THE NEED TO REPEAL HATCH ACT RESTRICTIONS AGAINST FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP77M00144R001100120016-3
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 30, 2005
• Sequence Number: 16
• Publication Date: March 5, 1975
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved Forftlq@j. ,3IK [JK3RpR4 OUSPR0011001200U6&ch 5, 1975
their jobs. In my own State of Minne-
sota, nearly 90,000 jobless are now draw-
ing unemployment compensation-a 40-
percent increase over a year ago. As they
exhaust their health benefits, their only
alternative is medicaid. But that program
imposes stringent income eligibility re-
quirements and assets tests. Thus, there
is a lag between a worker losing his job
and the possibility of medicaid coverage.
This emergency measure, which will
run until June 30, 1976, will cost about
$2 billion. However, much of this money
would otherwise be spent on medicaid,
which is financed in large part by State
tax dollars.
I am pleased that legislation on ways
to fill this gap in health insurance cov-
erage is receiving immediate attention.
Hearings on ways to solve the problem
have started in both the Ways and
Means Committee and the Interstate and
Foreign Commerce Committee. There is
widespread and diverse support for such
proposals. The hearings and discussions
will bring forth ideas on how best to ad-
minister the program and how to achieve
maximum results.
Congress recognizes the need for legis-
lation that treats all unemployed work-
ers fairly. But we need to move quickly
before millions of Americans find their
economic problems are compounded by
inadequate health care.
I include a list of those Members who
have joined me in sponsoring this bill
and a text of the bill:
LIST OF COSPONSORS
Ms. Abzug, Mr. Badillo, Mr. Baldus, Mr.
Bingham, Mr. Brademas, Mr. Brodhead, Mr.
Brown of California, Mr. John L. Burton, Mr.
Carney, Mr. Carr.
Mrs. Collins of Illinois, Mr. Cornell, Mr.
Conyers, Mr. Danielson, Mr. Dellums, Mr.
Edgar, Mr. Edwards of California, Mr. Ell-
berg, Mr. Ford of Michigan, Mr. Gilman, Mr.
Harrington.
Ms. Holtzman, Mr. Jenrette, Mr. Nix, Mr.
Nowak, Mr. Nedzi, Mr. O'Hara, Mr. Ottinger,
Mr. Rangel, Mr. Richmond.
Mr. Roe, Mr. Rosenthal, Mr. Roybal, Mr.
Sarbanes, Ms. Schroeder, Mr, Solarz, Mr.
James V. Stanton, Mr. Stark, Mr. Studds, and
Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California.
H.R. 3228
A bill to establish an emergency health bene-
fits program for the unemployed
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of, the United States of
America In Congress assembled, That this
Act may be cited as the "Emergency Unem-
ployment Health Benefits Act of 1075".
SEC. .2. The Emeregncy Jobs and Unem-
ployment Assistance Act of 1974 is amended
by adding at the end thereof the following
new title:
"TITLE IV-EMERGENCY HEALTH BENE-
FITS PROGRAM
"ELIGIBILITY FOR HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS
"SEC. 401. (a) It is the purpose of the
title to provide-
"(1) to each individual who-
"(A) is unemployed and is entitled to re-
ceive weekly compensation under a State
or Federal unemployment compensation law
(including the special unemployment as-
sistance program established by title II of
this Act), and
"(B) would, if his employment by his pre-
vious employer had not been discontinued,
be covered under an employer-sponsored
health insurance plan, and
"(2) to each dependent spouse (as de-
fined in regulations of the Secretary) and
to each dependent child (as defined In such
regulations) of an individual described in
clause (1),
health insurance benefits of the type and
scope which would have been provided to
such individual (or to such dependent spouse
or dependent child) under the health in-
surance plan referred to in clause'(1) (B),
if the individual described in clause (1) were
still employed by his previous employer.
"(b) For purposes of subsection (a) an
individual is 'unemployed' for any week if,
for such week, such individual Is entitled (or
would, except for illness or disease, be en-
titled) to receive compensation under a
State or Federal unemployment compensa-
tion law. The Secretary may, in order to
facilitate the administration of this title,
provide by regulation that an individual will,
for purposes of subsection (a), be deemed to
be unemployed for all of the weeks in any
period of weeks (not in excess of six weeks)
if such individual is for one or more of the
weeks in such period 'unemployed' within
the meaning of the preceding sentence.
"(c) No health insurance benefits shall be
provided under this title to any person-
"(1) during any period for which he is cov-
ered (without. regard to the provisions of
this title), or has the opportunity to ob-
tain (by reason of action on his .part or on
the part of any member of his family)
coverage, under any employer-sponsored
health insurance plan, or
"(2) who would have received benefits
under an employer-sponsored health insur-
ance plan which provided health benefits to
formerly employed persons which plan was
in effect on Fe'aruary 7, 1975.
"ARRANGEMENTS WITH CARRIERS AND
STATE AGENCIES
"SEC. 402. In carrying out the purpose of
this title, the Secretary'shall (whenever he
is able to do so) -
"(a) enter into arrangements with the
carriers (and in appropriate cases with em-
ployers or employee welfare benefit plans (as
defined in section 3(1) of the Employee Re-
tirement Income Security Act of 1974) )
whereby individuals oovereun-
employed by their previous
there will 'be paid to such
to the premiums or other charg
for such benefits plus any addit
istrative expenses reasonable Inc
carrier (or by the employer or
welfare trust) In securing such
der the arrangement, and
pose of making determinations, in
individuals in the State, of e?ligibil
individuals for the health insuran
provided by this title, and for the
making payments to carriers (and
als in such State; and any such
shall provide that the Secretary
amounts equal to the adminisl
other expenses reasonably incurr
specified in the agreement.
"DEFINITIONS
"SEC. 403. hs used in this tit]
of such
benefits
pay to
thereto
thereto
ve and
by such
unctions
"(b) the term 'employer-sponsored health
insurance plan' means a health insurance
plan which covers some or all of the em-
ployees of an employer and the premiums for
which are paid or Collected wholly or in part
by the employer;
"(c) the term 'health insurance plan'
means an insurance policy, contract, or other
arrangement under which a carrier under-
takes in consideration of premiums ar other
period payments, to provide, pay for, or re-
imburse the costs of, health services received
by individuals covered by the plan;
"(d) the term 'carrier' means a voluntary
association, corporation, partnership, or other
nongovernmental organization which is en-
gaged in providing, paying for, or reim-
bursing the cost of, health services under
group insurance policies or contracts, medi-
cal or hospital service agreements, member-
ship or subscription contracts, or similar
group arrangements, in consideration of pre-
miums or other periodic charges payable to
the carrier;
"(e) the term 'employer' shall have the
meaning given such term in the applicable
State or Federal unemployment compensa-
tion law described in section 401 (a) (1) (A);
and .
"(f) the term 'State agency' means the
agency of a State which administers the un-
employment compensation law of that State,
approved by the Secretary under section 3304
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
"TERMINATION DATE
"SEC. 404. Notwithstanding any other
provisions of this title, no health insurance
benefits may be provided under this title
with respect to any week, ending after June
30, 1976.
"AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
"SEC. 405. There are hereby authorized to
be appropriated such gums as may be nec-
essary to carry out the provisions of this
title."
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a
previous order of the House, the gentle-
man from New York (Mr. BINGHAM) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
HAM addressed the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a
previous order of the House, the gentle-
man from Michigan (Mr. BRODHEAD) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
[Mr. BRODHEAD addressed the House.
His remarks will appear hereafter in the
Extensions of Remarks.]
AMENDING THE HATCH ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under
a previous order of the House, the gentle-
man from Virginia (Mr. FISHER), is rec-
ognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FISHER. Mr. Speaker, I am a co-
sponsor of H.R. 3934, the Federal Em-
ployees' Political Activities Act of 1975,
which would amend the Hatch Act by
broadening and more explicitly defining
the extent to which Federal civilian and
postal employees may participate in po-
litical activities. I added my name to this
legislation with the qualification that
strong language be incorporated into the
bill to protect Federal employees from
harassment and coercion. I have been
assured by its prime sponsors on the Post
Office and Civil Service Committee that
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 CIA-RtP77M00144R001100120016-3
 March 5, 19754pproved For 1Ri0 M$ 1 R 7I Q 001100120016-3
the city public service board to demand
that the board do Wyatt's bidding. Wyatt
ordered:
Jaffe to talk to McAllister and support my
plan. Jaffe not to participate in presentation.
In4t~~ead, suggest three people to go before
CPSB on Oct. 11: 1. Chas. Becker, 2. News-
pap editor, and 3. Local businessman, to
talk ut'gasshortage.'
Late Wyatt changed his mind, and
ordered avis to try only for a newspaper
executive o make the pitch for him. As
far as I k w, this particular approach
never got o e ground. All the pressures
notwithstan _ g, San Antonio did not
support Wyat bill in the legislature,
and did not Negotiate its contract,
either. Meanwhi Coastal's gas supply
situation began t grow worse. If the
company bought t gas they needed,
they would start to ose money. That
could not be allowed, ecause it would
ruin the company's sto and cost Wyatt
untold millions in pa profits. So
Coastal started drawing wn what few
reserves it had, hoping h% eventually
the customers could be br beat into
renegotiating their contracts.
Wyatt never admitted thaC his gas
supply situation was despe . He
claimed to the investing public t t he
had enough gas to cover 125 pert of
the company's commitments, thro h
San Antonio contract. All he wanted,
Wyatt said, was to be able to be certain
of getting a gas supply adequate for the
distant future, and that would require
renegotiating the contract with San
Antonio.
It was a lie, of course. Coastal had
nothing like the gas needed for even the
next 2 years, let alone 10 or 11. Almost
2 years to the day after Wyatt wrote
McAllister, claiming that he could service
the San Antonio contract through its
completion date, Coastal literally ran
out of gas. San Antonio, in the spring of
1973, faced a catastrophic loss of gas to
operate its electric generating plants.
There was insufficient oil on hand to use
as a substitute; even if there had been,
the plants were not equipped to burn oil
over sustained periods of time. San An-
tonio woke up in a daze; It was as if a
bomb had destroyed the heart of the
city. There was every prospect, for a few
days at least, that San Antonio would
experience large scale backouts. Plans
were laid for emergency, rotating black-
outs of the city.
Somehow San Antonio avoided a total
catastrophe. However, at last, the truth
was known. Oscar Wyatt was a fake, a
fraud and a liar. He never had possessed
the gas reserves he claimed.
Charles Becker was elected to the San
Antonio City Council once again in the
spring of 1973. He staged the most vi-
cious and expensive campaign in city
history. He spent more than all other
candidates combined-more than $200,-
000, to be elected to a $20 a week job.
Becker wanted to be Mayor, because as
Mayor he could, among other things,
be a member of the city public service
board. There, he would push and shove
for Oscar Wyatt's team. What Wyatt
wanted, Becker wanted. What Wyatt
demanded, Becker demanded.
When outraged citizens joined me :n
demanding that the city sue Coast.1
States for its obvious breach of contract.
Becker argued against it, dragged his
feet, and obstructed every effort. Just
before his election, Becker called Normen
Davis to say that it was a shame thi+t
San Antonio was blaming poor old Oscar
Wyatt for all its troubles. Davis mark( d
his memo, "confidential." Whether th's
was because lie knew that if Becker's
activities were known it would cost hints
the election, I can not say. Neither he
nor Becker ever made any mention of
the call.
Clearly, though, before he becan,i
mayor of San Antonio, Charles Becker
was committed to Oscar Wyatt's cause.
As a mayor, he would be a member (,,if
the board that Wyatt had never been
able to suborn or intimidate. A man lik#~
Becker, who was talking to Wyatt's own
lawyer, could be a very useful asset.
It is Impossible to tell who really f -
nanced Becker's lavish campaign. He
probably put up much of the money him-
self. Some of it he attributed to eir. -
ployees of his grocery company. Some (>f
it he extracted-willingly or unwill -
ingly-from the people who did businet+:,
with his grocery company. Some was at-
tributed to associates of Jim Dement, a
big commercial developer in the self-
ade mold that Becker so admires; some
it was attributed to Dement himself
JaW. Throughout the Becker financial.
rep there are oddities. An apaxtmen t,
man er gave $2,000. A secretary was
shownving $1,500. Others, who were
repor giving hundreds of dollars to
Becker, o ven thousands, are unknow:.
for politic contributions to any cam-
paign. Still'ther amounts, usually it
thousand-dolly chunks. Becker put
down as "anonymous."
Becker promptly began working fo-
Wyatt's interest as Mayor. He ob-
structed the city's 16wsuit; he quarreled_.'
with the public servit board's attorney;
and he even brought Wyatt to town to
explain things, but this" my produced , ,
fiasco that infuriated Wyatt and em-
barrassed Becker.
So we have it: a sorry st&y, in which
powerful interests intertwine in which
bad decisions were made inevi .ble by
fabric of lies, in which fatuous is like
Charles Becker were ed, in ch a
whole city was betrayeusd. A few em get"
as winners: Wyatt created a billion al-
made himself a millionaire many, manor
times over. Glen Martin made million:;
himself, and today threatens to sue any -
body who says he cheated his partners
and deceived everybody he ever deak
with, with the possible exception of Oscar
Wyatt, though that is only the simple
truth. Others, like Becker, have been dis-
credited, though for a simple fellow like
him, this was inevitable and only has-
tened by his fascination for the clever
Wyatt and his friends. The biggest loser:,
were the people of San Antonio, who to
day face a permanent energy crisis, and
the prospect of paying utility bills tha'
H1411--
are astronomically high In comparison
with those of 2 years ago, and possibly
will be higher still in the days and years
to come.
San Antonio was and is truly a. city
betrayed. We have a bitter legacy from
Wyatt, from Martin, and from those who
aided and abetted them, like William
Spice, the nearly forgotten geologist
whose faked report made the whole thing
possible. We have now to make the best
of it.
In the coming days I will discuss some
of the possible steps that San Antonio
can take to deal with its energy prob-
lems. The first thing, obviously enough, is
not to deal with a crook like Wyatt again.
Beyond that, other actions can be taken
to ease the pain and insure the future,
and I will discuss these as time permits.
LEGISLATION TO EXTEND HEALTH
INSURANCE COVERAGE TO UN-
EMPLOYED
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a
previous order of the House, the gentle-
man from Minnesota (Mr. FRASER) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRASER. Mr. Speaker, today 40
members have joined me in sponsoring
a bill to extend health insurance cover-
age to the unemployed.
Under this proposal, an unemployed
worker receiving unemployment compen-
sation would retain the same coverage
he or she held under the employer's or
union's health plan. The Secretary of
Labor will make payments to the carrier
or the health and welfare fund to con-
tinue the coverage.
In January, 8.2 percent of the labor
force was out of work. Of the 7.5 million
jobless workers, It is estimated that 70
percent had been receiving health insur-
ance benefits through group plans. Most
of these benefits terminate within a few
months after the loss of a job.
At $65 per week, the average unem-
ployment compensation check, a worker
cannot afford to purchase expensive In-
dividual health insurance coverage for
himself and his family. He can barely
stretch the check to cover food and
shelter. My proposal will help those job-
less workers by providing health insur-
ance coverage to those receiving unem-
ployment compensation. I have used this
vehicle because 80 percent of those out
of work will be eligible for these benefits.
This health insurance coverage will be
administered by the Secretary of Labor
through the existing unemployment in-
surance structure.
I stress that this program is an emer-
ency, stop-gap measure. It will have the
solutid
health
health
emergency
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100120016-3
 March 5, 1975Approved Forf$1+ GdtE$SSGYi3RDWRDP-HM6 *R001100120016-3 H 1413
adequate protections will be incorpo-
cause I believe that we should no longer
bar Government employees from the or-
dinary forms of participation in political
processes enjoyed by other citizens. The
right to express their political views and
support candidates of their choice is
fundamental to our democratic system.
At the same time that we remove some
of these constraints on freedom of ex-
pression, I am adamant that we not open
the way to the abuses which led to the
enactment of the Hatch Act in the first
place. Federal employees must never be
in danger of losing their jobs or damag-
ing their careers because they exercise
the right of a citizen to support candi-.
dates or political programs of their
choice.
The Subcommittee on Employee Po-
litical Rights and Inter-Governmental
Programs will be holding hearings on this
proposal in Washington and in cities
around the country where there are large
numbers of Federal employees. I look for-
ward to getting employee views on this
subject, and finding ways to improve the
bill based on information they provide. I
will encourage citizens of my district,
where more than one-third of the work
force is employed by the Federal Govern-
ment, to give me their views on this im-
portant legislation.
MITTEE ON ENERGY AND PO
previous order of the House, thh entle-
man from Michigan (Mr. D DELL) is
Mr. DING 4e.M,r, er, in Feb-
ruary the Preside omnibus energy
bill-the Energy Independence Act of
1975, was assigned to committee. Nine of
the 13 separate titles of this comprehen-
sive. package were assigned to the Com-
mittee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce.
In this Congress our committee has
formed a new Subcommittee on Energy
and Power in order to give focus to our
decisionmaking responsibilities on ener-
gy policy matters. As chairman of that
subcommittee, I want to take this oppor-
tunity to assure my colleagues in the
House that I will commit my full capaci-
ties to move expeditiously and bring
legislative recommendations to this floor
in the very near future.
To gain an understanding of the di-
mensions of our energy difficulties and to
give focus to our deliberations, the sub-
committee during the week of Febru-
ary 17 held hearings on the President's
energy proposals. Our task was to iden-
tify the underlying goals of the program,
to evaluate the means selected to accom-
plish these goals, and to take the eco-
nomic measure of the policies to which
this Congress has been asked to accede.
These matters were explored in 30 hours
of intense review of the President's pro-
gram concentrated in 4 days of hearing.
We discovered in these proceedings
that great controversy attends the
energy policy decisions made by the Pres-
ident. But perhaps the most dominant
point made by all witnesses is that energy
policy is inextricably linked with eco-
nomic policy. Decisions in one area hold
considerable implications for the other.
The development of a rational, cohe-
sive energy policy, therefore, must nec-
essarily be linked to tax policy and
strategems for pulling this Nation out of
its recessionary spiral.
In recognition of this interrelationship,
my good friend and colleague, Chairman
ULLMAN of the Ways and Means Commit-
tee, and I propose to commit our com-
mittees to a parallel course of action for
the purpose of developing a cohesive and
comprehensive energy program.
For my part, I intend to once again
convene the Subcommittee on Energy
and Power beginning the week of March
10 for a series of concentrated hearings
to stretch over a 2-week period. The com-
mittee will invite testimony from a num-
ber of balanced panels on the subject of
Federal and State allocation and price
regulation of natural gas, coal, and
petroleum and its products. We will also
examine various p posals to equip the
President and of agencies of the Fed-
eral Governme . ith emergency powers.
Our purpo ill be to draft legislation
which res ds to our most pressing and
immedi needs. Although the focus of
this le ation will be in the near term,
it necessarily provide the dimension
f future long range energy policy de-
sionmaking.
Toward that end, I also intend to con-
vene the Energy and Power Subcommit-
tee beginning the week of March 24 for
the purpose of defining the policy
parameters of legislation to be drafted
by the staff during the Easter recess. In
giving legislative form to the subcom-
mittee's policy decisions, committee
counsel will be instructed to work with
the staff of the Ways and Means Com-
mittee to assure to the maximum extent
practicable consistency with the tax pol-
icy decisions of that committee. It will
be our purpose to bring legislation to
the floor by mid or late April to be com-
bined with the legislative recommenda-
tions of the Ways and Means Commit-
tee into a comprehensive energy pack-
age.
The subcommittee at the earliest op-
portunity thereafter will begin consid-
eration of proposals related to the price
regulation of electric utilities and siting
of energy facilities-titles VII and VIII
of the administration's bill and related
proposals. These hearings are tentatively
scheduled to commence the week of
April 28.
Let me make the record clear on an-
other matter. Although the Energy and
Power Subcommittee will invite testi-
mony on the subject of price regulation
of natural gas, I am not committed to an
effort to bring legislation to the floor
addressing the subject of natural gas
price deregulation. As my colleagues
know, this Is a matter of great contro-
versy and one I have for some time op-
posed. I will not burden this record with
my reasons for doing so in the past, but
I believe them to be cogent and still
applicable.
I want to emphasize I have held many
discussions with Chairman ULLMAN of
the Committee on Ways and Means. It
is our intention to fork closely together
as our two committees draft legislation
within respective jurisdictions on the
subject of energy.
ON THE CONTINUATION OF OUR
CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS
(Mr. KOCH asked and was given per-
mission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD and to include ex-
traneous matter.)
Mr. KOCH. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply
concerned- about a possible setback in
the progress of our child nutrition pro-
grams. We all realize how crucial ade-
quate nutrition is, and those who cannot
afford a proper diet should be aided by
the Government to achieve that basic
goal.
The Ford administration has proposed
a plan which would end the child nutri-
tion programs as we know them, and re-
place some of them with a system of
block grants to the States. This change
would provide approximately $600 mil-
lion a year less in food assistance, the
primary savings result from the termina-
tion of Federal support for school meals
served to nonpoor children. The block
grant funds could be used by States to
fund schools or institutions providing
free meals only to children below the
poverty line, now set at $4,510 a year
for a family of four.
Children in the income range between
100 percent and 125 percent of the pov-
erty line, who receive free meals under
existing legislation, would generally find
themselves paying 70 cents or more each
day if this plan goes into effect. The ad-
ministration's proposal would also elimi-
nate all Federal meal standards. Under
that plan, each State would prescribe its
own nutrition standards and meal Pat-
tern requirements. Also eliminated by
the administration's proposal is the
WIC-women, infants, and Children-
program, which provides milk to preg-
nant and lactating mothers, as well as
to their infant-4-year-old children.
The proposal would allow States to fund
only programs for children from birth
to age 17. This, of course, cuts out mostly
all mothers now participating.
There is no question in my mind that
our Nation's nutritional health would
suffer should the administration's plan
go into effect, and I am hoping the Con-
gress will realize this and defeat the
measure when it comes before us.
Two much more practical plans of ac-
tion exist in Senator MCGOVERN'S S. 850
and Congressman PERKINS' H.R. 3736.
Both provide for an extension of the nu-
trition programs as they now exist. The
Perkins bill is a sound one and should
be given full consideration. However, I
would like to recommend that some
modifications be made in H.R. 3736.
The goal of our child nutrition pro-
grams, as I see it, must be to provide as
many persons as we can with the best
possible nutritionally sound meals. I
would like to see day care institutions re-
ceive the same reimbursement rate for
meals as the school lunch program now
receives. This can be achieved in two
ways. Congressman PERKIN's measure
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100120016-3
 H 1414 Approved For GRp1A$ : (ZZM4! t 00110012001 birch 5, 1975
proposes to redefine "school" so that day
care centers could be included in that
definition, and thus have to receive fund-
ing equal to the school nutrition pro-
grams. The fault with this scheme, as I
view it, is that suppers and supplements,
which are served in most day care insti-
tutions would be overlooked because the
meals are not recognized under the school
food program. These meals account for
45 percentof all meals now served in day
care food programs. S. 850, rather than
merging day care centers and schools,
requires that the reimbursement rates
and commodity donation rates for
lunches and breakfasts served in day
care institutions be identical to the rates
paid in the school food program.
Suppers would carry the same reim-
bursement rate as lunches, while supple-
ments to the especially needy would be
reimbursed at the rate of 25 cents each.
Another problem that might arise
should day care centers be Included in
the definition of- "schools" is that these
centers would be competing with the
schools for the equipment funding sent
to each State for the school food pro-
gram. In most cases, the day care insti-
tutions would have little or no chance of
receiving equipment funds since there is
usually not enough equipment money to
satisfy even the schools applying for aid.
The McGovern bill would provide that
$5 million be apportioned among the
States each year to provide equipment
assistance to day care and summer feed-
ing centers.
If the day care institutions become
part of the school food program, States
would legally be permitted to divide
their reimbursement funds in any way
care centers would receive lower n
average payments. The McGove ill,
assuring separate funding, wou pre-
I would like to see the Ho bill In-
clude in the school lunch pro am family
day care centers of 12 or fe r children,
and licensed residential institutions such
as nonprofit orphanages domes for the
mentally retarded and inotionally dis-
turbed children, tempary shelters for
runaway or abused c . dren, juvenile de-
tention centers a others. The bill
should also make Short term residential
camps for poor clfidren eligible for fund-
ing under the s inmer feeding program,
While the Stongress is considering
these nutrition programs, the WIC pro-
gram shouldbe looked into.
An estimated 7 percent of the live-
born inf nts in the United States have
struct'al or metabolic defects that are
evident at birth or can be diagnosed
during the first 2 years of life. Nearly 8
percent of our newborn weigh 51/2 pounds
or less, and birth defects are three times
as common in these low-weight babies as
in larger infants. In fact, nearly half of
all infant deaths in the United States
are associated with low birth weight
according to the National Center. for
Health Statistics. Low birth weight is
associated with retarded mental devel-
opment. There is growing evidence that
improving nutrition during pregnancy,
even as late as the last 3 months, can
have a significant effect on birth wei - t
and that maternal weight gain during
pregnancy probably is the most imps,-r-
tant determinant of birth weight.
The WIC program, by providing milk
and other supplements to pregnant
mothers and their infants is the first
major attempt by the U.S. Government
to improve the quality of life at birth
and during early childhood. Medical evi-
dence concerning the irreversible effect +:s
of malnutrition during infancy will
eventually cost taxpayers much more in
remedial education, medical, and pubic
assistance expenditures than- the modest
cost of the food packs offered by t;-.-e
WIC program.
I would strongly support S. 850's P
for administrative costs, insteea of the
current 10 percent. WIC clini - ould `c?e
required to use part of the
funding for outreac d nutritjo i
education, as well as fo eneral admin-
istrative costs.
Catherine Cowe " director of the
Bureau of Nutrit in New York City,
informed me an increase in admin-
istrative fund sorely needed. Although
census data An that at least 41million pr ant women and young chi -
dren are 1ow the poverty line, there are
only 6 , 00 participants in the WIC
progr This is a serious gap-or..~,
whit ust be closed as soon as possible.
Iislation must be enacted which
wytuld continue, expand, and improve
statistid that places the United State:
14th in the world In infant mortality i.;
a national disgrace, and should be acted
upon immediately.
W. KOCH asked and was given per-
mission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD sand to include ex-
traneous matter.)
-[Mr. KOCH's remarks will appear
hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.'
(Mr. KOCH asked and was given per-
mission to extend his remarks at thi
paoint in the RECORD and to include ex-
traneous matter.)
[Mr. KOCH's remarks will appear
hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks-'
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
(Mr. MILFORD asked and was gives
permission to extend his remarks at thi::
point in the RECORD and to include ex-
traneous matter.)
Mr. MILFORD. Mr. Speaker, after in-?
troducing H.R. 640, I have found tha?;
the people of the 24th District of Texas
stand in opposition to the intent and
purpose of the legislation. Therefore,
would like to advise the Members of thc'
House of my intention to withdraw m'
support of that piece of legislation an(
so to inform the chairman of the House
Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
SOCIAL SECURITY INEQUITY
(Mr. OTTINGER asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD and to include ex-
traneous matter.)
Mr. OTTINGER. Mn Speaker, under
current law, an individual over 45 who
has not worked er social security for
at least 5 of t
,Vlast 10 years is not cov-
ered by d ility, regardless of how
many ye , in total, he had worked un-
der the stem.
My oncern in this area grows out of
the perience of one of my constituents
w is now permanently disabled. In his
vial security system for 25 years, but be-
cause he had not worked under the sys-
tem for at least 5 of the last 10 years,
he has become totally disqualified from
receiving any disability benefits.
Today, I am introducing legislation to
correct this obvious inequity. I proposed
toallow complete disability coverage for
any individual over 45 who has worked
under the social security system for at
least 10 years, total.
The operative provisions of my bill
reads:
That (a) section 223(c) (1) (b) (1) of the
Social Security Act is amended to read as
follows:
(1) he had not less than 40 quarters of
coverage as of the close of the quarter in
which such month occurred, or not less than
20 quarters of coverage during the 40-quarter
period which ends with such quarter, or.
In addition, section 216(i) (3) (B) (I)
of the Social Security Act is amended
by inserting the identical language
above.
It is absolutely wrong for a disabled.
worker to be penalized in this manner,
and this great inequity must be correct-
ed. Thirty-eight of my colleagues have
joined in cosponsoring this legislation
and I am listing their names and the
text of the bill below:
LIST OF COSPONSORS
Mr. Yates (nl.).
Mr. Conyers (Mich.).
Mr. Benitez (PA.).
Mr. Nix (Pa.).
Mr. Rosenthal (N.Y.).
Mr. Mitchell (N.Y.).
Mr. Brown (California).
Mr. Eilberg (Pa.).
Mr. Fascell (Pa.).
Mr. Solarz (N.Y.).
Mr. Thompson (N.J.).
Mr. Drinan (Mass.).
Mr. Dingell (Mich.).
Mrs. Collins (Ill.).
Mr. Harrington (Mass.).
Mr. Sarbanes (Md.).
Mr. Roybal (Calif.),
Mr. Heistoski (N.J.).
Mr. Pattison (N.Y.).
Mr. Badillo (N.Y.).
Mr. Hicks (Wash.).
Mrs. Spellman (Md.).
Mr.D'Amours (N.H.).
Mr. Edgar (Pa.).
Mr. Downey (N.Y.).
Ms. Holtzman (N.Y.).
Mr. Studds (Mass.).
Mrs. Burke (Calif.). -
Mr. Riegle (Mich.).
Mr. Giaimo (Conn.).
Mr. Gaydos (Pa.).
Ms. Abzug (N.Y.).
Mr. Corman (Calif.).
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100120016-3
 t--i l Q
Approved For ReleaseSSQBL1 jiC~I P7 f gf4R001100120016-3
April 9, 1975 CONGRE 1 1~
112627
hon's speech. At that point, White House lob- [Mr. KOCH addressed the House. His United States today. The District of
byist Max Friedersdorf, Pentagon legislative remarks will appear hereafter in the Ex- Columbia and seven States-California,
chief Jack Marsh and somebody else from the tensions of Remarks.] Illinois, Maryland, New York, Pennsyl-
White House got me off the floor and said, _ vania, Texas, and Virginia-each have
ave
'Oh, Jerry, you can't say Southeast Asia, -
riplayloyees
you've got to limit it to Cambodia." I said VOTE ON H.R. 4700 more York than 1City 00 100,000 alone has Federal employees. 98,000.
to them, 'I have said it on the floor, you con-
firmed it and reconfirmed it and there's no The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a Since 1939, these Government employees
way to go back on it. Sorry, that's it, period.' previous order of the House, the gentle- have been largely prohibited from par-,
They said, 'It can't be that way.' I said, 'I'm woman from Maryland (Mrs. SPELLMAN), ticipating actively in partisan political
sorry.' is recognized for 5 minutes. activities by the Hatch Act.
onan and ck on to and on. floor and the Mrs. SPELLMAN. Mr. Speaker, at the These 2,800,000 Federal employees are
debate "So I went went
Ford's colloquies
on the floor (on whether proposed moment of the vote on H.R. 4700, I was no less deserving of equal rights under
compromise had presidential sanction) took involved in pressing for inclusion in im- the law than are state, local, and private
place. I said, 'No, I didn't talk to the presi- pending legislation, items of great import sector employees. Congress should clear
dent but to White House sources.' And at to my district. Because I knew that, with- up the obvious discrimination and in-
that point there was some laughter or booing out question, H.R. 4700 would prevail by consistency in the law.
or whatever it was. Apparently Friedersdorf a large margin. I continued that work- I am delighted that Subcommittee
and his associates were in the gallery and very successfully, I might add. Chairman BILL CLAY has introduced
Maybe they felt that were. things were
they called led Timmons. as. However. H.R. .4700, clearly, is legis- H.R. 3000, the Federal Employees Polit-
Timmmons mons called Talled the e White House (in San lation I am vitally concerned with. I ical Activities Act of 1975, and that he
Clemente) and the president then called me. wish to state for the record that I would is holding hearings on his bill and re-
I took the call in the Republican cloakroom have voted "yea." lated Hatch Act reform legislation. I am
off the House floor. I talked to the presi- cosponsor of H.R. 3000, and I have also
dent for about ten minutes. I read to hi -?
reintroduced my own similar bill from
the three points I made on the House floO THE NEED 7.'O REPEAL HATCH ACT the last Congress, H.R. 1326.
and he said, `That's fine.' Then I went bac RESTRICTIONS AGAINST FEDER- It is high time that Federal employees
on the floor and I reconfirmed what I ha AL EMPLOYEES are considered old enough and intelligent
previously said and told the Hpuse that th
president approved of it. (Mr. KOCH asked and was given per- enough to participate fully in the process
"Five minutes later or so I got a call from mission to extend his remarks at this of elections. This country has no right
Al Haig. He said, 'Oh, you can't do that. point in the RECORD and to include ex- to make its public employees second class
The president won't accept it.' I said, 'Al, it's traneous matter.) citizens. But the Hatch Act, by limiting
done. That's it. I'm sorry but there's no way Mr. KOCH. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased their political activities, has effectively
I can erase what I said. It is my understand- that the Subcommittee on Employee Po- put them into that category. The nature
wass obviously approved litical Rights, chaired by Representative and scope of activities prohibited, as
in ing his s conversation c thiswhat with the me.' ' Al Al president
ab
disappointed. He said, 'I was sitting in the BILL CLAY of Missouri, is holding hear- well as tkie sheer numbers of persons af-
room with the president when you talked ing on the need to remove political re- fected by these restrictions, have led
to the president. What you have said was striations against Federal employees various commentators to criticize the
apparently not what the president under- under the Hatch Act. Hatch Act as being at variance with the
stood you to have said.' I said, 'I'm sorry, In January 1973, I introduced legit- first amendment guarantee of freedom
Al, but that's the way it has to be.' About lation to restore the political rights of of political expression and the American I got a call call from minutes later, Mel Laird, maybe out ten at San Cie- minutes, - Federal, State, and local employees while commitment to participatory democracy.
got
mente. Mel said, 'Everything's okay. Don't still protecting them at work from fl- The constitutionality of the Hatch
Act has been challenged in the judicial
worry about it.' That's it. I never asked Mel. nancial solicitation and other political
But I can't help but believe that the presi- harassment. A provision of last year's arena. In July, 1972, the U.S. District
dent called Mel in and Mel and the president campaign reform bill-the Federal Elec- Court for the District of Columbia-
and Al Haig talked about it. It was my im- tion Campaign Act Amendments of 1974, National Association of Letter Carriers
pression that the three of them then decided public Law 93-443-removes most Hatch against U.S. Civil Service Commission-
that approval. what I had Because in said the on the floor meantime had there their was Act restrictions against State and local ruled that the Hatch Act is "constitution-
a big hassle on the Senate side as to whether employees. As of January 1, 1975, the ally vague" and has a "chilling effect,"
it could be limited to Cambodia or broadened nearly 3 million State and local em- because many civil employees do not
to include Southeast. Asia. Apparently my ployees can serve as officers of political know either if they are covered or what
comment on the floor of the House resolved parties and'.as delegates to the national they are prohibited from doing. Accord-
that problem in the Senate. That's what I'm conventions, can solicit votes on behalf ing to the court, many persons did not
told. of candidates, and so on down the long engage in any political activity out of
"I wrote down what I thought had to be list of previously prohibited endeavors fear, rather than because they had to.
said to win. In- retrospect they say they under the Hatch Act's dictum of "no ac- This decision, if left, would have re-
didn't understand what I was saying. I rive participation in political manage- pealed the Hatch Act.
think thought we it mighwas t ht have pretty gotten clear. through. it t ment or in political campaigns." The re- However, the Supreme Court, in June
,. . But it
would have been a hard fight and I'm not striations against coercion of fellow em- 1973, reversed the decision by a 6 to 3
sure the senate would have taken just Cam- ployees, solicitation of funds on-the-job, margin. But the Court still emphasized
bodia. I think we might have won in the or any other abuse of official authority that "Congress is free to strike a, differ-
House. to influence elections remain in force, as ent balance if it chooses."
"I don't like to put it on the basis of they should. In 1966, Congress created the Com-
win or lose but I thought we made a very As a member of the House Adminis- mission on Political Activity of Govern-
successful compromise. It was not all we tration Committee last year, which ment Personnel, known as the Hatch Act
wanted, but enough to give Henry xis-
singer a chance to achieve what they thought drafted the campaign reform bill, I was Commission, to study all Federal laws re-
could be accomplished in Cambodia. And I pleased to support and assist in the adop- stricting political participation by Gov-
really, in retrospect, honestly believe that if tion of this provision. ernment employees. In its final report,
we hadn't put in Southeast Asia the end I withheld. from offering an amend- in December 1967, the Commission noted
result would have been chaos. The Cam- ment to include Federal employees as the need for substantial reform of the
bodian provision was a rider to an appro- well in order to assure the adoption of Hatch Act, particularly in the areas of
priation bill that involved funding for a lot the State and local provision. It was then clarifying its vagueness and reducing its
of agencies of the federal government. We and is now my hope that the Congress application to the fewest employees. As
could have had a very, very difficult situation will also restore the political rights of the Commission noted, most Government
if the bill had been vetoed," Federal employees. employees are so confused by the more
According to the Library of Congress than 3,000 specific prohibitions issued
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under and the Joint Committee on Reduction over the years by the executive branch
a previous o;der of the House, the gen- of Federal Expenditures, there are ap- and have so little idea what they are
tleman from New York (Mr. KocH) is proximately 2.8 million Federal civil permitted to do that they tend to avoid
recognized for 5 minutes. servants and postal employees in the taking part in any political activity at
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100120016-3
 H 2628
Approved For R~I~Ss80R I0 NAL R CORD -HOUSE001100120016-April 9, 1975
all. Congress has taken the initiative in our public servants to being "second class
recent years in expanding other groups' citizens." Existing restrictions on the
opportunities for political activity political activities of Federal employees
through its civil rights legislation and are, in my judgment, unfair and long
the 18-year-old vote. It is time that overdue for revision. But at the same
Congress restores to Federal Government time, we must protect the neutrality of
employees their right to free political ex- the Government bureaucracy. We must
pression and acts on the recommenda- also guard against possible coercion di-
tions made by the Commission that it rected against public employees to par-
created. ticipate involuntarily in politics. The
Chairman Clay's bill, H.R. 3000, and solution is to replace the Hatch Act with
my bill, H.R. 1326, would amend title 5 legislation that contains adequate safe-
of the United States Code so as to per- guards against abuses while granting
mit Federal officers and employees to Federal employees their rights to partici-
take an active part in political mapage- pate as private citizens in American poli-
ment and in political campaigns. We tical life.
would retain the very important prohi- The Congress has before it bills that
bition against the use of official author- seek to accomplish this purpose. I am
ity to influence elections, while extend- hopeful that we will enact such legis-
full rignts to participate actively in pol-
itics as private citizens. The bills list nine
specific activities included under "an ac-
tive part in political management or po-
litical campaigns," in addition to the
right to vote or to express an opinion
orally on political subjects, which even
the existing provisions allow. The nine
new rights can be summarized as
follows:
First. Unrestricted participation in po-
litical conventions, including service as a
delegate or officer.
Second. Unrestricted particpiation in
the deliberations of any primary meeting
or caucus.
Third. Unrestricted participation in a
political meeting or rally, including pre-
liminary arrangements.
Fourth. Unrestricted membership in
political clubs, including initial organiz-
ing.
Fifth. Unrestricted wearing of cam-
paign badges and distributing of cam-
paign literature.
Sixth. Unrestricted written expression
or association with any publication, ex-
cept that no letter, editorial, or article
shall mention the writer's official em-
ployment.
Seventh. Unrestricted organization or
participation in a political parade.
Eighth. Unrestricted initiating or sign-
ing of nominating petitions, including
canvassing for signatures of others.
Ninth. Unrestricted candidacy for
nomination or election to any political
office-National, State, county, or muni-
cipal.
My bill, H.R. 1326, is largely similar
to H.R. 3000. Section 3 of H.R. 3000 is
comparable to section 1 of my bill; the
respective listings of nine items incor-
porated under "an active part in political
management or in political campaigns,"
enumerated above, are virtually iden-
tical. H.R. 1326 would retain the exist-
ing provisions of the United States Code
-sections 7323 and 7325-which already
cover prohibited solicitations and penal-
ties. However, I am very concerned that
we retain effective safeguards against
the politicization of the bureaucracy
while at the same time giving public
employees full political rights as private
citizens. I support the additional sec-
tions in H.R. 3000, not included in my
HOME HEALTH CARE-PART VI
(Mr. KOCH asked and was given per-
mission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD and to include ex-
traneous matter.)
Mr. KOCH. Mr. Speaker,. together with
78 House cosponsors I have introduced
H.R. 4772 and H.R. 4774, the National
Home Health Care Act of 1975. The bill
has been given equally strong support
in the Senate where it has been intro-
duced as S. 1163 by Senators FRANK Moss
and FRANK CHURCH, respective chairmen
of the. Senate Subcommittee on Long
Term Care and Committee on Aging,
HUGH SCOTT, Senate minority leader, and
Senators WILLIAMS, DOMENICI, and
TUNNEY.
To discuss the need for home health
care and the public support this proposal
is receiving, it is my intention to place
statements in the RECORD several times
a week by experts and lay persons com-
menting on the legislation.
This is the sixth In the series:
[From Annals of Internal Medicine,
January 19751
HOME CARE: MUCH NEEDED, Muc i NEGLECTED
The story of the Chelsea-Village program
of home health care for the homebound aged
operated out of St. Vincent's Hospital in
New York City and described elsewhere in
this issue by Dr. Philip Brickner, Sister Te-
resita Duque, and associates is as important
as it is heart-warming. It should be required
reading for health care professionals, third-
party payers, and all public and private offi-
cials responsible for setting health priorities
in this country.
Despite the modest dimensions of the ex-
periment-involving only 200 referrals and
169 patients actually placed under care--
Dr. Brickner claims significant savings to
society. At a minimum rate of $800 a month
for Medicaid to keep patients in a nursing
home in New York City and with an esti-
mated 70 patients maintained at home ra-
ther than being institutionalized, he claims
a 1-year savings of $340,000 from this factor
alone. With Medicaid paying about $150 a
day for acute hospital care and on the as-
sumption that 1000 hospital days were
avoided as a result of the program during its
first year, he estimates an additional savings
of $150,000.
Equally Important is the well-documented
fact that most elderly patients prefer to re-
main in their own homes, if at all possible,
rather than being institutionalized. Despite
h
d
6
n
e ing homes and some improvement in quality,
Attorney General to deal with violations. conditions in many remain deplorable (1);
For over 35 years we have relegated Not all the relevant questions are an-
swered in the Brickner report. Why were
there so few referrals-200 out of an esti-
mated pool of 3000 aged homebound persons
in the area? Especially, why so few from
physicians-only 16 but of the 200? Why did
seven persons whti liad been referred refuse
services? Why not-accept small payments
from those who offer to pay? How did the
hospital absorb the $50,000 that it under-
wrote? Is this type of unreimbursed service
one cause for the ever-rising cost to the pay-
ing hospital patient'?
Were all government resources fully ex-
plored? For example; under both Parts A
and B of Medicarl;r 100 home-care visits by
qualified professio'.n` 1s are covered, and un-
der Medicaid the 'trvices of home health
aides are available. `Were these possibilities
totally exhausted? ?`'
In addition to a number of such questions
that pique the curiosity, it is obvious that
no one can providetatally satisfactory cost-
benefit analysis ill this area. As the authors
themselves point out, without the program
some of their patients would - have died at
home. Although this Is obviously not an ac-
ceptable solution, it is certainly cheaper.
Nevertheless, the broad conclusion is in-
escapable: home health,' Ate, when efficiently
organized with good JS up services, is a
highly cost-effective way of, caring for the
elderly. Moreover, ipost -of the elderly prefer
home care to institutionalized care. Many
health professionals also like home care, es-
pecially nurses. Judging from the number
of physicians engaged in this experiment, a
fair number of doctors also like it if the
necessary financial 'and other supports are
made available.
The continued increase-absolute as well
as relative-in the over-65 population and
the ever-rising cost;of meeting their health
needs to emphasize the Importance of this
type of program. We need home care to com-
bat inflation in health care costs. We need it
to bring a measure of reassurance and dig-
nity to millions of older people who are see-
ing their cherished Medicare benefits shrink
under the twin pressures of rising costs and
increased cost-sharing. We need it to restore
a degree of caring and outreach to our super-
specialized health care institutions and pro-
fessionals.
There is little theoretical argument on this
question. Health care professionals, third-
party payers, and government officials con-
tinue to extol the advantages of home care
(2-4). Despite, all. the lip-service, however,
we are unlikely to witness any rapid overall
expansion. Even where some support is now
available, as under Medicare, the relative
use of home care continues to decline year
by year. For example, during 1969 there
were 628,543 approved claims for home health
services under Part A. By 1973, the number
was down to less than 400,000 (based on the
first 6 months' experience) (5)'
The reasons are not mysterious. Most phy-
sicians are not interested in chronic Illness.
Most are not interested in home care, even
if the visits are actually made by nurses.
Most hospital administrators today are-pri-
marily concerned with keeping their expen-
sive beds filled. And most third-party pay-
ers, public as well as private, are primarily
concerned with keeping the physicians and
hospitals happy---or at least off their backs!
Even the national government administra-
tion, with Its continual scolding of physi-
cians and hospitals for rising costs, is un-
willing or unable to exercise the leadership
involved in a real reordering of national
health priorities away from inpatient care
toward the kind of program described by
Dr. Brickner.
And so Dr. Brickner and his colleagues are
likely to receive a pat on the back-and not
much more. At the very least, he should be
sought out by the Social Security Adminis-
tration for the possibility of an incentive
experiment grant under Section 222 of PL
92-603. Ostensibly, the Department of
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100120016-3