the ball on the so-
called "end-the-war amendments."
Specifically, I coauthored the Nedzi-
Whalen amendment which, since it was
offered to the fiscal year 1972 military
procurement bill, had very limited appli-
cation. On June 28, 1971, my motion to
instruct. the House corif~rees to accept
the' Mansfield amendment to the draft
bill was. defeated. On October 19, 1971,
had I been recognized, I would have of-
fered this motion again. One hundred
and ninety-three Members voted against
the previous question on the motion to
recommit to try and give me that op-
portunity.
During debate on any given issue, dif-
ferences are accentuated. The focus is not
on areas of agreement. This is the essence
of debate. Consequently, it may appear
that I have opposed in every respect the
ad:ministration's Vietnam polic3'? In fact,
however, I agree with a number of its
aspects.
First, I concur in its direction. Before
President Nixon .acceded to office, the
number of American troops in Vietnam
had increased to 549,500. Since January,
1969, our Vietnam force has been sub-
stantially reduced. By May of this year
American troop levels will reach 69,000.
Second, these withdrawals are implicit
agreement with my view that it is not
in our interest to be in Vietnam.
Third, logistically, it would not? have
been possible to. withdraw all LT.S. troops
by January i, 1970.
'Therefore, our disagreement actually
centered on the question of timing. For
the reasons, which I have stated fre-
quently and which I have just reiterated,
I believe that withdrawal should have
been at a faster rate. The President, for
his own. reasons, has felt otherwise.
Despite the question of tuning, the
President and I obviously share the goal
of complete withdrawal. The pla,ri I have
advocated to obtain that goal consists
of setting a tentative withdrawal date,
usually within 6 to 9 months, subject
to Ilanai and Vietcong acceptance of eer-
tain conditions. These qualifications in-
clude: first, the release of all American
prisoners of war held by the Government
of North Vietnam and forces allied with
such government; and second, negotia-
tions with the Government of North
Vietnam. for an immediate cease-fire by
all parties to the hostilities in Indochina.
In supporting this approach, I, of
course, could give no assurances to my
colleagues in the House of Representa-
tives that the North Vietnamese and the
Vietcong would accept such an arrange-
ment. Needless to say, it was my mast
profound hope that the other side would
find it acceptable.
As all of us learned less than 48 hours
ag'o, President Nixon privately, and now
publ:ciy, has adopted the essential ele-
ments of the position which I have ad-
vocated.
Mr. Speaker, my purpose irr offering
these remarks this afternoon is twofold.
Since I have been a critic in the past,
fairness dictates that I acknowledge that
my views-and those of the Prei;,ident now
coincide on this issue. Accordingly, I also
want to express my gratitude to the
President for embarking on this course.
For me to fail to do so would, in my view,
be less than honest.
In closing, just as I could offer no
guarantee that the Nedzi-Whalen or
Mansfield amendments would meet with
the approval of the North Vietnaiese, so
too, the President cannot assure us, and
has not assured us, that his effort will be
favorably received. For the sake of the
generation of peace, another goal which
the President and I share, and for the
sake of the fullest development of all
mankind, we pray that an agreement will
be possible. Surely; we can be hopeful
since Hanoi, while assailing the Presi-
dent's plan, has not rejected it outright.
Even if rejection should be the re-
sponse, I believe that it is clear that
neither the President nor the Congress
will stop at this point. Clearly, the Presi-
dent's offer is flexible enougli to permit
a continuation of negotiations. Never-
theless, should negotiations ultimately
fail, I would hope that the President will
not halt the withdrawal schedule. Nat-
urally, negotiation, which would both
end the fighting and terminate our in-
volvement, is the preferred approach.
However, the goal of bringing our force"
home remainsp~aramount. ?
;'`ltiy
APPALLING STATISTICS ON AB`rla~J
TIONS IN NEW YORK STAT~~o ~,~
J
The SPEAKER pro tempore, Unrr~~~ ;t a
previous order of the House, the ge!iitle-
man from Maryland (Mr. HOGAN) ia' rec-
ognized for 5 minutes. ~ '
Mr. HOGAN. Mr. Speaker, I vvas ap-
palled to read in a recent issue of Trial
magazine a statement that the fir