PERSPECTIVES 1978

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 246
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 8, 2004
• Sequence Number: 7
• Publication Date: January 1, 1977
• Content Type: REPORT

U
1)
KMM
wcy ea wa"~
~
~ (
~?. ~
_ ttt~1"~ ~ r
oki
pr ~i
w ..:. m..
mss' r r?:
/I/
m?ri
i
In-
~ ~ .w 1
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
PERSPECTIVES
1978
2
MT
CLOSE UP FOUNDATION
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20007
[phone]
(1) 800-424-2730
Bruce W. Jentleson, Editor Original Cartoons by Peter
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
Perspectives is published annually by the Close Up Foundation for
use by students and teachers from across the country who participate in
the government studies program conducted by the Foundation. The
book has been created as a resource supplementing the seminars, work-
shops and other activities which comprise the CLOSE UP program.
The Foundation wishes to sincerely thank all the authors whose
concern for education has led them to contribute articles.
(c)Copyright, 1977, by the Close Up Foundation.
All rights reserved.
Printed by Master Print, Inc. in the United States of America.
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
September 1977
To Close Up Participants
The 12,000 students and teachers who will participate in
Close Up this year have a great opportunity to observe
the federal government at close range and see how it
really works. To many young people, government and
politics seem stagnant, something totally separate from
their own lives. But, in small ways and large, govern-
ment affects us all, every day.
One of the greatest values of your program is that it
represents the mainstream of American life. You are here
not because of your status, but because of your interest.
You are part of the great body of Americans who really
run this country -- hardworking, concerned people who use
their talents and knowledge and energy for the nation's
benefit.
I hope you will make good use of this chance to learn
about government while you are young and your lifetime
commitments are not yet made. When you are older, when
you
have
a family and job responsibilities, your perspec-
tive
may
be altered by these choices or by the possible
loss
of
personal privilege or security. But now while
you
are
still making those choices you can devote your
hearts and minds to necessary change without these
constraints.
There is a quote carved inside the Jefferson Memorial
that you might want to remember: "I am not an advocate
for frequent changes in law and Constitutions but laws
and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress
of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more
enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths dis-
covered and manners and opinions changed with the change
of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep
pace with the times."
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
Our system of government rests on the assumption that
in an open society, with free debate and access to the
facts, truth would eventually overcome error. Our
founders set up checks so the majority could not take
unfair advantage of the minority, to restrain even the
most powerful and protect even the weakest.
But if the system is to work, all of our people must
participate. We all must train our minds to learn the
facts and understand the issues. We must all vote and
make our wishes known. All of our citizens must stand
against injustices to any one of them, for our govern-
ment is made up of its people; its strength is their
strength, its weakness their weakness. If they are
apathetic, government will be apathetic. But if the
people care -- and show it -- the government will act.
How wisely and how effectively is largely up to the
people; it depends on how well they express their con-
cern and how effectively they monitor the processes of
legislation and administration. Often the worst answer
to a problem can be a bad program, and only the people
can prevent that.
During the Watergate hearings, many young men who had
come to work in the government expressed their dis-
illusionment with it. One of them who had been involved
in the cover-up advised young people who might be tempted
to come to Washington to try to put their ideals into
practice to "stay away." He saw the city and the govern-
ment as inevitably corrupting forces.
That need not be so. Andrew Jackson saw it more clearly
when he said, "There are no necessary evils in govern-
ment. Its evils exist only in its abuses." The people
can control government abuses by exercising the rights
and privileges of citizenship. When only a little over
half our people who are eligible actually vote -- less
than half our young people -- then we are halfway down
the road away from government by the people.
While you are here you have the opportunity to learn
and observe and to question. I hope when you go home
you will continue to learn and observe, to question
and probe. I hope you will be determined not to accept
easy labels, but to find out what people really stand
for, and whether programs and policies actually do what
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
they claim to do. I hope you'll be proud of your
government and your country but work to correct the
wrongs you see, and never hesitate to stand up and
say so when you know a wrong is being done. But
I hope you'll be able to restrain your strict con-
science enough to be sure beforehand that it is
really a wrong, and that if you find out later you
were mistaken, that you will always have the courage
to admit it and try to make it right.
Sincerely,
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release'-36&pP88-01315R000200160007-2
1. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: THE POLICY MAKERS
1. The Presidency: Power and Leadership
How Much Power for the President? ..................... Harry C. Mc Pherson .......... 3
The Man and the Office: A Call for Integrity and
Accountability ................................... Clark R. Mollenhoff ........... 5
The Presidency in Perspective .......................... Winton M. Blount............. 7
Know the Executive Office of the President ........................................... 9
The Executive Branch and the Making of Domestic Policy .... Lee C. White ................. 10
TheCabinet: Q & A ............................................................ 12
Know the Cabinet ............................................................. 13
Perspectives Panel: Lessons of Watergate ............................................ 15
Reflections ................................................................... 18
The Job of President ............................................................ 19
Glossary: The Presidency ........................................................ 21
An Introduction to the Presidency: A CLOSE UP Briefing ............................... 22
2. The Federal Bureaucracy: What Role for Government in American Society?
The Federal Bureaucracy: It's Better than You Think ........ J. Douglas Hoff ............... 25
Table: Federal Civilian Employment ............................................... 27
Big Government: A Pressing Problem .................... Senator Barry Goldwater........ 27
Something Has to be Done: Ideas on Government Reorganization
Congressman Elliott H. Levitas ... 29
Diagram: Structure of the Executive Branch .......................................... 31
Our Nation's Regulators: Case Study of the Consumer Product Safety
Commission ..................... Vice Chairman Thaddeus Garrett, Jr. .............. 32
Know the Bureaucracy .......................................................... 34
Bureaucratic Semantifications ......................... Dr. James H. Boren............ 36
3. The Congress: Legislators and Representatives of the People
Congress: Leader or Follower? .......................... Senator Robert Morgan ........ 39
Congress and the President: Checks and Balances in the
Making of Foreign Policy ........................... Senator Robert Dole ........... 40
The Speaker of the House: His Role
and the 95th Congress ............. Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.................... 42
Leaders of Congress ............................................................ 44
The Minority as a Cohesive Force ................... . ... Minority Leader John J. Rhodes .. 46
The Job of a Congressman ............................ Congressman Bill Frenzel ....... 47
A Representative's Vote: A Matter of Conscience ........... The Honorable Brooks Hays ..... 50
Tips on Writing Your Senator or Congressman ........................................ 51
Know Your Representatives ...................................................... 52
Six Virtues of the Seniority System ...................... Donald Deuster .............. 53
A New Era in Congressional Reform ..................... Congressman Bob Carr ......... 55
Perspectives Panel: Freshman Views of the House and Senate ............................. 57
The Committee System: Q & A .................................................... 59
The Congress and Its Committees .................................................. 60
Special CLOSE UP Guide to Capitol Hill ............................................ 60
Glossary: Legislative Procedure ................................................... 63
Approved For Release 2004/10%3 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13: CI - P88-01315 00 00160007-2
4. The Supreme Court and the Judiciary: Equal Justice an Supremacy o the Law
Perspective on the Supreme Court: An Interview with the Late Justice Tom C. Clark ............ 65
The Supreme Court of the United States ........: .................................... 68
The Powers of the Supreme Court............ .'........... Professor Adrian Fisher ........ 68
How a Case Reaches the Supreme Court ............................................. 70
You and the Law ................... Lenore Cameron and Amy Armitage ............... 71
From Arrest to Sentencing: The Criminal Law Process ....... Jason D. Kogan ............... 74
Glossary: The Law and the Judiciary.. .................................. 77
An Introduction to the Judiciary: A CLOSE UP Briefing ................................. 78
H. FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOMS TO REPORT AND TO PETITION:
THE ROLES OF THE PRESS AND OF LOBBYISTS
5. The Press: Focus on "The Fourth Estate"
A Free Press is the Foundation of a Free Society ............ Robert C. Pierpoint............ 81
The Journalist's Role is to Inform the Public ............... Hal Walker.................. 83
The Lighter Side of Political Reporting ................... John Goldsmith .............. 85
What am I Reading? ........................................................... 87
Perspectives Panel: The Political Role of the Press ..................................... 88
Reflections ................................................................... 90
6. Lobbying: Influencing the Policy Makers
Who is a Lobbyist and What Does He Really Do? ........... Michael O. Ware ............. 92
Who is a Lobbyist and What Does He Really Do? ........... Richard W. Clark ............. 94
The Need for Lobby Reform ........................... Congressman Tom Railsback .... 96
Know the Lobbyists . .................................... 98
An Introduction to Lobbying: A CLOSE UP Briefing ................................... 100
III. AMERICA IN THE WORLD: COEXISTING WITH 150 OTHER NATIONS
7. Foreign Policy: Our National Interest and the Pursuit of Peace
Can We Define the "National Interest"? .................. Dr. Roger Leeds .............. 105
Point Counterpoint: The United States and the Soviet Union
Carl Marcy-Committee on the Present Danger ................. 106
World Development and U.S. Foreign Policy: The Opportunity Before Us
U.N. Ambassador Andrew J. Young ................ 113
Foreign Relations: Know the World ................................................ 116
Table: American Foreign Aid (Economic Assistance) .............. ............. 117
Perspective of a Third World Nation: An Interview with Ambassador Neville Kanakaratne ....... 117
Perspectives Panel: Future Directions for American Foreign Policy? ........................ 121
Reflections ................................................................... 126
Glossary: Foreign Policy.. ...................................
An Introduction to Foreign Policy: A CLOSE UP Briefing ............................... 128
8. Defense Policy: "To Provide for the Common Defense"
American Military Around the World ............................................... 131
American Defense Policy: What, Why and How? ........... Lt. Colonel H. A. Staley and
Major Rob Purdie ............. 132
Table: American Foreign Aid (Military Assistance) ..................................... 134
Arms Control and Disarmament in the Nuclear Era ......... Thomas A. Halsted ............ 134
Glossary: Defense Policy ........................................................ 140
An Introduction to Defense Policy: A CLOSE UP Briefing ............................... 141
9. The Intelligence Community: National Security in a Democracy
Intelligence ....................... Central Intelligence Agency...................... 144
Diagram: National Intelligence Community Structure .................................. 147
The Need for Reform of U.S. Intelligence Agencies .......... Senator Frank Church ......... 148
Approved For Release 2004/10/%: CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
IV. DOMESTIC POLICY: SETTING OUR PRIORITIES AT HOME
10. Social and Economic Issues: The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number
Perspectives Panel: The Energy Crisis ............................................... 153
Point Counterpoint: Economics and Policy
Peter S. Knight-Louis Wilson Ingram, Jr......... 157
The Federal Budget: Q & A ... ............. 164
Golden Years of American Agriculture... Senator Herman E. Talmadge .................... 166
The Ongoing Struggle for Equality and Justice
Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm ................. 167
Point Counterpoint: The Equal Rights Amendment
Kristina Kiehl- Phyllis Schlafly ............... 168
The Welfare System in the U.S ......................... D. Lee Bawden ............... 172
Glossary: Economics ........................................................... 175
Domestic Issues Forum ......................................................... 176
11. Federal, State and Local Government: The Partnership that Binds
"To Form a More Perfect Union": Contemporary American Federalism
Lawrence D. Gilson............ 185
The Urban Crisis is a Complex Compound ................ Krishnan Nanda and
John Bauman ................ 187
Bringing Political Power Back Home .................... Senator Mark Hatfield ......... 191
Know Your State Government .................................................... 193
V. OUR THIRD CENTURY: LEARNING FROM THE PAST,
LOOKING TOWARDS THE FUTURE
12. The Political Process: Parties, Campaigns, Philosophies and You
Point Counterpoint: A Comparative Look at the 1976 Republican and Democratic Party
Platforms .................................................................. 197
Table: 1976 Elections (National) ................................................... 199
What are Political Parties?. .......... RNC Chairman Bill Brock ....................... 200
On the Campaign Trail .............. Senator Donald W. Riegle, Jr..................... 202
What are My Political Attitudes? .................................................. 204
Perspectives Panel: Liberalism and Conservatism ...................................... 205
Reflections ................................................................... 208
Glossary: The Political Process .................................................... 209
13. New Directions for the Third Century
The Future Challenges the Young ...... Senator Edward M. Kennedy ..................... 211
Sitting Outside a Dairy Queen and Reflecting on America..... Simon Winchester ............. 212
Looking Toward the Future ........................... Edward Cornish .............. 214
Reflections on the Third Century: A Panel ........................................... 217
Perspective of a Public Man: An Interview with Senator Hubert H. Humphrey ................ 221
VI. WASHINGTON, D.C.: YOUR HOST CITY
14. The City: Its History, Its Politics, Its Life
The History of Washington, D.C ........................ CLOSE UP Staff.............. 228
The District of Columbia and "Home Rule" ............... Sterling Tucker............... 230
Some Points of Interest .......................................................... 232
Appendix: General Glossary of Political Terms ....................................... 235
Approved For Release 2004/10/.13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
viii
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
PERSPECTIVES 1978
If there is one thing that you are sure to learn while in Washington, it is that there are neither simple
questions nor absolute answers when it comes to politics and government... instead, there are countless
"perspectives." During your CLOSE UP week, you will actually experience government. You will study it
by participating in seminars with Congressmen, Senators, executive branch officials, lobbyists, reporters,
judges and many others. You will have the chance to ask questions of these people, and you will discuss a
host of subjects in workshops with fellow students and your Program Instructors. You will be exposed to
many different "perspectives" on a variety of subjects. This book, appropriately titled Perspectives, is a
collection of readings on politics and government which is intended to supplement the seminars, work-
shops, informal discussions and other experiences which are a part of the CLOSE UP program.
Many members of the staff of the Close Up Foundation have contributed their time, energy,
creativity and-most of all-their dedication to the creation of Perspectives 1978. This year's edition
contains over 50 articles written especially for CLOSE UP students and teachers by individuals with a
great deal of experience in government and political affairs. Among the authors are Republicans,
Democrats, and independents; liberals and conservatives; private citizens and government officials. We
have conscientiously striven to present as many diverse viewpoints and as many sides of as many issues as
possible. Anything less would be contrary to the values and spirit of the Close Up Foundation.
It has always been CLOSE UP's goal to offer a meaningful alternative to the traditional way most
young Americans learn about politics and their government: Perspectives 1978 is a part of that process. It
is not meant to be a textbook. It is your book, your resource. Whenyouu receive a copy from your teacher-
coordinator, take the time to read as many articles as possible before coming to Washington. Discuss
them with other students, with your teacher and with your family. Utilize the charts and diagrams as
tools to gain a better understanding of all aspects of the government. And don't miss any of the creative
commentaries by Peter in his series of 15 cartoons drawn especially for Perspectives.
As you read, and especially when you do come to Washington, keep in mind what was stated
earlier-there are no simple questions, there are no absolute answers. What is important is that you ask
questions and think deeply about the complex issues facing us now and in the future... that you form
your own perspectives. As students concerned with learning about government, and as citizens par-
ticipating in it, we are confident that CLOSE UP will be a memorable and a learning experience for you.
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : QA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 200 10/13 : qlA-RDP -01315R000200160007-2
ection i.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
The Policy Makers
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
1.
THE PRESIDENCY:
Power and Leadership
"All see, and most admire, the glare which hovers around the
external trappings of elevated office. To me there is nothing
in it, beyond the lustre which may be reflected from its connection
with a power of promoting human felicity. "
George Washington
The Constitution states that every four years the people of the United States shall elect a President,
in whom the "executive power" shall be vested. November, 1976, marked the forty-eighth occasion in our
history that we have exercised this most fundamental of our democratic rights. As in any election cam-
paign the focus was on the men themselves-their personalities as well as their policy positions, their
images as well as their past experience. Now we need to focus our attention on the institution-the
Presidency. The powers and responsibilities of the Presidency are great and diverse: Chief Executive,
Commander-in-Chief; party leader, national leader, world leader; efficient administrator, effective
sponsor of legislation. In many ways these powers and responsibilities differ from those conferred upon
George Washington in 1789. The Presidency has evolved with the changing needs of the times, and as
each President has left his mark upon the institution... yet it is also true (as proven by the Watergate
crisis) that there are definite limits beyond which these powers cannot be stretched.
Today, after a decade which saw one President decline under pressure to run for re-election and
another forced to resign, our nation continues to debate questions of presidential power and leadership.
What should be the limits on the powers of a President? What are those special qualities of leadership
which make certain men great Presidents? In this chapter former assistants to Presidents Kennedy,
Johnson and Nixon are among the authors who discuss these and other questions. In addition, the first of
a series of Perspectives Panels presents you with a symposium on the lesson of Watergate. Such key
figures as Senator Howard Baker and Congressman Peter Rodino have contributed their views. Finally, a
series of charts and diagrams will help you learn about the leading figures in the Carter Administration.
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
HOW MUCH POWER FOR
sulates him from public opinion. So, partisans of
THE PRESIDENT? both institutions argue that supreme authority in
our system is legitimately theirs.
Harry C. McPherson
This is a fitting question with which to begin
a book about government in these post-
Vietnam, post-Watergate years. Harry
McPherson has been in Washington since
1956 during which time he has worked in the
U.S. Senate, the Pentagon, the State Depart-
ment and as Special Counsel to President
Lyndon B. Johnson (1964-69). He has wit-
nessed and been involved with government
under six different Presidents. He is also the
author of A Political Education, "a journal
of life with Senators, Generals, Cabinet
Members and Presidents. " He wrote this
article especially for Perspectives.
Very likely no people on earth spend as much
time worrying about the balance between
executive and legislative power as Americans do.
Totalitarian governments have no barriers to the
exercise of executive power. Even in our sister
democracies in Europe, where there is strong
competition between the political parties, the
legislature ordinarily supports the executive's
program once the election is over.
Yet the Founding Fathers carefully wrote
into the Constitution provisions for the separation
of powers-for "checks and balances" between
the executive, legislature and the judiciary.
Under this system of divided powers, the contest
between the President and the Congress often
begins after election day. Recent events show this
to be true even when the President is a member of
the same political party (in this case, the Demo-
cratic Party) that holds the majority in Congress.
At the root of much of the competition and the
conflict is the fact that both the President and the
Congress claim to represent and to act on behalf
of "the people."
The President can fairly claim to be the only
official in government to have been chosen by the
majority will of all the people; therefore, it is
argued, he alone represents us all. Representa-
tives in the House can say, with equal justice, that
they are "closest to the people." Facing the voters
every two years, it is argued that they represent
the popular will more intimately and responsively
than does the President whose four-year term in-
A Bold and Forceful, but not Imperial,
Presidency
From the earliest days of the Republic, the
argument has raged about how much authority
should be vested in the President, and how much
retained by the "popular branch of government,"
the Congress. The Founders so mistrusted
executive government-which they identified with
King George III and his commanders and
colonial governors-that they were inclined to
give very little explicit power to the President.
Probably it was only the certainty that the uni-
versally admired and trusted George Washington
would become the first President that caused the
Founders to give the office what clear consti-
tutional powers it has. Since then, events and the
personalities of Presidents have shaped the
Presidency, as well as our sense of what its right-
ful authority should be.
As with any issue that has been debated for
two centuries, there are at least two sides to this
"HE SEEMS TO HAZE THIS IDEA THAT HE
"
CAA D? TOE J013 WITHOUT US
Copyright 1977 by Herblock in the Washington Post
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : JIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 A rov d For Release 2004/10/13: CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
one. First, let us exat ine tehe case for a bold and ""The President must be more 'account-
forceful Presidency. During the 1950's, many
observers thought that meeting America's able to the people and to the Congress.
problems demanded bold and forceful leadership Accountability is the opposite of unchecked
from the White House. The President ought not power."
to be obstructed, they argued, by Congressmen
whose only interest lay in serving the special Accountability to Congress and to the People
interests of their districts. He should be given the
flexibility to use government programs, tax Accountability is the opposite of unchecked
policies and appropriations in rational ways-not power. It means that the powers of any one
as petty politics required. In foreign affairs, he branch of government, or any one individual, are
should be empowered to meet sudden emergen- "checked" and "balanced" by powers granted by
cies abroad with military power, economic aid the Constitution to other branches of government.
or with whatever swift and decisive action was For example, the Supreme Court has on occasion
needed. To permit a Southern senator or a stepped in to deny a President the power to take a
Western congressman to tie up aid to the cities, certain action, because it exceeded his con-
action to guarantee civil rights, or a response to stitutional authority. Public opinion also acts as a
foreign aggression, only jeopardized the interests check, expressed either in Presidential elections or
of all the people. through Members of Congress. Probably the most
For those who believed that the Presidency common check on a President is the Congress.
had become too powerful, the events of Vietnam In recent years the Congress has begun to
and Watergate substantiated their arguments. reassert itself in passing new laws to hold the
Many of the same people who had previously President and the entire Executive Branch more
advocated a strong Presidency grew to think that accountable. One area in which the exercise of
the Presidency had become "Imperial," con- broad authority by different Presidents through-
centrating power in ways that endangered our out our history has been met by ardent opposition
liberty and safety. From this perspective, and criticism in the Congresses of their times is
Congress became the defender of public rights, "national security."
not the barrier to progress. During the Civil War, President Abraham
In my view, there is much that is right, and Lincoln far exceeded the strict limits of his
much that is shortsighted in both opinions. The authority by suspending the right of habeus
complexity of many national and international corpus, authorizing the opening of mail, and tak-
problems today-energy production, environ- ing other steps that ignored individual rights. But
mental protection, the reduction of unemploy- he acted, as he said, to preserve the Union against
ment and inflation, international economic the gravest threat it had ever faced, and few
relations-require the attention of a strong and faulted him for it. Prior to our entry into World
resourceful Executive. "Government can't do War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt's trade
everything," true; but Government must do some of destroyers for bases with England was accom-
things, and the doing of those things is chiefly an plished without the formal consent of Congress.
executive function. Some have criticized FDR for evading the con-
On the other hand, we've learned that a stitutional requirement that Congress must
President surrounded by the trappings of power approve treaties. Roosevelt believed, and most
can become remote from the people and their historians agree, that the situation demanded
representatives, and can-without evil in- quick action to save England and thus to protect
tentions-come to feel that he alone has the wis- America's security.
dom to perceive, and the authority to pursue, However, it cannot be said that Presidents
national goals. If future Presidents are to retain may always ignore constitutional limitations on
the confidence of the people on which the success their authority, when in their judgment the
of the Presidency depends, they will have to open national security is threatened. President Nixon's
the decision-making process more fully to the defenders argued that his actions, which later
people, and invite the greater participation of brought about his near-impeachment and
Congress in making those decisions. That is to resignation, were justified because national
say, the President must be more "accountable" to security was threatened in the early 1970's by sub-
the people and to the Congress. version and even treason. President Johnson's
Approved For Release 2004/10/43 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 r~~t~
Administration c~apPme4a?rt~iee1
had in effect been endorsed by Congress, in the
Tonkin Gulf Resolution of 1964, and in the
appropriations which Congress annually voted for
the military services who were conducting the war.
But a formal declaration of war was never sought,
and as the war ground on without the prospect of
victory or a tolerable peace agreement, the public
and the Congress withdrew their support for it
and the Johnson Administration itself. The Nixon
and Johnson Administrations were unlike in most
respects, but both asserted the authority to
identify, and to protect as they saw fit, the
national security interests of the United States.
Likewise, both suffered the consequences when
the people judged otherwise.
In 1974 Congress passed the War Powers
Resolution, aimed at making presidential power
more accountable to it in matters of national
security. The War Powers Resolution requires the
President to terminate the use of American forces
in hostilities abroad within sixty days, unless in
that time Congress declares war or votes to extend
the sixty-day period. This resolution was aimed at
preventing other Vietnam-and-Cambodia-type
wars, by requiring the specific approval of
Congress for American military involvement. Its
purpose was also to regain a strong voice in
matters of national security for the Congress.
Conclusion: How Will the Pendulum of
Power Swing?
Congress has passed other laws aimed at
making Presidential power more accountable to it
and to the general public. One such law is known
as the "sunshine law". Its provisions require that
executive branch agencies and Cabinet depart-
ments permit the public to observe their decision-
making processes. Congress is also considering a
"sunset law" by which agencies will expire after a
specified period of time unless Congress acts to
extend them. All these laws are responses to the
threat of unaccountable power in the Presidency,
and of uncontrolled growth in government. They
assert the power of Congress to share in making
vital decisions and of the public to see and
criticize the performance of officials whom they
have never elected, but who exercise great
authority in making the rules that increasingly
affect their lives.
Whether the pendulum will swing too far,
whether in the aftermath of Vietnam and Water-
gate, Congress so ties the President's hands that a
CLFQ~8>%J?J0g1 qW7Apond to a de-
pression, or help save an embattled England, only
time will tell. What is certain is that the argument
we have conducted for two centuries, over the
appropriate limits of Presidential and
Congressional authority, will continue into the
third.
THE MAN AND THE OFFICE:
A CALL FOR INTEGRITY
AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Clark R. Mollenhoff
Clark Mollenhoff was a special assistant to
President Richard M. Nixon from 1969 to
1970, when he resigned this position. Prior to
working at the White House, he won the
Pulitzer Prize for national reporting. He is
presently Washington bureau chief for the
Des Moines Register and Tribune. He has
written numerous books on American
government, including: Despoilers of
Democracy, Game Plan For Disaster, and
Tentacles of Power. In this article he dis-
cusses the character and other qualities
which are important in anyone who serves
as President.
Recent history and the revelations of mis-
deeds by our Presidents have marred the shining,
unrealistic image we had of the Office of the
President of the United States. Yet we can hope
that in the long term this will be for the good of
the American democracy. For one thing we have
intensified the national discussion of what
qualities we look for in a President.
Ideally a President should be a person of
great integrity who can supply moral leadership to
the nation. The manner in which Presidential
power is used or misused is to a large extent con-
tingent upon the integrity and sense of fair play of
the President himself. He must not be vulnerable
to charges of personal political corruption or of
condoning corruption in the ranks of his sup-
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : clA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 porters. He must pd s?t`i cfeg Rlgffl ftfitO/13
sees beyond the political expediency of the
moment and recognizes that abuse of power is
bad for the people as well as for the President.
This is a most important characteristic of a
President's politics and personality.
In judging his integrity it is essential to go
beyond his own self-serving declarations and the
claims of his political supporters. Some of the
worst scoundrels in political life have thumped
the Bible and talked a good game. People must
also see through the carefully contrived television
images that all Presidents project.
A President with this kind of integrity and
experience could effectively direct overall policy
making, set a high moral tone, and be free to take
corrective action when his administration or any
government agency becomes bogged down in
corruption or mismanagement.
Secrecy and Lack of Accountability Lead
to the Abuse of Power
Watergate has dramatically demonstrated
the lack of moral leadership of one President, as
well as his shocking lack of knowledge of how to
manage the government. It also disclosed clearly
the manner in which the awesome power we give
our Presidents can be misused to cover up crimes
by a President and his political associates.
In the aftermath of Watergate a series of
Congressional hearings have disclosed the man-
ner in which many of our Presidents misused the
power of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA),
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the
Post Office, and the Civil Service Commission, to
name only a few agencies that spring quickly to
mind. While the Nixon Administration was the
focus of major attention in Watergate, it is now
generally admitted that all of our administrations
for at least the past forty years engaged in abuses
of power that were somewhat comparable.
For our purposes, it is not necessary to judge
or even speculate as to which President engaged
in or permitted the greatest abuses of power. It
should be sufficient to recognize that every
President is tempted to misuse the tremendous
governmental power that he holds for his own
political advantage, and that in varying degrees
all of our recent Presidents have succumbed to the
temptation.
While the President must have tremendous
power to effectively run the government, the con-
tinuing problem for the voters is to assure that
('IA_RnDS2S2~n~ ~~ ~Rnnn7nn~ Rnnn7_7
"Every President is tempted to misuse the
tremendous governmental power that he
holds for his own political advantage, and
in varying degrees all of our recent
Presidents have succumbed to the temp-
tation."
there is a reasonably effective system of accounta-
bility. Every President must be accountable to
Congress, the courts and to the public. If there is
unlimited executive privilege to hide the truth
from the public, the important checks and
balances will have gone out of our constitutional
system.
It is well to remember that every bit of
government secrecy that is tolerated provides an
atmosphere in which mismanagement and cor-
ruption can flourish. If decisions can be made in
secret or actions taken in secret there is a
tremendous temptation for any administration to
use the secrecy to cover its flaws.
While some limited secrecy for national defense
and similar purposes is essential, it cannot be an
all-encompassing secrecy that is devoid of an
accountability to some independent group, out-
side the executive branch.
If the facts are available to the public, the
press and the political opposition, the voters will
have all the protection they need against arbitrary
authoritarian government. The effective use of
this information must be left to the judgment
and discretion of the individual voter. Each of us
must decide whether the specific actions or
policies of a President are in the public interest or
in his (the President's) own interest.
Some Fault Lies with Congress and the Press
Compounding the problem for the voter to-
day is the superficiality, incompetence and
political bias of various segments of the press and
the Congress. (Even the federal courts are in some
instances politically or ideologically biased.) Even
in the wake of Watergate, the press has permitted
and promoted some aspects of the "imperial
Presidency" to continue in the Ford and Carter
Administrations. The tough questions are not
asked at press conferences for fear of being
identified and punished as a critic of the in-
cumbent administration. Questions that might be
distasteful to the President are avoided entirely,
or are worded in a manner that permits an evasive
answer that dodges the issue.
Approved For Release 2004/10/83 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 the small society
NOW1'OYOU KNOWCIEFAULT
15 IN MY L IAOIN6?
Congress, after showing a few signs of re-
belling against Presidential power during the
Ford Administration, has tried to paper over its
differences with President Carter. While a few
members of the House and Senate are still insist-
ing upon a high standard of accountability, the
pressure of politics is for a Democratic Congress
to conform to the wishes of a Democratic
President. This is disturbing. There are also many
examples of Senators and Congressmen becoming
lap dogs because of the fear of prosecution by the
Justice Department or a desire to receive favored
treatment for pet projects for their districts.
These are the realities of political life that
every voter and every newsman must take into
account in making an analysis of Presidential
actions on complicated issues before the nation.
The Office of the President is powerful, but
that power can be used for political good or evil.
There is no real "proving ground" for candidates.
Voters can only examine the evidence available on
a nonpartisan and nonideological basis, and then
to some degree take the President on faith. They
must look for a man whose actions indicate a real
concern for injustice and a courage to intervene
on the side of right even when this means
opposing the establishment power structure. He
must demonstrate an understanding of the im-
portance of due process of law in achieving honest
government!
Above all, he should be a man who can admit
mistakes on policy or in appointments and coura-
geously take the steps to correct such errors at the
earliest possible stage. While no single man can
possess all of the ideal abilities the Presidency
demands, there are a large number of men in
public life with the experience and the character
needed to do the job effectively and with integrity.
yova
FoLLoWtNG-
v'/'?,(~,,~,r 4-,9
Reprinted by permission Small Society and The Washington Star Syndicate, permission
granted by King Features Syndicate, 1975.
"THE PRESIDENCY
IN PERSPECTIVE"
Winton M. Blount
Mr. Blount is a former Postmaster General
of the United States, appointed in 1969 by
President Nixon. This article is taken from a
speech he delivered to the Georgia Highway
Contractors' Association on September 21,
1974. While the previous articles discussed
the powers of the President, this addresses
the questions of leadership: What kind of
leader do we expect? What kind of leader
should we expect? To what extent have both
we the American people and our Presidents
become victims of false images and un-
realistic expectations?
One of the remarks heard most frequently in
recent weeks is that we have come through a long
national nightmare. And all the signs we see
about us suggest that we are preparing to plunge
back into another national nightmare. The fact is
that if we do not somehow find a way to restore a
human dimension to the Office of the President of
the United States, we are going to stagger along
from one crisis of leadership to the next. What the
end result will be is anybody's guess-except that
whatever it is, it will be disastrous.
There are a number of observers today who
believe that we are heading into a long period of
one-term Presidents. There are as many reasons
for this as there are people who share that basic
viewpoint. The common denominator in all these
points of view is that no President will be able to
maintain sufficient credibility as the nation's
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : (2A-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 leader to enable hii pffgg elf R Ie~ e ~ o0 / 0/13 ~cl-d 2~Pnev01me5"situa ion16anOresolve itself so
one term. I am not convinced that this is true. But
if it is true, then what we are really saying is that
the American people are losing their capacity to
govern themselves. The President is the only
elected official in our entire structure who
represents all the people. If he cannot maintain
the confidence of a majority of Americans for
more than four years for whatever reasons, then
we stand a very good chance of ending up as the
world's most powerful banana republic...
More Realistic Expectations for the Presidency
... The problem is simply that, as a people,
we have lost real perspective on the Office of the
Presidency. The institution itself has become one
more media event. Our expectations of the man
are shaped by the media rather than by a sense of
our own history. Our demands on the Office are
conditioned by more than three decades of
concentrating power in Washington, relinquish-
ing our destiny as a whole people into the hands of
a single person, and investing that person with a
kind of infallibility to justify what amounts to be a
refusal to accept our own civic responsibilities.
But the President is only a man. And no man
is infallible. Yet in the circumstances we create
around a President, when the man makes a mis-
take, we are offended and react as though he has
somehow failed us by not living up to the standard
we set for him. We condemn him simply for being
human. It is small wonder that a President-any
President-tries to maintain his image of in-
fallibility; small wonder that he tries to have the
media maintain for him this image of someone
who never stumbles, never misjudges, never has a
bad day. Ironically the media go along-giving
him what has become almost a tradition-a
honeymoon period-and then after treating him
like a superhuman being, they turn on him as
though by being human and fallible he has some-
how deceived them. A case in point is President
Ford's pardoning of Richard Nixon. The reaction
was totally out of proportion to the merits of the
case.
In the past fourteen years, we have had one
President assassinated, one hounded out of office,
and one forced out of office, in disgrace and
under a cloud of wrongdoing. It would be simple
to suppose that America was having an incredible
run of bad luck, and that we will shortly return to
electing Presidents who fit our view of what a
President should be and what he should do. But I
easily. The problem does not lie with the men we
elect, but with what we expect of these men.
We must return to the basic constitutional
proposition that the American government is a
government of the people and by the people. We
have to place as much responsibility for our
governance with our Congressmen and our
Senators as we place with the President. We have
to hold our governors and our state legislators as
critical to our way of life as we hold the Federal
Government. And we have to ask as much of
ourselves as we ask of our President-for he is one
of us. Both citizens and the media simply must be
more mature in our perception of the Presidency.
The Presidency is a great and an essential in-
stitution in American government. But it is not
the only institution. It is not even the most im-
portant institution. It is a part of the whole, and
we have to see American government whole again,
and see that we all have a role in it, if we are to
bring the role of the President back into per-
spective.
If we fail in this endeavor, if we continue to
treat the President as the beginning and the end
of American government, if we continue to put
him on a pedestal, making his every action a
media event and his diet a subject for headlines,
his family the focus of every feature section, if we
continue to turn on him and savage him when he
does not live up to the royal image we have given
him, and if we continue to see our own civic
responsibilities consisting simply of voting once
every two or four years, then we will indeed be
watching what George Reedy called "the twi-
light of the Presidency."
We have the right to expect our President to
be a good and an honorable man who does the
best he can as he is given the wisdom to do it. But
that is all we have the right to expect. It is as
much as we could expect of ourselves. Instead, we
want a man who has the courage of David, the
wisdom of Solomon, the probity of Lincoln, the
patience of Job, and the looks of Tyrone Power.
We want what never has been, and never will be,
and if we persist in demanding this media-manu-
factured notion of what a President ought to be,
we're going to end up with a President whose chief
advisors are his makeup man, his tailor and his
barber. That is not what the Constitution had in
mind.
Approved For Release 2004/10813 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/1Oil 3
What we need today is not a false image o a
President that plays well in the press, and not a
king who takes all responsibility for all aspects of
our national life and most of our personal life. We
need a man capable of meeting his responsibilities
within the context of one of three co-equal
branches of government, a man whom we will
permit to decide what he has the right to decide,
whom we will not permit to decide what the
CI Consstitutioln coees notOgivc mm the right to decide,
and a man whom we will permit to be human-
capable of both majesty and mistakes.
The simple fact, ladies and gentlemen, is that
in spite of all of the power of the Office, the future
of the Presidency is in our hands.
Reprinted with permission of "Vital Speeches of
the Day, " published by City News Publishing
Company, P.O. Box 606, Southold, New York.
KNOW THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
The Executive Office of the President (see the Structure of the Executive Branch diagram in Chapter
Two) consists of the President's immediate advisers, administrators, policy analysts and other assistants.
They are appointed by the President without the need for Senate confirmation. These individuals are very
influential because they are close and trusted associates of their President, frequently having worked on
or supported his campaign. President Franklin D. Roosevelt referred to the Executive Office as his
"brain trust. " Under President Dwight D. Eisenhower they were called the "kitchen cabinet. " H. R.
Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, John Dean and Ron Zeigler were all in President Richard Nixon's
Executive Office.
Here is a list of some key figures in the Carter White House. Some of the names are probably more
familiar than others. 1) Identify their official titles and 2) Find out what their powers and responsibilities
are.
Responsibilities
Zbigniew Brzezinski
Charles L. Schultze
Thomas B. (Bert) Lance
Margaret (Midge) Costanza
Jody Powell
Barry Jagoda
Timothy E. Kraft
Stuart E. Eizenstat
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : qlA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 THE EXE~~r~-~~~~ti10/13 :CIA-RDP88-013158000200160007-2
1II confirmed by the Senate; White House staff are
AND THE MAKING OF appointed by the President without the advise or
consent of the Senate.
DOMESTIC POLICY Although comparisons are extremely
Lee C. White difficult, it seems that, in general, the quality of
Mr. White has had a long and distinguished
career in government service. He served as
Assistant Special Counsel to President
Kennedy and Special Counsel to President
Johnson. From 1966 to 1969 he was
chairman of the Federal Power Commission.
His experience in the executive branch
makes him a valuable commentator on the
question of domestic policy and the effects of
centralization of power in the White House.
Mr. White wrote this article exclusively for
publication in Perspectives in the summer of
1976, before the Presidential election.
Modern Presidents are determined, as can-
didates and as newly inaugurated chief execu-
tives, to get control of the executive branch of the
Government and to make it responsive to their
campaign pledges and to their philosophy. How-
ever, that has proven to be a somewhat difficult
and frustrating task. Perhaps this is best illus-
trated by the musing of outgoing President
Truman about the problems General Eisenhower
would experience when he became President
Eisenhower, in that he would issue orders and
directives and would falsely assume they would be
instantly and unquestionably implemented as had
been the case during his military career.
It was less than fifty years ago when
President Herbert Hoover's White House staff
had only two or three professionals. In more
recent years, however, White House staffs have
grown substantially. As the problems of this
country have become more complex and difficult,
the executive branch and in particular the
Executive Office of the President have played an
increasingly active role.
The Cabinet and the Domestic Council
This has created considerable tension
between Cabinet secretaries and agency heads, on
the one hand, and White House staff on the other.
All high-ranking Cabinet and agency officials
must be nominated by the President and then
Cabinet officers (meaning the ability or the in-
dividuals who are willing to accept posts) is in-
versely related to the degree of authority that
White House staff is given over department and
agency heads. That is, the more dominant the
White House staff is on matters of domestic
policy, the less chance there is of attracting top
individuals to Cabinet posts.
In the Kennedy and Johnson Adminis-
trations, there was a natural tension between
White House staff and Cabinet officers. For the
most part, there were no situations-at least not
any that were publicly identified as such-in
which Cabinet officers were met with a stonewall
when they attempted to reach the President,
either to press a program or to appeal a decision
regarded by them as adverse. Newspaper accounts
suggest that in the Nixon Administration it was
not uncommon for Cabinet officers to be given
flat instructions from the top White House staff
personnel without any opportunity for recourse or
appeal to the President. The Ford Administration
is a more open one. Although there is no definitive
information available on the point, it would seem
that once again Cabinet officers and agency heads
are at least able on occasion to make their pitch
directly and face-to-face to the President.
The Domestic Council includes the principal
White House staff advisers to the President on
questions of domestic policy. The function of the
Domestic Council is to pull together various
domestic policy goals and to provide coordinating
and evaluating capability for the President. In a
sense, this somewhat duplicates the assignment of
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). In
actual practice, the relative influences of the
Domestic Council and the OMB reflect the op-
erating style, preferences and practices of each
particular President. The ability, the personality
and the relationship to the President of Domestic
Council key personnel are among the more
significant factors in how any particular Council
operates and how influential it is. These advisers
must have a deep understanding of the
President's views, attitudes and policy positions.
Put in slightly different terms, the head of the
Domestic Council is expected to have enough
sense and good judgment to know when issues
should be presented.
Approved For Release 2004/I (j/,/ 3 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 The Cabinet Discusses the Energy Problem
Comparative Glance at the Domestic Policies
of Recent Administrations
The process by which any White House
functions is of considerable interest and obvious
importance. But in the longer sweep of time, the
process is simply a means to certain ends. Thus
it is appropriate, even if it is difficult, to take a
backward look in order to determine what were
the policy objectives, and how effectively were
they met in different administrations. At the risk
of the wildest possible oversimplification and of
being 100% wrong (if it is possible to be that
wrong), it is fair to say that the Kennedy-Johnson
Administrations adopted or accepted as a
primary goal the elimination of the insidious dis-
crimination against minority groups in this
country that had been a part of our national
heritage. This was a tradition so deeply ingrained
that its elimination was expected to be-and
was-extremely difficult. Nevertheless, giant
strides were made in this direction and I believe
that historians of seventy-five years from now will
mark those two Administrations as the definite
turning point in coming to grips with discrimina-
tion in the United States. Efforts to redistribute
income-the war on poverty-will be noted as
having moved us towards that national goal with
some considerable achievements, although never
fully realizing the proclaimed objective. Un-
doubtedly, the Viet Nam war debacle will loom
large in any evaluation of the Johnson Presidency,
and the national divisiveness that was created will
also be deemed to be a part of the fruits of that
period.
The Nixon Administration, somewhat like
the Eisenhower Administration, apparently saw
itself as a consolidator of programs and policies
that had been adopted, and set for themselves the
goals of better and sounder administration and
implementation of the new proliferating pro-
grams. The first four years of the Nixon Ad-
ministration produced a centralization and
control over the executive branch that perhaps
might have been the envy of other administra-
tions, but the revelations of the second portion of
the Nixon years demonstrated again the dark and
negative aspects of excessive concentration of
authority in a small number of people. If centrali-
zation and control were the dominant goals of
President Nixon, they were achieved, but at a
terrible price to the national psyche and to
national morale. The cutting back of some
programs from earlier administrations was hardly
a national objective. In evaluating the domestic
policy of the Nixon Administration, there may
well have been some programs that merited
elimination or reduction, but no strong case has
been made that the right ones were scuttled. "Law
and Order" as a goal today seems like a mockery.
President Ford assumed the Office under the
most difficult of circumstances. In general, he has
moved to restore confidence in the integrity of the
governmental process, if not in its ability to
identify, analyze and resolve national problems.
A national Presidential election affords the
voters an opportunity to focus on the two basic
choices that are offered by way of candidates,
parties and platforms. A cynical view is that the
platforms are really not very reliable indicators of
what might come to pass if the candidate of the
party espousing that particular platform happens
to get elected. But hope springs eternal and it may
well be that the election of 1976, with fairly
"Power may justly be compared to a great
river which, while kept within its due
bounds is both beautiful and useful; but
when it overflows its banks. . . it wears
down all before it and brings destruction
and desolation wherever it comes."
Alexander Hamilton
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : flA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release2Ot04/10/13 : IA-RDP8 -01315 00Q200160007-2
sharply drawn lines weep he two can i a es of irections in whie tithe country should move.
the two major political parties of this country, will With good luck, the campaign just might serve
afford the citizenry a chance to indicate basic that desirable function.
THE CABINET: Q & A
What is the Cabinet?
The Cabinet now consists of 12 Secretaries, each of whom is the head of a "department." Cabinet
"rank" is also given to such other high-ranking Presidential aides as the Ambassador to the United
Nations, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chairman of the Council of
Economic Advisers.
What are the responsibilities of a Secretary?
A Secretary is the administrator responsible for the implementation of programs passed into law by
the Congress and other policies determined by the President. He or she is also an adviser to the President,
assisting him in the formulation of policy proposals.
How are Secretaries chosen?
They are nominated by the President and must be approved by the Senate. Most Presidents choose
individuals who have experience and expertise in the particular policy area, although political support
during the campaign has also traditionally been a factor.
Did the Constitution call for 12 Cabinet departments?
No. In fact, there is no mention of a Cabinet in the Constitution. However, Article II, Section 2 did
give the President the authority to create a Cabinet. George Washington's first Cabinet (1789) consisted
of only four members-the Secretaries of State, Treasury, War and the Attorney General. The most
recently created departments are Transportation (1966) and the Department of Energy (August 1977).
Who creates a Cabinet department?
The President must submit a plan to Congress to create a new department, terminate an old one, or
merge different ones. He cannot act without the approval of the House of Representatives and the
Senate.
Are all Cabinet departments located in Washington?
Yes, but they have regional offices throughout the country. The heads of these offices are res-
ponsible to the secretary in Washington. They are in charge of administering the department's programs
in their regions.
How big are the departments?
Each department includes many subdivisions and separate agencies with specialized functions. For
example, the Treasury Department includes such different agencies as the Secret Service, the Internal
Revenue Service and the Bureau of the Mint. Each has its own head officer, but the Secretary of the
Treasury retains overall authority and responsibiliity. The size of each department's budget varies, from
the $129 billion for the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, to the $2.1 billion for the Justice
Department (figures are for 1976).
Approved For Release 2004/10113 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 1AD
Approved For Release - Q WNEl f,0 ,Q,3 0
With the above information as background, study this chart to gain a better understanding of the
policy areas of each department. Then see if you can fill in the names of all twelve Secretaries. Daily
newspapers, weekly newsmagazines and the evening television news will be helpful in discovering these
answers. For further information, consult the U.S. Government Manual in your library, or write directly
to the Office of Information for the particular department (you can easily find the address in your
library).
Promote and Assist Agriculture
GRICULTURE
1) Aid to farmers 4) Food stamp program
2) Inspection of foodstuffs 5) Soil, forest and water
3) Rural development conservation
6) International trade
Promote Industry and Business
OMMERCE
1) International trade 5) Oceanic and Atmospheric
2) Assistance to Administration
depressed areas 6) Merchant Marine
3) Weather Bureau
4) Census Bureau
Provide for the National Defense
1) Joint Chiefs of 4) Military aid programs
DEFENSE
Staff
2) Army, Navy, 5) Arms sales
Air Force,
Marines
3) Overseas troops and
military bases
A Coordinated National Energy Policy
ENERGY
1) Allocate oil and natural 4) Research and devel-
gas supplies opment of alter-
2) Set natural gas prices native energy
3) Energy conservation sources
5) Nuclear weapons and
energy research
The Nation's Human Concerns
HEALTH, EDUCATION
1) Aid to education 4) Social Security
AND WELFARE
2) Public health Administration
3) Welfare 5) Special programs for
the elderly,
children
(Head Start),
handicapped
Housing and Community Development
OUSING AND URBAN
1) Housing programs 4) Relief from natural
EVELOPMENT
2) Urban restoration disasters
C
3) Mortgage insurance
Department
Secretary
Policy Areas
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : qtA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
A
H
D
 Approv
TRANSPORTATION
/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
Custodian of the Nation's Resources
1) Leasing of federally 4) Mining technology
owned land and safety
2) National Park Service 5) Fish and wildlife
3) Bureau of Indian Affairs conservation
Lawyers for the Government and the People
1) Administration of 4) FBI
Federal prisons (5) Immigration and
2) Civil Rights Division naturalization
3) Antitrust Division
Promote the Welfare of American Wage Earners
1) Administer Federal 4) Collective bargaining
labor laws 5) General economic
2) Job training policy
3) Unemployment insurance
Foreign Policy
I) Foreign Service 4) Negotiate treaties
(Ambassadors, 5) Educational exchanges
Embassies)
2) Foreign economic aid
3) International trade
Federal Transportation Policy
1) Federal highway system 4) Coast Guard
2) Urban mass transit 5) Experimental Programs
3) Air safety standards
Monetary and Economic Policy
1) Taxes (Internal 4) Secret Service
Revenue Service) 5) Customs Service
2) Minting of coins, 6) Alcohol, tobacco and
currency, stamps firearms control
3) International trade
Approved For Release 2004/10tli3 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13
PERSPECTIVES PANEL:
LESSONS OF WATERGATE
While the series of events commonly known
as "Watergate" has undeniably had a tre-
mendous impact on our nation, many people
believe that we still do not sufficiently under-
stand either its causes or its full effects. The
"lessons" to be learned from Watergate also
vary among different individuals with
different analyses. Here in 1976, four years
after the break-in and two years after the
resignation, could you share with us your
thoughts on one or more of the following
questions:
-What do you believe are the central
lessons to be learned from Watergate?
-What significant changes have re-
sulted which make another such crisis less
likely?
-What necessary reforms have not yet
come about?
Senator Howard H. Baker, Jr. (R-Tenn.)
Ranking Minority Member, Senate "Watergate"
Committee
The effects emanating from the whole spec-
trum of affairs known as "Watergate" will con-
tinue to be felt in the American political arena for
years to come. The task which now confronts
those of us still serving in government is to restore
the loss of credibility and trust which were the by-
products of the Watergate affair and to say by
both our words and our actions that abuses of
power are still the exception in government
rather than the norm.
Perhaps the most troubling question which
now persists is "Where do we go from here?" or
as your Close Up leaders postulated, "What
lessons have we learned?" Although one could
write volumes on this very issue, I believe the one
overriding acknowledgement is that "the govern-
ment still belongs to the people."
This principle can best be reinforced in two
or three ways. One, a more open and forthright
approach to Congressional and Executive
activities is essential. Laws which have recently
opened Congressional hearings at all levels to the
public will be helpful. Second, the most
"secretive" agencies of government, the in-
telligence community, are under more direct
control and scrutiny by a new Congressional
committee than at any time in their history.
CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
Three, the gradual rebuilding of trust and
cooperation between the Congress and Executive,
which has already started, must continue to
expand. In other words, government should have
learned to be more open, protective and honest
with the citizenry it was created to serve.
This is because our people remain America's
greatest resource, and all the people must have
access to the governmental institutions of which
they are a part.
Congressman Peter W. Rodino, Jr. (D-N.J.)
Chairman, House Judiciary Committee
As much as any event in our history, Water-
gate emphasized the importance of the bonds of
trust that must exist between the people and their
elected leaders if government is to work. There is
no way to legislate such a trust, nor can it be
created by executive order. Rather it must rest
upon the people themselves, their vigilance, their
insistence that those elected to high office must
labor always in the public interest. If there is an
unlearned lesson of Watergate it is this.
Today, more than half those eligible to vote
claim that they will not, principally because they
doubt that their ballot will make much difference.
They are wrong, and their mistake was
clearly demonstrated by the events of Watergate
itself. Confronted with wrongdoing of a magni-
tude never before experienced in American
government, the people of this nation demanded
that an accounting be made and that justice be
done.
The impeachment inquiry, the trials and
legal battles-all were a result of the people in-
sisting through their elected representatives that a
final reckoning must be made.
There can be no doubt that the public aware-
ness and understanding of the complexities of the
case was far greater than anyone anticipated. The
nation watched and listened, and when the evi-
dence was in it delivered its own verdict. The
ability of an aroused citizenry to compel proper
governmental action in times of crisis is an
attribute that has been seen before in America.
Certainly it was there during the American
Revolution, in the Civil War, the Great De-
pression, World Wars I and II. It was there dur-
ing Watergate, as well, and it served as a remind-
er that the strength of a democracy is utterly de-
pendent upon the will and determination of the
people. While Watergate was one of our most
tragic national episodes, it showed that the fiber
of the American character remains strong.
Approved For Release 2004/10/1315 CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
Congressman William S. Cohen (R-Maine)
Member, House Judiciary Committee
There are many lessons to be derived from
the Watergate experience. One lesson would be
that our elected officials should never forget that,
in a democracy, dissent and opposition are not
only desirable, they are indispenable.
To seek unanimity of thought and action is
the hallmark of a fascist state, not a free one.
Moreover, there is a lesson for the American
people that we must demand and insist upon
access to facts and information and not rely upon
pious pronouncements from government officials
and agencies. We must insist upon an end to
secrecy and demand strict accountability. We
must never again tolerate any public official to
wrap himself in the mantle of his office and
engage in the sophistry that the destiny of this
country is directly dependent upon his future
success and survival.
What can we do to prevent future Water-
gates? There is no guarantee against future
abuses of power. But it has been noted that the
over-concentration of power in one branch of
government-the reduction of public debate and
Congressional participation in the decision-mak-
ing process, the absence of openness and
accountability-insures the inevitability of error
and abuse.
Watergate also revealed something very
strong and positive about our country, our people
and our principles. We, like the people in any
other nation, have moral capacity to do wrong.
But unlike most other people in many other
nations, we have the will and perhaps more im-
portantly, we have the freedom to do what is right.
Congressman Timothy E. Wirth (D-Colo.)
The central lesson of Watergate is that good
government requires correct procedure as well as
wise policy. In other words, it's not enough for us
to do the right thing; we also have to do it in the
right way.
It was former President Nixon's error-and,
in the end, his misfortune-to believe that the end
justifies the means. He and his advisers believed
that the American political system requires a
strong Presidency if it is to function efficiently at
home and to protect us from our enemies abroad.
Because they believed that the President must
dominate the system if it is to work, they were
willing to ignore and even subvert the procedures
established by the Constitution, whenever those
procedures created roadblocks to the realization
of the Presidential will.
Indifference to the Constitution, an indif-
ference bordering at times on contempt, was a
hallmark of the Nixon Administration, long be-
fore Watergate. The novel constitutional argu-
ments advanced in support of illegal pocket vetos
and fund impoundments were forerunners of the
startling constitutional arguments in favor of
"inherent" Presidential power to wiretap without
a warrant, and to make sweeping claims of execu-
tive privilege.
Ultimately it was, in a sense, the Constitution
itself that forced Nixon from office. He had
strained the system of checks and balances be-
yond the system's capacity to tolerate strain. And
it lashed back at him, in the form of a Congress
unwilling any longer to be dominated by the
White House. It was at bottom a conflict of in-
stitutions, not of men or parties. Nixon never
understood this, never seeing anything wrong with
unchecked assertion of Presidential power, even
now blaming his disgrace on unforgiving personal
enemies. But if we can understand it, we will have
learned the central lesson of Watergate.
Mr. S. Steven Karalekas, Staff Assistant to
President Richard M. Nixon (1971-73)
It may sound strange to blame the Congress
of the United States for the Watergate scandal,
but that's exactly where I believe the fault lies.
The Congress is at fault not because it authorized
or financed the break-in of the Democratic Party
headquarters at the Watergate complex, but
because it had surrendered so much power to the
executive branch of government that the
President and his advisers came to view them-
selves as above the law.
While the office of the President became
larger, more efficient and more vigorous in
asserting authority over national affairs, Congress
became weaker, less efficient and less willing to
challenge the authority of the President. As a con-
sequence, Presidents entered wars without
declarations, made foreign policy by executive
agreements instead of treaties, and regulated the
domestic economy without Congressional super-
vision. The system of checks and balances de-
vised by the Founding Fathers had gone awry
and, in my view, this set the stage for the abuses of
Watergate.
The central lesson to be learned from the ex-
perience is that when one branch of government
becomes so strong vis-a-vis another branch, the
likelihood for abuses of power becomes great. A
president and his advisers will feel safe in
Approved For Release 2004/10/113b: CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R0 02001 0007-2
'
t
committing such abuses since there really isn
anyone around outside of the executive branch to
do anything about it.
It is my view that the resolution of the Water-
gate episode was ultimately a victory for the
democratic process, but one which was won barely
by the skin of our constitutional teeth. The in-
gredients which precipitated Watergate, namely,
the power of the office of the President and the
weakness of the Congress still exist and so long as
this is so, the potential for another Watergate is
great. The reforms which have taken place since
the resignation of President Nixon have largely
focused on the office of the President. The
problem won't be solved until our attention is
directed to the branch of government equally in
need of revitalization-the Congress of the United
States.
Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman (D-N.Y.)
Member, House Judiciary Committee
The way we were able to deal with the Water-
gate crisis taught us that our Constitution's
framers were right in their profound skepticism of
power. They set up three separate branches of
government to prevent any branch, including the
President, from getting too much power and des-
troying our democracy.
Because the Congress and the Supreme
Court existed, because we had a system of checks
and balances, President Nixon could not remain
above the law. Rather than face certain impeach-
ment for his crimes and misdemeanors, he
became the only President in our history to resign.
Unfortunately, President Ford pardoned him and
he was permitted to avoid trial. This was a blow to
our concept of equal justice under law for every
person.
We learned what our country's founders
already knew: that we cannot take honesty in
government for granted. We discovered that long-
held myth-that everyone rises to the demands of
the President-was just not true. Our President,
Richard Nixon, and his two chief law enforcement
officers, Attorneys General Mitchell and
Kleindeinst broke the law and tried to "cover up"
their actions.
Since illegal campaign contributions
financed some of the illegal actions, Congress
took corrective steps. It passed laws placing strict
limits on the size of campaign contributions, re-
quiring full disclosure of campaign receipts and
expenditures, and permitting public funding of
Presidential campaigns.
We have also learned the need for a healthy
skepticism about our government. When Richard
Nixon said that the tapes of his conversations
should be kept secret because they contained
national security information, many people be-
lieved him. When the tapes were disclosed,
though, there was no "national security" infor-
mation on them, but instead discussions of
criminal conduct.
We learned from Watergate that no part of
government should be permitted to operate in
secret. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty,"
said one of our nation's founders. As a result of
Watergate, we learned that the CIA and the FBI,
which had been insulated from public accounta-
bility, had broken the law and abused our trust.
We have now begun to develop mechanisms to
ensure that the FBI and the CIA operate within
the law.
The final lesson of Watergate is that Ameri-
cans care-they want a government that they can
trust and be proud of. No future President can
ever again believe that the people will let him "get
away with it."
So long as the people of this country continue
to insist that their officials conform to the rule of
law, I believe our democracy will be safe.
"The executive power was limited only by
specific restrictions and prohibitions
appearing in the Constitution or imposed
by the Congress under the constitutional
powers... Under this interpretation I did
and caused to be done many things not
previously done by the President and the
heads of the departments. I did not usurp
power, but I did greatly broaden the use of
executive power."
Theodore Roosevelt
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 flA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For ReleaQAEN'113lMR?88-01315R000200160007-2
The chairman of the House committee which voted to impeach President Neon; the ranking Republican
on the Senate committee which investigated Watergate; a member of the White House staff under
President Nixon; and three other Members of Congress-each presents a different viewpoint on the
"lessons of Watergate. " Look at the statements below and based on the Perspectives Panel, fill in the
names of the authors who would agree with each. As you decide "who said what" ask yourself whether or
not YOU agree with the different statements.
1) Dissent and opposition are indispensable in a democracy. Citizens must maintain an attitude of
"healthy skepticism" towards their government officials.
2) There must be more accountability and less secrecy in government.
3) The real blame for Watergate lies with the Congress, because it surrendered so much power over the
past forty years to the President and his advisers.
4) While it is true that the Watergate crisis was a painful and threatening experience for our nation, it
also proved that our democratic system works. Freedom of the press, checks and balances, separation
of powers-in the end the Constitution and the will of the American people did prevail.
S) The Watergate cover-up was the final evidence of former President Nixon's belief that "the ends justify
the means, " even when this belief led to actions in violation of the Constitution.
6) The central lesson of Watergate is that government must restore its credibility and trust among all
Americans. This cannot be done by legislation or by executive order, but only by proper use of power
by all government officials.
"The Presidency is not merely an adminis-
trative office. That's the least of it. It is
more than an engineering job, efficient or
inefficient. It is preeminently a place of
moral leadership. All our great Presidents
were leaders of thought at times when
certain historic ideas in the life of the
nation had to be clarified."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Approved For Release 2004/104'83 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For 0 9 y 1of: or"00200160007-2
In the course of a single day an American President is probably called upon to fulfill a larger variety of
responsibilities than any other individual in the world. He may have an early morning meeting with the
Secretary of State and other foreign policy advisers, followed by a breakfast with Congressional leaders to
gain support for a controversial economic bill. Before the morning is over the President may welcome the
King of Sweden, confer with Democratic party state chairmen and present an award to the president of
the National 4-H club. In the afternoon he may meet with his Cabinet, decide whether or not to withdraw
troops from an overseas base, and consider proposals for a new housing bill. Then in the evening..
As you can see a President must fulfill numerous different roles. Here is a list of some of the major roles
involved in being President. See if you can match each one to the newspaper headline and lead paragraph
which best illustrates that role. All are actual headlines and stories taken from The New York Times,
with the exception of #6 which is from The Washington Post.
Head of State
Commander-in-Chief
Chief Legislator
Crisis Decisionmaker
Economic Planner
Party Chief
Chief Diplomat
1.
U.S. DECLARES WAR, PACIFIC BATTLE WIDENS
Washington, December 8 (1941)-The United States today formally declared war on Japan. Congress, with only
one dissenting vote approved the resolution in the record time of 33 minutes after President Roosevelt denounced
Japanese aggression in ringing tones. He personally delivered his message to a joint session of the Senate and the
House. At 4: 10 P.M. he offered his signature to the resolution.
2.
TRUMAN BIDS VOTERS DEFEAT CONGRESS `OBSTRUCTIONISTS';
SETS A 10-POINT PARTY PLAN
Chicago, May 15 (1950)-President Truman wound up his cross-country "non-political" speaking tour tonight by
leading a dazzling, blaring parade to Chicago Stadium where he delivered the Democratic party's keynote speech for
this year's Congressional election campaign.
3.
EISENHOWER, KHRUSHCHEV BEGIN CAMP DAVID TALKS
AFTER HELICOPTER FLIGHT
Gettysburg, Pa., September 25 (1959)-President Eisenhower and Premier Khrushchev began a general
discussion of world affairs at a mountain retreat in Maryland tonight.
Approved For Release 2004/10/13I9CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/14; CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
U.S. IMPOSES ARMS BLOCKADE ON CUBA ON FINDING OFFENSIVE MISSILE
SITES; KENNEDY READY FOR SOVIET SHOWDOWN
Washington, October 22 (1962)-President Kennedy imposed a naval and air "quarantine" tonight on the
shipment of offensive military equipment to Cuba....
5.
JOHNSON STATE OF UNION ADDRESS PROVIDES BUDGET OF $97.9 BILLION,
WAR ON POVERTY, ATOMIC CUTBACK
Washington, January 8 (1964)-President Johnson, reporting for the first time on the State of the Union... called
for a wide -ranging program to end poverty and discrimination at home and the threat of war abroad.
6.
BRITISH QUEEN VISITS D.C.; ELIZABETH II AND PHILIP GREETED
AT WHITE HOUSE
Washington, July 8 (1976)-Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth 11 arrived in Washington yesterday ... At the White
House President Ford escorted the Queen to a review of troops from the different branches of the armed services,
and "on behalf of the American people" welcomed the Queen and her party.
7.
CONGRESS IS GIVEN ECONOMIC PLAN; JOBS ASKED FOR VIETNAM
VETERANS. CARTER AIDES DESCRIBE $31 BILLION PACKAGE
Washington, January 27 (1977)-The Carter Administration presented to Congress today its $31.1 billion
package of economic stimulants, including a $50 tax rebate aimed at 96 percent of the population as the centerpiece
of plans to spur growth through greater consumption.
View Q
Zvi ~iisig+ ii"
The Pcesid ncy
-To speak w; f
+he president,
ftrsF pn,it 1O-
requeet on m
T& _M. card and
+hen iAV it
i,ii-o eca' ter 0.
(es '- "b ill ur~1
~b
~
v
W~
gVPStjpfl$
Z 3 P m. Mou- RAJ
Approved For Release 2004/10M : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release-204 A/~p~ ~ 4W rresi ency 200160007-2
Accountability-the obligation of elected, officials to serve the interests of, and to be answerable to, their constituents. When
applied to the President, meaning is similar to checks and balances; power that is checked.
Checks and Balances-a fundamental principle in the U.S. Constitution, that each of the three branches of government
exercises checks on the others, while also being subject to checks from the others.
Executive Order-decree by the President or other ranking executive official which becomes law without needing Con-
gressional approval.
Executive Privilege-limited right of members of the executive branch to refuse to give certain information (documents,
testimony, etc.) to the Congress. Is not defined in the Constitution, but has been invoked throughout our history. In recent
years, there has been much controversy over its proper usage (e.g., Watergate, national security cases).
Impoundment-refusal by the President to spend funds duly authorized and appropriated by the Congress. This power was
restricted by the 1974 Budget and Impoundment Control Act.
Imperial Presidency-term commonly used to describe the Presidency in recent years which had become extremely powerful
and "imperial" in its trappings and in the exercise of power.
Separation of Powers-another fundamental constitutional principle, that each branch of government is vested with separate
powers: legislative, judicial, executive.
State of the Union Message-annual speech delivered by the President to a joint session (both Houses) of Congress in which he
discusses the "state of the union" and outlines his legislative program for the coming year.
Veto-power of the President to reject a bill passed by Congress.
Override-passage of a bill which has been vetoed by a 2/3 majority in both chambers of Congress, so that it becomes
law without the President's signature.
Pocket Veto-utilized during the final 10 days of a Congressional session when the President fails to sign a bill and
returns it to the Congress before adjournment. Thus, Congress has no opportunity to override it.
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 2PIA-RDP88-0I 315R000200160007-2
 AN IN J15f fi 4O~TH - ECUTIVE~BRANCH:
A Close Up Briefing
Before the seminar on the Presidency, one of your program instructors will conduct a short "Brief-
ing" as an introduction to this subject. The purpose is to provide some background information which
will help you participate in the seminar with your guest speaker. While the seminar will focus primarily
on the Presidency, the briefing will cover the broader subject of the executive branch. The articles,
charts and exercises in Chapters 1 and 2 will help you prepare for these sessions. The outline below gives
you an idea of some of the subjects which may be covered. Use these pages to take notes.
? What is the structure of the executive branch?
? What is "the bureaucracy?" What are the differences between White House staff, Cabinet de-
partments, independent agencies, regulatory commissions and other offices of the bureaucracy?
? In what areas and in what ways does the executive branch affect your daily lives?
? What are the powers of the Presidency? What is meant by executive order? Executive privilege?
Veto?
? What are the checks and balances between the President and Congress?
NOTES (BRIEFING)
Approved For Release 2004/10/1: CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release R4 R1Iit fR 88-01315R000200160007-2
Approved For Release 2004/10/132 IA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
2.
THE FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY:
What Role For Government in America Society?
"He (the President) shall have the power, by and with the Advice
and Consent of the Senate... to appoint... all other officers of
the United States, whose appointments are not herein, otherwise
provided for... "
Article II
The Constitution of the United States
"Bureaucracy" is one of those words like love, happiness and the public interest-many people
claim to know what it means, but few can actually define it! The word has its root in "bureau": agency,
office, division, etc. Webster's Dictionary tells us that a bureaucracy is: 1) a body of nonelective govern-
ment officials; 2) government characterized by specialization of functions, fixed rules and hierarchy of
authority; 3) a system of administration marked by officialism and red tape.
Let's apply this definition to the subject of this chapter, the Federal bureaucracy: 1) The Federal
bureaucracy is composed of government officials who are not elected ("bureaucrats"). Some are political
appointees, others are hired through the civil service system. (The first article in this chapter, by J.
Douglas Hoff, explains the differences between these two categories of bureaucrats.) 2) All agencies,
commissions and other divisions in the bureaucracy are created by Congress or the President to ad-
minister and implement programs and policies which they have passed. The first "layer" of the
bureaucracy is the Cabinet departments which were discussed in Chapter One. Grouped together as a
second "layer" are all the other agencies, commissions, etc., which compose the executive branch. The
Know the Bureaucracy exercise later in this chapter will help you differentiate between these different
agencies. 3) A common criticism of citizens, businesses and others who need to work with the Federal
bureaucracy is that there is too much red tape and inefficiency.
Summing up, then, the Federal bureaucracy consists of those agencies which execute the policies
and programs which have been legislated by the Congress and the President. As the affairs of govern-
ment have become more complex, so has the Federal bureaucracy also grown. In addition to the
1,700,000 Cabinet department employees, there are more than 120 agencies which together employ
another 1,100,000 people.
In recent years, many observers, students and government officials have questioned both the size
and the performance of the Federal bureaucracy. Is government "too big"? J. Douglas Hoff, a member
of the U.S. Civil Service, and Senator Barry Goldwater (R-Arizona) present contrasting perspectives in
this chapter's first two articles. How can it administer laws and execute programs more effectively? Con-
gressman Elliott Levitas (D-Ga.) discusses the need for reorganization and Commissioner Thaddeus
Garrett, Jr., explains the role of regulatory agencies. Dr. James Boren looks at the bureaucracy and
bureaucrats from another angle in the final article. As you read and evaluate what these authors are say-
ing, think about what role you feel the Federal government should play in your daily life, as well as that of
your nation.
Approved For Release 2004/10/j4 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 15F~eOp20arm
p1gR$0Jf2Agriculture for
TH ETOW& ase 2004/10/13 : 5~i~-W8-0 e
,an h
BUREAUCRACY. 115,000. This is the Federal bureaucracy. (See the
Structure of the Executive Branch diagram in
IT'S BETTER THAN YOU this chapter.)
THINK What Is Their Work?
J. Douglas Hoff
Mr. Hoff is the Director of International
Affairs for the U.S. Civil Service Commis-
sion. In this article he answers many of your
questions about the bureaucracy: Who are
these bureaucrats? What is their work?
What is the merit system? His defense of the
Federal bureaucracy should be compared
and contrasted with the critique of "big
government" by Senator Barry Goldwater
(R-Ariz.) in the next article.
The American brand of bureaucracy consists
of nearly 17,000,000 people working for govern-
ment at the Federal, state and local levels. This
adds up to 20 per cent of the nation's total work-
force, or one out of five working Americans. With
2,840,000 civilian employees, you can see that the
Federal government is the largest single employer
in the United States. In fact, it employs more
people than do the nine largest corporations. On
the Federal level, over 97 per cent of the employ-
ees are in the executive branch. Many of the
critics of "big government" in recent years have
claimed that this is far too many people doing far
too many things and much too inefficiently. Be-
fore we accept such an analysis, we need to ask
some questions, such as, who are these
bureaucrats and what do they do?
Who Are These Bureaucrats?
The civilian employee working in the
Pentagon in support of military troops stationed
in Western Europe is a bureaucrat. So are your
mail carriers, and the scientists who test
dangerous drugs for the Food and Drug Adminis-
tration, and the clerk who writes benefit checks
for war veterans and the ranger at your favorite
national park. As Jack Anderson recently wrote,
"the bureaucracy is the glue that holds our society
together." All in all, there are 110 different de-
partments and agencies in the Federal govern-
ment whose members perform 2,000 different
kinds of work throughout the world. The Postal
Service alone accounts for almost 700,000 em-
ployees; the Veterans Administration for over
To realize how important the bureaucracy is,
you must understand the divisions of authority in
the Federal government. As you know, the
President and the Congress share the authority
for determining policy and steering the general
course of the nation. The President recommends
and formulates programs to the Congress, which,
as representatives of the people, appraise and
deliberate these ideas and plans. In making his
policy recommendations, the President is advised
by the highest ranking members of the
bureaucracy, the Cabinet secretaries and the
heads of major agencies.
Once a bill has been passed by Congress and
signed into law by the President, it must be imple-
mented and administered. The actual adminis-
tration and implementation is frequently a more
difficult task than is the passing of laws. It is the
career employees, the middle and lower-level
bureaucrats, who carry out those policies under
the supervision of the Cabinet secretaries and
agency heads.
Political Appointees and Career Employees
Cabinet secretaries, commissioners of
regulatory agencies, administrators of inde-
pendent agencies and other high level aides are
appointed by the President subject to confirma-
tion by the Senate. For effective government it is
essential that a President have the power to
appoint people in whom he has great trust and
confidence. About 1,200 positions are filled by
Presidential appointment subject to Senate con-
firmation, and a few thousand others are
appointed directly by the President. These
political appointees come and go with the change
in Presidents.
In addition to this small, but important
group of political appointees, there is a large core
(over 2.5 million) of well-trained career govern-
ment employees. These people are the ones who
actually carry out the essential government pro-
grams day after day and year after year. They
provide a continuity in government service. The
career Federal employee serves the system of
government, and not a political party. Regardless
Approved For Release 2004/10/1315CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 3
of who wins or l rQa c feKi?$leMg ~4/l1Q1
business is continuously served with complete
dedication by these career employees. Frequently,
they may also be delegated some policy-making
authority, but generally their role is to provide the
devotion and specialized knowledge needed to
carry out government services.
Political appointments are necessary and
desirable in our particular type of democratic
government, but we must keep them in their
legitimate place at the top of the government
pyramid in those high level policy-making
positions. They have no place in the career service
where education and experience are the deter-
mining factors of who gets what job. This
principle is at the foundation of the merit system
for Federal employment of the United States Civil
Service Commission.
The Federal Merit System
Under the administration of our first
Presidents, ability was one of the primary re-
quirements for appointment. Gradually however,
other factors became more important, until
government employment became a "spoils
system."* In a spoils system, political connections
rather than job qualifications are the important
factors in the selection process.
The excesses, corruption and inefficiencies of
this spoils system caused a great popular reaction
in the 1870's and 1880's. Demands for reform
were answered by the Civil Service Act of 1883
establishing the merit system for Federal employ-
ment under the United States Civil Service
Commission. The Civil Service Commission was
created to act as the central personnel agency
within the Federal government. Central principles
of the merit system are:
1. Ability, knowledge and skills are the
bases for recruitment, selection and ad-
vancement of government employees.
2. All applicants and employees will receive
fair treatment and equal opportunity
without regard to race, sex, creed,
national origin or political affiliation.
3. Employees will receive equitable and
adequate salaries.
4. Employees must be protected from
coercion for partisan political purposes,
5. Employees must be prohibited from us-
*Editor's Note: The term "spoils system" has its origin in
the expression "to the victor go the spoils."
CIA-RDPg-005ottictall autliorlty to interfere
with or affect election or nomination for
office.
For the nation, the merit system ensures
many benefits. It increases public confidence in
the integrity of government. It guarantees equal
opportunity for all interested citizens. It ensures a
continuity in the bureaucracy through changes in
the Congress and the Presidency. It also makes
government service more attractive to well-
qualified persons. The merit system is a keystone
for honest and effective government. State, city
and local governments must meet merit system
criteria in their employment practices before the
Federal government will grant them aid for urban
development, health programs, welfare and the
many other federally funded programs.
Conclusion: Providing Services for the
American People
The overall objective at all levels of govern-
ment is to bring the best quality service to the
American people. Critics stereotype the
bureaucracy as getting bigger and less efficient all
the time. Yet the fact is that the size of the
Federal government relative to population
growth, has remained fairly stable since 1960. The
real growth has been in state and local govern-
ments, which have increased nearly 100 per cent
since that date. Today there are 54 state and local
employees for every 1,000 citizens, but only 12
federal employees in proportion to the same
number.
Is the Federal bureaucracy good or is it bad?
It's both! It is a mirror of the society it serves. As
such, it reflects all of the ills that affect our
nation, as well as the tremendous amount of
accomplishments. Good or bad, it is always
changing and developing. Government cannot
remain static in its philosophy or in its organi-
zational structure if it is to serve the needs of the
people.
Whatever its faults may be, this Federal
bureaucracy-established 200 years ago for
thirteen small colonies with three million inhab-
itants-is still functioning well today for one of
the mightiest nations the world has ever known,
with 214 million people and a host of problems
unknown to the Founding Fathers. You can
search the world over and you will never find a
government bureaucracy bigger, more complex or
as good.
Approved For Release 2004/10/28: CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Ap Qvs1 Eor Release 2004/10/13 : 9A
l~i~?2 ~~1609P1a;cracy which the
FEDERAL CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
Executive
Legislative Judicial
Total
1977
2,791,710
38,441
12,050
2,842,201
1969
2,822,789
26,825
6,189
2,855,803
1957
2,376,513
22,190
4,608
2,403,311
Source: "Organization of Federal Executive Departments
and Agencies (As of Jan. 1, 1977)," Senate Com-
mittee on Governmental Affairs, GPO Document
052-070-03992-2
BIG GOVERNMENT:
A PRESSING PROBLEM
Senator Barry Goldwater
Senator Goldwater (R-Arizona) was first
elected to the U.S. Senate in 1952. In 1964,
he was the Republican candidate for
President of the United States, losing to
Lyndon B. Johnson. This article is taken
from a speech he delivered on the Floor of
the Senate on July 10, 1970. A similar version
of this speech appeared in Perspectives '77
courtesy of Vital Speeches of the Day. As you
read it, compare and contrast the points
made by Senator Goldwater with those of J.
Douglas Hoff in the previous article. Then
ask yourself the question, has the Federal
bureaucracy grown too large?
The tremendous size of the Federal govern-
ment was a major concern of mine when I was
first elected to the Senate over 18 years ago. As
some of you will recall, it was a time when we
heard much discussion about big government;
about the interrelationship of government
agencies on the Federal, state and local level;
about need for an equitable distribution of
revenue sources among these divisions of govern-
ment....
"It is so massive that it literally feeds on
itself. It is so large that no one in or out of
government can accurately define its power
and scope. It is so intricate that it lends
itself to a large range of abuses."
But all that was many years ago, and since
that time-especially over the last decade-the
size of the "Federal Establishment" has grown
Federal government maintains today has actually
become a problem of man's ability to govern him-
self in time of massive technological change and
population growth. It is so massive that it literally
feeds on itself. It is so large that no one in or out
of government can accurately define its power and
scope. It is so intricate that it lends itself to a large
range of abuses, some criminal and deliberate,
others unwitting and inept. The government is so
large that institutions doing business with it, or
attempting to do business with it, are forced to
hire trained experts just to show them around
through the labyrinthine maze made up of hun-
dreds of departments, bureaus, commissions,
offices and agencies....
Countless Assistance Programs and Eight for
Rat Control
Every now and then we catch a frightening
glimpse of this enormous structure and what it
means in terms of accountability and manage-
ability. For example, a young Member of the
House of Representatives several years ago set out
to determine how many assistance programs were
available and maintained in the Federal govern-
ment. It took him two years to find out that there
were over 1,300 such programs, many of which
were unknown to each other and unknown to the
people they were established to help. It was dis-
covered, for example, that no one in the Federal
government had an idea how many assistance
programs existed, where they were located and
how they were designed to help American citi-
zens... .
Then we had the spectacle of the House of
Representatives engaging in a tense, prolonged,
and emotional battle over the appropriation of the
funds for rat control in our major cities. After all
the shouting had died down, it was discovered
that there already existed eight programs in
various departments to do the same thing.
So, the size of the Federal bureaucracy-
which just keeps growing year after year despite
the unfair and growing burden which it places on
the taxpayer-is compounding the difficulty and
confusion which the average American en-
counters as he attempts to function in today's
society. If this continues, the day will come when
not only business will choke to death on govern-
ment redtape, but the average American wage-
earner and property-holder will suffocate as well.
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 2?IA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13
Congress Has Lost Control to the Bureaucracy
Now I want to emphasize how this
bureaucracy problem thwarts the work that we
here in the Senate and Members of the House are
engaging in. It should not, but probably would,
astound most Members of the Senate to find out
what actually happens to the intent which we
write into major legislation when it gets into the
hands of the bureaucrats. Much of our purpose in
enacting laws has been either contradicted,
overruled, diluted or denied in many instances by
quasi-judicial rulings by government regulatory
agencies or by the courts. We seem almost com-
placent in our belief that the people who handle
the provisions of the laws we pass will understand
the motivation and the intent of the Congress
which passed them. Further, we seem almost
secure in the belief that where this intent is known
that it will be followed without question....
I think we must admit that the Congress has
simply lost its accountability for most of the
money spent by the government. Originally, the
Constitution gave Congress control of the purse
strings and Congress designated the appropri-
ation committees as their agents. But new means
of funding have been established which do not
simply remove control of the appropriation
process from the appropriation committees, but
remove it from the Congress itself.
Congress, I am sorry to report, has lost this
control to men who were riot elected and who are
not directly responsible to the people. They can-
not be voted out of office if they make costly mis-
takes, yet they control the offices in thousands of
government buildings and buy, sell, lend, borrow
the assets, the credit, the pools, the funds, the
Reprinted Courtesy of Sand Toler and The Washington Post Co.
Approved For Release 2004/10/13
28
CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
contracts, the obligations, the debts, the accounts,
the authorization to spend from debt receipts, the
payments, the rates and so on....
Right here, let me say that I am not suggest-
ing a return to the system which we once called
the "spoils system".... I admit that a strong case
can be made for the career employee in govern-
ment and for his protection under the civil service
system. But, I believe government employees have
a responsibility to the people who are taxed to
pay their salaries to support and implement the
policies that come down to them from the elected
representatives....
But, I do not want to be unfair to the career
employees in the Federal government. The feeling
of "ownership" which I detect in their attitudes
has come about through long years of bureau-
cratic possessiveness. It is both a help and a
hindrance to the efficient administration of
government. In considering this problem, it must
be understood that government workers are
motivated by much the same consideration as
workers in private industry. They are interested in
comfortable compensation, proper working con-
ditions and security in both. They oppose change
because it might constitute a threat to their
jobs....
Big Bureaucracy Is a Denial of the
Democratic Process
This rigid bureaucratic system is long en-
trenched and deeply dedicated to its own concept
of what is right and what is wrong in the realm of
government policymaking. And I want to point
out right here that this rigidity, this refusal of the
bureaucratic middle management to accept inno-
vations and changes in the conduct and method of
government business, is a denial of the demo-
cratic process. . . .
Ask yourself, why do governments change?
Why do we have such things as new adminis-
trations? I will tell you why. Governments change,
new administrations take office, political com-
plexions of Presidents change to reflect the will of
the qualified voters of the United States.
When the people of this country become dis-
satisfied with the kind of government they are re-
ceiving, they go to the polls and vote to oust the
officials responsible. In the old days in American
politics, they had a battle cry which reformers
used to defeat entrenched and unpopular officials
and administrations-"throw the rascals out."
 And this, Mr. 1r8gp Fgrse/1NJ3
history of American politics....
But, the question is whether this will of the
people, whether this concern of the people,
whether this officially stamped request for a
change in direction can ever be completely
realized under the present system of bureaucratic
management. I do not think that it can. I do not
think that the will of the people and the intent of
Congress goes deep enough into the places where
the policies are made that most directly affect the
people. Given the intricacies of the system, the
attitude of those in permanent positions and the
general confusion surrounding any change of
command in an enterprise as vast as the Federal
government, I do not think it is possible for this
job to be done with any degree of success. The
officials oriented to the philosophies promoted by
the Democratic Party have been in control too
long, their numbers are too great and their in-
fluence too strong to quickly bring about any sub-
stantial change in the things that cause concern
among the people.
Conclusion: Reform of the Bureaucracy is Needed
I am well aware of the fact that it is easy to
criticize and to find fault. It is too easy for those of
us who do not have direct responsibility to assign
verbal blame and to hand out rhetorical pre-
scriptions as to what should be done. I am fully
aware that this is a mammoth problem which is
not going to be corrected overnight. Nor is it one
which easily lends itself to any pat solution....
There are many ways in which this enormous
problem can be attacked. I am not wedded to any
particular strategem or method. However, I be-
lieve very strongly that the time is long past since
we should have come to grips with this enormous
challenge. A concerted program of study and
recommendation must be undertaken at a very
early date or the will of the people and the intent
of Congress will continue to disappear in the giant
maw of Federal bureaucracy. The danger is to our
democratic form of government in its most
fundamental sense. I only hope that what I have
had to say here today will underscore the impor-
tance of understanding what we are up against
and encourage those in positions of responsibility
to take some courageous and drastic action to
meet it effectively.
CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
SOMETHING HAS
TO BE DONE:
IDEAS ON GOVERNMENT
REORGANIZATION
Congressman Elliott H. Levitas
Congressman Levitas (D-Ga.) was elected to
Congress in 1974. Previously he served in the
Georgia state legislature where he worked
with then State Senator Jimmy Carter on
bills to reorganize the state government.
When Carter was elected Governor in 1970,
Levitas became the floor leader for his re-
organization bills. In 1977 Congressman
Levitas worked as a member of the House
Government Operations Committee for the
passage of President Carter's Reorganization
Act for the Federal government. In this
article he explains this bill as well as other
proposals to do something about the need for
government reorganization.
Most people will agree that "something has
to be done" about The Government. Not everyone
will agree on what that "something" should be.
Anyone who has to deal with the Federal
government-and that means just about everyone
in the country at one time or another-seems to
find that there is little or no recognizable or-
ganization. No one seems to be in charge, and
there are no clear guidelines as to what services
are available, how to go about applying for them
or where to go to complain or appeal. Sometimes
the problem is that no necessary service exists;
sometimes it is the opposite problem and any
number of governmental groups are responsible,
or partially responsible, for a given area.
A good case in point is a poor woman with
children whose husband has deserted her. She
may be eligible for Aid to Dependent Children,
food stamps, housing assistance, employment
counseling, free day care centers and legal
services. For each of the services listed, she would
have to go to a different agency of the govern-
ment. If you were that person, where would you
start?
Let me give you another example. When
President Carter began his preliminary study of
energy, he discovered that nine of his eleven
Cabinet members had responsibility for some part
of the overall problem we call the energy crisis.
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 :291A-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 In addition t i` moopoiReirat5sn o gen~i~0/13
departments, bureaus, commissions, task forces
and ad hoc committees, the sheer number of
people working in all these is staggering. Govern-
ment which has tried to be all things to all people
has become a "fourth branch" of our government
and it is time that we systematically pruned it
back to manageable proportions. There are a
number of things we can do.
The Reorganization Act of 1977 and
the Sunset Idea
The first and most obvious attack on the
problem is for the Chief of State (the President) to
examine each department and its function. He
and his staff, with the advice of the Congress,
experts in the field and citizens, can get a good
overview and make the decisions on where to cut
back. Public Law 95-17, the Reorganization Act
of 1977, gave the President the authority to
reorganize the executive branch unless the
Congress disapproves of his plans.* This law
requires that the President's reorganization plan
be logically consistent, better tailored to the
present needs, and hopefully, more efficient,
smaller and less costly than their predecessor
organizations.
Another method of dealing with the problem
is "sunset legislation." We in Congress have
begun to pass many pieces of authorizing legis-
lation which contain this concept. Simply stated,
it authorizes the existence of an agency only for a
certain number of years. At the end of that time,
the executive branch must come to Congress with
good and valid reasons for the further existence of
the agency. At that time, Congress will have a
chance to see what the agency has done, if there is
a further need for it, or if it has properly executed
its statutory responsibilities. If the Congress
decides that the agency has not fulfilled its tasks,
or if there is no longer a need for it, then the "sun
will set" on it. That is, the agency will be
terminated.
Zero Based Budgeting and
A Bill to Regulate the Bureaucracy
A third way of getting a handle on the
activities of executive branch agencies is
something called zero-based budgeting. This is a
*Editor's Note: To receive a copy of this or any other law,
write to the U.S. House of Representatives, House
Document Room, H-226 Capitol, Washington, D.C. 20515.
Cmethood 8ofOmanagemen0l con of which would
require that periodically each Federal spending
program's budget would begin at zero and each
bit of money appropriated would have to be
justified. This is in direct contradiction to the
present system whereby each agency begins by
figuring out how much more it will need and pre-
senting its needs to the Congress based on past
budgets and the estimated necessary increases.
Zero based budgeting would force each agency,
and the Congress reviewing the budget requests,
to ask, "Is this program necessary?" and "Is
there a new and better way of accomplishing the
ends we have agreed are necessary?" In this way,
fresh new ideas will be competing fairly with old,
established programs so that the excuse, "But
we've always done it this way" will no longer carry
so much weight.
A fourth method for reorganization deals
directly with decreasing the excessive government
interference in our private lives and businesses. I
am the prime sponsor of a bill which would do
just this, by giving Congress greater control over
the administrative rule-making of executive
branch agencies.
In creating these agencies Congress gave
them a mandate in certain policy areas.* To carry
out these responsibilities these agencies issue
"rules" which have the force of laws, as if they
had been passed by a proper legislative body like
the U.S. Congress or the state legislatures. How-
ever, these rules-which must be obeyed under
threat of penalty-are never voted upon, and
rarely discussed outside the glorified realms of the
agency issuing them.
"We must seek simplicity and openness,
competence and coordination, efficiency
and economy.... The people benefit from
a government which is less complicated..."
I believe that the laws which people must
obey should be voted upon by the representatives
of those people. Therefore, the bill which I have
proposed would require that all rules and regu-
lations issued by the administrative agencies be
submitted to the Congress before becoming part
of the law of the land. Congress would then have
sixty days in which to review such rules and
express its disapproval. If either the House or the
Senate vetoed the proposed rules, the agency
*Editor's Note: See the next article and the Know the
Bureaucracy exercise for a more detailed explanation of the
powers of these agencies.
Approved For Release 2004/10/10 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004110/13 : CIA RD 31
would have to start over to produce something eline e d i those of other
more acceptable to the Congress. In this way, the organizational units. Members of Congress can
legislative process is returned to the legislature perform more effective oversight of government
where it belongs. Such a measure would prevent functions and programs when they are arranged
the unelected bureaucrats of the executive in simple and coherent organizational patterns.
branch agencies from making rules that require The people benefit from a government which is
compliance by the citizens of this country. less complicated-which can be understood and
d ill
"Good Servant but a Poor Master"
The Government needs to be reorganized. As
the priorities and needs of the nation change, so
must the institutions which implement them. We
must seek simplicity and openness, competence
and coordination, efficiency and economy. Civil
servants and political officials can do their work
better when their responsibilities are clearly
can respond to their priorities an pro ems.
None of these concepts by itself is enough to
solve the problems of too much government, but
each in its own way can put us back on the right
track.
Our government belongs to the people of this
country. It should not oppress them. It should
serve them. It should be responsive to them. To
paraphrase Aesop: Government, like fire, makes
a good servant but a poor master.
STRUCTURE OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
THE PRESIDENT
Executive Office of the President (partial listing)
White House Staff
Office of Management and Budget
Council of Economic Advisors
Council on Environmental Quality
National Security Council
Domestic Council
THE CABINET
I AGRICULTURE
HEALTH,
EDUCATION
AND WELFARE
HOUSING
AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT
LABOR
THE BUREAUCRACY
Independent Agencies, Regulatory Commissions and Other Offices
ACTION
Advisory Comm. on Intergovernmental
Relations
American Battle Monuments Comm.
Civil Aeronautics Board
Consumer Product Safety Comm.
Energy Research and Development Admin.
Environmental Protection Agency
Equal Employment Opportunity Comm.
Export-Import Bank of the U.S.
Federal Communications Commission
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Federal Election Commission
Federal Energy Administration
Federal Power Commission
Federal Reserve System
Federal Trade Commission
General Services Administration
Indian Claims Commission
Interstate Commerce Commission
National Aeronautics and Space Admin.
Veterans Administration
National Foundation on the Arts
and the Humanities
National Labor Relations Board
National Mediation Board
National Science Foundation
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Occupational Safety and Health
Review Commission
Overseas Private Investment Corp.
Panama Canal Company
Securities and Exchange Commission
Selective Service System
Small Business Administration
Tennessee Valley Authority
U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency
U.S. Civil Service Commission
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
U.S. Information Agency
U.S. International Trade Commission
U.S. Postal Service
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 ILIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
JUSTICE
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
OUR NATION'S
REGULATORS:
CASE STUDY OF THE
CONSUMER PRODUCT
SAFETY COMMISSION
Vice Chairman
Thaddeus Garrett, Jr.
As Vice Chairman of the Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC,), Mr. Garrett
writes about regulatory agencies from a
wealth of first-hand experience. When he
was appointed to the CPSC in November
1976 by President Gerald Ford, he became
the youngest man in history to be nominated
to a Federal regulatory commission. In this
article Commissioner Garrett explains what
it means for a Federal agency "to regulate,
through a case study of the CPSC.
There are seven Federal regulatory com-
missions in the Federal government. Holding both
"quasi-legislative" and "quasi-judicial"*
authority, their prime task is to oversee the
operations of our nation's industrial, business and
consumer life. Their mission is to scrutinize and
regulate in the interest of the nation's market-
place, economy and people.
The role of the Federal regulator is difficult,
considering the need for both public safety and
health as well as the preservation of business and
industry. Taking into consideration all social
factors, the regulator must determine the most
practical and meaningful solution to any given
problem on matters of national concern. Often
Federal regulators must fulfill the roll of public
watchdogs.
Yes it can be said that Federal regulatory
commissions are potentially the most powerful
units in our national government. This is because
of the far-reaching effects of the decisions and
actions which they initiate and enforce. Virtually
every interest group in American society technic-
ally falls under the regulatory domain of some
government agency. For example, labor unions
*Editor's Note: The prefix "quasi-" in this context means
similar to; that is, these regulatory agencies have the power
to issue rules which have the force of laws ("quasi-legis-
lative") and to settle certain kinds of legal disputes ("quasi-
judicial").
are subject to regulatory action by the National
Labor Relations Board; farmers have a regulatory
relationship with the Department of Agriculture;
and business and industry are regulated by a host
of Federal agencies, from the Federal Trade
Commission to the Environmental Protection
Agency.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission
When the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC), an independent regulatory
agency, was created, the largest of all interest
groups-the American consumer-was provided
with a regulatory agency into which a different
type of perspective could be injected. In October
1972 Congress passed the Consumer Product
Safety Act, which included the establishment of
the CPSC, in response to the rise in both con-
sumer awareness and product-related injuries.
Also included in the Congressional enact-
ment and placed under CPSC's jurisdiction were
four acts, transferred from other Federal agencies
to prevent some of the overlap and fragmentation
in the Federal bureaucracy. The transferred acts
are: the Federal Flammable Fabrics Act, the
Federal Hazardous Substances Act, the Poison
Prevention Packaging Act and the Refrigerator
Safety Act. These laws, in addition to the Con-
sumer Product Safety Act, gave the CPSC broad
powers to deal with hazardous products and sub-
stances.
The mission of the CPSC as defined by the
Act is:
-to protect the public against unreasonable
risk of injury associated with consumer
products;
-to assist consumers in evaluating the com-
parative safety of consumer products;
-to develop uniform safety standards for
consumer products and to minimize con-
flicting state and local regulations; and
-to promote research and investigation into
the causes and prevention of product-
related deaths, illnesses and injuries.
Rules and regulations have been established
by the CPSC to provide the business community
with the responsibility and the guidelines to safe-
guard public welfare. Public and private interest
groups constantly appear before the Commission
delivering presentations to support their par-
ticular perspectives. As a rule, consumer groups
insist upon greater Federal regulation while in-
dustry generally appears to provide rationales for
Approved For Release 2004/10/13: CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 why a mandator y a i aer~FsTlroMeftaf 39%$Y613
mented or should be made moderate by the
Commission. The regulatory dilemma begins
when the Federal agency is confronted with a
situation where a product might pose a sub-
stantial hazard, but a product ban would
ultimately force companies out of business.
The controversy revolving around tris, the
children's sleepwear flame retardant, epitomizes
this dilemma. After the government instructed
sleepwear manufacturers to make their products
flame retardant, the chemical tris was employed
to comply with the government's demands. A few
years later, tris was proved in many tests to be a
carcinogen, a substance which causes cancer.
In April 1977 the CPSC banned tris-treated
garments and instituted an immediate recall. The
questions in the wake of the ban were obvious:
CI RW0Jf31 jaAO( Q1*W0'A uld absorb the
economic impact? The ban, nevertheless, was im-
mented in the interest of safety, with the full force
of law.
As provided by the Act, citizens and con-
sumer groups may petition the CPSC for the
issuance, amendment or revocation of a decision
or action made regarding a consumer product. In
order to further institutionalize the Commission's
desire for increased consumer input into the
regulatory process, the CPSC's Office of Public
Participation has been created to provide for,
among other things, funding for public partici-
pation in agency proceedings. The
encouragement of greater public interest in the
regulatory process will, hopefully, instill a better
understanding of the problems which face the
American government.
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
KNOW THE BUREAUCRACY
NRC, FCC, EPA, FAA, FDIC, ICC, etc.-the titles of the different agencies and commissions which
comprise the Federal bureaucracy are enough to make you feel like you're swimming in an "alphabet
soup." It's difficult enough to know what the initials stand for, let alone know what are the specific
powers of each agency. As you drive around Washington and view block after block of government office
buildings, you will get an idea on the size of the Federal bureaucracy and of how many different agencies
there are.
We can divide the principal agencies of "the bureaucracy" into three categories: independent
agencies, regulatory commissions and government corporations. All are part of the executive branch but
do not fall within any of the Cabinet departments. In the exercises below each of these classifications is
defined and some examples are given. How many of the agencies can you correctly match with the des-
cription of their powers?
Independent Agencies
Each independent agency was created by Congress to provide specialized services necessary to carry
out policy decisions made by Congress and the President. The directors are appointed by the President
with Senate approval; they can ,also be fired by the President. Here are some examples of independent
agencies. See if you can match each with the appropriate description of its powers and responsibilities.
ACTION
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
Veterans Administration (VA)
General Services Administration (GSA)
Small Business Administration (SBA)
1. Gemini, Apollo and Viking
2. Makes loans to the corner grocery store and other small family businesses
3. Administers laws which provide benefits for former members of the Armed Forces
4. Peace Corps, VISTA
5. The public's advocate for a cleaner environment
6. Provides the services needed by the federal government for its day-to-day operations
Approved For Release 2004/10/3'43 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Releas 2004/ 0/13 : CIA-RQP88-01315R000200160007-2
egula ory Commissions
Each regulatory agency was created by an act of Congress, and its members ("commissioners") are
appointed by the President subject to Senate approval. Their responsibilities are to regulate industry,
trade or other specific activities. They have the "quasi-legislative" power to draw up regulations which
have the effect of law. They also have the "quasi-judicial" powers to enforce these regulations. The
article, Our Nation's Regulators, explains the structure and functions of one of these regulatory
commissions, the Consumer Product Safety Commission. What about some of the others? Can you figure
out what their responsibilities are?
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC)
Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
1. Regulates passenger airline fares
2. Licenses nuclear power plants
3. Licenses and regulates television stations
4. Enforces truth in advertising laws
5. Regulates railroad freight rates
Government Corporations
For certain purposes, the Federal government has seen fit to undertake business activities necessary
to provide for the welfare of its citizens. Government corporations have been founded to conduct these
activities as would private businesses and without regard to politics. As with independent agencies and
regulatory commissions, an act of Congress is required to establish a government corporation. The
director and/or governing board are appointed by the President with Senate advice and consent.
Examine these four examples to gain a better idea of their functions:
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
Panama Canal Company
U.S. Postal Service
Export-Import Bank of the United States
1. Operates one of the world's most important waterways
2. Makes loans to assist companies in selling their products in foreign countries
3. Operates major program of economic development, flood control and electric power production in
the southeastern United States
4. Delivers the mail
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : f5IA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 BURLATC1
se 2004/10/13
SEMANTIFICATIONS
(Mumbling in the
Bureaucratic Zoo)
Dr. James H. Boren
Pull out your thesaurus and dictionary, be
ready to call on your imagination and sense
of humor. . . .Dr. James Boren, whose
government career has included being a
foreign service officer and an aide to a U.S.
Senator, uses humor and satire to make some
interesting points about the bureaucracy.
This article is written in the same light but
analytical style as are his books, When in
Doubt Mumble and Have Your Way With
Bureaucrats: A Layman's Guide to Pyramid-
ing Featherheads and Other Strange Birds.
Bureaucracy is not merely a conglomeration
of people, organization charts and red tape;
bureaucracy is a way of life. It is the spirit of
dynamic inaction, the resonant nondirectiveness
of orbital dialogues, the steadfast dedication to
bold irresolution and full devotion to the finest
product of the bureaucratic art, survival. Red
tape is bureaucracy's procedural material that
binds a nation together as a great harmonic
entity, and, contrary to popular conception,
bureaucrats are not afraid to cut red tape as long
as they cut it lengthwise.
There are three basic guidelines which, if
followed, will enable anyone to succeed in govern-
mental, corporate or academic bureaucracies. By
following the Boren Guidelines, anyone can
bubble to the top of any organization. They are:
When in charge, ponder; when in trouble, dele-
gate; when in doubt, mumble. The most
important of all skills, of course, is that of
mumbling with professional eloquence, for
mumbling is the heart of bureaucratic communi-
cation.
If taxpayers could understand what we, the
bureaucrats, say and do, the bureaucratic way of
life would be endangered. At all costs, bureau-
crats must protect the creative status quo and
prevent thought-oriented rippling that might dis-
turb the tranquility of the ship of state. Therefore,
it behooves all bureaucrats to learn to mumble
and to use related communicative techniques to
pro RtPo8u ea3u1crat002msftuuons from those
people who want to meddle in the people's
business and from the incursions of fresh and un-
settling ideas.
Mumbling and Other Manners of Speech
There are many ways in which bureaucrats
communicate, but there are a few that are at the
heart of bureaucratic semantifications.
Vertical mumbling is the highest form of the
mumbling art and it is characterized by word
stings that reflect celibate concepts and multi-
syllabic interfaces. A vertical mumbler, for
example, would orchestrate marginal thought
patterns and nondirective wordations in such a
way as to maximize the minimalities of infor-
mation while supernalizing its communicative
image.
Linear mumbling is the translocation of
tonal patterns that are not distinguishable in
word form. Extended linear mumbling, however,
is enhanced by linking intonations with an
occasional word or phrase. Such words and
phrases increase the listeners' attentiveness as
they seek to fill the tonal gaps. Each listener
creatively conjures a cosmetic concept of what he
believes the bureaucrat is saying. This "filling the
gaps" is known by in-house bureaucrats as
"creative gappification."
Profundification and profundication are
based on the Borenverbs to profundify and to pro-
fundicate. This involves the use of Rogets's
Thesaurus and other enrichment techniques to
make simple ideas seem very profound. The only
difference between the two is a matter of origin.
Graduates of Ivy League institutions tend to use
"to profundify" while graduates of agricultural
schools tend to use "to profundicate." The
technique is very useful in written reports as well
as in mumblistic dialogues.
Fuzzification is an approach to communi-
cation that focuses on careful selection of words
that foster adjustive interpretation. That is, when
a bureaucrat wishes to state a non-position in the
form of a position, or wishes to say something
about something he knows nothing about, he can
fuzzify. By using adjustifiers or fuzzifiers, the
bureaucrat can make a statement that can be
interpreted to mean a number of things. Thus,
past statements can be measured against future
events in whatever way is best for him at the time
of the interpretation.
Approved For Release 2004/1(%3 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004110/13 : CIA-RDP88-0131 R0002f01R0007-2
h
Trashification is often used by politicans,
academicians and governmental bureaucrats to
demonstrate in-depth knowledge in matters of
marginal value. Trashifiers add unrelated or non-
essential data in oral or written communication to
expand three-page reports to ninety-page reports,
because they know that most people are more im-
pressed by the weight of reports than by the
weight of the logic on which the reports are based.
?I Sufooi 6erierrl C-t~ou,
14? ghat VA fotlowins T495
~. S~~rdard At~;~eYet i St
5. '~2'.Y'ufl of
1Q ~1~t'BQ ~I'9? $
wQ sma- OTOU5 to your Wal l$:
z. ~h1"ow $r$ ~x~sbe~
3. -[tte tour basic Food POUFS
Be Sure to Maximize Pupilary Contact
A final but major philosophical element in
successful bureaucratic communications is The
Boren Dictum: If you're going to be a phoney, be
sincere about it. There are genuine phonies in
bureaucracies who are phonies without realizing
it, but the most successful phonies are those who
know they are phonies but are sincere about their
phoniness. Sincere phonies are able to combine
many bureaucratic characteristics into a har-
monious pattern of communication. They furrow
the brow, tilt the head slightly forward, lower the
voice and interlace linear mumbling with
moderate gruntifications. As they do this, they
also maximize the pupilary contact by gazing
e pup o one eye of the listener
ll
intently into t
and they climaxify the communication process by
nodding the head in an affirmative manner.
When the listener nods in agreement, the bureau-
crat has it made, and can continue to the next
step in the phonification process.
These basic techniques used by bureaucrats
are the instruments of self-protection and for
gaining the status of expertise, but the essence of
bureaucratic communication is now under attack
from newly elected officials and taxpayers. They
believe that the institutions that once served are
becoming the institutions that command and they
believe that "bureaucratic semantification" is an
important factor in the trend.
Some newcomers recently arrived in
Washington with the idea that they were going to
make changes in the way bureaucrats communi-
cate. In the White House, for example, it was
decreed by President Carter that government
officials should express themselves in simple
terms, but upon hearing the decree, the old line
bureaucrats quietly smiled to themselves. They
knew that history was on their side, and they were
confident that the newcomers would gradually
adjust to the bureaucratic way of life and adopt
bureaucratic semantification as a communicative
style. When President Jimmy Carter sent Mrs.
Carter on a diplomatic mission to the Caribbean
and Latin America, she was asked in Jamaica
about the prospects of renewing diplomatic
relations with Cuba. She did not say that the
matter was being discussed; she responded that
the matter was the subject of a dialogue. And the
White House Conference on Handicapped In-
dividuals conducted May 23-27, 1977 asked the
delegates to "prioritize" their recommendations
after studying and giving their "priority votes" on
items that were fuzzified with such phrases as:
high-risk disability producers, deinstitutionali-
zation mandates, and on-going mass media cam-
paign.
In a bureaucracy goals are to be stated, not
sought; actions are to be studied, not taken; and
knowledge is to be synthesized, not used. Success
in bureaucratic communication involves the roar,
not the message and the image, not the reality.
If you don't believe it, for the next few days
tune your ears for the buzzing of the profundifiers
as they intone their pet phrases: interface,
parameters, dialogue, ongoing, finalize, etc.
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 :IA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
3.
THE COI'GRESS :
Legislators and Representatives of the People
"7 consider the people who constitute a society or nation as the
source of all authority in that nation; as free to transact their
common concerns by any agents they think proper... that all
acts done by these agents under the authority of the nation are
the acts of the nation... "
Thomas Jefferson
From atop one of the city's two hills, the U.S. Capitol towers over Washington, D.C. Its dome is a
crown to the city, and its impressive architecture casts it as the centerpiece of the world's largest demo-
cratic republic. The importance is much more than symbolic, for the Congress was created as the central
cog in a radical experiment (for the 18th century) in representative democracy. Article I of the Con-
stitution, which defines the powers of the Congress and the procedures for choosing Representatives and
Senators, comprises more than one half of the entire document.
Throughout our history the Congress has embodied the ideals and the realities, the successes and
the failures of our political system. In its halls the Daniel Websters have delivered stirring speeches, and
the Henry Clays have engineered the great compromises which have made our national motto, e pluribus
unum, a continuing reality-"out of many, one." Yet there have also been less glorious moments, from
scandals to criticisms that Congress had forfeited too much power to the Presidency.
The 95th Congress convened in January, 1977, amidst mixed public attitudes and serious questions.
What should Congress' role be: how much a leader, how much a public forum, how much an "equal" to
the President? What about its procedures, the ethics of its Members and the proposals for Congressional
reform? Also, what does it mean "to represent the people": What are the fine lines between government
by, of and for the people?
It is to these and other important questions which we turn in this chapter. Speaker of the House
Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., Minority Leader John Rhodes, Senators Robert Morgan and Robert Dole, and
Congressmen Bill Frenzel and Bob Carr are among the authors who have written articles especially for
Perspectives. Additionally, a series of charts and diagrams and a special guide to Capitol Hill have been
designed to help you learn about the Congress while in Washington.
Approved For Release 2004/100A3 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved
CONGRESS: LEADER OR
FOLLOWER?
Senator Robert Morgan
Senator Morgan is a Democrat from North
Carolina, elected to the Senate in 1974 to
replace the retired Senator Sam Ervin. He is
a member of the Public Works and the
Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs
Committees. In this article he defends
Congress against the criticisms of its de-
tractors and explains what its role is in the
making of national policy. Compare his
article with that of Harry McPherson in
Chapter 1, for two differing perspectives on
the roles of the President and Congress.
If the opinion polls are accurate, Congress is
held in less than high esteem by the public, and is
viewed not as a leader, but as a sometimes
reluctant follower in solving national problems.
Much of this low regard has been inspired by
those critics and journalists who have pictured the
Congress as slow and bumbling, lacking a sense of
direction.
While it is true that Congress acts slowly, it
was never intended by the Founding Fathers as a
place where snap decisions or quick answers
would prevail. With 535 members (435 Congress-
men, 100 Senators) who hold individual opinions
and represent different constituencies, it is a part
of Congress' heritage to be a forum in which all
interests are represented. Both the House of
Representatives and the Senate must take into
consideration regional and other differences, so as
to provide enough balance to make laws workable
and fair for all Americans. While the Congress
cannot speak with one voice, as can the President,
it still plays an important leadership role in shap-
ing policy.
Regaining Leadership From an
Imperial Presidency
It is true that the powers of the Presidency
have grown ever since the administration of
Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945). The "imperial
Presidency" reached a high level under Richard
Nixon who, if Congress went against his will, can-
celled the action by impounding the money. His
predecessor, Lyndon Johnson, had done the same
thing on a smaller scale. However, the courts have
For Release 2004/10/13 : CIAsl- P996g1 J 0 A?%0m oundment to be
illegal.
The fall of the Nixon Administration, des-
troyed from within, accelerated a movement in
the Congress to regain some of the leadership
seemingly lost with the growth of the "imperial
Presidency." This more active role had actually
begun before Watergate, but these. events further
influenced the Congress to act more forcefully.
If you look at the record, Congress provided
more leadership in shaping policy during the
1960's and 1970's than most people realize. Civil
rights, the lowering of the voting age to 18 years,
environmental protection, campaign finance re-
form-these and other programs were created
and nurtured in the Congress, not the executive
branch. In the case of the Vietnam War, it was
the Congress who first realized that the War had
gone on too long.
"Congress provided more leadership in
shaping policy during the 1960's and 1970's
than most people realize."
Let us look at two major initiatives taken by
the Congress, which illustrate that the Con-
gressional voice is not as weak as some people
believe.
Two New Initiatives: Setting the Budget and
Controlling the Bureaucracy
The first of these is the creation of the House
and Senate Budget Committees. These Commit-
tees were established by the Budget Control and
Impoundment Act of 1974, and began operation
in 1975. Before then, Congress had no effective
system for setting the national budget. It merely
took the President's recommendations, approved
or disapproved them, raised or lowered them.
With the new Budget Committees, the Congress
has a method of really setting the budget and
controlling spending. It also has its own staff of
economists and other experts who can provide in-
formation for the legislators. All of this has made
the Congress better able to assert its priorities on
budgetary matters. At the same time, this op-
portunity to manage the budget brings increased
responsibility for controlling spending and
trimming deficits.
This leads to the second major initiative, con-
trolling the bureaucracy. Congress is seeking
some sort of control over Federal programs and
the appointed officials who operate them. Con-
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 :3IA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 sideration has begt'Rrfo oNK WSW J90tj/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
"Sunset Bill." If passed into law, this would
require all government agencies to periodically
report on their activities. In order to continue to
receive funds, they must justify their existence by
proving that their programs are having positive
effects. If this cannot be shown, the "sun will set"
on their existence.
This last action is long overdue. Members of
the House and the Senate are responding to in-
creased complaints from constituents that govern-
ment is ineffective and inefficient. Congress itself
must share some of the blame for creating pro-
grams and agencies without giving them proper
oversight.
A Force and Forum for Shaping Policy
It is apparent that Congress is acting to re-
gain some of the ground it has lost during recent
years without any "power grab" aimed at the
other two branches of government. In foreign
affairs, for example, the executive branch will
still be predominant. But after our Vietnam ex-
perience, it is doubtful if the Congress will ever
again relinquish its authority and allow the nation
to become involved in a similar adventure. Wise
and responsible use of the power to control the
budget, plus effective influence over regulatory
agencies, will strengthen the role of Congress in
shaping national policy.
At the same time, the increasingly complex
and technical problems confronting the nation
make the job of a Congressman or Senator much
more difficult. Few people possess by education or
training the technical knowledge required by
today's issues. This has made it necessary to in-
crease the size of their office staffs, as they have
employed aides with knowledge in specific fields.
Other assistants have been needed to handle the
increasing requests of constituents in dealing with
Federal agencies.
All this may feed the misconception that the
Congress bumbles and stumbles, procrastinates
and argues an issue to death, appears to crawl so
slowly in its deliberations that it sometimes seems
doubtful of its own destination. But from these
deliberations have come the solutions to new
problems. Some have been less than perfect, and
many need changing, but here again, the
Congress will be a central force and forum for the
changes. There exists a real opportunity for the
Congress to strengthen its role and to regain some
lost respect among the public.
CONGRESS AND THE
PRESIDENT: CHECKS AND
BALANCES IN THE MAKING
OF FOREIGN POLICY
Senator Robert Dole
Senator Robert Dole (R-Kansas) is familiar
to you as the Republican candidate for Vice
President in 1976. Although he and Gerald
Ford were defeated by the Jimmy Carter-
Walter Mondale ticket, Senator Dole main-
tained his seat in the U.S. Senate. He has
served in the Senate since 1968; prior to that,
he was a member of the House of Repre-
sentatives for eight years. He has distin-
guished himself on issues of domestic policy
as a member of numerous committees, most
notably on the Senate Agriculture and
Forestry Committee. In addition, he has been
very active on foreign policy issues through-
out his career. In this article, he offers the
perspective of a man who has a great deal of
expertise on the subject of foreign policy, and
who has been both a Senator and a Congress-
man.
In establishing a system of "checks and
balances" between three separate branches of
government, the Founding Fathers intended that
the executive, legislature and judiciary would play
competing, complementing and "checking" roles
in the conduct of the affairs of government. The
struggle for influence and authority in the formu-
lation of national policy has existed throughout
our history, especially between Presidents and
Congresses. When such conflicts have raised
questions requiring interpretation of the Con-
stitution, the Judiciary has settled the differences.
"Politics" often play a part in determining
the intensity of the conflict. When one political
party controls the White House and the other
holds a majority in Congress-as was the case
from 1968 to 1976-the lines are drawn very
distinctly. However, it has also been true in the
past and continues so today that the quest for
supremacy goes on even with the President and
the majority in Congress being members of the
same political party.
Approved For Release 2004/1043 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Foreign rouicy: erresident 2004/10/13
Commander-in- Chief,
The Congress as Declarer of War
How has the system of checks and balances
functioned historically with regard to the actual
formulation of policy? The more interesting focus
of attention is on foreign policy. Congress has
always had a strong voice in domestic policy, and
only in recent years has it been more forceful in
resolving foreign policy issues.
It is sometimes said that political party
differences "stop at the water's edge." His-
torically, foreign policy has been conducted on a
bipartisan basis with an overall spirit of coop-
eration between Presidents and Congresses. Their
joint involvement was a clear intention of the
Constitution, for the President was named
Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces while
the Congress was given the powers to declare war
and to grant funds "to raise and support armies"
and "to provide and maintain a Navy." Thus, the
authority of the President as Commander-in-
Chief is strong, but limited. While Congress can-
not deprive the President of the command of the
Army and Navy, only it can provide him an Army
and Navy to command.
An example of this "checking" occurred in
1801, when President Thomas Jefferson sent U.S.
Cl-WQF% W l ?9PX 99t merchant ships
from Barbary pirates off the African coast. He
could authorize only defensive measures since the
Congress held the authority to appropriate funds
for offensive action. Again in 1900, President
William McKinley sent 5000 American troops to
China as a part of an international force during
the Boxer Rebellion. While Congress recognized
the existence of the conflict by providing for com-
bat pay, it neither declared war nor formally
ratified McKinley's action.
However, during the 1950's and 1960's,
Presidents assumed greater authority to send
American troops into conflicts on their own. Dur-
ing the Korean conflict, President Harry Truman
relied upon the United Nations Charter as well as
his power as Commander-in-Chief to send
American troops to Korea. In the 1960's, Vietnam
provided a vivid example of Presidential power.
President Lyndon Johnson was able to continue
sending troops to Vietnam under the authority of
the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, passed by Congress,
even though this was not a formal declaration of
war. So, by the late 1960's, the powers of Presi-
dents in foreign affairs had grown significantly.
It was not until President Richard Nixon
took office that Congress became concerned over
Presidential powers in foreign affairs. The
conduct of many Senators and Representatives at
The President Addresses a Joint Session of Congress on The National Energy Act
 tnat time remrorces the suggestion tnat pontics
and party labels are too often the basis for the
value that a member of Congress attaches to the
maintenance of a bipartisan foreign policy-that
is, a policy endorsed by both parties.
Conflict Over Defining the Authority
of Commander-in-Chief
When President Nixon sent troops into
Cambodia in 1970, he justified his action as
necessary to protect the lives of American per-
sonnel. The Founding Fathers had been very clear
that self-defense and response to armed attack on
the United States were well within the power and
responsibility of the President as Commander-in-
Chief. The question arose whether this action in
Cambodia was the sort of tactical decision vested
in him as Commander-in-Chief during an armed
conflict, or whether it expanded the scope of
authority to the point where the war-making
process was almost a Presidential prerogative.
The debate contributed much of the momen-
tum needed to pass the War Powers Act in 1973.
That measure declared that the President may
only send U.S. troops into hostilities through a
declaration of war, specific authorization by law
or a national emergency created by actual attack
on the United States, its territories or its armed
forces. This Act, as well as others in recent years,
has demonstrated a growing insistence by the
Congress that it be included in foreign policy
decision-making.
Conclusion: A Healthy "Checking" and
"Balancing"
All of this points to the real importance of
checks and balances. The healthy give-and-take
relationship was designed to insure that the
President and the Congress do indeed remain
balancing forces in the sharing of vital respon-
sibilities. The principle stated by the late Senator
Robert Taft that "the right to declare war is
granted to Congress alone by the Constitution"
has not changed. Indeed, the various legislative
efforts to pull us out of Cambodia were resolu-
tions that did not challenge the legality of what
President Nixon did, but rather attempted merely
to prevent us from further participation. The fact
that the Congress, entrusted with making the
laws, and the President, who must faithfully
execute those laws, have a mutual role in formu-
lating policy is one of the keys to the strength of
our Republic.
THE
HOUSE:
HIS ROLE AND THE
95TH CONGRESS
Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.
Thomas P. ONeill, Jr., was elected Speaker
of the House in January, 1977. He had been a
Congressman since 1952 and had previously
served as House Majority Leader (1972-76).
He has written this article to help you better
understand how the Congress functions. He
gives a detailed description of the important
job of the Speaker of the House and then
discusses the Democratic Party s legislative
program.
On January 4, 1977, I was elected by the
House of Representatives as its 47th. Speaker. The
Speaker of the House holds the highest legislative
office in the land, and he is also the second person
in succession to the Presidency, behind only the
Vice-President.
The Speaker is one of only three legislative
positions explicitly spelled out in the Constitution
under Article 1, Section 2. The other two are the
Vice-President of the United States, who also
serves as President of Senate and the President
pro tempore of the Senate, who presides in the
Vice-President's absence.
Roles of the Speaker
The Speaker of the House must wear five
cloaks at the same time:
First and foremost, he represents his own
Congressional district; in my case it is the Eighth
Congressional District of Massachusetts. Like all
members of the House of Representatives the
Speaker must compete for re-election every two
years and recognize a primary responsibility to his
own constituents.
Second, the Speaker is the principal leader
of the Majority Party in the House. Wearing this
"party role" cloak, he has exclusive authority to
appoint all joint and select committees and
commissions, appoint House members to con-
ference committees, and appoint House members
to official Congressional delegations. As leader of
the Majority Party, the Speaker also has the last
word on scheduling of all House Floor legislation.
Approved For Release 2004/104123 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 ces 2aric`~/cR : CIA nc usnesslco%q?c~ c~e1 g onomy as well as
Third, he is t ie presiding oft
parliamentarian of the House of Representatives. their general confidence in government.
He has the power of recognition, the power to en- In assuming the mantle of leadership I
force rules of courtesy, the power to sign all legis- announced four legislative goals for the 95th
lation and the power to pass on all parliamentary Congress: an economic stimulus package; the
points of order. strongest code of ethics of any legislative body in
Fourth, the Speaker is the chief adminis- the world; a reorganization of the federal govern-
trative officer of the House side of the Capitol ment, reducing the number of agencies from 1900
charged with overseeing all the House office to approximately 200; and a comprehensive
buildings and grounds, press and public galleries, energy conservation program. Both President
House Chamber and other properties. Carter and I firmly believe that Pennsylvania
Fifth, he is chief protocol officer for the Avenue is a two-way street, and these goals are
entire legislative branch and must meet with being realized as the result of a close working re-
foreign dignitaries. lationship between the President and the
In addition to these responsibilities, I am Congress.
chairman of the Democratic Steering and Policy Prior to the inauguration the leadership of
Committee. This is called the "Speaker's Com- the Congress participated in helping to shape the
mittee," because it makes assignments of all economic stimulus package in Plains, Georgia.
Democratic members to the regular standing Input from the Congress at that early stage en-
committees (with the single exception of the Rules sured a smooth passage of the entire package
Committee whose membership is exclusively through the House before the end of March. This
appointed by the Speaker). It also guides and economic stimulus package will provide nearly 1.5
directs Democratic strategy on legislation. million American jobs over the next two years.
Another arm of the Speaker's leadership is Tremendous progress has also been made on
the Whip Organization which meets weekly to the second goal, as the strictest code of ethics ever
analyze the proposed floor legislation for the enacted by a legislative body has passed both
following week and to determine how much chambers of Congress. While many members at
leadership input is needed to pass that legislation. first considered that the sacrifice of personal
The Speaker must be a leader who knows privilege and financial independence required by
and understands the operation of the Congress. the new code was too severe, the times demanded
He must know how to "read" the House, how to a comprehensive reform without loopholes. A
fashion and unfashion coalitions which success- special ad hoc committee was appointed to imple-
fully master the complexities of the legislative and ment the new code, putting into public law
political processes. He must be willing to share his provisions involving complete financial disclosure
knowledge with every Member. The style of and reporting requirements.
leadership is as important as the substance. Congress has also responded to the Presi-
Often, the Speaker must take the Floor to dential request for authority to reorganize the
advocate strong partisan positions to advance his Federal government. Under this authority the new
party's policy preferences, pass its legislative Department of Energy has now been created.
program and maintain its control of the House. Perhaps the most important and certainly
At other times he must shed his political cloak, the most complex and difficult objective of the
and as presiding officer, rule in a fair and im- 95th Congress is the formation of a compre-
partial manner. There are times when the hensive energy plan. Consideration of this plan
Speaker must be partisan and times when the will dominate the remainder of the first session of
Speaker must be nonpartisan. Members of the Congress. To help speed up consideration of the
minority party or a single dissident within the en- President's energy plan we established an ad hoc
tire House must be assured of his rights as a committee on energy to review and assemble the
Member of the House. A good Speaker must President's package after the four standing com-
move with facility between these two positions. mittees which have energy jurisdiction had acted
upon the final proposal. This was an unpre-
cedented and novel approach to the consideration
Program for the 95th Congress of legislation. The ad hoc committee will have the
final responsibility in the House to report to the
The main focus during the first six months of Floor recommendations for an omnibus energy
the 95th Congress has been on restoring public program.
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : MA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 There is no PBov fipr gt,2( 4k' 0/13 &-FDF -Als318F0R9s0ug@$PZiiient decision-
parochial or more regional than energy. It is my makers, each one reflecting his own constituency
hope that the American press and the public will while simultaneously fulfilling his national res-
'
respond to President Carter
s plea for a national
energy policy with a renewed sense of urgency.
The type of parochialism which has existed in the
past and hindered the formulation of an energy
program must be prevented.
Following the enactment of a national energy
program the 95th Congress will examine compre-
hensive tax and welfare reform proposals.
In shaping these important programs the
ponsibility. This is as it should be, for Congress
operates at its best through the blending together
of input from 435 different points of view repre-
senting 435 diverse economic and social per-
spectives. Just as the many different instruments
of an orchestra produce the vibrant harmony of a
great symphony, so the final products of this
blending of compromises are laws which are
beneficial to all the American people.
LEADERS OF CONGRESS
How often have you watched a news broadcast when the commentator has said, "Today President
Carter had a breakfast meeting with the leaders of Congress to discuss upcoming legislation.... " Who
are these official leaders of Congress? Many Senators and Congressmen perform unofficial leadership
roles on different issues, but there are certain members selected by their colleagues to serve in official
leadership capacities. These leaders of Congress are pictured below; some names and faces may be more
familiar to you than others.
What are the powers and responsibilities of each of these individuals? Perspectives presents you with
a partial listing, each of which can be matched to one of the pictures. Read the newspaper and watch the
news to help you answer these questions.
A. According to the Constitution, he is the official presiding officer of the Senate. He can only vote if
there is a deadlock.
B. Works with the Speaker of the House on legislative strategy.
C. With a Democratic President and a Democratic majority in the Congress, he is a chief spokesman
for the Republican Party as its leader in the Senate.
D. "Lieutenant" to the House Majority Leader, his job is to persuade Democratic Congressmen to vote
with the party leadership.
E. Greatest influence over committee assignments in the Senate; also, chief legislative strategist for
Senate Democrats.
F. Presiding officer of the House, chief legislative strategist and greatest influence over committee
assignments.
G. "Lieutenant" to House Minority leader.
H. The senior member of the Majority party, he presides over the Senate in the absence of the Vice
President of the United States.
1. If the Senate Minority leader opposes a bill, it is his responsibility to line up the votes of Republican
Senators.
J. If the Senate Majority Leader supports a bill, he lines up the votes in favor.
K. Leader of the opposition party in the House.
L. Assistant to the President Pro Tern pore.
Approved For Release 2004/19I/ 3 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
THE SENATE
Walter F. Mondale
Vice-President of the
U.S.
President of the Senate
Howard H. Baker, Jr.
(R-Tennessee)
Minority Leader
James O. Eastland
(D-Mississippi)
President Pro Tempore
Hubert H. Humphrey
(D-Minnesota)
Deputy President Pro
Tempore
Alan Cranston
(D-California)
Majority Whip
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.
(D-Massachusetts)
Speaker of the House
John Brademas
(D-Indiana)
Majority Whip
Robert Michel
(R-Illinois)
Minority Whip
Approved For Release 2004/10/1345C1A-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
Jim Wright
(D-Texas)
Majority Leader
Robert C. Byrd
(D-West Virginia)
Majority Leader
Ted Stevens
(R-Alaska)
Minority Whip
John J. Rhodes
(R-Arizona)
Minority Leader
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 :CIA-RDP 8e a a-t: tfieM0l6CIity Bader
THE MINORITY AS A
COHESIVE FORCE
Minority Leader John J. Rhodes
Congressman Rhodes (R-Arizona) was
elected as House Minority Leader in late
1973, after Gerald R. Ford had resigned the
position to become Vice-President. He was
first elected to Congress in 1952 from a
district which includes parts of Phoenix and
its suburbs. Congressman Rhodes explains
the role of the minority party in Congress and
of the Minority Leader. He also discusses the
Republican program for the 95th Congress,
offering a counterpoint to the proposals of
Speaker O'Neill in the previous article.
"The greatest good of a minority of our generation
may be the greatest good of the greatest number in the
next."-Oliver Wendell Holmes
The Minority Leader has the responsibility of
providing guidance for Republican Congressmen
in areas of organization and party policy. He is
chosen. in a secret ballot by the Republican Con-
ference, composed of all Republican Members,
which appoints each Republican to positions on
the House committees. He does not serve on any
standing committees that consider legislation, but
is an ex officio member of several other commit-
tees and various commissions.
The Minority does not have control of the
committees, because they are constructed on a
ratio roughly equal to the Majority-Minority ratio
of Members. Therefore the Minority Leader has
the responsibility of working to make his Party's
contrasting views known to the public. For this
purpose, he coordinates compilation of a Legis-
lative Agenda, a statement of just what we would
do about various challenges facing the nation if
we were in charge of the Congress.
The Republican Minority in the 95th Con-
gress is outnumbered two to one. However, since
the Majority is divided into several factions, the
Minority plays a unique role of providing a
nucleus, a magnet around which to build a con-
sensus that reflects the broad intent of Congress.
Although the Presidency and the Congress
presently are controlled by the same political
party, this has not assured harmonious relations,
or a legislative steamroller. All members of the
House and one-third of the Senate face election in
1978. While the President may have four years to
live down early mistakes, or for fruition of his
proposals, the Congress must deal with a time
frame of a matter of months before its decisions
are weighed at the ballot box.
The Congress has the power to create
Federal agencies, direct their purpose, and
appropriate funds for their operation. The
President may propose, but it is the Congress that
must decide.
In practice, this works out to provide the
Minority with a unique role. A united Minority, in
conjunction with those in the Majority who dis-
agree with Presidential policy, can legislate.
Already, bills that have been presented because
they were political obligations to special interest
groups, have been defeated by this coalition. This
is the rightful function of the Minority, to oppose
forcefully legislation that is not in the national
interest.
Program for the 95th Congress
The Congress must face a bewildering array
of proposals. Some seek to amend failing
programs. Others propose massive new ventures
into government. Some seek to regulate either
business or the individual.
The two overriding concerns of the 95th
Congress will be the problems of energy and our
environment. Here a balance must be struck. Our
economy depends on adequate energy. Use of
energy creates environmental problems. The task
of Congress will be to formulate a national energy
policy that is effective, and a national environ-
mental approach that is pragmatic and afford-
able. This involves compromise, and reasonable
legislation that will move steadily toward our
goals, without inflicting economic damage that
might cause a national recession.
The Carter Administration already has
offered many proposals. Balancing the require-
ments for energy with the desirability of enhanc-
ing the environment will require intensive
attention from Congress. As a result, many
programs may be put into mothballs for later
consideration while Congress wrestles with the
primary challenge of providing fuel to keep
America going and growing.
The Minority believes that our energy needs
must be met by a vigorous program of research
and development of more energy. We believe the
Approved For Release 2004/10363 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 CIA-RDP88-01315R900200160007-2
free market, not the tax system, should establish making, legislative craftsmen work silently in
the true price of energy.We support conservation, committees. Because the job is infinite, no one
but realize that alone it is but half the energy can do it all. At best, each Member can only con-
program. The world uses six trillion watts of centrate on those things that seem most impor-
power a year, yet some 30,000 times this potential tant, or that he or she does best.
comes to the earth in the form of sunlight alone For convenient analysis, the job can be
each year. The power of the atom has barely been broken into functions. There could be any
touched and we have billions of tons of coal. In number of subdivisions, but for simplicity's sake,
short, there is no shortage of potential energy let's take these five: (1) legislative; (2) constituent
sources. We suffer from lack of a workable services; (3) communication; (4) administration;
national energy policy, which we in the Minority (5) miscellaneous.
want the Congress to enact.
The Chinese have a curse which says: "May
you live in interesting times." The President and
the Congress certainly face "interesting times" in
the months ahead. We in the Minority welcome
these challenges. We believe that we have con-
structive alternatives, practical programs which
we intend to push with all our abilities. We will
make certain that the American people realize the
differences between our approach and those with
whom we disagree.
As Minority Leader, my job will be to unify
our forces to maximize our influence. Although
we are outmanned, we will not be outfought when
we believe we have the right solutions to the
problems of this generation and the future.
THE JOB OF A
CONGRESSMAN
Congressman Bill Frenzel
Before you can decide whether you believe
someone is doing a good or bad job, you need
to know exactly what that job is supposed to
be. Congressman Frenzel (R-Minn.) has
written an extremely important article,
analyzing the job of a Congressman. While
the previous articles in this chapter have
been concerned with the institution of the
Congress, this one focuses on the job and role
of each of the 435 individual Congressmen.
There is no "typical" handling of the job of
Congressman. Each of us goes about his or her
job in a different way. Among the 435 Members of
the House of Representatives there are generalists
and specialists, regionalists and nationalists,
those who push causes and those who are good
negotiators. Great orators are heavy on speech
Legislating: Congressman as Lawmaker
The Congressman's duties as a legislator, or
lawmaker, cover the whole process of how a bill
becomes a law. They begin with reading and re-
search on the issues, include polling of con-
stituents to discover their preferences and cli-
max in his work on committees and his votes on
the floor of the House. Legislative duties also in-
clude floor debate, speech writing, knowledge of
parliamentary procedure, and service on con-
ference committees or other special assignments
made by the Speaker of the House, the Majority
Leader, the Minority Leader or even the Presi-
dent of the United States.
Most Members of Congress assign top
priority to legislative duties. In the House, par-
ticularly, there is a heavy emphasis on committee
and subcommittee work. Each Congressman
usually serves on two committees and within each
of those he also is a member of several subcom-
mittees. In this capacity, he participates in com-
mittee and subcommittee hearings, in which
testimony is "heard" from representatives of
different groups, as well as interested individual
citizens. These hearings provide a Congressman
with a more informed and broader perspective on
the impact of a bill under consideration. With this
information he may offer amendments or alter-
natives to the original bill, may vote for the
original, or may vote against it during the com-
mittee sessions. Congressmen whose committee
attendance is regular and who "do their home-
work" are effective committee members and are
thought by their peers to be good Congressmen.
The climax of the legislative process is the
floor debate in the House (or Senate) chambers.
Most Members have pretty well decided how to
vote on a bill prior to floor debate on the basis of
committee hearings, regional or group interests of
his constituents, conversations with lobbyists or
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 4FIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 other experts on the- iR 0j$ep1uaicSflsyeIto/w0/13
Congressmen or party leaders. Only rarely are
Members' votes affected by persuasive oratory
during floor debate.
During this whole process, political con-
siderations have an importance not always dis-
cussed. While they may be outweighed by other
concerns they are nevertheless always present. If
the Congressman is a member of the political
party (here in 1977, the Democratic Party) which
occupies the White House, he has some respon-
sibility for helping to pass the President's
programs. However, this does not mean strict and
unswerving cooperation between a President and
his political party in Congress. Competition
between the President and the Congress has been
traditional and has its roots in the Constitution.
If a Congressman like myself is a member of
the political party (Republican) which is both a
minority in Congress and lost the last Presidential
election, he has the duty of modifying or trying to
defeat the Majority program when he disagrees
with it. If it is worthy he has the responsibility to
support it. The Minority always will seek to
become the Majority and will often offer alter-
natives to Majority programs as a demonstration
of what it would do if it were in power.
Constituent Services: Congressman as
Ombudsman
This is the pesty part of the job. In many
Scandinavian countries the national legislatures
appoint a special commissioner called an "om-
budsman" to hear and investigate problems or
complaints by private citizens against the govern-
ment and its agencies. In the United States there
is no such government official and ombudsman-
US HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
ty l~15RFtic iig1P .;tZYRR?R0dpgRo&o2ligressmen as
the representatives of the people.
Every Congressional office has at least one
person, usually called a "caseworker," who
handles the problems of constituents who have
been rebuffed, frustrated or harassed by the
Federal bureaucracy. In active House offices or
larger Senate offices, the casework group may be
a large team. The problems they handle range
from finding lost Social Security checks, to ex-
pediting military leaves in time of family
emergency, to securing passports and visas, or to
helping people determine their qualifications for
Federal assistance programs.
Some offices take particular pride in this
kind of work, and many Congressmen make their
local reputations on the basis of being especially
sensitive to, or having a special capability to solve,
these individual problems. Members hold office
hours throughout their districts, some in mobile
offices, in an attempt to respond to this perceived
constituent need. The case load varies, but every
office has plenty of it.
Communicating with the People:
Congressman as Representative
By far the single, most important communi-
cations function is responding to letters, phone
calls, petitions and personal requests. Each
office's mail varies but it is not unusual for a
Congressman to receive as many as 2,000 letters
per month. Many ask his position on a particular
issue; even more urge him to vote a certain way.
As a conscientious Representative he must answer
all such written inquiries. Since the advent of
automatic typewriters and more recently, com-
puters, a Congressman can now also write to
V IR
US. SENATE
100
RV
Approved For Release 2004/10/481 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13
people who are known to be interested in a par-
ticular subject (because of their occupation, group
affiliation, place of residence or other factors)
even if they have never actually written to the
Congressman. These unsolicited letters are
mailed in an effort to inform as many people as
possible of Congressional activities in specific
issue areas.
There are also a variety of communications
mediums other than personal letters. The most
familiar is the Congressional newsletter, written
periodically by nearly all Members to inform all of
their constituents of their activities. Press releases
are another important aspect of communications,
especially for Congressmen whose districts lie out-
side of major media areas. Many offices have staff
aides designated as "press assistants," who
specialize in working with the printed and elec-
tronic media. Radio tapes, local television
appearances, special telephone connections to
local schools or groups and informational
questionnaires are also employed to communicate
with constituents.
A Congressman will also return home to the
district on weekends and during recesses. The
frequency of such trips obviously depends on
where a district is located in relation to
Washington, D.C. Such trips allow a Congress-
man to report directly to people as well as to
find out directly what they are thinking. Speech-
making and meetings with constituents dominate
a Congressman's schedule when he or she is back
in the district.
Administering an Office Staff:
Congressman as Manager
Few Members of Congress would want to be
considered administrators, but it would be im-
possible for any of us to fulfill the many functions
already described without an effective staff. In
reality every Congressman has two staffs-one in
the district and one in Washington. The total of
these two offices can be up to 18 staff members;
Senators are permitted larger staffs because of
their larger constituencies.
Administering this staff can be difficult and
time consuming. Staff must be recruited, trained,
motivated and evaluated according to their
different job responsibilities. Frequent staff meet-
ings may be required both in Washington and in
the local district. If a Congressman is a committee
or subcommittee chairman, or a ranking Minority
CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
member, he must also manage huge committee
staffs. Many times our administrative functions
seem to impinge on the nobler duties.
Other Duties: Congressman as Party Member,
Group Member, Committee Chairman
This division into legislative, ombudsman,
communication and administrative functions is
arbitrary and obscures other important duties.
For instance, it ignores political responsibilities.
Each Member has a role to play within his
political party on many levels. Each Congressman
belongs to the "Congressional caucus" of his
party, which means that he participates in
decisions involving the party in Congress such as
choosing the leadership and setting a party pro-
gram. Congressmen are also looked to as leaders
of their party at the local, state and national levels
and play a leading part at party conventions on all
of these levels. As national figures they are often
asked to meet with or address political groups
from areas other than their own districts.
They may also be active in movements or
causes that are bipartisan or nonpartisan such as
environmental groups, the women's movement or
fringe liberal and conservative groups. They may
be consulted by groups in these areas and will
appear in public forums to speak on such issues.
Generally speaking, Senators are more well
known and are consulted more often than Con-
gressmen, but this is not always the case.
Committee chairmanships are another ex-
tremely important duty. Since committees are
very much at the heart of the legislative process,
being a chairman bestows a great deal of
authority and responsibility. Chairmen have
central responsibility for managing the committee
staff. They also have a dominant voice in the
committee stage of the legislative process and can
significantly influence the fate and content of a
bill.
The Congressman's day begins early and
ends late. The job is never done, because there is
more of it than any single human can do.
Members, therefore, pick those aspects that seem
most important to them or their constituents, or
they select tasks they perform well. Every Member
makes conscious selections knowing many
functions have to be left undone.
Approved For Release 2004/10/1349CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
A REPRESENTATIVE'S
VOTE:
A MATTER OF CONSCIENCE
The Honorable Brooks Hays
A CQn ressm%n Votes: (If1 er m.)
Ifelghe'd all fhe,
04r, ttm
"There were 226 roll call votes in the
Senate last year. As the clerk called our
names, those of us on the Senate floor had
to answer either `aye' or `no'. Many times
we wished an issue had never arisen. Many
times the issue itself was not clear. Many
times we felt that our truest answer was
neither `aye', nor `no', but `maybe'. Still we
could not stall by repeating the truth that
there was much to be said on both sides. In
the Senate, when our names are called,
the time for objectivity ends. We must
answer with the categorical `aye' or `no'."
Senator Paul Douglas
How does a Congressman or Senator decide
how to vote? What factors are considered?
How are the needs of the district weighed
with broader considerations of "national
interest"? Should the Congressman be a
leader of opinion, or a barometer measuring
the voices in his district?
The plain truth is that there is no simple
answer to these questions. A Congressman or
Senator must assess each vote in an attempt
to balance all of the information and
pressures. Forces such as constituent mail,
important pressure groups, support for the
party position, and a personal concept of
"national interest" are often overlapping and
conflicting. Each of the elements has to be
evaluated in light of the Congressman's or
Senator's own background, experience,
personality, public image and view of his or
her own role as a representative of the
people.
Ultimately, the most difficult decisions are
those where the Representative's sense of
what is correct conflicts with the position
popular with the constituency. It is in these
rare cases that conviction and moral
principle may clash with popularity and
expediency. The political career of Brooks
Hays focused on precisely this issue of
principle. As a Congressman from Arkansas
in the 1950's, he took a firm stand in support
of the integration of Central High School in
Little Rock, Arkansas. He acted upon his
belief in civil rights and was voted out of
office in the 1958 election by a constituency
which disagreed with his stand on this issue.
Here are his thoughts on this subject of vot-
ing one's conscience, written especially for
Perspectives.
The Congress was the focus of interest in the
deliberations that produced the Constitution and
its powers are prescribed in Article I of the Con-
stitution. Those powers were conferred by rather
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
Mr. Cwrto3+. T
have I *enot to
both s 4es of this
eontroYVYS 1 Me.,
 sweeping langua :tpydlbdbiisd Wegowv094WdMitii
granted shall be vested in a Congress of the
United States." However, included in this broad
phrase are many different roles, functions and
powers. A Congressman must be a legislator
(policymaker) and representative (spokesman for
the interests of his constituents). The Congress-
man's task is to balance the local and regional
interests which he represents with the national
interest.
Congressmen of different regions and
different parties, as well as the Congress and the
President, must cooperate, compromise and form
coalitions, if anyone's goals are to be reached.
Some dilemmas, however, test one's ability to
recognize issues that present a choice between
compromise and political expediency on the one
hand and unalterable moral principles on the
other. Expediency may be justified in efforts to
reach viable compromises, such as the funds to be
allocated for various public services, but some
questions lie outside such considerations. In
matters of social justice and human rights, for
example, there is no latitude. The admission of
nine black pupils to a Little Rock high school was
in this category, and the denial of such rights in
order to preserve one's political life would have
been less than noble. As the British philosopher
Edmund Burke told the people of Bristol, "A
representative owes the people not his energy
alone, but his judgment as well. He betrays them
if he yields his judgment to their opinion." Con-
trast this with the cynical statement of
Robespierre, a leader of the French Revolution:
"The crowd is in the street and I must see which
way they are going, for I am their leader."
We have always believed that our leaders
should have both the firmness of their con-
victions and the skill to compromise. Every good
representative, as well as every thoughtful citizen,
learns to distinguish between issues which can,
and those which cannot be compromised without
forfeiting one's principles. My observation of
political conduct covers a period of fifty years,
sixteen of which were in the Congress. It is my
belief that a far greater number of legislators
embrace this philosophy than are credited with it.
TIPS ON WRITING YOUR SENATOR OR
CONGRESSMAN
? How to address your letter:
The Honorable John Smith
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
The Honorable Mary Smith
United States House of Representative
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congresswoman Smith:
? Why write your Congressman or Senator?
a. State your position on an issue or bill being
considered by Congress;
b. Ask his/her position on an issue or bill;
c. General inquiry about his/her votes and other
activities;
d. Personal problem or question with which the
office might be able to assist you.
? If possible, Identify by number the bill which con-
cerns you. Be brief and be sure to explain why you
are concerned with this issue or bill.
? Present your views rationally. Disagree without
being disagreeable. Threatening or impolite letters
have much less Impact than do well reasoned and
sincere arguments.
? Time your letter so that it reaches your Congress-
man or Senator before a vote comes up to the floor.
? If you are concerned about a particular issue write
also to the chairman and the members of the
appropriate committee.
? Ask for a response and include your return
address.
? Personal letters are more Influential than form
letters.
? If your letter concerns a personal or family
problem, follow It up with a call to your Congress-
man's or Senator's office.
? Keep in mind that in most cases your letter will be
read and answered by an aide to the Congressman
or Senator. Some offices now use computers to
answer their mail from constituents. A Senator or
Congressman receives thousands of letters each
month and cannot personally respond to each.
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : diA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 ApWR6F. ffQ4 I$ (>? pN?1200160007-2
What do you know about those who represent you in Washington? How long have they been in office?
On what committees do they serve? Where do they stand on major issues which concern and effect you?
During the CLOSE UP week you will have the opportunity to see your Congressman and Senators at
work in the Congress. You will also meet with them in seminars. Use this chart as a tool for learning more
about your representatives.
Congressman/
Congresswoman
Name
Your Congressional
District
Political Party
Years in Office
Last Election: Year
% of Vote
Committees
Policy Areas
of Ex
ertise
p
Major Bills
S
d
ponsore
Voting Record on 5 Issues Important to You (Support/Opposition)
A)
B)
C)
D)
E)
Activities of
H
ome Office
Your General
Impressions
Approved For Release 20040/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 S& "!ase 2004/10/13 : CI6VIROP 14`It1N992qR1f14P7Aat the seniority
OF THE SENIORITY SYSTEM
Donald E. Deuster
Mr. Deuster was an official in the Nixon
Administration, in charge of Congressional
relations. This article is excerpted from a
speech he delivered to a group of students. It
was inserted into The Congressional Record
on February 1, 1971, by Congressman Philip
M. Crane (R-Illinois). It examines the virtues
of the "seniority system" under which com-
mittee chairmen were chosen according to
length of service. Mr. Deuster offers an
interesting perspective on this question of
what is the best procedural system for the
Congress to complete its work most ef-
ficiently and effectively.
Let me say a word about "your friend and
mine", the great historical and distinctively
American custom-the Congressional system of
seniority.
The seniority system is not only currently
controversial, but it seems to be eternally so. Ten
years ago in 1961 as President John F. Kennedy
took his oath of office, and as Congress organized
itself, Chairman Emanuel Celler of the House
Judiciary Committee felt compelled to make this
statement:
"It is a rare session of Congress that does not produce its
share of proposals to abolish that perennial red herring-
the so-called `Seniority rule'. This long-standing Con-
gressional tradition, under which the House and Senate
organize their working committees, has become as popular
a target as sin itself.
It is intermittently bombarded by Democrats and by
Republicans, by liberals and by conservatives, depending
largely upon whose ox is being gored."
Yes, indeed, even today the seniority system
still serves as a whipping boy for the frustrations
of everyone whose favorite legislation somehow
fails to sail as swiftly, as smoothly and as uncere-
moniously through Congress as its proponents
would like.
Few practices of our Congress are so continu-
ously controversial, so widely criticized, so
generally misunderstood and so rarely defended.
Speaking as a friend of this beneficial
American tradition, and speaking as one who
serves as a "professional peacemaker" for Presi-
dent Nixon on Capitol Hill, allow me to simply
system contributes to the functioning of our
Congress:
1. Harmony
2. Efficiency
3. Stability
4. Continuity
5. Familiarity
6. Maturity.
What is this seniority system? How does it in-
ject these virtues into the workings of Congress?
What is the basis of my opinion? How is the cause
of good government served by seniority?
What is the Seniority System?
First, you will not find the seniority system in
the Constitution, in the Rules of the Senate or
House, in Jefferson's Manual, nor in any other
official document. It is not a law nor a rule of
Congress but simply a practice observed and res-
pected by both political parties in the House since
1911 and in the Senate for over a century.
Simply, seniority means that in each of the
committees of Congress the member of the major-
ity party with the longest continuous service on
that committee automatically becomes chairman.
What does it mean to be chairman?
Essentially, the chairman is the presiding officer
of the committee. He is responsible for the effi-
cient functioning of his committee. He schedules
hearings, invites and welcomes witnesses, presides
over public hearings and executive sessions,
supervises the work of the professional staff, and
symbolically he sits in the big chair under the flag
and holds the gavel.
Can he be a dictator? Not for long. Yes, the
chairman has powers, but they are usually over-
rated. Yes, he hires the professional staff. But,
since the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946
most of the professional staff are able to stay on in
their jobs notwithstanding changes in the chair-
manship.
Should the chairman become tyrannical or
obstreperous, the majority of his committee has
the power to change the rules and strip him of his
power. And, it has been done.
Can the chairman kill a bill? Not if a deter-
mined majority inside his committee or in the
Congress want to pass it. Any time the chairman
or even his entire committee refuse to report out a
bill, a simple majority of the House or Senate may
sign a discharge petition and bring the bill to the
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 53lA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 ftV
r F r 0 /13 : CIA-R 88
floor for a vote. c~i geed ow oes en or ty ring ability?
Committee of the House as well, 315 0 02 0 Q007-
How Does Seniority Produce Harmony?
The seniority system contributes to the
internal harmony and peace inside the Congress
by quietly, quickly and automatically elevating
the most senior and experienced majority party
member to the chairmanship.
This avoids having a rough and tumble
political campaign inside each of the thirty-seven
Congressional committees at the start of every
Congress. Seniority avoids the wheeling and deal-
ing, the power plays, the intrigue, the deals,
promises, back-slapping, apple-polishing and
vicious personality clashes that such election
campaigns can produce.
How Does Seniority Make for Efficiency?
Seniority rewards those members who stick
with one committee and thereby move up the
leadership ladder. The system discourages
hopping about from one committee to another de-
pending upon where the political grass looks
greenest at the moment.
Seniority avoids the waste attendant upon
drastic changeovers of committee personnel. By
enticing Members to stay with one committee and
one general subject matter area, the custom
guarantees relative stability in a political world
that is generally characterized by change and job
insecurity.
Members of Congress come and go depend-
ing on the election day desires of the American
voter. To the extent that some stability can be
woven into the management structure of our
national affairs, the seniority system helps im-
measurably.
Seniority enables Congressional committees
to organize quickly and get on with the public
business. No time need be wasted in agonizing
and debilitating political campaigns for the chair-
manship, nor in healing the resulting wounds and
bitterness.
Enough time and difficulty is associated with
the assignment of the new freshmen Members to
the committees. At the beginning of this 92nd
Congress all fifty-six freshmen House Members
and eleven freshmen Senators-sixty-seven
ambitious men and women-received a com-
mittee assignment. This task alone called for jug-
gling and sorting the conflicting desires of new
and old Members alike to join the most
prestigious and politically attractive committees. .
wa_ w
F
4
w
~
P
s d~
xt
e r
u
~ood +
15,
it'
~ R;
--
fi a u.5. Co-1517f~55m&n..,, r-
Why Does Seniority Mean Continuity?
Most of our national problems creep up on
us gradually, It may take ten or twenty years for
local problems to become national in scope.
Hearings may be held one year by a Congressional
committee and no Federal law passed for another
three or four years. This was the case with the
famous Medicare program....
The seniority system encourages Congress-
men to stay on one committee and thus become
experts in one subject area. Thereby, they ac-
quire through personal experience great know-
ledge concerning the development and long-term
solution of our national problems.
`W411,ifhe 5e it the Co
6e1(-na.n ` of M&fi -j-he i'es5f6nal
~,mm~+fees
Approved For Release 2004/10/$Z: CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/1 0 13 : CIA-RF 8-qJc 49 Qr~1t~i00P7
This beneficial system assures us that the o on s e e ions article, so
leadership of our legislative committees will be in
the hands of men with the greatest experience.
The system insures expertise and continuity.
it is advisable to read both articles and then
compare their arguments.
The purpose of government is to serve and
protect the lives and interests of its people. His-
How Does Seniority Bring About Familiarity? tory teaches us that this purpose has often been
Committee members not only become
familiar with the scope of problems under the
subject matter jurisdiction, but also the member-
ship of the House and Senate, the leaders of the
executive branch, and the leaders of the
American public become familiar with the com-
mittee leaders.
Many a committee-indeed, most com-
mittees-are highly respected on the floor of the
House and Senate because of the personal
prestige, character, expertise and reliability of the
committee chairman, and also his various sub-
committee chairmen. Over the years we learn that
a chairman's word and judgment can be trusted.
Seniority Means Maturity
Critics call it the system of senility. Perhaps a
few old men are as feeble and senile as a few
young men are rash and foolish. Yet, in my per-
sonal experience, the great preponderance of
committee chairmen and the older Members of
Congress are wise, alert, intelligent, mellow,
kindly, moderate and mature....
Through these long years of wrestling with
national and international problems-the De-
pression, war, defense, foreign aid, taxes, civil
rights, poverty, welfare, and more recently, the
environment and the need for reform of the
Federal bureaucracy and revenue sharing with the
states and local governments-Members of
Congress develop deep philosophic perspectives,
great wisdom and maturity....
A NEW ERA IN
CONGRESSIONAL REFORM
Congressman Bob Carr
Congressman Carr (D-Mich.) was first
elected to Congress in 1975. One of the many
freshmen elected in that first post-Water-
gate election, he has been a leading advocate
of Congressional reform. He originally wrote
this article for Perspectives 77 and has since
updated it, so as to cover events of the last
months of the 94th Congress. Congressman
Carr presents a contrasting position to that
misdirected when the governing process is con-
trolled by one person or a small group of in-
dividuals.
Our democratic form of government was de-
signed to guard against the overconcentration of
power. In our system of checks and balances,
governmental authority is distributed evenly
through three branches of government. The needs
and interests of the American people are repre-
sented in Congress. Congress serves as the vital
link between the American people and the law-
making process. In theory, it is to be the most res-
ponsive and representative institution in our
Federal government.
However, over the years, Congress has been
plagued by the very problems it was designed to
solve. Its ability to respond to the needs of the
people has been frustrated by corruption, poor
leadership, inefficiency, and most seriously, the
concentration of power in the hands of the few.
These problems were long hidden from the view of
the public. In the aftermath of Watergate, how-
ever, the American people recognized the need for
significant changes in the way our government is
run. In 1974, more than 70 new Democrats were
elected to serve in the 94th Congress. In 1976 an
additional 47 new Democrats were elected on top
of the re-election of all but one of the "Class of
'74." This unprecedented influx of fresh, young
minds has proved to be the needed impetus to
launch a new era of Congressional reform.
Reforming the Seniority System
When we arrived in Washington for the 94th
Congress, the major problem which first
confronted us was the committee structure of the
House of Representatives. In the committees are
vested the authority to revise, amend, and even
"kill" legislation before it can be brought to the
full House for voting. In the past committee chair-
manships were chosen according to seniority. This
meant that the Members with the most years of
service were allotted total power over the legis-
lative process.
Because this power was based solely upon
longevity, there was virtually no way to guard
against incompetence and abuse. The senior
Members' positions were secure and protected by
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 56IA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 seniority. Their actid 'S$81iia rvF&IRB? sc1t0113 h --5RcPn88--tll 11M%4pgci1 q fl@Oi7a?t three years
to challenge and influence of the rest of the
House.
By forming a powerful bloc of first-year and
junior Representatives in the Democratic Caucus
of the 94th Congress, we managed to overturn
many of the procedures which perpetuated the
seniority system, We democratized the procedures
for the nomination and election of committee
chairmen, and the selection process for committee
and subcommittee positions. We opened com-
mittee sessions to the public. In effect, we spread
the House power and authority and opened up the
decision-making process to include more
Members of the House. It was no coincidence that
three chairmen were removed from their long-
held positions in January of 1974, and a fourth
was forced to resign in June of 1976. No Congress
had ever experienced such a heavy turnover of
power.
Reforms Have Continued in the 95th Congress
After this first wave of reforms by the newer
Members of Congress, reform efforts were slowed
down temporarily. Then a new epidemic of
scandals late in 1976 provided the impetus for a
comprehensive, sweeping series of reforms at the
beginning of the 95th Congress in 1977. Aided by
the 47 new members elected in November, 1976,
and the new Speaker of the House Tip (Thomas
P.) O'Neill, reforms were approved in early 1977
that completely revised the way things are done in
the House. Among these reforms were require-
ments for comprehensive financial disclosure
statements, strict limits on gifts from outside
sources, abolition of "slush fund" unofficial office
accounts, limits on outside income, and a ban on
"lame duck" travel by retiring members.*
In addition, the Democratic Caucus in
December of 1976 approved an amendment to the
House rules which opens up conference com-
mittee meetings to the public. It is in conference
committees that differences in House and Senate
bills are worked out. This rule change will put an
end to the shady horse-trading that has some-
times gone on in these conferences. It removes
that last vestige of secrecy from the public legis-
lative process.
Only 15 years ago, the implementation of
such wide-ranging reforms in Congress would
*Editor's Note: "Lame duck" refers to a government
official who has been defeated or who has announced his re-
tirement but still holds office until his term expires.
there has been much accomplished to give Con-
gress back to the people and to clean up the leg-
islative process as was accomplished in the
previous 50 years.
This is not to say that we can all relax, that
all necessary reforms have been made. Junkets,
Congressional pleasure trips at taxpayer expense,
are proving to be one of the most difficult nuts to
crack. A rules change, which I introduced in
December to place just a few light controls on
Congressional travel, went down to ignominious
defeat. Two bills which I have introduced to
control junkets are languishing in committee. In
addition, constant vigilance will be necessary to
ensure that there is no backsliding on the reforms
we have made in recent years; for example, an
effort has already been made to slip around my
rules change to require open conference com-
mittees.
The architects of our form of democracy de-
signated Congress to be the most responsive and
representative arm of our Federal government. In
theory democracy will not work if Congress does
not fulfill its purpose. In practice over the last 200
years, we have seen that our democratic processes
are weakest when Congress does not respond
efficiently and effectively to the needs of the
American people. Fortunately, we have learned
the lessons of history. We now realize that
Congress must be dynamic and flexible in the way
it operates. Power and authority must be dis-
tributed equally to all Members of Congress.
Openness, accountability and efficiency must be
promoted. In essence, Congress must change as
the society it represents changes.
bribes, Scan&js,
L*h ve1'h$stt~
of fl 4. rafttre
Gon 1GbiionAl A419 1M
Approved For Release 2004/10/41) : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 A~4/1 0113 : CL A
geograpnic, sociolo
gical tffr0ftVgical and economic
FRESHMEN VIEWS diversity. It spans a distance from the Atlantic
O n and Chesa Pak. Ba in the east to the
cea
OF THE HOUSE
AND SENATE
In the 1976 elections 70 freshmen Congress-
men and 18 freshmen Senators were elected
to the U.S. Congress. Most had previously
held elected office. Some of the Senators had
been Congressmen and some of the new
Congressmen had served in state and local
government. Others had never before worked
in government. Regardless of past ex-
perience, the transition to these new
positions is always very significant. While
freshmen do not have the power of more
senior members, they do provide a fresh per-
spective on the institutions in which they
serve.
1) As a first term Senator who had
previously been a Congressman, what are
your impressions of the major differences in
the responsibilities of these two positions?
2) As a freshman Congressman, how do
the realities of the House of Representatives
differ from your expectations? Which of the
many responsibilities of your office have de-
manded the greatest time and energy?
Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland):
As a former member of the House of Repre-
sentatives and now, as a first-term Senator from
Maryland, I have perceived a number of diff-
erences between the two legislative bodies. One
significant difference is the increased size and
diversity of the Senatorial constituency.
As a member of the House, I represented a
district in Baltimore with an approximate popu-
lation of 500,000. As a Senator, I now represent
more than 4,000,000 people throughout Maryland
who reflect a wider range of problems and
concerns.
There is, however, a very significant simi-
larity between the two representative functions in
that you must respond to a basically fundamental
set of concerns. Throughout the state citizens are
deeply interested in matters such as housing, edu-
cation, employment, care for the elderly, en-
vironmental protection and health care.
As you may know, Maryland has sometimes
been called "America in miniature," because of
p y
Appalachian mountains in the west. It includes
major metropolitan areas in Baltimore and the
suburbs of Washington, D.C., and has large
agricultural areas in the eastern, southern, cen-
tral and western parts of the state. Economically,
it has very important marine-related industries in
the east, major manufacturing and industrial
plants in Baltimore, and large agricultural and
recreation-related businesses throughout the
state.
Accordingly, a state-wide constituency re-
quires continuous attention to the needs of all
sectors of the state.
As an indication of the increased responsi-
bility and requests for assistance from con-
stituents, the amount of mail I receive has in-
creased by four times to its current rate of more
than 1,200 letters weekly.
In summary, I have found in the Senate as
well as in the House that, although there is a
broader range of state and constituent matters
which require attention, the fundamental con-
cerns of people remain constant.
Senator Spark Matsunaga (D-Hawaii):
I was elected to the Senate after serving for
14 years in the U.S. House of Representatives. My
decision to give up my House seat was not made
lightly. I believed that the Senate, a smaller body,
would offer me a better opportunity to serve the
people of Hawaii. The House has 435 members.
There are 43 House members from California, 39
from New York, 25 from Pennsylvania, 24 from
Texas-and only two from Hawaii. Even though I
served on the powerful Rules Committee and was
a Deputy Majority Whip, I found that people out-
side the State of Hawaii were generally not inter-
ested in my views on national issues.
On the whole, my expectations have been
borne out during my first five months in the
Senate. I was amazed, in the first few weeks after
the election, at the number of people who sought
my views. Moreover, the new Senate leadership
has been very responsive to the needs of incoming
freshmen. I received all three committee assign-
ments I requested-Finance, Energy and Natural
Resources, and Veterans Affairs. In addition, I
was appointed Chief Deputy Majority Whip and
named chairman of one subcommittee and vice
chairman of two others-posts to which a House
freshman could never aspire. In most cases, I have
Approved For Release 2004/10/135IA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 found my Senate c g i,61q~treF &9p %Ad1 0/13: CIAflRupmo8st0V~gFt% igipgs1 a eQ apportunity to
and hard working.
It is true that some of the Senate rules are a
bit archaic. The House has been quicker, in
recent years, to adopt significant reforms and to
take advantage of technological changes. Less
time is wasted on the House floor because floor
debate is strictly limited. However, the Senate
leadership is extremely sensitive and sympathetic
to change in this area, and I believe that the
Senate will show marked improvement in the near
future. I hope to play a major role in this effort.
Congressman James A. Leach (R-Iowa):
We've gone through a very difficult period in
American history. In the space of a short decade,
we've witnessed the commitment of more than a
million young men to a war thousands of miles
from our shore; the forced resignation of a Presi-
dent and recently the revelation that Members of
Congress may have been unduly influenced by
foreign governments.
A first-term Congressman normally does not
have a powerful voice in the legislative process.
But all of us share equally the burden of re-es-
tablishing trust in government. Trust is not an
easy concept. It isn't partisan and it doesn't have
much to do with stands on particular issues. What
does count is integrity of judgment and meaning-
ful participation.
As freshmen, a number of us have been ex-
tremely concerned with these two principles. We
don't think you can have integrity of voting judg-
ment if, to get elected, you have to become in-
debted to special interest groups. We also don't
think there can be meaningful participation if,
after an election, a freshman Congressman finds
all influence is wielded by a few senior Members..
Accordingly, ethics reform and the seniority
system have been two of the major targets of
freshmen Members of Congress in recent years.
While some headway has been made in these
areas, most freshmen believe that we need to
continue our efforts to achieve an open and res-
ponsible ethics code and a fairer committee
system. In our roles as junior Members, we have
attempted to make Congress more accountable
for its decisions. We may not have won all our
battles but our impact clearly has been felt.
Being a freshman, as Charles Dickens once
said, is "the best of times and the worst of times."
It is an enlightening experience, an educational
and rewarding experience and sometimes a frus-
trating experience.
serve people and their concerns and to work for a
better future for our nation. In this regard, there
is no difference between a freshman Member like
myself or a senior Member of twenty years stand-
ing. Freshmen don't have to learn this fact. It's
the reason we chose to seek the office.
Congresswoman Mary Rose Oakar (D-Ohio):
I see the 95th Congress as a much more res-
ponsive legislative body than the stereotyped
image of a staid assembly. More than 50 percent
of our Members have served less than three terms.
As a freshman I have found a new, creative spirit
that penetrates the traditional seniority system.
Today's freshmen are more aware of the in-
tricacies of legislative procedures and maneuver-
ing on the House floor. Previously this was re-
served for more veteran members attempting to
ramrod amendments by avoiding the scrutiny of
public committee hearings. By learning about
House procedure we can rise to the occasion for
the defense and benefit of our constituents.
Specialized caucuses, groups concerned with
specific policy issues, help to keep us informed.
As a member of the New Members Caucus,
another caucus just for Congresswomen, and the
newest for former "blue-collar" workers, I receive
valuable perspectives on proposed legislation.
These provide the impetus for amendments of my
own that can alter bills to make them more equit-
able to my constituents.
All of these signs of progress keep the
Capitol dome from being perceived as an un-
touchable"ivory tower" that lords over the voters.
Instead new members are leading the effort to re-
build the trust between our people and the
government since the erosion that came with
Watergate. Our tough ethics code to limit outside
sources of income and require strict accounting
procedures was the first step toward rebuilding
that confidence.
To rebuild, we must know the impact of our
actions. That is why so much of my "free" time is
spent doing homework to prepare for committee
work and House votes. Nearly every weekend I
return to my home district in Ohio to talk to as
many constituents as possible so that I can best
represent them in Washington.
Approved For Release 2004/10/35 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 THE CO MYcef :/13 : CI6-MW8;A1393991?~997fi~ally to conduct
Q&A
What is a committee?
A committee is a subdivision of a larger or-
ganization. Committees are given specialized
functions by the larger "parent" body. In the case
of the U.S. Congress, committees are bodies
which have been granted jurisdiction to prepare
legislation and to conduct investigations in a
particular policy area. Both the House and the
Senate have their own committees.
What is a subcommittee?
A subcommittee is a subdivision of a com-
mittee, with an even more specialized jurisdiction.
In the accompanying table, the number of sub-
committees of each committee is listed in paren-
theses.
Are there an equal number of Democrats and
Republicans on each committee?
No, membership on committees is not split
50-50 between Democrats and Republicans. In
the present Congress there are roughly two
Democrats for every one Republican on each
committee. This is proportional to the total ratio
of Democrats to Republicans in each chamber.
What are the powers of committees?
Other than exceptional or emergency cases,
committees must pass all bills before they can be
voted on by the full House or Senate. This gives to
committees the power to amend, rewrite and
propose alternative bills.
A second important power of committees is
"oversight," to ensure that the laws passed by
Congress are properly enforced and carried out.
This includes investigations of the executive
branch, of private businesses or organizations
subject to federal laws.
Are there different kinds of committees?
Yes, there are three major classifications:
standing, select and joint committees.
A standing committee is a permanent com-
mittee which has jurisdiction over a specific policy
area. There are 22 standing committees in the
House, 15 in the Senate; see the accompanying
table for the names.
A select, or special, committee is established
for a special purpose and a limited period of time.
An example was the Senate Select Committee on
Presidential Campaign Activites, commonly
known as the Senate Watergate Committee,
hearings on Watergate in 1973.
A joint committee has members from both the
House and the Senate. These are primarily in-
vestigative in nature and do not have the same
functions in considering actual legislation as do
standing committees. These are also listed on the
table.
How are committee chairmen selected?
Committee chairmen are always members of
the majority party; presently, this means that all
are Democrats. They are chosen by a vote of the
Democratic caucus in each chamber, the organi-
zation of all Democratic Members. Until 1974,
chairmen had been selected according to the
"seniority system," which meant that the
Members of each committee with the most years
in Congress automatically became chairmen.
Reforms passed in 1974 by the party opened up
the chairmanship so that seniority was not the
only factor. (See the articles by Donald Deuster
and Congressman Bob Carr in this chapter.)
What are the powers of chairmen?
Committee chairmen have vast powers to
control legislation. They decide which bills are to
be considered by the committee; whether or not
hearings should be held; and in most cases, they
select the chairmen of the subcommittees. Chair-
men also are frequently the floor managers of a
bill, after it has been passed by the committee and
is on the floor. If the bill needs to go to conference
committee, the committee chairman is a likely
appointee. Finally, they have a great deal of
control over the hiring of staff for the committee.
What is a conference committee?
Many times the House and the Senate will
pass different versions of a bill. Before a bill can
be sent to the President, the same version must be
agreed upon by both the House and the Senate. It
is the conference committees which must work
out the compromises necessary to eliminate the
differences.
A very large percentage of bills end up going
to conference committees. These bodies have
often been referred to as "the third house of
Congress," because in working out the differences
they will frequently make significant amendments
or deletions. After a bill is passed by the
conference committee, it goes back to both the
House and the Senate to be voted on again. Both
chambers must vote "yea" for it to be sent to the
President.
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 gf IA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 THE CONGRESS AND ITS COMMITTEES
U.S. SENATE
Standing Committees
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry (7)*
Appropriations (13)
Armed Services (8)
Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs (8)
Budget
Commerce, Science and Transportation (6)
Energy and Natural Resources (5)
Environment and Public Works (6)
Finance (10)
Foreign Relations (9)
Governmental Affairs (7)
Human Resources (8)
Judiciary (10)
Rules and Administration
Veterans' Affairs (3)
Select or Special Committees
Aging
Ethics
Indian Affairs
Intelligence (6)
Nutrition and Human Needs
Small Business (6)
Joint Committees
Atomic Energy
Congressional Operations
Defense Productions (2)
Economic (5)
Taxation
Library
Printing
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Standing Committees
Agriculture (10)
Appropriations (13)
Armed Services (7)
Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs (10)
Budget
District of Columbia (3)
Education and Labor (9)
Government Operations (7)
House Administration (7)
Interior and Insular Affairs (6)
International Relations (9)
Interstate and Foreign Commerce (6)
Judiciary (7)
Merchant Marine and Fisheries (6)
Post Office and Civil Service (7)
Public Works and Transportation (6)
Rules
Science and Technology (7)
Small Business (5)
Standards of Official Conduct
Veterans' Affairs (5)
Ways and Means (6)
Select or Special Committees
Aging (4)
Assassinations (2)
Congressional Operations
Ethics
House Beauty Shop
Narcotics Abuse and Control
Joint Committees
(same as above listing under U.S. Senate)
*For each committee, the number of subcommittees is indicated in parentheses.
SPECIAL CLOSE UP GUIDE TO CAPITOL MLL
1. The House and Senate Office Buildings
There is an easy system which will help you find your way around Capitol Hill. The numbers of the
offices of all Congressmen and Senators indicate the specific building in which the office is located:
Congressmen
4 digit number beginning with "2"-Rayburn House Office Building (RHOB)
4 digit number beginning with "1"-Longworth House Office Building (LHOB)
3 digit number-Cannon House Office Building (CHOB)
Senators
4 digit number-Dirksen, or New, Senate Office Building (DOB)
3 digit number-Russell, or Old, Senate Office Building (ROB)
Approved For Release 2004/10/': CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : Cl RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
II. Committee hearings
The same number system applies to committee hearing rooms. Committee hearings are generally
open to the public; for national security and certain other overriding reasons, a committee session may be
"closed." These sessions give you an opportunity to see Congressmen or Senators debating each other
and questioning witnesses-it is a genuine glimpse of Congress at work. The schedule of committee
sessions appears daily under "Today's Activities in Congress" in Section A of The Washington Post. This
listing explains which committees are meeting, what bills are under consideration and who is testifying.
III. The House of Representatives and the Senate
To enter into either the House or Senate galleries, you need a Visitor's Pass. Your CLOSE UP
Program Instructor will take care of obtaining these for you. From a seat in the gallery you can observe
the proceedings on the floor, learn about the issues as well as legislative procedures and probably
recognize some Congressmen and Senators. While in the galleries you must strictly observe the rules-no
photographs, no reading, no writing and no talking.
IV. Bills and Resolutions
H. R. #
A bill is a proposal before the Congress. It is labelled "H.R." if it originates in the House and "S.R."
if in the Senate. The number indicates how many bills have been previously introduced in the 95th
Congress. If passed by both the House and the Senate and signed by the President, or overridden, it
becomes a public law. It is then labelled "P.L." and receives another number indicating how many laws
have been previously passed in the 95th Congress (P.L. 95- # ).
H.J. Res. #
A joint resolution is similar to a bill. If it is passed in the same manner, it also becomes a public law.
Joint resolutions are generally used for the introduction of constitutional amendments.
Resolutions and Concurrent Resolutions
H. Res. -# H. Con. Res. 2
S. Res. # S. Con. Res. -#
These types of resolutions do not become laws if passed. They generally deal with internal matters,
such as rules changes, and therefore do not have to be signed by the President. They also are introduced
to call for a vote which expresses the "sense of the House (or Senate, or both)" on a matter of principle,
without passing a public law. A simple resolution only applies to one chamber, while the concurrent
resolution includes both.
V. "The Bells on the Hill"
During your time on Capitol Hill you will frequently hear bells and see flashing lights next to clocks.
Don't be alarmed-this is only a code system which informs Congressmen and Senators of what is going
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 :6CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 A roved For Release 2004/10/13: CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
on in the House and Senate oors respectively. There will be the same number of white flashing lights as
there are bells. There is also a red light which stays on whenever the House and Senate are in session.
Here is a key to the bell system:
House Senate
2 bells-Recorded vote 1 bell -Recorded vote
3 bells-Quorum call 2 bells-Quorum call
4 bells-Adjournment 3 bells-Mandatory quorom call
5 bells-Temporary recess 4 bells-Adjournment
5 bells-Five minute warning on recorded vote
6 bells-Temporary recess
VI. Useful Telephone Numbers
Capitol Switchboard 224-3121
(The telephone numbers of all Congressmen and Senators)
Bill Status Office 225-1772
Senate Cloakrooms
(To find out if a particular bill is on the calendar, on
the floor or has been passed or defeated recently)
Republican 224-8541
Democrat 224-8601
(Tape recorded message which tells you what action was
taken in the Senate on that day and/or the previous day,
as well as what the next day's calendar is).
House Cloakrooms
Republican 225-7430
Democrat 225-7400
(Same information as above, for the House)
VII. How and Where to Obtain Written Information
Government Printing Office
U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402
The Government Printing Office (GPO) is the best place to start looking for most government
documents, reports, books, pamphlets and other publications. While in Washington, you can visit the
main bookstore at 710 North Capitol Street or call at [phone]. Whether inquiring by mail, phone
or in person, you must have the number and name of the publication which you desire. Check your local
telephone directory, as there may be a GPO bookstore in a city near you.
House and Senate Document Rooms
House Document Room Senate Document Room
H-226 Capitol S-325 Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515 Washington, D.C. 20510
This is where to write or visit to obtain copies of bills, resolutions, public laws and legislative calendars. If
the document was passed by or pertains to the Senate, write to the Senate Document Room, and if the
document pertains to the House, write to the House Document Room. Generally these documents are
free. If you order by mail, enclose a self-addressed mailing label.
Approved For Release 2004110W : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 A proved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
House and Senate Committees
House Committee Senate Committee
United States House of Representatives United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20515 Washington, D.C. 20510
Many times you can obtain hearing reprints and reports by writing directly to the appropriate House or
Senate committee. Or you can visit the main committee office while on Capitol Hill to make your request
in person. It is helpful to know the document numbers.
GLOSSARY: Legislative Procedure
Amendments? proposals to add or alter the language and provisions of a bill from the original version; do not confuse with
Amendments to the Constitution.
Authorization-this is the first stage in how a bill becomes a law; a bill is passed which outlines a program and in most cases
sets a ceiling on the maximum amount of funds which it may receive.
Appropriation-after an authorization bill has been passed, another bill is introduced (normally, in the House) which will set
the specific amount of funds for the program. This appropriation may be equal to or less than the figure established in the
authorization bill.
Bill-a proposal to the legislature. If passed a bill becomes a law, and is then referred to as an Act of Congress.
Cloture-an attempt to limit debate by setting an exact time when the vote will be taken. Requires 16 sponsors to be
introduced and must have a two-thirds vote to pass. A tactic used as a counterstrategy to filibuster.
Filibuster-parliamentary strategy used by a minority in opposition to a bill. Most common in the Senate, where the rules of
unlimited debate are utilized to stall a vote which would probably mean defeat.
Floor Manager-manages the bill on the floor of the House or Senate through debate and towards passage. Generally is the
chairman or a ranking member of the committee which reported the bill.
Hearings-committee sessions in the preliminary stages of writing a bill. Witnesses testify on different aspects of the subject
under consideration, and include governmental and other experts on the issue as well as groups who have a particular interest
in the area. In the last few years most hearings have been opened to the public; some are closed because of national security or
other reasons.
Mark Up-after hearings have been completed, this is the final work of the Committee in preparing a completed bill to be
given to the entire chamber for consideration. If extensive revisions are made from the original, one of the committee
members introduces it as a "clean bill"; that is, significantly different from the original.
Ninety Fifth (95)-every Congress meets for two years, divided into two annual sessions. The 95th Congress convened in
January 1977 for its first session and in January 1978 for its second.
Quorum-50% of the members plus one, the minimum presence necessary for business to be transacted.
Ratification-refers to the passage of a treaty. Treaties differ from other bills in that they must be approved only by the Senate
but by a 2/3 majority.
Riders-parliamentary maneuver in which a proposal which would be unlikely to be enacted by itself is attached to a bill
which has a good chance of passing. Differs from an amendment in that it is not necessarily closely related to the subject of the
main part of the bill.
Rules Committee-only exists in the House. Decides on what procedure a bill will follow; for example, whether or not amend-
ments may be added, how much debate will be allowed. A favorable rule can make passage more likely.
Sponsor-member(s) who officially sign their names to a bill as its authors and sponsor its introduction to the chamber.
Table a Bill-motion to remove a bill from consideration, means defeat for it.
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 :6gA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved Fol- Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
JhE CloaE "U/2 'foundation
dEdicat&i this c1 al2tE4 to tfiE
nEmoz y of the latE G1I.L f24EmE
(Jouzt u3.ticE 9oYn ?.
?fa,4 wfio.E ftLEncI I ifz and
cuildom 3.EZ.uEGt ai an in-
s./2i'tation to countLESs
itudEnt. f''om acto3i tI
countzy.
4.
THE SUPREME COURT AND THE JUDICIARY:
Equal Justice and Supremacy of the Law
'Justice, sir, is the great interest of mean on earth.
It is the ligament which holds civilized beings and
civilized nations together. "
"Equal Justice Under Law"-these words inscribed above the entrance to the Supreme Court affirm
the central principle upon which our political system operates, the creed that is the firm foundation for
the continued existence of our society. The Law must be supreme over men, and the ultimate goal shall
be equality of justice for all human beings. These are standards and ideals which must be adhered to by
Congresses and Presidents alike, by all government officals and all citizens. Our history has time and
again testified to the fact that a separate and independent judiciary is the vital cog in a political system
based on separation of powers and checks and balances.
The Supreme Court, as the Highest Court in the land, has been the guardian of the Constitution and
the ultimate authority in matters of law and justice. The late Tom C. Clark, who served as a Supreme
Court Justice for 18 years, presents you with his thoughts on the role of the Supreme Court in an exclusive
interview. Following this fascinating talk with one of the leading figures in the history of our nation's
judicial system, Professor Adrian Fisher of Georgetown University Law Center discusses the powers of
the Supreme Court in greater detail.
Yet the judicial system does not only consist of the Supreme Court. There are other federal courts, as
well as state and local courts, which have the authority to settle disputes between citizens and their
government, as well as those between individual citizens within their jurisdiction. Included is a diagram
which sketches the structure of the judiciary at all levels of government and the How a Case Reaches the
Supreme Court exercise offers a case study of how the appeals process works.
Many of us don't realize the extent to which laws affect our daily lives. Reading You and the Law will
help you appreciate how many different kinds of laws exist and how many different ways they are
important to us. The final article in the chapter, written by a U.S. Attorney, analyzes in a very clear,
step-by-step style one particular kind of law, that of the criminal justice process. As you read all of the
articles in this chapter, think about your perspective on the meaning of "equal justice" and "supremacy
of the law," for these concepts lie at the very foundation of our society.
Approved For Release 2004/10%1 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 PE1 ' ' 004/10/13 : CI/a-,1P o8s8e p1
5?00000 AQ) 63 once called the
: 9f
THE SUPREME COURT
An Interview with the Late
Supreme Court Justice
Tom C. Clark
The interview was conducted on August 23,
1976 in Justice Clark's chambers in the
Surpreme Court, exclusively for Perspectives.
On June 13, 1977 Justice Tom C. Clark died
after more than 50 years as a lawyer and
judge. He served as Attorney General from
1945 to 1949, when President Harry Truman
appointed him as an Associate Justice of the
Supreme Court. He was a member of the
Court until 1967, resigning because of a
potential conflict of interest which arose
when his son, Ramsey Clark, was named
Attorney General.
Chief Justice Warren Burger eulogized Tom
Clark, saying that "no one in the past thirty
years has contributed more to the improve-
ment of justice. " Even after leaving the
Supreme Court, he continued working for a
better system of justice. The Close Up
Foundation will always be gratefulforJustice
Clark's valued contributions to the education
of the thousands of our students with whom
he shared his time and wisdom through
innumerable seminars, as well as through
this enlightening interview.
Supreme Court the balance wheel in our
system. Justice (Robert H.) Jackson said that the
Court's function was nothing less than being an
arbiter between rival forces in the society. After
your many years of service on the Court, how do
you see its role in our political system?
A-Justice Clark: Well, I think that Chief Justice
(Warren) Burger put it pretty well when he said,
"If you want to play a baseball game, what do you
have? You have an umpire, otherwise the game is
going to end up in a riot before the nine innings
are played." I rather think that the Court is
somewhat of an umpire. It considers what the
Congress proposes, or what the Executive
disposes, or what some individual claims, and
rules upon them by comparing them with the law
as laid down by the Constitution... and then calls
the strikes and the balls.
The Watergate case was a good example of
how it is the Supreme Court's responsibility to
decide whether or not the Congress or the
President has exercised the authority given them
in the Constitutional way. I attended a conference
in London a few months ago-after a thousand
years without a written bill of rights, the English
are contemplating drawing one up-and the
people there were quite frank about their
impressions of Watergate. They seriously
questioned what might have occurrred to our
federal government during Watergate if the
judiciary had not been a separate, independent
branch.
You also should remember that we on the
Court serve another role. If the decisions of the
other two branches are in keeping with
Constitutional doctrine, we use our authority to
uphold them. And if a citizen doesn't volun-
tarily follow the rules laid down by the Congress
or by the President or by other courts, why then
it's our job to enforce those rules so that he will
suffer some punishment or reprimand.
Q-Close Up: Justice William H. Taft once said
that courts are composed of people, and one
would be foolish to deny that courts are not
affected by the time in which the Justices live.
How much do you think the needs of the times
affect the decisions of the Court? How is public
opinion brought into the process of taking cases
and making decisions?
A-Justice Clark: Well, I served 18 years on the
bench and, frankly, I myself doubt if any public
clamor or any political manipulation on the Court
can be effective. I did get quite a few letters from
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : BIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13
all over the country about various things, but I
don't think any of those things influenced my
thinking on legal matters which were involved.
Yet, we are influenced by the necessities of
the time. Every year there are new cases, new
people who come "knockin' on our door" with
constitutional questions which need to be re-
solved. Take, for example, the criminal field. We
started out with the case of Griffin v. Illinois* in
which Griffin said, "I'm being charged with
murder, which is a felony, and I ought to be
entitled to read the transcript of what went on in
the courtroom. I'm just a layman and couldn't
remember everything. Without a transcript, I
wouldn't be able to appeal to a higher court." So,
when this came to us (the Supreme Court) on
appeal, we ruled that defendants are entitled to a
transcript.
But once they got the transcript they couldn't
tell much about it without a lawyer and they
commenced again to "knockin' on our door." In
an old case before I became a Justice, the Court
had ruled that only in felony cases should a lawyer
be appointed. Exceptions were made to this case
over the years as additional cases came before the
Court, until we had the Gideon case.** In this
one, we ruled that everyone accused of a crime
was entitled to a lawyer. What happened was,
they kept "knockin' on our door," and finally we
extended the ruling to misdemeanors as well.
So you had it going full sway. That's because
of the necessities that were brought to our
attention. Now you say, well, weren't those
brought before? Possibly they were, but not with
the impact that they were brought to us.
The same was true in segregation. We had
one case which had to do with segregation in the
field of graduate education. We ruled that this
was unconstitutional and later there came the
case of Brown v. Board of Education"* which
was on the grade school level. Then other
questions came up. What about public accomo-
dations? What about swimming pools and things
*Editor's Note: In the case of Griffin v. Illinois (1956) the
Supreme Court ruled that a defendant who is appealing a
court decision should not be denied a copy of the transcript
of his trial becuase of inability to pay for it.
**Editor's Note: In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) the Court
ruled that all defendants are entitled to a lawyer appointed
by the court if they are unable to pay for one themselves.
***Editor's Note: In Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
the Court ruled segregation in public schools to be
unconstitutional. See the "How a Case Reaches the
Supreme Court" diagram for more details on both these
cases.
Approved For Release 2004/10/113
b
6
CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
like that? And the first thing you know they're
"knockin' on the door." I don't know whether
you'd say that the individual citizen who felt the
pinch knocked on the door, or whether the lawyer
looking out saw the pinch and tried to minimize
it. I rather think that the pinch was what caused
it.
"The real strength of the position of
the Court is probably in its indispen-
sability to government under a written
Constitution. It is difficult to see how
the provisions of a 150 year old docu-
ment can have much vitality if there is
not some permanent institution to
translate them into current commands
and to see to their contemporary
application."
Justice Robert H. Jackson (1946)
Q-Close Up: Do you think our Founding
Fathers had this in mind in making the Con-
stitution vague and almost ambiguous in parts?
A-Justice Clark: Those people who wrote the
Constitution did not lack for a choice of words.
People like Madison and Jefferson may not have
had a thesaurus which we have today, but they
didn't need it.
They intentionally used phrases like "due
process of law." What is "due process of law?"
"Due" to one Justice might be an entirely dif-
ferent matter than it may be to me. I think they
did it deliberately in order to keep the Consti-
tution from being a straight-jacket or existing in a
vacuum. They knew that the country was going to
develop and change; they had great hopes for it
changing from the standpoint of the advancement
of science and literature. They wanted to put the
Constitution in vague terms so that a later gen-
eration might be able to interpret it, so that the
necessities of the times would be met.
I know that some Justices think there are
some absolutes, but I don't believe there are any
absolutes in the Constitution. You have to read a
whole amendment, not just read a single clause of
it. And when you read a whole amendment, I
think it leaves the door open to interpretation and
I believe this was deliberate.
Even though we may call it vague and open
to interpretation, it's interesting to look and see
how few amendments we have had. Counting the
: CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13
Bill of Rights, which was ten amendments passed
in a package, we only have 26 amendments in all.
If you compare it to New York State, which has
over 300 amendments and wrote its last con-
stitution in 1938, I think it's pretty amazing.
Q-Close Up: That brings us to the question of
"judicial review." When the Supreme Court de-
clares an Act of Congress or an action by the
President unconstitutional, is this not taking on a
legislative function?
A-Justice Clark: In a technical sense, I don't
think they do. But from a practical view, why
certainly they legislate. This is not really done to
initiate change. That's the Congress' power and
responsibility. It can see that something is wrong
in an area and then hold a hearing on it and pass
a law. The Court can't do that. The Court has to
wait until the question is brought before it in a
lawsuit. From the standpoint of initiating change,
our function is not legislative at all. From the
standpoint of the practicalities of change, one
could say there is some judicial legislation.
Q-Close Up: You served as Attorney General
before being appointed to the Supreme Court. I
wonder if you would comment on the differences
between these two high positions?
A-Justice Clark: It is definitely quite a
transition. When I came here I sat next to Bob
(Justice Robert H.) Jackson who was a former
Attorney General, and I said, "Bob, how long did
it take you to get acclimated here?" He said it
took close to five years. That may sound like a
long time, but when you compare the circum-
stances and the atmosphere and the climate that
are here with that of the Justice Department, they
are definitely two different worlds.
When I was Attorney General, I would have
50 to 75 phone calls in half a day. I had about
1,000 lawyers working for me and that didn't
include the FBI. I had five secretaries in my
immediate office and about ten across the hall
who wrote letters. Here I spend my days writing
opinions, hearing cases, and discussing with my
fellow Justices. I have only a handful of clerks to
help me. I'm only 200 yards from the dome of the
Capitol, but it might just as well be 200 miles.
Q-Close Up: Supreme Court Justices are per-
ceived much differently by people than are almost
any other public officials. Some of the others are
"Hollywoodized," treated like superstars. Justices
seem to be held above this sort of treatment.
Whether you are a student, tourist or one of the
country's foremost lawyers, you are filled with a
tremendous feeling of awe and respect for the
building, its atmosphere and the men of this
Court. Could you say something about your own
self-concept as a Justice?
A-Justice Clark: Now, it's true that judges are
human beings. We don't have horns, we really
don't. We act just like other people do. But I
rather think that it has proven true that most of
the 101 Justices that have served here have been a
little more inconspicuous than they were in other
positions. I think it is well that it is that way
because the public expects more from a Justice.
You have to be more careful in what you say and
in what you do. Our main function when a case is
presented is to study it over and decide just what
we think that the Constitution requires us to do,
regardless of what the clamor might be to the
contrary.
Q-Close Up: One thing intrigues us, looking at
your long history on the bench. Of all the cases in
which you have had a part, are there any that
stand out as being most important and most
difficult?
A-Justice Clark: I'd say it would have to be the
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : PA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 ed For Release 200,4/10/13 :CIA-RDP88-013158000200160007-2
case of Baker v Carp -q
i
, e one on reapportion-
ment. At the time I did not realize the full impact
that it was to have, but looking back, I feel that its
effects have been considerable. Every legislature,
at least once and some twice and three times, has
reapportioned its state since 1963. As a conse-
quence, the case has affected the lives of every
person in the U.S. One sure thing is that a
politician recognizes the power of the vote. If the
vote is of equal weight, then every person knows
that he has the same voice in the selection of
leaders as does the fellow who is walking the other
way. We've had a lot of problems with reference
to people not taking too much interest in govern-
ment and public affairs, and reapportionment at
least helps to alleviate that by restoring some
confidence in just what your vote can mean.
Q-Close Up: Just a final question and an
opportunity to summarize. It seems that the
experience of the average person with the judicial
system might be in a traffic court, maybe family
court or small claims court. These are all cases
where decisions are fairly easy to comprehend and
the effects are very tangible and immediate.
Could you offer an explanation which will help
the students to understand both how and why the
decisions that are made in this building affect
their lives?
A-Justice Clark: Well, of course, the reason
their lives are affected is that quite a number of
our cases affect their rights and duties as citizens.
Some of our cases, say business or antitrust
matters, wouldn't have a direct effect on all the
people, but many of the cases we've had in recent
years have had a direct bearing upon everyone.
We've been charged with the defense of the
Constitution and I say that's the most important
document that this country has. You may not
always realize it, but that document, the
Constitution, plays a major part in your freedom
and in your opportunities to do the things that
you enjoy doing.
I'd like to say that I hope that young people
will take greater interest in the judiciary. We
don't have any way to go around blowing our horn
and we want people better acquainted with the
judicial process. This will help us to improve the
process and it will help immeasurably when
*Editor's Note: In Baker v. Carr (1462) the Court ruled
that federal courts had the power to force changes in the
way in which a state legislature apportions electoral
districts, if this violated the 14th Amendment's equal
protection clause.
THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES
Who are the nine members of the Supreme Court?
When and by which President were they appointed?
JUSTICE APPOINTED BY YEAR
(Chief Justice)
people learn more of how this process works and
the necessity for it. I hope that if they find that the
courts are slow, or if they feel that the courts
should be less ponderous, why, they would speak
up. They speak their minds pretty freely and I'm
proud that they do. It would be of untold benefit
to us to have reactions of that kind. It's not that
we would change immediately, because we have to
go slowly on these things, but I think in the long
run, why, they'd have considerable impact.
Close Up: We really want to thank you so much,
Justice Clark, for this opportunity. We know that
our students will surely appreciate the uniqueness
of this chance to learn from a man with the
experience and the wisdom that is yours.
THE POWERS OF THE
SUPREME COURT
Professor Adrian Fisher
Adrian Fisher is the Frances Cabell Brown
Professor of International Law at the
Georgetown University Law Center. Among
Approved For Release 2004/10113 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 A
proved For Release 2004/.10/13 : CIR;RDP88~0115~R0002Qp1 f~00Q7,-2 _
p
his many posy ns o government service
were United States Representative to the
United Nations General Assembly and
deputy director of the Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency. Earlier in his career
he was a law clerk to Supreme Court Justices
Louis Brandeis and Felix Frankfurter.
Any analysis of the position (hence the
powers and predicaments) of the Supreme Court
must start from the fact that under the Con-
stitution of the United States, the Court is a body
whose members are appointed for life. One lesser
power of the Court is the right to interpret the
laws, which developed into the power known as
judicial review. Judicial review is the authority of
the Supreme Court to declare state and federal
laws invalid if they are found to be contrary to the
Constitution (or "unconstitutional").
The use of judicial review has created con-
troversy ever since the Constitution was adopted.
The basic predicament of the Court stems from
the fact that this power is unreviewable except
through the cumbersome process of passing a
constitutional amendment. This has led to real,
although not precisely defined, pressure from the
other branches of government when they have dis-
agreed with the Court. These pressures have
affected both sides of the political spectrum.
A little over forty years ago, this nation was
in the depths of the horrible Depression. The
Supreme Court, by a thin margin, struck down
as unconstitutional every attempt by federal and
state government to remedy the plight. The
reaction was President Roosevelt's attempt to
"pack" the Court by adding six new Justices who
presumably would be more responsive to his point
of view. This attempt was flawed by Roosevelt's
false pretext that new members were needed
because six of the present Justices were over 70
years old and therefore not capable of doing the
work required. A potential constitutional crisis
was avoided when two members of the Court,
possibly but not certainly as a result of the plan,
changed their votes and two others resigned.
"It is emphatically the province and
duty of the judicial department to say
what the law is. . . If two laws conflict
with each other, the courts must decide
on the operation of each..."
Chief Justice John Marshall
Twenty years later the shoe was on the other
foot. The Court was convinced that the doctrine of
applied
education was serving as a pretext for foot-
dragging in the field of equal rights for minorities.
In the Brown v. Board of Education case (1954),
it struck down the doctrine and outlawed racial
segregation in public education. Here the uproar
came from the right. Cries of "massive resis-
tance" were heard throughout the land; signs urg-
ing the country to "impeach Earl Warren"
sprung up overnight. Here, no judicial backdown
resulted from the confrontation. Although since
then the Court, with changed leadership and
membership, has redefined and refined the
standards which should be used in outlawing
segregation in public education, it has resisted
pressures to change its basic approach.
Compliance with Judicial Decisions:
The Strength of Tradition
A study of the enforcement of powers proves
the truth of the saying that an ounce of history is
worth a pound of logic. Viewed abstractly, a
strong case could be made for the proposition that
the Court is toothless. When the Court was first
established there was not even agreement that it
had the right to declare statutes unconstitutional.
Its staff has always been small. For enforcement it
must rely on the employees of the other branches
of the government, either state or federal. This
may seem a pretty thin base of support for a body
which asserts the right to give binding instruc-
tions to the very bodies that it relies on to carry
out its commands!
Yet this system of compliance has been
almost entirely successful. We are familiar with
President Jackson's famous comment in the case
involving Cherokee Indian lands in Georgia:
"John Marshall has made his decision, now let
him enforce it." We are also familiar with the fact
that on one occasion, the Chief Justice of the
United States, Roger Taney, was prevented from
serving a writ of habeas corpus designed to free a
southern sympathizer held by the Union
authorities in Baltimore during the Civil War.
These illustrations, however, are merely
exceptions that prove the rule that judicial
decisions, particularly those of the Supreme
Court, are complied with. This rule has held up
well, even in times of tension. In 1947, a Supreme
Court decision ending a strike of the United Mine
Workers was conformed to, albeit grumpily, by
John L. Lewis. In 1952, a Supreme Court decision
ordering President Truman to return to private
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 6?IA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 HOW' "WE VEA 3TWWNEWMMY
While there are certain cases which can be brought directly to the Supreme Court, the vast majority of cases are brought
.,on appeal". If either party in a case is unhappy with the decision of a lower court, they have the right to appeal that decision
to a higher court. An appeal is not a new trial, but rather a re-examination of the evidence, procedures and legal or con-
stitutional principles on which the decision was based in the previous trial.
Only a very small percentage of cases appealed are considered by the Supreme Court. During its 1976-77 term, the Court
received petitions for 4,731 cases, yet agreed to hear oral arguments for only 176. Generally speaking, the Court will be
inclined to hear a case if it involves a basic constitutional principle, an important question of federal law or a conflict between
state and federal law. Appeals are brought tothe U.S. Supreme Court from highest courts in each state or from lower Federal
courts. The diagrams below illustrate these two paths by which a case reaches the Supreme Court.
FROM STATE SUPREME COURT
Gideon v. Wainwright
Accused of a crime
June 3, 1961-Clarence Earl Gideon was arrested and
charged with breaking and entering the Bay Harbor
Poolroom in Panama City, Florida.
4
Trial in State Circuit Court
1961-Gideon was too poor to afford a lawyer, but his
request for a court appointed lawyer was rejected.
Judge Robert L. McCrary cited Florida state law and
the 1942 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Betts v.
Brady. Gideon served as his own lawyer, but lost the
case. He was found guilty and given the maximum five
year sentence.
Appeal to the State Supreme Court
October 11, 1961-The Supreme Court of the State of
Florida denied Gideon's petition of appeal. It upheld
the lower courts ruling that there was no legal re-
quirement to appoint a lawyer for Gideon.
Appeal to the United States Supreme Court
June 11, 1962-The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to
hear the Gideon case in its next session.
June 22, 1962-The Supreme Court appointed Abe
Fortas, a prominent Washington attorney, to repre-
sent Gideon. Despite its own Betts P. Brady decision,
the Supreme Court had traditionally appointed
lawyers for poor defendants.
January 15, 1963-Oral arguments were heard
between Abe Fortas and Florida Assistant Attorney
General Bruce Jacob.
FROM FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
Brown v. Board of Education
"My Rights Have Been Violated"
September, 1950-An eight year old black student
named Linda Brown was denied admission to an all
white elementary school in Topeka, Kansas.
Trial In Federal District Court
February, 1951-Her father, Oliver Brown, and
twelve other black parents sued the city's Board of
Education in the United States District Court. The
case was officially titled Brown v. Board of Education
of Topeka, Kansas.
Appeal to the United States Supreme Court
While many cases must be appealed from district
court to the court of appeals, this case was appealed
directly to the Supreme Court.
June, 1952-The Supreme Court agreed to hear the
Brown case.
December, 1952-Arguments were heard from
lawyers for both sides. However, the Court was divided
and unable to arrive at a decision.
December, 1953-A year later, arguments were again
heard for both sides. In the time that had passed a
significant change had occurred on the Court. Chief
Justice Fred Vinson had died in September and
President Eisenhower had appointed Earl Warren to
replace him.
4
The Supreme Court Decides
March 18, 1963-The Court ruled in favor of Gideon,
that he was entitled to a court appointed lawyer. They
directed the State of Florida to give Gideon a new trial
and to appoint a lawyer to represent him. The wider
impact was that all persons would now be guaranteed
a lawyer.
August 5, 1963-Gideon was represented by a court
appointed lawyer at a new trial in the Circuit Court of
Florida. He was found not guilty.
The Supreme Court Decides
May, 1954-By a 9 to 0 vote the Supreme Court over-
ruled the district court's decision. It stated that
segregated schools were unconstitutional because this
practice "deprives children of the minority group of
equal educational opportunities". It nullified the
"separate but equal" principle of the 1896 Plessy v.
Ferguson case, because " 'separate but equal' has no
place.. .in the field of public education."
Approved For Release 2004/10/1316 CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/1
ownership the steel mills which he had seize
during the Korean war was complied to without
hesitation. Finally, the recent Supreme Court
decision ordering former President Nixon to turn
over the Watergate tapes to the grand jury was
also enforced.
These are merely three examples, selected
because they represent compliance with the rule
of law under periods of maximum political
tension. They indicate that notwithstanding any
deficiencies in theory in the enforcement
mechanism of the Supreme Court, the strength of
its decisions has become part of the American way
of life. This tradition is more powerful than a
small army of marshalls seeking to enforce its
will.
YOU AND THE LAW
Lenore Cameron and
Amy Armitage
The following article was co-authored by
Lenore Cameron, former Assistant Director
of the National Street Law Institute, and
Amy Armitage, a Duke University senior
and Robert F. Kennedy Intern, working with
the Institute. The National Street Law
Institute is a program established to promote
increased opportunities for citizen education
ifift
CIA-RDP88-01315P200Q2091.60007-2
in law. it is invo``veaa in course development,
teacher training and the establishment of
"Street Law" courses in schools across the
country. It has published a curriculum on
law for use in secondary schools called Street
Law, A Course in Practical Law (West
Publishing Company). For further informa-
tion on the Institute or its materials, write
National Street Law Institute, 605 G Street,
N. W., Washington, D. C. 20001 or call (202)
624-8217.
Many people perceive law as emanating from
the Supreme Court and Congress and see it repre-
sented in their daily lives by the police officer and
gun. Yet in actuality, law has many faces and
origins.
Law Has Many Origins
"But how can we understand this complex
maze?"
Think for a moment of how laws affect your
own life.. .the clothes you wear and the food you
eat are regulated by consumer protection, federal
communications and trade laws. Your house is
constructed according to zoning and building
codes which are local laws. In your family re-
lationship, family laws provide you with rights as
well as obligations regarding marriage, custody
and support, and juvenile rights. Law also pro-
tects your individual rights as a member of
society. Or perhaps you enjoy the wilderness; that
too is protected by law. Law is everywhere affect-
ing your daily life.
"But why do we have to have so many laws?"
you ask.
There are no easy answers as to why we have
so many laws, but one reason is that law gives
order to our society. It regulates the behavior of
individuals and helps to resolve conflict among
and between individuals and governments. With-
out the rules of law our community and social life
would be chaotic. However, the result of having so
many laws which govern our daily lives is that
citizens are often mystified and afraid of "law."
You can begin by learning the ways in which
laws are created. All three branches of govern-
ment-executive, legislative and judicial-at the
federal, state, and local levels of government
make laws. Federal statutory laws are made in the
Congress. These include procedures for revenue
raising (tax laws), definition of federal crimes, and
the establishment and appropriation of funds for
government programs. The impact of these laws is
felt by all of the residents of the United States.
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : 1QIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
State legislatures enact laws which affect people Supreme Court. It is the highest appeals court in
who reside or visit within their state boundaries. the country and orders made by its nine Justices
Local governing councils and assemblies pass apply to each and every person and court system
laws called ordinances, or regulations, which in the United States. The decisions reached here
apply to people within an even narrower can only be overridden by an act of Congress or a
geographical area. reversal by the Justices themselves.
The executive branch at each level of govern-
ment makes laws through administrative
agencies.* Each of these agencies has been
created to deal with certain issues and needs of
the populace. Their laws are actually regulations
governing the relationship between specific
governmental bodies and citizens in areas such as
welfare, public education, sanitation, libraries,
criminal justice, housing, discrimination and
transportation. The Federal Trade Commission
(FTC), for example, is a federal agency which
regulates types of advertising as well as packaging
and labeling of consumer products across the
country. Another example is a state department
of revenue which makes and enforces regulations
regarding state tax laws. Agencies on the local
level may include school boards, police and
sanitation departments, and utilities.**
The Court Systems
Laws are also made in the federal, state and
local court systems. These systems usually are
divided into state, county and municipal courts,
and are often broken down further into branches:
small claims, landlord-tenant, domestic relations
(family and/or juvenile), traffic, criminal and civil
courts. The issues which are dealt with relate only
to the citizens within the state and local juris-
dictions.
The federal court system, on the other hand,
is comprised of courts located all across the
country, and its judges decide issues which have
an impact on all residents of the United States
and its territories. It is made up of eleven
divisions, called "circuits," which are further
divided into districts. There are as many districts
in each circuit as deemed necessary to administer
and enforce the laws. Trials are held in the district
courts, and appeals are heard in the Circuit
Courts of Appeal.
Above all court systems, of course, is the U.S.
*Editor's Note: The President and many Governors also
can make laws in certain cases through "executive orders".
For a definition, see the glossary at end of Chapter One.
**Editor's Note: For a fuller discussion of independent
agencies and regulatory commissions, see Chapter Two on
"The Federal Bureaucracy."
Law Has Many Faces
"Fine, "you say. "It's good to know where
laws corm from, but how does this affect me
on a day-to-day basis?"
Your knowledge of where laws are made can
give you an insight into your individual rights and
responsibilities under the law. Let's take your role
as a consumer as an example. The purpose of
consumer law is to protect the individual who
buys goods and services from another person or
business. The legal relationship between a con-
sumer and a seller is known as a contract. A
contract is made when one party makes an offer
which another party accepts. These two parties
also agree on the terms or conditions of a con-
tract. Both the consumer and the seller are then
responsible for meeting the terms of the contract.
If for some reason the goods purchased or
services provided are not satisfactory, you have
several avenues open to you. You can contact the
federal Consumer Product Safety Commission to
see if your product is on a list of defectively manu-
factured or harmful items. Armed with this know-
ledge, you could then get in touch with your local
consumer agency to seek assistance in reaching a
settlement of your grievance. Or, if necessary, you
could use this information as evidence in a court
suit.
In addition, if you fail to meet the terms of
the contract by missing payments, the seller can
enforce these terms by filing a lawsuit against you.
If you feel you are withholding your payments
with good cause, you sometimes can depend on
state laws which prohibit deceptive advertising
and sales practices as defenses for non-payment
and high interest rates. Through a consultation
with a lawyer or your local consumer agency, you
can learn if there are good defenses available to
you.
If you are a home-owner or renter, housing
law is another area in which laws from different
sources affect your daily life. The legal relations
between the tenant and landlord, for example, are
determined by a lease. If a landlord or tenant does
not meet the conditions specified in a lease-for
example, the tenant fails to pay his rent or the
landlord does not repair leaky ceiling or pipes-
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
these responsibilities may be enforced through the The Constitution prohibits the denial of
courts.
Of all the areas of law which have an impact
on you, none is more pervasive than family law.
Many people think it is concerned only with
marriage, divorce and custody of children. But
suppose the family next door to you leaves their
children, all under age twelve, at home alone at
night and frequently on weekends. If you report
this situation, anonymously of course, to your
local police or social welfare agency, you would be
reporting a possible case of child neglect, and this
lies in the area of family law.
You or someone you know may receive
AFDC payments (Aid to Families with Dependent
Children) or Social Security benefits. The state
and federal laws which govern these assistance
programs are usually studied as part of family
law. The authority to provide these programs is
based on the national and state constitutions
which direct Congress and the state legislatures to
enact legislation for the general welfare.
Perhaps the most important area of law is
that which affects your individual rights, con-
stitutional law. Here we touch the very essence of
the relationship between people and their society
that the Founding Fathers sought to establish.
The Constitution, especially through the Bill of
Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, protects
individuals against government actions which
infringe on their rights. State constitutions, in
some cases, provide even greater protection from
the actions of the state governments.
individual rights and discrimination of any kind.
Suppose you have applied for a job as a con-
struction worker on heavy equipment but are
refused because you are a woman. In most states
you could file a discrimination action with the
state Human Relations Commission. In addition,
you might want to file with the federal Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission in case the
state agency is unable to resolve the confict. The
basis of your complaint could be a state's own
equal rights amendment or Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. This federal Act forbids
discrimination in employment on the grounds of
race, color, religion, sex or national origin. State
and federal agencies like the Human Relations
Commission, Commissions for Women and State
Equal Rights Commissions advise persons as to
their rights in cases of discrimination in employ-
ment, housing, public accommodations and
voting. They also can institute court actions to
eliminate such discrimination and, through their
support of new legislation, expand persons'
rights.
Learning about the Law
"Okay, I know where and how laws are
created. I've learned some of the areas of law
that affect my daily life. But where do I learn
about these laws and how do I keep my
knowledge current?"
Photo Courtesy of National Street Law Institute
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 SAn D T VULTURE lease 2004/10/1 J:UCIAI-RCDP88IAL-0B1RANCH315ROO0200160007-2
UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT
Washington, D.C.
Tries lawsuits between the states. May review decisions of
federal appellate Courts and specialized federal courts. May
review decisions of the highest court of appeals in a state if
a constitutional question or federal law is involved.
U.S. COURTS OF
APPEALS
Eleven courts, often called circuit
courts, sitting in each of 10 judicial
circuits and the District of Coluiitbla.
Hear appeals from U.S. district courts
and review decisions of federal admire
ittraeive agencies.
U.S. DISTRICT COURTS
Approximately 90 courts sitting in all
parts of the United States and- in
Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
Try loth civil and criminal cases, and
sit as bankruptcy and admiralty
courts as well. May review decisions
of federal administrative agencies.
Appeals from
military tribunals
Decisions of highest
state courts of review
U.S. COURT OF
CUSTOMS AND
PATENT APPEALS
Washington, D.C.
U.S. COURT OF
CLAIMS
Washington, D.C.
Hears suits against the US. govern
ment. Evidence may be given before
court commissioners at various Inca,
Irons throughout the country.
FAX COURT OF TILE
UNITED STATLS
Washington, D.C.
floats cases arising under federal tar
laws.
U.S. CUSTOMS COURT
New York. N.Y.
Hears uses arising under federal
tariff laws.
U.S. COURT OF MILITARY APPEALS
Washington. D.C.
hears appeals Iron court martial con
vrclrom. Theta is rw further appeal
Pram the decisions of this court.
One way to do this is in your school. Sign up
for law classes which are offered there. If you
don't have a special law class and you want to
know more about law, sign up to do a special
project in your regular social studies class. Select
a project that has legal significance such as find-
ing out how your local consumer agency works or
how a civil or criminal case proceeds through your
local justice system.
You and members of your family can attend
classes and seminars on legal topics which often
are held in libraries and community centers. You
can read magazine articles and share the infor-
mation with your family and friends. Letters to
the editor in newspapers and magazines often
refer to new legislation and court cases which
affect people in these areas. Bar associations
frequently offer assistance in arranging court
tours and have special programs in which
attorneys go out to schools and community groups
to talk about law.
As you can see, learning how law affects our
lives is not a static topic suitable only for class-
OUR STATE AND LOCAL COURTS
No two states have identical court systems, but all are
similar in their general outlines. This diagram shows
the profile of an imaginary but typical system of state
and local courts.
STATE SUPREME
COURT
Hears appeals from all inferior courts
of record. Court of last resort except
for constitutional matters, which
may be appealed to U. S. Supreme
Court.
4
INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURTS
(In some slates only.l
Hear appeals from the decisions of
courts of general and special jurisdic-
tion and from criminal courts.
I
DISTRICT, COUNTY
OR MUNICIPAL COURT
Has general jurisdiction:
hears civil wits and
criminal cases.
PROBATE COURT
Probates wills and hears
claims against estates.
JUVENILE OR
FAMILY COURT
Hears domestic juvenile de
linquency and youthful of-
fender cases.
CRIMINAL COURT
Hears criminal cases.
LOCAL COURTS
(Caws heard in these courts frequent-
ly cannot he appealed. Names may
vary according to locality.l
Traffic Court
Police Court
Small Claims Court
Justice of the Peace
room discussion. It is a process of learning and
doing and is sustained by the changing nature of
law itself. The only limit to your learning, then, is
the degree to which you expose yourself to the
many faces and origins of law.
FROM ARREST TO
SENTENCING:
THE CRIMINAL LAW
PROCESS
Jason D. Kogan
Jason Kogan has been an Assistant United
States Attorney for the District of Columbia
for seven years. Presently he is working in the
Superior Court Felony Trial Division, but he
also has tried cases in the Misdemeanor
Appellate and Grand Jury divisions. In this
article written especially for Perspectives, he
presents you with a clear and informative,
Approved For Release 2004/10143 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007 2
step-by-step narration of the criminal law
"Stop! Police! You are under arrest!" These
well-known words may be uttered during an
exciting chase sequence on your favorite television
series. But these words are all too familiar to the
person arrested as the suspected perpetrator of a
criminal offense. Once a person is arrested, he
enters into the criminal justice system.
A restraint on the individual's personal
freedom is the initial and most obvious result of
being arrested. Handcuffs may be placed on the
hands to limit their movement. The police "pat
down" the person's outer garments to determine
if he is carrying a weapon, and he is allowed to
move physically only when the police permit it. If
the person is arrested in a car which is needed as
evidence, it will also be seized.
After he is arrested by the police, the accused
becomes cloaked with certain constitutional
rights. First and foremost, the arrestee must be
advised of his rights:
You are under arrest.
You have the right to remain silent. You are not re-
quired to say anything to us at any time or to answer
any questions. Anything you say can be used against
you in court.
You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before
we question you and to have him with you during
questioning.
If you cannot afford a lawyer and want one, a lawyer
will be provided for you.
If you want to answer questions now without a lawyer
present, you will still have the right to stop answering
at any time. You also have the right to stop answering
until you talk with a lawyer.
The arrestee may voluntarily waive his rights and
speak to the police if he so desires.
Interrogation
From the scene of the arrest, the individual is
transported to the police station to be processed.
The arresting officer prepares a report on the
crime with which the person is charged. He also
attempts to obtain background information on
the arrestee. Fingerprints are taken and
compared with any that may have been lifted
from the scene of the crime. These fingerprints
are maintained in police files for future identifi-
cation purposes. If the arrestee's clothing is
needed as evidence, it will be removed by the
police and replaced with jail-type or other
available clothing. A Polaroid photograph of the
suspect, or a "mug-shot" photograph (a two-part
photograph consisting of a front view and a side
view of the face) are taken. This photograph,
along with photographs of other similar-looking
individuals, may be displayed to the victims of or
witnesses to the present offense, or to victims of or
witnesses to future criminal offenses.
Depending upon the type of the crime
committed and the nature of the evidence in the
case, further demands may be made on the
physical being of the arrestee. A judge can order
the individual to provide police with a sample of
his blood, with head and pubic hairs and with
handwriting, printing or voice samples. The
arrestee may be ordered to submit to the removal
of a bullet from underneath his skin or to the
taking of a model of his teeth. Probably one of the
most common demands made upon an arrestee is
that he be required to stand in a lineup to be
viewed by the victims of or witnesses to the crime.
Court Proceedings:
Preliminary Hearing, Grand Jury
Within a reasonable time after the arrest, the
person must be brought before a judge or
magistrate and a formal complaint filed. At this
point the arrested individual becomes known
officially as the defendant. The judge or magis-
trate again advises the defendant of his rights and
determines whether or not he should be released
on bond or detained in jail pending future court
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : 9 -RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approve For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
proceedings. A lawyer must a appointed for the appointed to represent the defendant if not done
defendant if he cannot afford one. at any prior stage of the proceedings.
If the defendant is charged with committing Before the start of the trial, which may be
a felony (any crime which carries a possible many months after the defendant's arrest, the
sentence of more than one year in prison) his next judge rules on any legal issues raised by the
court appearance is at a preliminary hearing. At defendant that might result in prohibiting the
the preliminary hearing, the government is re- government from trying the defendant or from
quired to present evidence which shows "probable using certain evidence against him during the
cause" to believe that a crime was committed and trial. For example, a defendant may claim that
that the defendant committed the crime. Should evidence was seized illegally from his home, that
the judge or magistrate find probable cause, the the indictment is defective, or that too much
case is forwarded to the grand jury for its con- pretrial publicity will interfere with his -right to a
sideration. The complaint against the defendant fair trial. If the judge rules against the defendant
is dismissed if no probable cause is found. then the trial will begin.
A grand jury is composed of citizens from the Jury selection, commonly known as voir dire
community who must decide whether probable examination, commences with the questioning of
cause exists to believe a crime was committed and a large number of prospective jurors concerning
that the defendant committed the crime. How- their possible prejudices for or against the
ever, unlike the preliminary hearing, neither the government and for or against the defendant.
judge, magistrate, defendant or his lawyer are Jurors who admittedly cannot be fair to one side
present when the prosecutor presents the evidence or the other, or who have specific reasons for
to the grand jury. Grand jury proceedings are being unable to sit on the case, will be dismissed
secret and not open to the public. In some juris- (called "stricken for cause") by the judge. Both
dictions court reporters may be present in the the government and the defendant also have a
grand jury to record the testimony of the specified number of "peremptory challenges" (the
witnesses. The defendant may, if he wishes, right to eliminate a prospective juror for any
appear as a witness before the grand jury. Of reason whatsoever). A final panel of twelve jurors
course, the defendant cannot be forced to testify is finally selected to hear the case.
before the grand jury because he has the right not
to incriminate himself.
After hearing the evidence the grand jury
may, by a majority vote, return an indictment
against the defendant. An indictment is a legal
document which provides the defendant with
notice of all criminal offenses he is charged with
committing. It calls upon him to stand trial for
these offenses. If the grand jury does not vote to
indict the defendant, the government cannot
proceed any further against the defendant unless
state law provides otherwise.
Still in Court:
Arraignment, Jury Selection
Within about ten days after the defendant is
indicted he is arraigned before a judge. At the
arraignment the defendant must plead guilty or
not guilty. A plea of guilty is an admission by the
defendant that he commited the crime(s) charged
in the indictment and makes a trial unnecessary.
If the defendant pleads not guilty then he has the
right to request a jury trial. In addition, the judge
may amend the bond set previously or set bond if
no bond was imposed earlier. An attorney will be
The Trial, the Verdict, and the Sentence
Once the jury is chosen and sworn under
oath, the prosecutor makes an opening statement
to the jury in which he outlines the government's
case against the accused. The defense attorney
may, if he desires, also make an opening state-
ment to the jury. Since the prosecution has the
burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt, it must present its witnesses
and supporting physical evidence to the jury. The
defendant has a right to cross-examine each
government witness. After the prosecution con-
cludes its case, the defendant has an opportunity,
if he wishes, to take the witness stand in his own
behalf or to present any other relevant evidence.
The defendant cannot be forced to testify if he
does not want to do so.
"When judges do not agree, it is a sign that
they are dealing with problems on which
society itself is divided."
Justice William 0. Douglas
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
At the conclusion of all the testimony, both final stage-sentencing. Among the many factors
the prosecutor and the defense attorney give a which a judge may consider in determining the
closing argument to the jury. During the closing sentence to be imposed on the defendant are: (1)
argument the prosecutor argues to the jury all the nature of the offense, (2) possible penalties, (3)
reasons why it should find the defendant guilty prior criminal record, (4) age of the defendant, (5)
and the defense attorney argues to the jury all the employment history, (6) family background, (7)
reasons why it should acquit the defendant. When educational background, and (8) comments from
these arguments have been completed the judge family members, friends and people in the
instructs the jury on the legal principles to which community. The defendant also has the
it must be bound in deciding the facts of the case. opportunity to speak for himself at the sentence
The jury then retires to deliberate its verdict. hearing. Then the defendant stands nervously
A guilty verdict or a plea of guilty leads to the awaiting the sentence.
GLOSSARY: The Law and the Judiciary
In preparing this glossary, reference was made to Ballentine's Law Dictionary (Rochester, N. Y., Lawyers Co-Operative
Publishing Company, 1969) edited by William S. Anderson, and to A Dictionary of American Politics, (New York, Barnes &
Noble, 1964), edited by Edward C. Smith and Arnold J. Zurcher.
Attorney General-member of the Cabinet, head of the Justice Department. Appointed by the President with Senate
confirmation.
Bill of Rights-the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States. These guarantee fundamental rights and
privileges of all citizens against infringement by the government.
Civil Disobedience-public, nonviolent, and intentional violation of public law without resistance to arrest, for the purposes
of protest and encouraging a change in the law or social policy. Example: the sit-down strikes of the civil rights movement led
by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in the 1960's.
Civil Law-area of the law which covers rights and liabilities of individuals. Cases may be between individuals or between the
government and an individual or a group. For example, property damage cases are civil law.
Class Action Suit-lawsuit brought by one party in the name of others or "the public." Examples are many suits brought by
environmental or consumer groups in the name of the public interest.
Common Law-"judge made" law, rather than by legislatures. Based on earlier decisions (precedents) by the courts.
Constitutional Law-specifically, cases which deal directly with constitutional issues. Examples: U.S. v. Nixon case involving
the Nixon tapes; freedom of speech cases.
Criminal Law-regulates the conduct of individuals as citizens of a state. Defines violations of the law ("crimes"), appropriate
punishment, and methods for enforcement of laws.
Discrimination-unfair treatment or denial of normal privileges to persons because of their race, color, nationality, sex, or
religion. Examples: denial of suffrage to women on the basis of sex; segregated schools.
Due Process of Law-constitutional doctrine which implies that all people will be granted the same rights under the law.
Speedy public trial, right to a lawyer, trial by jury, are all part of due process.
Felony-a criminal offense of very serious nature in which the punishment can be the death penalty or imprisonment in a
penitentiary (murder, treason, robbery); contrasted with misdemeanor which is also a criminal offense but of a less serious
nature in which the punishment can be a fine and/or up to one year in jail.
Grand Jury-differs from a trial jury in its function and its size (has more members). Duties are to consider evidence
presented by the government prosecutors and decide whether or not an indictment should be issued. If so, a separate trial jury
is selected to hear the case.
Judicial Activism-describes judges on courts which in deciding the legal principles of cases before them, also rule on related
matters of social policy or legislative acts. Contrasted with Judicial self-restraint, where courts rule on the cases before them,
but shy away from broad policy implications.
Judicial Opinions-written decision of the court in which its ruling is explained. Precedents, reasons, definitions and
interpretations are discussed.
Concurring Opinion-on the Supreme Court, written by a Justice who voted with the majority, but for differing reasons.
Dissenting Opinion-on the Supreme Court, written by the Justice(s) who disagrees with the majority.
Majority Opinion-on the Supreme Court, the ruling of the majority, written by one of the Justices.
Judicial Review-authority of the courts to declare a legislative or executive act unconstitutional.
Solicitor General-member of the Justice Department who is responsible for representing the federal government before the
Supreme Court.
Subpoena-an order for a person to appear or to surrender evidence (records, tapes, documents, memos, etc.) before a court
or official body.
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
77
 A Close Up Briefing
Before the seminar on the judicial branch, one of your program instructors will conduct a short
"Briefing" as an introduction to this subject. The purpose is to provide some background information
which will help you participate in the seminar with your guest speaker. In addition to the Glossary and
the "Structure of the Judicial Branch" diagram, some of the subjects which may be discussed in the
briefing are outlined below. Use these pages to take notes during both the briefing and the seminar.
? What powers does the Constitution grant to the Supreme Court? To all courts?
? What is judicial review?
? What are some of the major current issues involving the law and the courts?
NOTES (BRIEFING)
NOTES (SEMINAR)
Approved For Release 2004/1W93 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 .'.{ ~ Bales 04M1
{
AMENDMENT FREEDOMS
4,111" U
Ez 'RE
TO ' TI O N:
{M {'>^'x,.5{ , .r' r~ }{ . {^ {r {'ft>r?< { {. / r M i r { r { ,~.~ r{t{ r : .r {
The Ro O The Press Anfd Oft obbyists
WO p
707-1-
M are
.p er Belem 004/1 }/1 r. CIA C 8 1 ~i 2 Qt
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
5.
THE PRESS:
Focus on "The Fourth Estate"
"Were it left for me to decide whether we should have a
government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government,
I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. "
Thomas Jefferson
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech or press." The First Amendment
could not have been much clearer in its wording; nor should it be surprising that such a high value was
placed on freedom of the press. Benjamin Franklin knew well the importance of the printed word from
his experience as a printer. Thomas Paine's pamphlet, Common Sense, had wide circulation and was
instrumental in rallying support for the Revolution. Town criers, too, played a key role in bringing news
from the battlefields to villages from Massachusetts to Georgia.
Today, television commentators have replaced the town criers, syndicated columnists and investi-
gative reporters have taken over for pamphleteers, and the "press" has grown to include the electronic
media. At the same time, the press (media), traditionally called "the fourth estate" in recognition of its
important and powerful role in our political system, has become even more powerful and more
important. This has raised some dispute among its critics and defenders. Exactly how free should the
press be? And how well has it performed its job? Do we have faith in the accuracy and objectivity of the
information we receive in the press? Should reporters be forced to reveal their sources?
These and other questions are explored by some of our country's most noted journalists in this
chapter. In the first article Robert Pierpoint, a White House correspondent for CBS News, makes a
strong case for freedom of the press. Hal Walker, also a CBS reporter, follows with a very candid
discussion of what a journalist's role should be, which may leave you wondering whether or not you can
believe everything you read or hear in the news. Think about this and use the What Am I Reading?
exercise to begin to distinguish between fact and opinion in the news. Then, for a glimpse of what you
don't see on the television screen, turn to John Goldsmith's account of what a reporter's life can really be
like. Finally, you can reflect on the question of "what should be the political role of the press" through
the five short articles in thePerspectives Panel.
Approved For Release 200411 Olga : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 A FRE~pPREd For Release SS IS THE 2004/10/13 :CIA-RDP88-013158000200160007-2
News and The New York Times after much
FOUNDATION OF A FREE discussion among top executives, did not publish
the information, apparently on the grounds that it
SOCIETY might compromise national security. That did not
Robert C. Pierpoint
In May, 1976, amidst the numerous con-
troversies over freedom of the press, Mr.
Pierpoint delivered the commencement
address at the University of Redlands. This
article, which has never before appeared in
print, is based on that speech. Mr. Pierpoint
may be familiar to you as White House
correspondent for CBS News, a position he
has held since 1957.
I came to the University of Redlands today to
propose that together we take a good hard look at
the current state of American journalism and
what that means to you. My talk is titled "Up-
date... 1976," using the one word that journalists
employ in overseas cables to save the cost of two
words, and to convey the message that a con-
tinuing story is to be brought up to date. The con-
tinuing story is the two hundred year old ex-
periment of a free press in a democratic society.
There are many issues within the general
area of freedom of the Press which we could
discuss. I would like to focus on one subject of
continuing controversy, both within and outside
journalistic circles-government secrecy. How
much of secret government activities does a
reporter have a duty to report and the public the
right to know?
Basically, I am opposed to what might be
called "self-censorship" by reporters or news
organizations. In most cases a clever enemy agent
could learn anything which a reporter knows and
do so far ahead of the reporter. Let me give you an
example. In early 1961, various reporters began to
pick up evidence, both here and abroad, that the
United States was organizing some kind of
military action against Cuba. The Los Angeles
Times, for example, reported on a training base in
Central America where Cuban refugees were
being trained and equipped, by men and funds
that appeared to be directly connected with the
CIA. Eventually The New York Times and CBS
News learned that the CIA was about to sponsor
an invasion of Cuba, directed at overthrowing
Castro. Most of the sources for the information
were Cubans in and around Miami. But CBS
stop Castro's agents from picking up the same
basic information, and perhaps much more, from
the same kinds of sources available to The Times
and CBS. As a result, Castro's soldiers were ready
and waiting when the CIA put ashore at the Bay
"Democracy is based on the assumption
that citizens will make the proper choices,
but democracy also assumes that the
citizens have the information on which to
base these choices."
of Pigs. It was an operation that was badly
conceived from the beginning, and the bloodshed,
deaths and humiliation to the United States
might have all been averted if The New York
Times and CBS News had published in advance of
the operation what they knew about it.
But... and this is a serious problem for those
of us in news. . . what would have been the
reaction of the U.S. Government and of the
public? Would the two news organizations in
question not have been subjected to strong
criticism for having unpatriotically given away
American secrets and saved Castro? Sad to say, I
think many in our society would still be calling us
traitors, as some believe of us because of our
coverage of the war in Vietnam.
Some Secrets, Yes; Too Much Secrecy, No
I do not suggest that there should be no
government secrets withheld from the public. In
this day of instant communication, and when we
do indeed still have potential enemies in the
world, that would be suicidal. Certain military
plans and operations of contingency nature in
peacetime, certain technological and scientific
information having military application, and
obviously most plans and operations during
wartime, must be kept secret. But in my view, far,
far less secrecy than the government now affords
itself would be perfectly adequate for our
democratic system. You and I would doubtless be
appalled at how much government information is
kept secret for the convenience and protection of
people high up in government, and their friends
in positions of power outside it. The recent
scandals of bribery and political payoffs by
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 8 f IA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 A Presidential Press Conference Photo courtesy of the White House
Lockheed, Gulf Oil and other large corporations
ought to be proof enough of that.
The Freedom of Information Act* passed a
few years ago by Congress has helped uncover
some secrets that government would like to hide.
That Act, for example, helped us at CBS News
gain information on some of the shadier activities
of Charles "Bebe" Rebozo, Richard Nixon's
friend down in Florida. We won an "Emmy" for
our investigative series on Rebozo's bank, and
brought some tightening of certain banking laws
and regulations. But the Freedom of Information
Act is cumbersome to use, sometimes requiring,
for example, a threat of a lawsuit or even the suit
itself before the information is obtained. By then,
it may be too late. Furthermore, and this is a
criticism of myself and the media, the Act is not
invoked often enough. But it is a step in the right
direction.
During 1975 and 1976, many in Congress
and the executive branch were urging a step in
another direction-backward- toward under-
cutting freedom of information in this
country. I refer to the infamous "Senate
Resolution Number One" (S-1), a bill which was
proposed but defeated in the Senate. In its
*Editor's Note: The Freedom of Information Act was
passed in 1966 and amended in 1974. It provides that any
citizen can request and receive copies of any federal
government documents or records. There are, however, nine
specific exceptions, such as documents classified for
national security. Many but not all states have their own
freedom of information acts.
original form, S-1 aimed at rewriting, simplifying,
and updating the complex federal code of
criminal laws. But certain sections were to do
more than simplify the code of laws and were
aimed at handcuffing the press. For example, in
its original form S-1 would have made reporters
subject to prosecution for receiving, passing on, or
publishing government secrets. That would
almost certainly have prevented the publication of
The Pentagon Papers, and might well have put
Woodward and Bernstein behind bars.* It would
also effectively prevent YOU, the public, from
learning a great deal about your government that
you have a right to know.
Fortunately, through the combined efforts of
some guardians of the press within the Senate, S-1
was defeated. But its proponents live on, and may
be determined to try again next year and beyond.
You and I must remain vigilant that well meaning
but misguided legislators do n, t destroy the
system of a free press which has worked so well for
so long.
Almost equally dangerous to the free press
*Editor's Note: The Pentagon Papers is the name given to
the series of classified documents concerning the war in
Vietnam. They were first published in mid 1971 by The New
York Times, which obtained them from Daniel Ellsberg, a
former government official. The Nixon Administration sued
to stop publication, but the Supreme Court ruled against
the government. The Pentagon Papers were eventually
published in book form. Daniel Ellsberg was also brought
to trial on charges of having leaked classified documents,
but he was not convicted.
Approved For Release 2004/10/Ii : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 are recent ruling' :& ffo of CIA3paWWipjaW QM%Vffi#Q8H fled sounds, and
rulings which are still being tested in the courts. lurching into disastrous decisions like the
Several years ago judges began ordering reporters Vietnam War.
to disclose their sources of information. Some As my former colleague, the great journalist
reporters, such as William Farr of The Los Edward R. Murrow used to put it, "We've got to
Angeles Times, have gone to jail to protect their make 'em itch." We must, because we are not the
sources and your right to know. Confidentiality of cheerleaders of our society, we are critics. We look
sources is one of a reporter's most important deliberately for the faults and failures, to expose
tools. Without that tool, a great deal that you them to you so you can correct them. Many
know now, or need to know about the operations Americans take their free press for granted
of our society and our government, will become because they have enjoyed its rights so long that
unavailable. they are unaware of the constant struggle to
Free Press, The Foundation of Democracy
The necessity for a free press in a free society
simply cannot be overemphasized. It is absolutely
essential. In fact, one cannot exist without the
other. A free press is the first institution to be shut
down by a totalitarian government of either the
right or the left. Anyone who is familiar with the
1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia by the Soviet
Union knows that the first casualties included the
television broadcasts of what was going on and
the newspaper accounts of the suppression of the
Czech people.
The press in Communist countries is, of
course, a mockery. Perhaps equally discouraging
is the shutdown of the free press in Brazil, Chile,
India, and many other nations where democratic
institutions have been or are being stifled under
dictatorships of the right and left.*
We are your eyes and ears. . . on City Hall...
the State House... the White House. Democracy
is based on the assumption that citizens will make
the proper choices, but democracy also assumes
that the citizens have the information on which to
base those choices. That information must not
"We've got to make 'em itch."
Edward R. Murrow
only be accurate, but also complete, which means
reporters must go beneath the surface of facts to
find and convey background sufficient to put the
bare information in its proper context.
Cutting down or cutting off a flow of
information is harmful to our system. America
without a free and aggressive press could become
that "pitiful, helpless giant" that Richard Nixon
warned about in another context-a giant seeing
*Editor's Note: In 1977 free elections were held in India
and a new government was elected which has restored
freedom of the press.
preserve them. We in the media have a vested
interest in this struggle, but so do you. I doubt
that many of you will become reporters, but all of
you must hope to grow and prosper in the free
society.
Certainly we in the press make mistakes.
These may bother you as they should, but they are
no excuse for limiting freedom of the press. In
fact, despite what some self-serving, flag-waving
politicians may say, nothing about our democracy
is perfect, or ever will be. I have faith in our
system, and I want it to survive for future
generations. I warn you, however, that it will not
do so without the support of a responsible,
aggressive, critical, but above all FREE press.
THE JOURNALIST'S ROLE
IS TO INFORM THE PUBLIC
Hal Walker
In this article Hal Walker, also a CBS News
correspondent, presents you with his
thoughts on the responsibilities of a
journalist. He has had a diverse career as a
reporter, ranging from special assignments
in Europe to covering the activities of every
President since Lyndon B. Johnson. As you
read his article keep in mind that what you
are reading is the perspective of one
journalist who has written this essay to get
you thinking about some important
questions. As Mr. Walker states in his
article, a good journalist strives to inform
rather than to convince.
The thoughts I have on journalism do not
come from an academic background in this field.
As a matter of fact, I've never taken a journalism
course in my life. Instead, the conclusions I have
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 8 lA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 reached and the ie 3'r4vPi eo l {g j~1~i /13 : jfr- 8-~13t1a 0 ~1 Q~r fession as an
come from nearly fourteen years of professional ideal. Of course, when we're talking about
experience. I don't look at them as final answers, standards of honesty, fairness and objectivity, we
but as answers which satisfy me now in a process, are talking about ideals for which to strive.
which is a continuing one, and a learning one. Naturally, in a day-to-day practice, these ideals
Fundamentally, I believe that the basic role are not always reached, and that is why a certain
of journalism and journalists is to inform the pub- amount of responsibility must fall upon the con-
lie. I do not believe it is to convince. It is to give sumer of journalistic output.
the people the information that they need to be
able to make informed and intelligent decisions
about the things that affect their daily lives.
Weather reports are as essential a part of the in-
formation that the journalist can impart to his
public as anything else. A weather report gives
you the information that you need to decide how
you will dress, what appointments you will
make-in effect, how you will run your life for a
given period of time affected by that particular
report. I do not believe it is the role of the
journalist giving weather reports to convince his
readers, his viewers or his listeners to wear a cer-
tain type of clothing or to cancel certain types of
appointments. He is simply there to provide the
people with the information that they need.
News Must Be Honest and Factual
This is not to say that there is no legitimate
role for editorialists or commentators, people like
that. I believe very strongly that those who are
going to perform as editorialists and as
commentators must very clearly label their
material as such.
I would like to mention here the subject of
advocacy journalism which has become rather
fashionable these days, especially with young
people. For my part, I cannot accept the concept
of advocacy journalism. I do not believe that the
journalist can put himself in the role of an
advocate and still expect to be accepted as an
objective reporter of the truth, or even of the truth
as he sees it. Objectivity has gone out of fashion as
a word in journalism because we understand that
it is impossible for any living human being to be
completely objective about anything. Although
the ideal may not be attainable., I believe it is a
basic responsibility of the serious journalist to
strive as mightily as he can to be as objective as
possible.
Perhaps we should substitute for objectivity
the words honest, factual, careful and fair,
because these, I believe, are the basic standards
against which the work of any journalist must be
measured. It is very easy, when talking about
The nation's leaders, or the average
television viewer or the radio listener on his way to
the office, must exercise some degree of
responsibility for what he takes in as valid news. I
suppose this is why I become so concerned when I
learn that for an extraordinarily large percentage
of Americans, the only source of daily information
is the evening television news program. That, of
course, is very sad. It is, in fact, a travesty. More
importantly,,it places a greater burden on the
evening television news program than any one
medium of journalism should be forced to carry. I
believe it is very much the responsibility of the
individual consumer to weigh, to check, and to
compare his news sources. From among the many
sources of information available, he or she can
thus arrive at informed conclusions about which
of the many sources is the correct one.
The president of CBS News has been quoted
as saying that he wished at the end of the CBS
evening news, instead of having Walter Cronkite
say, "and that's the way it is," he should say
Approved For Release 2004/10$}i : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 instead "for furtii~r? nformation,aconsult /your3 : CIA-R[ PtIA~5~BR4%9~Wall rwise, has many
local newspaper." I would give that advice to sides. There's the "cushion-warming, bus-riding,
anyone who is honestly looking for a truly flying-and-more-flying" dull side. There's the
balanced picture of the day's events. "take a press release on a non-story and try to
make-news-when-there-isn't-any" side. There's
People Need Good Information
to Make Wise Decisions
The one thing that sets a democracy aside,
apart, and yes, above many other forms of
government is the fact that major decisions that
affect the citizenry are made by the citizenry.
Therefore, to function at its highest level, a
democracy is dependent upon an informed,
intelligent and interested body of citizens who will
be called upon to make the decisions that affect
us all. The one thing that a free press can do is to
make available the factual information that free
citizens need in order to make intelligent
decisions.
That same free press cannot and should not
be asked to make the decisions for the people. It
should neither be allowed to strain the
information nor to censor it. Above all, it must
never knowingly distort or falsify the facts. I
happen to have an unwavering faith in the ability
of people to make decisions for themselves that
are in their best interest, provided they are given
access to the information that they need to know.
"The press, like fire, is an excellent servant
but a terrible master."
James Fenimore Cooper (1838)
THE LIGHTER SIDE OF
POLITICAL REPORTING
John O. Goldsmith
Mr. Goldsmith is the former co-anchorman
of the 10 o'clock Metromedia News. He has
also been a highly successful investigative
reporter and presently operates his own film
production company. In this article, written
especially for Perspectives, he offers you a
glimpse of another side of the news business,
of the foils and follies in the life of a reporter.
the "real stories only break eight minutes before
deadline" hurry-up and panic side. Then there's
the "if I don't get a break in this grind, I'm going
absolutely bananas" lighter side. I'd like to share
with you a few interesting and revealing
experiences.
This man was running for the Washington,
D.C. school board. At that time the school board
was the only elected body in the city, all other
positions being appointive. So the election was a
pretty big event. The candidate had called a news
conference outside one of the city's older school
buildings. As I recall, ours was the only TV
camera crew to show. The prospective board
member, gesturing toward the building,
proclaimed that it had only one rest room for all
those children. A terrible disgrace, he charged,
especially when one considered that the White
House had 100 bathrooms. Returning to the
studios, I decided to dig a little deeper. In a
desperate attempt to save another political non-
story, I called the White House press office.
"How many bathrooms are there?" I
inquired.
The somewhat incredulous spokesman said
he could only guess there were between twenty
and thirty. His next line provided the closer for
my story on the air that night: "We can't be sure
how many there are. We haven't made a `head'
count lately."
As I came to the line something snapped. I
went into hysterics and literally fell off my chair.
You had to be there. Or at least watching.
Setting Up to "Shoot" the President
Terminology in our business almost got me
into hot water with the Secret Service during the
1968 Miami Beach Republican Convention. You
remember: that's the one that started Spiro
Agnew on the road to being a "household word"
and saw Richard ("you-won't-have-me-to-kick-
around-anymore") Nixon make his return only to
be kicked around like never before. To appreciate
what follows you should know that Secret Service
agents and local law enforcement people who are
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 gclA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 p A r ed.For 2eleeQ 2004/1 /13 : CIA-RDP&8-01315~,QQ920q,1 D07-?h
recruited to rotect a residen an is ami eware o ive icrou ones
wear identifying pins on their lapels. This tells
everyone that they are rightfully carrying guns.
The pins change color and design each day so
someone with ill intent can't copy them.
Mr. Nixon had won his party's nomination
the night before. Now he was about to host a news
conference in the lobby of the Fontainebleau, his
hotel headquarters. Our camera crew was in
position to record the event. With a few minutes
to spare, I went to a pay phone to check in with
my Washington assignment desk. I had left the
booth door open and two men strolled by at the
very moment I was reporting our status in the
jargon of the trade: "We're all set up in the
lobby," I said, "to `shoot' Nixon."
The men turned and looked at me. I looked
at them. More distressing to me at the moment, I
looked at their lapel pins. We exchanged nervous
smiles as they kept walking. I thought to myself,
"Very poor choice of words. Very poor."
By the time I returned to the lobby to rejoin
my camera crew, there were lapel pins everywhere
I looked. It took more than a little explaining. For
the remainder of my stay in Miami Beach, I had
the distinct feeling that I was never alone!
hews ', rm a reporter When said % was
going to'shoof the Prtsl#14' x was taftin,
2bout... W, ya go}f'o belittle nt?..."
If anyone ever tells you that covering a
President travelling overseas is glamorous and
exciting, don't you believe it. I was assigned Mr.
Nixon's first trip to Europe in 1969. It was very
much like running all out on a treadmill with
someone tossing cold water in your face one day,
shining hot lights on you the next. The weather
ranged from wet snow to balmy sunshine as we
shuttled from country to country, from chartered
jetliner to bus to hotel room to news center to
bus...
Thanks to the time difference, we were out of
bed every morning around six, but couldn't call it
quits until stateside assignment editors said OK,
which was frequently two or three a.m. in Europe.
I'd been running like this for about a week before
we reached London where, from the BBC studios,
I was to send a report via satellite on the day's
Presidential activities. It was pushing midnight
and I was very tired, so tired that I temporarily
forgot one of the cardinal rules of broadcasting:
Always treat a microphone as though it is "alive."
Many a career has come to a jolting halt because
some technician threw the wrong switch and
recorded some words which were not meant to be
broadcast. The satellite would relay my story to a
receiving center, shared by all broadcasting
organizations, which happened to be a New York
network news operation. Executives of the various
news organizations were together awaiting their
reporters' stories. As I waited in that studio and
felt my fatigue I moaned at considerable length
and in great detail about how rough the trip had
been. How the people back home didn't
understand my problems. How I had to work with
film crews in various countries who didn't speak
English because my company was too cheap to
send along a crew with me.
You guessed it! Every complaining word
plus my image in living color beamed, via
satellite, to that New York receiving center where
my boss waited. His face, I must presume, was in
livid color: a combination of embarrassment as he
stood among his peers and anger at his reporter in
far-off London Town. I vented my spleen totally
unaware that it wasn't a conversation between
me, the four walls and some technicians I'd never
see again, but a gripe session that literally went
around the world. Unaware, that is, until the
phone rang with a call from the States.
But that's a conversation that couldn't be
reported.
Approved For Release 2004/10/16: CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For R fA 14 10,E 11` E $$ 161000200160007-2
As readers (also listeners) it is very important that we develop the skills to be able to differentiate between
fact and opinion in the news. An article on the editorial page, or one which is labelled "news analysis" or
"commentary" obviously presents the opinion of the author on a particular subject. Others are supposed
to "report the facts "; as Hal Walker writes in the preceding article, to inform the public without
attempting to persuade or direct.
In reading about politics you probably have discovered that it is not that simple to separate fact from
opinion. Many times they are mixed together in a single article. Some passages present the facts while
others analyze or comment on them. Consider the following examples of news, some of which appeared
in the very same article, and label each as "FACT" or "OPINION. " These passages are excerpted from
the July 9 and 13, 1977 editions of the The Washington Post. A good further exercise would be to go
through an edition of your favorite newspaper, identifying facts and opinions as you perceive them.
1. By voting this week to continue the temporary ban against operations of the Concorde at Kennedy
Airport... the Port Authority's members have abused their power.
2. President Carter yesterday urged Congress to vote initial production funds for a new generation of
neutron nuclear weapons... Carter said, "It is my present view... the neutron weapons are in the
nation's security interest."
3. The Panama Canal was high on Carter's list when he took office. A week before his inauguration he
privately told members of Congress he planned to resume negotiations on a new treaty.
4. The Panama Canal is, perhaps, the last vestige of American innocence-or arrogance. They go hand in
hand. For decades it was a proud symbol of The Flag, of American daring and might, the passageway
that made the Pacific an American lake.
5. Since the collapse of the American-backed regimes of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, the United States
has granted sanctuary to about half of the 300,000 refugees who have fled these countries. The White
House... is considering the admission of 15,000 more...
6. Still this is not a problem that lends itself to the business-as-usual play of American bureaucracy and
politics. The refugees are out there in misery, in the refugee camps and on the high seas.
7. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday tentatively approved a treaty that would allow
Americans imprisoned in Mexico to serve out their jail sentences in U.S. prisons. . . One of the
problems involved in ratifying the treaty with Mexico is the possibility that some returned Americans
might seek to bring an action through the American court system to overturn their Mexican con-
victions.
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 8FA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 PERSPECTIVES PANEL:
POLITICAL ROLE
OF THE PRESS
Within its own ranks, as well as among
government officials and the general public,
the press has been alternately acclaimed and
criticized. The political influence of those
referred to as "the fourth estate" has become
more apparent over the past decade.
-What do you see as the most crucial role
of the press in our political system?
-How effectively has it fulfilled this role?
Paul Duke, PBS Television Correspondent;
The fundamental function of the American
press is to present the truth about the government
to the American people.
It is a difficult task, to say the very least. But
the exposure of Watergate and other
governmental abuses has reaffirmed the strength
and vitality of the Constitution's First
Amendment guaranteeing freedom of the press. It
has proved, moreover, the virtue of James
Madison's observation that "knowledge will
forever govern ignorance."
Some critics contend reporters are snooping
into too many governmental corners these days,
suggesting they are undermining people's faith in
ouWi !tfff3 s 1I5 ?2 16WP7ri3ed more, not
less, investigative reporting. If the politicians can
make such a mess of things and arrogantly misuse
their powers-as has happened-think how much
worse the government would be if the press were
silent. The time to be concerned about our
freedom is when the press and the politicians start
back-slapping one another.
Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell recently
noted in a decision upholding press freedom that
history abundantly documents the tendency of
government, no matter how benevolent, to view
with suspicion those who question its policies. It
was none other than President John Kennedy who
cancelled all White House subscriptions to the
New York Herald Tribune because he disagreed
with some of its criticisms of his Administration's
policies.
Former Senator Sam Ervin of North
Carolina, a noted defender of the press, placed
the issue in proper focus when he declared that
the First Amendment was designed to protect the
public, not the press. For this reason, he added,
we must tolerate a press that is sometimes wrong,
occasionally vindictive, and infrequently biased.
It is a price-a small price, really-that we must
pay for having the widest possible distribution of
information, unfettered by government inter-
ference.
The distinguished journalist, Walter
Lippman, once said, "There can be no higher law
in journalism than to tell the truth and shame the
evil."
Hence, a vital press is needed to provide as
much sunlight as possible on the activities of
government, thereby helping to make certain that
government always operates within the
boundaries of our constitutional ideals.
Morton Kondracke, Executive Editor, The New
Republic:
The basic purpose of the press is to tell
people what is going on. In politics, those in office
usually will take care of telling people what they
have done right, so it falls to the press to tell what
is going wrong. In general, the press performs its
function well, especially when compared to the
press elsewhere in the world. Watergate, leading
to the resignation of a President; exposure of
wrongdoing by the Central Intelligence Agency,
leading to Congressional investigations; and
awareness that this country's leadership was
misleading the citizenry about the Vietnam
War-all these are recent examples of the press
Approved For Release 2004/10%? : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13: C
IAa i ar-F~P8~-01uc 15FOor , it o WOOOM~Qt7 United States
doing its job in a way that is hard to imagine in ,
any other country. Citizens' Congress:
At the same time, the press has serious Under the First Amendment, I perceive a
failings. Most reporters are lazy and editors are responsible media (press and electronic) to be
unimaginative, with the result that only a few dispensers of untainted news; vehicles for
newspapers (and, practically no television organ- opinion; guardians of individual freedom and
izations) were responsible for Watergate, the CIA ombudsman against abuses and capricious acts of
exposure, Vietnam disclosures and other public officials.
important investigations. Also, people in the However, just as it has been argued that war
media tend to run in packs, think alike, and is too serious an affair to be left entirely to the
observe the same fads. One year, everybody will generals (which is why we have civilian control), so
be writing about poverty; the next year, it is too may it be said that keeping the public
corruption or war, and everyone has forgotten truthfully informed is too serious an affair to be
about poor people. The press is part of the left entirely to the journalists. One must bear in
American Establishment, so it lacks the ability to mind that freedom can never be total. The very
criticize the society as a whole. safeguards of freedom preclude its totality;
These findings do not mean the press should among them, freedom to publish slanted news,
be less free or more controlled. To the contrary, half-truths and carnal sensationalism. This
they mean the press has to be more energetic in cannot be rationally defended as within the
doing the job the U.S. Constitution anticipated it purview of the First Amendment.
would perform. Moreover, given the proclivities of the
Nicholas Johnson, Chairperson, National Citizens
Committee for Broadcasting:
Television has the potential to increase the
American people's understanding of the many
complex problems that face their society, and
thereby enhance their ability to make sound
political choices. Over 95% of all Americans own
a television; on the average weekday evening, 60%
of them are watching.
Driven by the corporate greed for ever-in-
creasing profits, restrained by the fear of
controversy and confrontation, the television
industry is seldom willing to make the financial or
journalistic commitment necessary to aid the
citizen in understanding the political and social
problems of our time. Broadcasters are even less
willing to allow the diverse voices and opinions
that make up this country to use the airwaves
from which these broadcasters make their
enormous profits. It is virtually impossible for a
member of the public to use those airwaves to
communicate with other fellow citizens.
The technical and creative forces, the people
eager to communicate with their fellow
Americans, already exist. We need only get the
corporate owners of television and radio stations
to free up some portion of their time for
improving our political system and our
understanding of one another. Herein lies the
greatest untapped potential of television. Let me
hear from you. Together we can make it happen.
predominately liberal working press (electronic
included), the chance for opposing opinion and
differing ideological persuasions is almost totally
prevented. My personal experience with the
media has been traumatic. They frequently
savaged me by commission and omission and
distorted my views to fit what they regard to be
abomination.
Some of the moguls, owners of leading
newspapers and potentates of the three major
networks and others, huge corporate giants with
interests in other than newsprint, sit in their ivory
towers dispensing "justice" and "benevolence,"
perhaps in atonement for their economic power
and high living, or to contain the economically
disadvantaged for fear of being toppled. In either
case, they appear to me the avant garde of the
Marxist revolution, planting the seed of their own
destruction. After all, who subsidized Vladimir
Ilyich Lenin?
The role of the media under the First
Amendment is a sacred trust, primarily for the
protection of the individual against oppression, be
it civil, moral, religious or economic. It was never
intended as a power base to rival anything we
have now in government. What distresses me is
the way every office-holder from the President on
down to the precinct level, stands in awe of the
media. What unsettles me is that rather than
embody "the fourth estate," the media have
become the fourth branch of government,
reigning over the three other branches without
accountability to the people. While the media has
Approved For Release 2004/10/138?IA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 been know to root heeRravpd
ptF0% $ a01pc$g2ctJ?/13 :C Fd&- gP88i%tllq o00t3Pe0'~RRRTAs. The total
they have also erected a citadel for their own
brand of corruption.
Victor Gold, Syndicated Columnist, Former Press
Secretary to Former Vice President Agnew:
Forty years ago, President Franklin
Roosevelt could call his White House press corps
into the Oval Office to answer questions put to
him on a "background basis." These Presidential
"press conferences" were usually brief, informal
and conducted under a cramped format that
suited the convenience of the White House.
The growth of news media power and
influence in Washington during recent decades
can be measured not only by the relative size of
today's White House press corps, but by the fact
that no modern President could long govern the
country with such limited access, through the
press to the public.
In the 1970's, the number of accredited
White House journalists, both print and
number of Washington newsmen, covering all
branches and departments of our Federal
Government, runs into the thousands.
Recent years have witnessed events that draw
attention to the adversary nature of press and
government. And there will always be areas in a
free society-if that society is to remain free-
wherein newsmen and government officials clash.
But we should not, in emphasizing these clashes,
overlook the more fundamental role played by the
press in its less dramatic coverage of "routine"
events and activities involving the executive,
Congressional, and judicial areas of government.
The national capital press corps is more than
a watchdog. It is a conduit without which most of
the information regarding the decisions affecting
our lives would never reach the public. To this
extent, modern American government is depend-
ent on the media to get its message out: a freely-
elected government operating through a free press
to communicate to a free people.
REFLECTIONS
The authors in this Perspectives Panel have presented you with different and sometimes conflicting
views. Which authors do you think would agree with the following statements?
1. The major political role of the press is to inform the public.
2. The press must also be a "watchdog" for the American people. We can be assured that government
officials will tell the public all about what they are doing well. It is the responsibility of the press to
expose what is going wrong.
3. The press has abused the trust and responsibility placed in it by the Constitution. Too often, it reports
half-truths, slanted news, and sensationalist stories.
4. Too much air time is given to game shows and police stories. Television needs to become much more
effective as a medium for educating the American people about our government and about the
challenges confronting our society.
5. Freedom of the press is one of the most sacred principles of our democracy. The press must always
have enough freedom to be an adversary rather than a partner of the government.
Approved For Release 2004/10/90 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
6.
LOBBYING:
Influencing the Policy Makers
"In every country where man is free to think and to speak,
differences of opinion will arise from differences of
perception and the imperfection of reason.... "
Thomas Jefferson
Lobbying is one of the least understood yet most important aspects of our political system. The
Constitution does not contain any clause which specifically defines the functions of a lobbyist, although
the First Amendment right "to petition the government for the redress of grievances" has been inter-
preted as guaranteeing the right to lobby. Nor do dictionaries give any strict definition of who is a lobby-
ist. Nevertheless, if we are to genuinely understand politics and government, it is necessary to gain a more
accurate knowledge of lobbying and lobbyists.
In 1976 more than 1000 corporations, labor unions, law firms, trade associations, individual citizens
and other organizations registered in Washington, D.C. as lobbyists. Based upon their membership and
the interests which they represent, lobbyists can be classified into general groupings such as business,
labor, environmental, consumer and "public interest" lobbyists. There are also professional lobbyists
who contract to represent several clients who do not employ their own lobbyists. All lobbyists attempt to
exert pressure on behalf of a particular interest group. In studying any issue, be it domestic or foreign
policy, it is important to identify which lobbyists are attempting to influence the policy makers in the
executive and legislative branches.
The articles in this chapter are intended to help you gain a clearer idea of what lobbying is and why
it is central to our governmental process. The first two articles define the job of a lobbyist and explain his
functions; both are authored by actual lobbyists. Congressman Tom Railsback, a leading sponsor of
lobby reform legislation, has authored an article on this subject. Finally, the Know the Lobbyists chart
helps you become familiar with some of the major lobbyists.
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 :cIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved
WHO IS A LOBBYIST AND
WHAT DOES HE REALLY
DO??
Michael O. Ware
Mr. Ware is the Government Affairs Coor-
dinator for the National Association of
Manufacturers, a position which includes
lobbying among its responsibilities. He drew
upon his own experience and expertise to
write this article for Perspectives. It presents
you with a very informative perspective on
who these people called lobbyists are and
what is their job.
"A lobbyist," Senator James Reed of
Missouri said once, "is anyone who opposes legis-
lation I want." Probably most people feel that
way. Lobbyists are envisioned as unshaven, cigar-
smoking, political "fixers" carrying money-
filled black bags with which to bribe legislators.
Actually, although the term lobbyist is held
in low esteem, everyone to some degree or other is
a lobbyist. Any person who attempts to persuade
another, be it in regard to community activities,
PTA or social welfare programs, is actually lobby-
ing.
Who is a Lobbyist?
Legally, a lobbyist is a petitioner of the
government exercising a right granted in the First
Amendment of the Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establish-
ment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there-
of; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or of the right of the people peaceably to assembly,
and to petition the government for a redress of
grievances."
This assumption, that all individuals and
groups are entitled to representation in the mak-
ing of public decisions, forms the basis for all
lobbying activities; it is the truest essence of
participatory government.
The Washington Lobbyist by Lester W.
Milbrath (Rand McNally and Co., 1963, pp. 7-8)
describes the lobbying function in a more
scholarly manner:
Despite the imprecision of the word "lobbying," some
boundaries can be defined. First, lobbying relates only
to governmental decision-making. Decisions made by
private organizations or corporations may be influ-
enced by special interests within those organizations
or from without, but they do not affect the entire body
politic. Second, all lobbying is motivated by a desire to
influence governmental decisions (many actions and
events affect the outcome of governmental decisions),
but if they are not accompanied by an intent to in-
fluence, there is no lobbying. Third, lobbying implies
the presence of an intermediary or representative as a
communication link between citizens and govern-
mental decision makers. A citizen who, of his own
volition and by his own means, sends a message to a
governmental decision maker is not considered a
lobbyist-though he is attempting to influence
governmental decisions. Some may not agree with this
stipulation. However, if all citizens are potential
lobbyists and if all voters are lobbyists (since voting is,
in a sense, a message sent with intent to influence), the
word lobbying would lose its usefulness.
Fourth, all lobbying involves communication.
Without communication, it is impossible to influence
a decision. On the other hand, not all communica-
tion-only that which attempts to influence govern-
mental decisions-is lobbying. Broadly defined then,
lobbying Is the stimulation and transmission of
communication by someone other than a citizen act-
ing on his own behalf directed to a governmental
decision-maker with the hope of Influencing his
decision.
"If it Walks Like a Duck..."
Most people, as mentioned earlier, without
being very precise about the meaning of the term,
seem to feel that any lobbying is corrupt. This
concept exists because of many factors. The
general assumption is that the "public interest" is
somehow subverted by the lobbying process. The
defeated party in a policy battle often charges that
his opponents won because of the-evil activities of
lobbyists. Such charges are easily accepted by the
public because they confirm their preconceptions.
As Milbrath found in his study ".. The public
generally receives only negative information about
lobbyists."
With this kind of public image, it's no
wonder that many people performing the same
function call themselves by different titles. Few
individuals admit to being lobbyists; instead they
are a "Washington Representative," or "Legis-
lative Liaison," and (worst of all in light of current
revelations) "Coordinator Government Affairs."
Borrowing an analogy from former Senator Sam
Ervin(D-N.C.), however, "If it walks like a duck,
sounds like a duck, and when I see it, it is always
Approved For Release 2004/10/41 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13: CIA-RDP88-01315R0002 1.60Q07-2
in the company of other ducks, I just naturally Washington to presen is views. People need to
assume it is a duck." organize. They need representation as groups or
For the same reason, some groups attempt to special interests, which means they need a person
disassociate themselves from the seedy image of
lobbying by proclaiming that they are "public
interest" lobbyists, in contrast to "special
interest" lobbyists. They refer to their own
activities as educational and those of their
opponents as lobbying . . . Sometimes a duck
prefers to be seen as a peacock.
"In every session of Congress over 20,000
pieces of legislation are introduced. The
subjects of these bills cover every aspect of
American society.... No Congressman or
Senator can be an expert in all of these
fields. . . This expertise is provided by the
lobbyists."
Lobbyists: Source of Information
Whatever titles are used, the principal
function of a lobbyist is education and his
principal commodity is information.
In every session of Congress over 20,000
pieces of legislation are introduced. The subjects
of these bills cover every aspect of American
society: energy, environment, health, welfare, job
safety, education, economics, and so many other
equally complex issues. No Congressman or
Senator can be an expert in all of these fields, yet
expertise is often called upon in the analysis of
them. This expertise is provided by the lobbyist.
On many occasions the lobbyist is the only
individual to whom legislators can look for
specialized information which they need. Without
the information provided by the lobbyists, the
legislative process would be severely hampered.
For these reasons the lobbyist is very frequently
an informal consultant to legislators, to adminis-
trators, and their staffs. This is not a self-serving
statement. Without the information which the
lobbyist possesses, the Congress would be much
more dependent upon the executive branch, thus
further eroding the balance of power between the
two.
Lobbyist: Spokesman for Organized Interests
Also, the Members of Congress need to know
the "cross-section" of views which exist in the
areas they represent. In a complex society every-
one cannot come to a town meeting or to
to act for them when they cannot. Members of
Congress thus "hear" from their constituents as
their special or unique interests are represented
by the business lobbyist, the labor lobbyist, the
consumer lobbyist, and many others. Combined
with the letters received from "the people back
home," this helps the legislators to represent the
people who elected them.
That is the service for which there is no sub-
stitute-the clash of viewpoints. The creative
function this serves in alerting decision-makers to
all possible alternatives outweighs all the frus-
tration involved in lobbying. This one function is
also most clearly protected by the constitutional
right to petition. Officials might find other
sources for more services lobbyists provide, but
they could never find a substitute for the essential
representational function that spokesmen for
organized interests provide. Former Congressman
Emanuel Celler (D-New York) sums up this point
rather well:
" ..It is...true that the pressures generated by a well
organized interest group can become irritating. But
despite this I believe that too much lobbying is not as
dangerous as too little. . . . The Congressman may
know or suspect that there are serious opposing con-
siderations (to legislation), but they are simply not
presented. He is faced with a dilemma as to how far he
should go to supply the omission."
In addition, the lobbyist has a responsibility
to protect the legitimate interests of his employer
and to keep the employer informed on specific
and general trends which affect a particular
business, or a particular special interest. To those
not familiar with Washington, this may seem to
be a rather insignificant assignment. It must be
realized, however, that the lobbyist is usually
working for someone who is located far away from
Washington and, who, in many instances, lacks a
political orientation. The employer who is made
knowledgeable of the present political situation
and of possible future governmental actions is a
much more capable businessman than the one
who operates in a political vacuum.
Lobbyists: Indispensable Parts of Our Political
System
The fundamental questions remain: What
contributions do lobbyists make to the political
system as a whole? Do these contributions tend to
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 WA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
make the political system more or less workable?
Ask any lobbyist and he will give you a re-
sounding "Yes!" Many congressional officials
claim they could function quite adequately with-
out us. We are, however, probably indispensable.
If information from lobbyists and lobby groups
was, for some reason, unavailable to government
officials, they would be largely dependent upon
their own staff for all information and all ideas.
Since the Congress is reluctant to staff itself ade-
quately, it would have to turn primarily to the
Executive for information. This would create an
even further imbalance in policy-making. More
important, cutting off lobbying communications
would eliminate a most valuable source of
creativity. There is no assurance that government
institutions can turn up all the possible alterna-
tive solutions to policy problems; as a matter of
fact there is a great deal of evidence that points to
the opposite.
A decision-maker who has his mind made up
may well have to have new points of view force-
fully presented to him before he can perceive and
accept them. The clash of viewpoints between
contesting groups is not only informative, it is also
creative. The best way to teach the realities of life,
according to John Stuart Mill, is by hearing the
opposition. Let the position be challenged, and let
the challenge fail. This method was considered by
Mill to be so important that he recommended
inventing a challenging position if a real one was
not forthcoming. Formerly unperceived
alternatives may arise from the challenge to
previously accepted possibilities.
"If we had no lobbyists, we would probably
have to invent them to improve the
functioning of our political system."
Through lobbyists and lobby groups, officials
know what the effects of a given policy will be and
how citizens will react to that policy. The lobbyist
defines opinions for government in real and
specific terms to a degree that cannot be achieved
through political parties, the mass media, opinion
polls and staff assistants.
There is a good reason to conclude, then,
that the "system" without lobbyists would not
produce wiser nor more intelligent decisions.
Instead the assumption could be made that if we
had no lobbyists, we would probably have to
invent them to improve the functioning of our
political system.
WHO IS A LOBBYIST AND
WHAT DOES HE REALLY
DO??
Richard W. Clark
Mr. Clark is a member of the legislative staff
and a registered lobbyist for Common
Cause, a citizens' interest group. He has
written this article for Perspectives in which
he presents the views of a public interest
lobbyist on his role in our political system.
Mr. Clark and Mr. Ware represent different
interests, and you will see that they have
varying perspectives on their own roles as
lobbyists.
In its broadest context, lobbying can be
defined as the process by which individuals and
interest groups influence the governmental
decision-making process. Professional lobbying
activity involves far more than an occasional offer
of assistance, visit with a Member of Congress, or
"Dear Representative" letter on a favorite issue.
The effectiveness of most lobbying efforts is
directly related to such factors as the amount of
money spent on influence seeking activities, the
size of an organization, the sophistication of its
technique and the socio-economic status of the
lobbyist.
Although the term "lobbyist" often carries
negative connotations, it is important for you to
understand that lobbyists generally serve a very
important function as the communication link
between the people whose interests they represent
and public officials. Lobbyists also provide re-
search and other information, monitor the
development of legislation and regulations, and
help stimulate action on issues of interest to their
constituents. Lobbyists provide a representation
for interest groups different from the
geographical, elected representation of Congress-
men. They also provide a representation in the
executive branch, for lobbying activities are not
confined to the halls of Congress.
"Inside" and "Outside" Lobbying
Lobbying involves a wide range of activities.
These activities may be directed toward leverage
building, agenda-setting or direct action on
specific legislative proposals. They include
electioneering, campaign contributions, gift-
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
94
 Approved For Release 2.0p4110113
giving, favor granting and platform writing, to
mention a few.
Lobbying may also involve the placement of
Members of Congress on key committees and sub-
committees, drafting and introduction of bills and
amendments, development of strategies for
accomplishing legislative objectives, initiating
and pressuring for favorable regulations and
other administrative policy decisions, promotion
of general or selective media campaigns and
participation in litigative activities intended to
challenge or defend a policy or program.
These activities can generally be classified in
two broad categories-"inside lobbying" and
"outside lobbying." Outside lobbying generally
refers to indirect activities which are intended to
influence Members of Congress or the executive
the Lobblilote
ihe mar elous.
magical lobb1~sf -
f~nger' SoP~orrs
ray ii on H he
else -e people.
er1 his c.latm 'rt- Is
in ever( ~b,~bca\ pie.
Gre pin-s+r fed
1"N For -the
C0n5erVa}7Ue5
L.cud -he -F6r +he
liberals
list of loo influPn~ial
le slags who love
f-Fed Iobst '
t
u
ba ed s
plus a guibe +o tuastim~~on's
(es~aurant5.
best
_~Iunnin9 Shoes Io enab~P
4ie ea-,er ~obbyisf ~o
ge+ -From One Cor1 re5Slonal
k
er
meefinod -ia am
C A-RD 8 0131 R00020016 007 2
ranc . xamp es are mem ership letter writing,
telephone campaigns, press conferences and
other media activities. Such "grassroots" activity
is generally aimed at educating or mobilizing the
members of lobbying organizations or the general
public for the purpose of influencing decisions on
a particular issue.
In contrast, inside lobbying refers to
activities aimed at influencing decision-makers in
a more direct manner. Inside lobbying involves
such activities as visiting policy-makers and their
staffs, testifying before congressional committees,
researching regulations and amendments, and (in
the case of Congress) vote-counting and develop-
ment of lobbying target lists.
Although lobbyists spend considerable time
engaged in outside lobbying, the most intense ac-
In5i rik Cnmmunica+ion
slsi'em... allows Ibbb~l t
-~ , slaa~ ~ n con,tan~'
UUIIl Lac.., W11 .1
Coups he (epe
~Jso enables i''n
mon,tar t jsla-bVe
on~ Mimeo raph mc2~+ln~
ma.onbNshee for eopiin9 infarma-hon
n
fv
spens'n li--
l "-
d d
j
t
an
h
1s lo jin
cc' o M Sera Hrs and~ongrPssmdn?
Ip ,p For ion
lob? by' ISM' 11o~'e iS~)11. Cane employecd
+o in-nuence- Iegtsla-iors -}-o it (oduc-e
or Vote -For measures -favorable to
-Hoe in-teres- he (epres,-Ats,
credit cards.
~or wlniA_C~ a.nd
dtnl n\ I?9islafioYS.,,
The" ustneS5lunch
is an e)(cellenf
Way -1o Sound oot
Po l -hcians On Issues.
offer new Per5Qec-'
-fives and ffestk
inform&-hon,
T-I- is also arl
exce (lent- way
to a~+ -Fat.
The telephone
'Perhaps, +he reates+
aid -o -Fhe 1obb ish
since -I-he inven ion
of +he can pail"
conJ(i boor .
fsamor role of
fhe iobb~is+,
Approved For Release 2004/10/139SCIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 tivities of
lobbying.
rofessionarlo roebdbFo r Releao~ Qo41110/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
P Y Need For Lobby Reform
Strategies At The Committee Level
In Congress, the bulk of Congressional delib-
erations occur in committee and subcommittee. It
has been estimated that, in fact, 90 percent of the
work of Congress takes place in committee. It is at
this level that legislation takes its basic form. It is
also at this level that lobbyists have their greatest
impact.
It is much easier for lobbyists to try to in-
fluence the one, two or sometimes three dozen
members of a committee than it is to try to in-
fluence every member of the Senate or House.
Lobbying at the committee level becomes even
more intense when it is focused on the so-called
"marginal votes"; i.e., those members who are
undecided on a given bill or amendment at a.
given point in time.
"In recent years, lobbying has become big
business with many organizations spending
tens and hundreds of thousands of
dollars."
Lobbyists will work hand in hand with
Representatives and their staffs in developing
strategies for successful action. These strategies
are in part substantive, part procedural and part
political. The substantive aspects involve
"educating" committee members as to what the
lobbyist's position is and providing the informa-
tion which will support this position. At the same
time procedural factors must be considered, for
legislative rules of procedure can be utilized very
strategically to delay or advance a cause. Finally,
lobbyists must be concerned with the political im-
plications of the issue. They must know what are
the prevailing sentiments among Republicans and
Democrats, as well as among business, consumer,
environmental and other interest groups.
In order to be effective and to participate at
each of these three levels of strategy, lobbyists
must be informed and have open lines of commu-
nication to all involved groups and individuals.
Moreover, the lobbyists must be sensitive to the
various interests at stake in order to operate
within the realm of the possible, as well as to be
prepared for the trade-offs which may be
necessary to be successful.
Lobbying is guaranteed under the First
Amendment right of "petition for redress of
grievances." In recent years, however, lobbying
has become big business with many organizations
spending tens and hundreds of thousands of
dollars for purposes which go far beyond any
reasonable concept of "petition." A 1976
Christian Science Monitor article estimated the
expenditure for lobbying at $1 billion a year. Most
of the groups spending major funds to lobby are
in the full-time business of heavily influencing, if
not manipulating, our political processes in order
to achieve their desired objectives.
Too often the activities and expenditures of
such lobbyist groups occur outside the range of
public scrutiny because of the ineffectiveness of
current disclosure requirements. The first,
current, and only general statute governing the
activities of lobbyists is the Federal Regulation of
Lobbying Act of 1946. The basic approach of the
1946 Act is one of exposure rather than pro-
hibition. Senator Kennedy commented on the
1946 Act recently stating that the Federal
regulation of lobbying law is based on the
principle that "sunlight is the best disinfectant,
that disclosure is the most suitable control over
lobbying, and that lobbying laws should identify
pressures, not restrict them."
In 1976 a new lobby reform bill was con-
sidered by the Congress. It did not pass, but
prospects are favorable for passage in the next
session. (See the next article, The Need for Lobby
Reform-Ed.)
THE NEED FOR LOBBY
REFORM
Congressman Tom Railsback
Congressman Railsback (R-Illinois) was first
elected to Congress in 1966, after four years
in the Illinois House of Representatives. In
the 94th Congress, he was a chief sponsor of
a new bill to reform lobbying; however, this
bill was defeated in the waning hours before
adjournment. In the 95th Congress, he has
re-introduced a new bill and, as a member of
the House Judiciary Committee, he has
played a major role in hearings on this and
other proposals for lobby reform. He wrote
this article especially for Perspectives.
Approved For Release 2004/10/~3b : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Government pol v ~s or sphouelci not, /e3 : CIA-RDP88-01 (~0M~W Tij Bill
made in a vacuum. Efforts of individuals and
groups to influence our government are an im-
portant part of the American system. Their views
are known at every level of government-state,
local and Federal-and range from agricultural,
business and labor to ethnic, racial and
religious.
I firmly believe that people not only have the
constitutional right, but a very real duty as
concerned citizens to contact public officials. As a
legislator I have found the information lobbyists
provide extremely valuable. Many times, I gain
access to information which I would not otherwise
have: how agricultural exports affect farmers in
my district, the adverse problems price controls
impose and whether a new consumer affairs
office will actually help the average housewife. In
fact, several of the bills I have introduced, such as
those establishing a Youth Council and a Folk-
life Center and even my lobby reform bill, are the
direct result of lobbying efforts.
Unfortunately, the picture of a lobbyist is
often that of a "sleazy, under-the-table opera-
tor." This description is grossly unfair to the vast
majority of lobbyists who act in a professional and
honest manner. However, unless the activities of
all lobbyists are open to the public, the unsavory
conduct of a few will condemn the reputation of
all.
The Weaknesses of the 1946 Act
The 1946 Act, our only existing lobby regu-
lation law, is a sham. Its faults have been well-
documented by various Congressional hearings
and by a 1975 General Accounting Office report.
The law only covers those whose "principal
purpose" is lobbying. It fails to cover "grassroots
lobbying" campaigns. It fails to cover lobbying of
the executive branch agencies. Finally, it fails to
provide adequate administrative and enforcement
authority.
In my mind, there is no question that the
current law is in need of revision. The difficulty in
attempting any such reform, however, involves
striking a proper balance between adequate
accountability by those who seek to influence
public policy and the safeguarding of our
treasured constitutional freedoms. Further,
Congress must be certain that no one group is
unduly burdened by time-consuming and costly
record-keeping and reporting requirements.
Last year, the House and Senate passed their
own versions of a new lobby reform bill. Un-
fortunately, the two versions could not be
reconciled before adjournment, and both bodies
are now working on new approaches. The House
Judiciary Subcommittee has just reported to the
full Committee what is, in my opinion, a "watered
down" version of last year's House bill. For
example, lobbying organizations would not have
to list their major financial contributors. I believe
this is a mistake, because the public has a right to
know who is providing substantial support to
organizations influencing public policy. In the
full Judiciary Committee, I will undoubtedly be
offering an amendment to require disclosure of
certain contributors. I will also offer other
amendments to bring the subcommittee version
closer to the bill (H.R. 5795) which Congressman
Bob Kastenmeier and I sponsored along with
approximately 60 other House Members.
Briefly stated, our bill requires filing and
quarterly reports by organizations which:
make expenditures in excess of $1,250 in any
quarterly filing period to retain another person,
to make a lobbying communication or solicitation
or for the express purpose of preparing or draft-
ing any such communication; or
(2) employ (a) at least one individual who spends
thirty or more hours in any quarterly filing period
making lobbying communications or solicitations
on behalf of the organization or its member or (b)
at least two or more individuals, each of whom
spends fifteen or more hours in any such period
making lobbying communications or solicitations
on behalf of the organization or its members.
Since the subcommittee finished its work in
late July, I am hopeful the full Judiciary
Committee will be able to report a bill by the end
of the year. A new lobby reform bill needs to be
enacted during this Congress. An effective, but
fair and even-handed lobby disclosure law will
assure that the doors to a previously closed and
often secret part of the political process will be
opened to the sunlight of citizen examination.
The result will undoubtedly be a strengthening of
our democracy and a restoration of public
confidence in elected officials and those who seek
to influence them.
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 9 IA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved Fok"W0 3L EVM"!q1PY)ROO0200160007-2
Twelve organizations involved in lobbying are listed below with an accompanying description of
their membership. Then six major issues of domestic and foreign policy are listed. Select the organization
which favors and the one which opposes each issue; fill these names in on the chart. Space has also been
left for your teachers to give you more issues on which you can work.
How do you find the answers? First, consider that all lobbyists represent the interests of their
membership. Second, read your local newspapers and the national newsmagazines. Third, use
reference books on lobbying organizations in your library. For example, the information on memberships
was drawn from The Washington Information Directory 1975-76 (Congressional Quarterly, Inc.,
Washington, D.C.) Fourth, you can write to the House or Senate committees which deal with that
particular policy area (see the Special Close Up Guide to Capitol Hill in Chapter 3 for instructions).
AFL-CIO-largest labor union in the nation
American Medical Association-physicians
Consumer Federal of America-national, regional, state and local consumer groups
Atomic Industrial Forum-industrial firms, labor unions and other organizations interested in peaceful
uses of nuclear energy
Coalition for a New Foreign and Military Policy-religious, labor, scientific, peace and generally liberal
groups
National Rifle Association-hunters, gunsmiths and others interested in firearms.
National Association of Manufacturers-corporations and manufacturers
Committee for National Health Insurance-individual citizens, labor unions and other groups
North American Rockwell Corporation-manufacturer of aircraft and many weapons for defense con-
tracts
National Council to Control Handguns-citizens' group
Chamber of Commerce of the United States-businesses, trade associations and local chambers of
Environmental Action-citizens' group concerned with safeguarding the environment
DOONESBURY by Garry Trudeau
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
Issue
In Favor
Against
Gun Control
Increase the
Minimum Wage
Create Agency for
Consumer Protection
National Health
Insurance
Build More and More
Nuclear Power Plants
B-1 Bomber
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 :4IA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 App ov d or Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
A INTRODUCTION TO LOBBYING:
A Close Up Briefing
Before the seminar on lobbying, one of your program instructors will conduct a short "Briefing" as
an introduction to this subject. The purpose is to provide some background information which will help
you participate in the seminar with your guest speaker. The briefing will cover many points raised in this
chapter's articles, so it would be valuable for you to have read them beforehand. Here is a general outline
of some of the subjects which may be discussed. Use these pages to take notes during both the briefing
and the seminar.
? What is lobbying?
? What are different classifications of lobbyists?
? What are the different methods of lobbying?
NOTES (BRIEFING)
Approved For Release 2004/1 MV : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2 NOTE ($EM1 Al 8-01315R000200160007-2
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 1RJA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 ApproveffpF'Repl?4120W'f3`l-RpP 01315R000200160007-2
Section III.
AMERICA IN THE WORLD:
Coexisting With 150 Other Nations
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
7.
FOREIGN POLICY:
Our National Interest and the Pursuit of Peace
"We recognize and accept our own
deep involvement in the destiny of
men everywhere. '.
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Ever since the War of Independence, we as a nation have recognized that "No man is an Ilande,
Entire of it selfe..." Immediately after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin
Franklin was dispatched to France as the first American diplomat. His mission was successful, and
French support was a crucial factor in the victory over the British. Even in those earliest days, foreign
policy was of great importance to the nation.
In the 20th Century our own expanding interests, two World Wars, modern technology and the
force of events in other countries have all caused an expansion of our global concerns. The United States
is universally recognized as a world power, a position which carries great influence, yet also bestows
serious responsibilities in an age in which the issues have grown increasingly complex. We have all been
witnesses to the intense debate and bitter conflict within our nation over the priorities and objectives of
our foreign policy. What should we do about the dangers of war in the Middle East, Southern Africa and
other areas? What should our policy be towards those other world powers, the Soviet Union and China?
What can we do about massive starvation in so many Third World nations? Furthermore, what should be
the roles of the President, the Secretary of State, the Congress and the American public in the making of
foreign policy?
These are only a few of the questions to be discussed. Since foreign policy is supposed to
advance and defend something called "the national interest," this chapter's first article focuses precisely
on this question-what is the national interest? In the Point Counterpoint article which follows, two
authors debate a series of questions concerning U.S. relations with the Soviet Union. Moving from the
question of relations between the two superpowers to a broader look at the international scene, U.S.
Ambassador to the United Nations Andrew J. Young examines the problems of world development.
Then, in an exclusive interview, Ambassador Neville Kanakaratne of the nation of Sri Lanka lets you
hear and read how a Third World nation perceives some of the major international issues. Finally, the
Perspectives Panel presents the ideas of two Senators, two Representatives, State and Defense Depart-
ment officials, and others on Future Directions for American Foreign Policy. A thoughtful reading of this
chapter will help you to better understand the world in which we live.
Approved For Release 2004110'd : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13: CIA-R P -01315R0 0 1 0007-
in t ht epartmen o a e, or student learning
CAN WE DEFINE THE
"NATIONAL INTEREST"?
Dr. Roger Leeds
Dr. Leeds was Associate Dean of the Johns
Hopkins School for Advanced International
Studies and is now working as an investment
banker for Salomon Brothers in New York
City. His article, written especially for
Perspectives, deserves to be read very
thoughtfully by all of us who may at times
feel overwhelmed by the number and
complexity of foreign policy issues.
Observers of America's behavior in the
international arena-whether they are concerned
high school students or professional diplomats in
the Department of State-are confronted with a
mind-boggling array of complex issues to
and food for developing countries), what policy
Union really lead to a lessening of tensions
between the two "Super Powers," or will Russia
take advantage of U.S. concessions? How should
the United States treat traditional allies in
Western Europe, particularly as countries such as
Italy inch closer to Communist dominated
governments? Is the nation getting its money's
worth when it spends almost $300 billion of tax-
payers' money for military hardware? Are we
devoting sufficient attention to the awesome
problems of poverty and hunger that keep many
underdeveloped countries at a level of subhuman
existence? What are the potential costs and
benefits of supporting Israel in her perpetual
struggle with Arab rivals?
In each case, United States policymakers are
striving for answers to complex problems in an
effort to contribute to what former Secretary of
State Henry Kissinger referred to as "the
structure of peace." In each case, regardless of
how simple or complicated the problem, the
policy maker begins by asking a fundamental
question: given the issue at hand (e.g., detente
with the Soviet Union, peace in the Middle East
and food for developing countries), what policy
will most effectively promote the U.S. national
interest?
This seemingly simple question provides the
one common denominator for all individuals
concerned with foreign policy. Whether you are
the Secretary of State, or a mid-level bureaucrat
about foreign policy, this question provides the
point of departure for a meaningful analysis of
any given issue in international affairs. BUT
WHAT IS THE NATIONAL INTEREST?
On one level it may be defined in terms of
protecting the physical survival of our national
territory. For example, the placement of offensive
nuclear missiles in Cuba by the Soviet Union in
October, 1962, proved a potential threat to the
survival of the United States. In this case, our
international interests were threatened in the
most fundamental way.
Or, policymakers can analyze a particular
issue in terms of the economic national interest.
Recently, for example, a debate took place in the
United States concerning the wisdom of exporting
large amounts of grain to the Soviet Union. On
one side, American farmers were in favor of this
trade with the Russians because of its favorable
impact on their business. However, critics felt that
this trade was driving up the price of grain in the
United States. And still a third group felt that
U.S. surpluses should be channeled to the poorer
nations of the so-called Third World. Each group
had a different perception of the national interest.
The national interest can also be assessed
purely in terms of ethical considerations. How, for
example, should the United States respond to
widespread allegations of torture and other gross
violations of human rights in countries such as
Chile and Brazil? Although events in those
countries will not dramatically affect economic or
security interests at home, many critics claim that
the United States has a moral obligation to take
strong action against these countries. Others
claim that the internal affairs of another country
are not the proper concern of the United States;
they claim that we should conduct business as
usual. Whose perception of the national interest is
correct?
Finally, as is often the case, the policymakers
encounter problems in foreign policy that affect a
combination of the nation's interests. For
example, the United States currently is one of the
largest sellers of conventional weapons to
countries around the globe. In this case, there are
economic considerations for the U.S. manu-
facturers, questions of morality for critics who
claim that the U. S. is fanning the flames of
conflict in foreign lands, and security considera-
tions because those same arms could some day be
aimed at American soldiers-in the Middle East,
for example.
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 1QA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Thus, althou h pine vfedeFor R I,e se 20044/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
r g t aIrs policy- Secretary of State to have a strong opinion on how
g
maker must deal with a vast, complicated array of the U.S. should conduct itself in the international
problems, he normally begins his analysis by arena. Nor is it necessary to be a so-called foreign
asking the relatively simple question about what policy expert to analyze intelligently a particular
is in the national interest. Unfortunately, the issue in foreign affairs. Rather, by starting with a
question is usually open to many different inter- simple question about how a particular issue
pretations and conclusive answers on which every- affects U.S. national interests, any concerned in-
one can agree do not occur frequently. dividual can participate in the ongoing foreign
For this reason, one does not have to be the policy debate.
n~q-~~attz~~>,ee~
Reprinted by permission of
Chicago Tribune-New York News Syndicate.
POINT COUNTERPOINT:
THE UNITED STATES AND THE SOVIET UNION
Carl Marcy-Committee on the Present Danger
Ever since the end of World War II, the central issue of American foreign policy has been relations with
the Soviet Union. This nation of 250 million people, with a political and economic system based on
Communism, has been our chief rival in the world and the major threat to our national security. From
Presidents Truman through Carter and Soviet leaders Stalin through Brezhnev, American-Soviet
relations have been an ever-changing mixture of competition, cooperation and conflict.
Here in the late 1970's it is important to gain a better understanding of U.S.-U.S.S.R. relations. The
purpose of this Point Counterpoint article is to present you with two contrasting perspectives on this
subject.
Approved For Release 2004/10/133 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
POINT: CARL MARCY
Carl Marcy was formerly chief of staff for the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Presently, he is co-director of the American
Committee on East-West Accord, a non-
partisan educational organization founded in
July, 1974, "aimed at improving East-West
relations, with special focus on U.S. - Soviet
relations. " Two co-chairmen of the Board of
Directors are George F. Kennan, former
Ambassador to the Soviet Union, and John
Kenneth Galbraith, professor and former
Ambassador to India. The views expressed in
this article are those of Mr. Marcy.
1) NATURE OF THE SOVIET THREAT:
Is the Soviet Union still pursuing world domina-
tion? If so, how does this threaten the interests of
the free world?
Suppose the question were reversed to read,
"Is the United States still pursuing world
domination?" A Russian is likely to answer in the
affirmative, just as an American is likely to
answer with a strong YES when asked, "Is the
Soviet Union still pursuing world domination?"
Emotionalism is so strong on the issue of
U.S. - Soviet relations that one would think from
reading the press that the U.S. and the Soviet
Union were mortal enemies, having fought war
after war. Not true. We have at one time or
another been at war with most of our present
great allies-Germany (twice), Japan, France,
Great Britan-but not with Russia.
The trick is not to become a prisoner of
emotion rather than fact, not to become locked
into what George Kennan has described as the
self-fulfilling prophecy. "History has proven,"
writes the former U. S. Ambassador to the Soviet
Union and Pulitzer Prize recipient, "that the
exaggeration of an adversary's negative
attributes, including the evilness of his intentions
and the strength he possesses... tends to promote
the arrival of the very dangers it attempts to
portray. We have serious enough problems in
world affairs today without convincing ourselves
of the existence of ones we don't really have."
(From George F. Kennan, The Cloud of Danger,
Boston: Little, Brown & Company, 1977, pp. 171-
72.)
Clearly there are many Russians and
Americans who attribute the most evil intentions
to each other. Americans who believe the Soviet
Union is out for world domination can "prove it"
by citing figures on Soviet manpower, missiles,
tanks and aircraft. They can quote Communist
books calling for world revolution, point to
Russian involvement in Southern Africa and with
other leftist political leaders in the developing
world... and, after all, Communist Castro is only
ninety miles from Florida.
On the other hand, Russians who believe the
U.S. seeks world domination can "prove it" by
referring to a re-armed Germany which in World
War II cost the Russians 20 million lives; by
pointing to U.S. military bases around the world;
by referring to the Korean and Vietnamese wars
in which over 100,000 Americans died, but no
Russians; by quoting U.S. Defense Department
figures showing that the U.S. has 8500 strategic
nuclear weapons against 4000 for the Soviet
Union; by citing Soviet military needs to protect
against Chinese military capabilities along the
longest land frontier in the world; by pointing out
that in addition to the U.S. supply of 8500
strategic nuclear weapons, the U.S. has 22,000 so-
called "tactical" nuclear weapons based in
Europe (7000), Asia (1700), with the U.S. Pacific
Fleet (1500), and with the Atlantic Fleet (1000).
(Tom Gervasi, Harpers, June, 1977.)
In short, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. can
threaten each other, and we have. We know we
can destroy each other. Certainly there are few
Americans, or Russians, who would subscribe to
the remark of a former U.S. Senator who said that
if a nuclear war occurred and there were only two
people left, he wanted them to be Americans.
World domination cannot be achieved by nuclear
weapons, because what would be left would not be
worth dominating.
The danger of Russian Communist power
spreading abroad is not military in nature.
Instead, it is to be found in any political and
economic appeal of the Soviet society in contrast
to the appeal of our democratic society and form
of government. Fortunately, the U.S. is perceived
in most of the world today as the nation with the
form of government and economic system which
offers the greatest good to the greatest number
with the greatest freedom in the shortest period of
time. Let us not lose that advantage.
Whoever heard of the flow of refugees from
any nation toward the Soviet Union? There may
be unreported people pounding at the Iron
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : % -RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 saIR 2x0044110/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
Curtain to get in, b {?r~~re?c g%A~F
detente is good only if it serves a U.S. interest?
many more trying to get out. As long as that Would not the Russians abandon the concept if it
condition exists, we need not fear world did not serve their interest?
domination by the Soviet Union. Also, it is well to The question is asked whether "there has
remember that the Soviet Union has not been been an actual reduction in the causes of tension
particularly successful in trying to keep Eastern between the two nations; why or why not?", as if
European and the Chinese Communist govern- detente were intended to dull awareness of
ments under close rein. differences between the U.S. and Soviet societies.
2) DETENTE OR A SOVIET GRAND
STRATEGY: From the perspective of the
American national interest, what have been the
principal achievements of detente? Or, do you see
a "grand strategy" underlying the Soviet military
buildup?
"The word `detente' simply refers to the
policy of actively working to improve relations
with the Soviet Union. The idea behind detente is
essentially that, despite conflicting interests and a
continuing adversary relationship, the overriding
interest of both the United States and the Soviet
Union is to agree on rules of the road for co-
existence in order to avoid blowing each other-to
say nothing of a good deal of the rest of the
world-to smithereens." (Fred Warner Neal,
Executive Vice President of the American
Committee on East-West Accord.)
It would seem hard to find anyone who would
disagree with this definition. There are, however,
individuals who reject even the use of such a
word-Presidential candidates Ford and Reagan,
for example. Ironically, it was the conservatives in
the Republican Party, President Nixon and
Secretary of State Kissinger, who used the word to
describe the new relationship between the U.S.
and the Soviet Union.
Unfortunately, if one wishes to discuss issues
in a rational manner, it is often necessary to avoid
use of words which have acquired an emotional
meaning, thereby destroying their usefulness. The
phrase "peaceful coexistence" was captured by
the Russians some years ago. Even the word
"peace" seems now to be more a part of the
Russian vocabulary than of the U.S.
There was a period when the French word
detente seemed to mean the same thing to
Russians as to Americans. Whether that is still
the case is questionable. Detente is a process
whose success or failure should be measured from
the perspective of both the American AND
Russian interest. If detente is a bust for the U.S.,
may it not also be a bust from the point of view of
the Soviet Union? Must Americans believe that
Anyone who follows press reports recognizes
that there have been increased tensions between
the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the past
year. However, those tensions did not result from
a policy of "detente", which has been a conscious
effort to improve relations between the two
countries. The tensions have developed because of
events which are much like ships passing in the
night. The Russians extend help to Angolan
revolutionaries, the Americans talk tough on the
cruise missile and human rights. The Russians
threaten an American reporter, the U.S. steps up
its broadcasts of the Voice of America.
Who is to blame? The answer is about as
simple as answering the question of which comes
first, the chicken or the egg. Certainly the answer
is not to be found in exchanging charges and
countercharges. The point is to rise above blame
and guilt to move forward from there.
Detente is a word which needs to be pre-
served, not usurped by either the Russians or the
Americans. Those in the U.S. who interpret
"detente" to mean surrender to the Soviet Union
make the false assumption that the Soviets "lack
all the normal attributes of humanity and are
motivated by nothing but the most blind and
single-minded urge of destruction towards the
peoples and substance of the United States and its
allies." (Kennan, op. cit.)
There are elements within the Soviet society
who make the same erroneous assumption about
the United States.
The national security of both the U.S. and
the Soviet Union is dependent upon new genera-
tions in each society able to surmount the hyper-
bole which too often characterizes the statements
of the leadership in both nations.
3) PEACE WITH SECURITY: Based on
your analysis of the Soviet threat, prescribe a plan
for American foreign policy. In particular, focus
on the questions of defense spending and nuclear
arms.
e will bury you," said former Soviet
Premier Nikita Khrushchev when he visited the
United States. Did he mean the Soviet Union
Approved For Release 2004/11" 3 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/1.3 CIA- P -01315R000200160007-
would bury the U.S. with weapons, or economi- to rig en an enemy into some ind of surrender.
cally, or both? If that doesn't work, then the weapons are to be
It is my view that the present Soviet leaders used to destroy the very thing governments are
believe, as did Khrushchev, that the Soviet created to save.
economic and political system is the wave of the The first nation to recognize that its security
future and competition for the hearts and minds rests more on giving priority to dealing with its
of men and women will be won by the Soviet internal problems and on promoting global de-
Union. Thus the "Soviet threat" to American velopment and human rights (without telling
security comes not so much from the muzzle of a every society precisely how to do it), than on being
gun, but rather from whatever economic or Number One in military spending will, in my
political appeal the Soviet system may present to view, be on the best path to promote its security
the world. and peace.
The U.S. can win this competition hands Specifically, I would like to see the United
down. We know, and so does most of the world, States take the initiative in bringing the arms race
that the American free enterprise system is the under control. One step would be a one year 10%
most effective instrument for production of goods reduction in our military budget as a challenge for
and services which has been developed. We also the Soviet Union to match. Others would be the
know that a democratic form of government suspension of all nuclear tests for a specific period
offers a means whereby individuals can live with- of time, and the promotion of an agreement
out oppression and develop as individuals, even promising not to be the first to use nuclear
though the system falters at moments. As weapons.
Winston Churchill once remarked, a democratic At the same time, the U.S. should take ad-
government is the worst form of government, vantage of every opportunity to engage in trade,
except for all others. cultural and scientific exchanges with the Soviet
The threat to the United States, therefore, Union. We certainly can't expect to make head-
comes from the danger that we become so pre- way in arms control without trade and cultural ex-
occupied with building a military machine that we changes, and we can't make headway in trade
lose sight of the fact that our strength and our without some control of the arms race. Both are to
security are in large part attributable to our form our mutual advantage.
of government and economic system. In short, the Russian leaders are not crazy
I do not want to be understood as advocating enough to seriously contemplate nuclear war with
a U.S. foreign policy based on "pop gun the U.S. except in defense of themselves, nor are
security." What I do advocate is a policy in which they perceptive enough to compete successfully
security is not viewed as dependent exclusively on with the U.S. in global politics or economics.
preeminent military strength and which recog- Secretary of State Rusk during the Cuban
nizes the dangers of reliance on rigid military missile confrontation indicated he thought the
solutions to the exclusion of our other sources of U.S. was winning when he said the Russians had
strength. "just blinked." The survival and security of the
American security is more likely to be U.S., the Soviet Union and the world depend on
assured by ending the arms race than by aggra- understandings more profound than those of the
vating it. We are not a warlike people, and we pistol-packing frontiersman.
must not be perceived as such. We must be viewed
as a nation which puts peace ahead of military
pursuits.
How does one go about promoting American
security?
I subscribe to the proposition that the U.S.
and the Soviet Union are involved in an arms race
which has become a vicious circle based on the
proposition that "more is better." The fact is,
though, that "more is worse" for both societies.
Both societies know that the world's resources are
limited, yet we both continue to deplete our re-
sources to produce weapons whose only purpose is
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 :11j-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Apprnvcrt Fnr PplpagP 2004/10/13
COUNTERPOINT: COMMITTEE ON THE
PRESENT DANGER
The Committee on the Present Danger is a
non-partisan and non-profit organization
which was established in November, 1976. It
states its purpose as "to facilitate a national
discussion of the foreign and national
security policies of the United States. " It has
issued a declaration of principles and other
policy statements. Members of its Board of
Directors include former Secretary of State
Dean Rusk, former CIA Director William
Colby, and former Deputy Secretar
y of
Defense Paul H. Nitze. This article was
prepared by a staff member of the
Committee.
1) NATURE OF THE SOVIET THREAT
Is the Soviet Union still pursuing world domina-
tion? If so, how does this threaten the interests of
the free world?
The Soviet Union is radically different from
our society; it is organized on different principles
and driven by different motives. The most im-
portant reasons for these differences are based on
its history and geography, its economic conditions
and structure, and its political system and beliefs.
Russia-whether Tsarist or Soviet-has been
driven toward conquest or domination of
neighboring lands. No empire in history has
expanded so persistently as the Russian. The
Soviet Union is the only great power to have
emerged from World War II larger than it was in
1939.
Soviet difficulties are aggravated by the rigid
control maintained by its ruling regime. Except
for brief periods, Russia has been governed by
small groups whose grip on power has been
sustained by military force. After the Bolshevik
Revolution of 1917, power became even more con-
centrated than under the Tsars.* In the Soviet
Union today, the ruling elite and their followers
live comfortably, even luxuriously, while the
* Editor's Note: The Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 brought
the Communist Party to power, under the leadership of
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. The Tsars (also spelled Czars) had
been the hereditary rulers of Russia before the Revolution.
: CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
remaining 250 million citizens have few material
advantages and are deprived of basic human
liberties. Soviet leaders, as directed by the
Politburo, exercise total control over the country's
political institutions, economic resources and
media with little regard for the wishes of the
population. They pursue their goals in an
organized manner and take advantage of every
opportunity to enhance their power, changing
their tactics to suit different circumstances.
The idea of a world in which nations founded
on different political principles cooperate rather
than oppose each other is not acceptable to Soviet
psychology and doctrine. According to Soviet
theory, "peaceful co-existence" is a deceptive
strategy for waging international conflict with
reduced risk in the era of nuclear weapons.
Due to its aggressive policies, the Soviet
Union has been able to extend its political and
military influence throughout the world: in
Europe, in the Middle East and Africa, even in
Latin America, and in all the seas. In recent years
the Soviet drive for domination-based upon an
unparalleled military buildup-has become the
principal threat to our nation, to world peace and
to the cause of human freedom.
The Soviet campaign, recently expanded in
scope, seeks to inflame every problem that arises
among the developed and underdeveloped
countries. At the same time, the Soviet Union has
been acquiring a network of naval and air bases in
the Southern Hemisphere to give added support
to its influence in the Middle East, the Indian
Ocean, Africa and the South Atlantic. For more
than a decade, it has been enlarging both its
nuclear and non-nuclear conventional military
forces more rapidly than the United States and its
allies.
The rate of growth of Soviet military power
cannot be explained or justified by claims of self-
defense. This power is being built to support the
drive for world domination by the Soviet bloc of
nations. Soviet leaders believe that this will permit
the Soviet Union to transform the conditions of
world politics in its own favor. Increasing Soviet
military strength threatens the political in-
dependence of our friends and allies, our fair
access to raw materials and the freedom of the
seas.
The interests of the free world can be
threatened not only by direct attack but also by
indirect aggression. The defense of the Middle
East, for example, is vital to the defense of
Western Europe and Japan. In the Middle East,
Approved For Release 2004/1 T11d : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
the Soviet Union opposes those fair agreements
between Israel and her Arab neighbors which are
necessary to establish peace in the area. In the
same way, the United States and many other
countries are threatened by a second round of
Soviet-encouraged oil embargoes.
2) DETENTE OR A SOVIET GRAND
STRATEGY: From the perspective of the
American national interest, what have been the
principal achievements of detente? Or, do you see
a "grand strategy" underlying the Soviet military
buildup?
Reaching the eventual Soviet goal-a
Communist world order-requires the reduction
of the power, influence and prestige of the United
States, the country perceived by Soviet leaders as
the central fortress of the enemy camp. They see
their task as isolating America and destroying its
relationship with the rest of the world. They are
pursuing a "grand strategy" involving many
different ways to reduce the ability of the United
States to resist this aggression. Included in the
Soviet arsenal are economic, diplomatic, political
and ideological strategies supported by vast
military strength. Soviet desires to increase trade
with the Western world, to acquire the food and
the industrial capacity which it desperately needs,
or to participate in arms control negotiations, do
not prevent it from conducting political and
military campaigns against centers of non-
Communist influence. Examples of this strategy
are the long and persistent efforts of the Soviet
Union to penetrate and dominate the Middle East
and the present drive supported by allies such as
Cuba to establish friendly governments in Africa.
Undoubtedly, the Soviet rulers would prefer
to gain their objectives without another war, but
they believe they can survive and win a war if it
comes. Therefore, they are willing to act with
greater confidence, despite risk of conflict, to
reach their goals.
The primary objectives of Soviet "grand
strategy" are:
1) Strengthening the Soviet economy to sustain
the improvement in the country's military
capacity. This can be aided by borrowing capital
and importing the technical expertise of advanced
capitalist nations. The need for foreign funds and
know-how is an important factor in Soviet
support of the policy of "detente." 2) Trying to
extend Soviet influence in Western Europe,
thereby cutting it apart from the United States.
The Soviet Union hopes to link Western Europe's
economy with an expanding Soviet economy to
increase the productive and technological
capacity of the Soviet bloc of nations. With this in
mind, Moscow supports current efforts by
Western European Communist parties to adopt
more flexible tactics, as has occurred in Chile and
Portugal. Only in this way can the Communist
parties have a chance of coming to power. If this
occurs, it could be a fatal blow to the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), pave the
way for Soviet domination of Western Europe and
lead to removing the United States from any in-
fluence in Europe. 3) Destroying the trade con-
tacts between Western nations and the develop-
ing countries of the Third World, so that their raw
materials, labor and markets would no longer be
available to the West. 4) Isolating China from the
rest of the world because of Soviet fears of its
potential as a military opponent. Although these
goals call for the use of economic and political
policies, the backbone of Soviet strategy is
military power. The military build-up of the
Soviet armed forces has not been restrained by the
arms limitations agreements (the first round of
Strategic Arms Limitation Talks) with the United
States. As a matter of fact, the main effect of
SALT I has been to restrain development of those
weapons in which the United States enjoys a
technological advantage.
Soviet strategy regards the possession of
more and better strategic weapons as a definite
military and political asset. The lavish Soviet civil
defense program, as well as the strengthening of
nuclear command and control posts against
attack, indicate that the Soviet rulers seriously
believe in the possibility of nuclear war and that,
if it breaks out, they will be more likely to survive,
to recover than we.
In recent years, the Soviet Union has been
increasing its military expenditures at a rate of
three percent. Experts disagree as to whether the
Soviet Union is already ahead of the United States
in military strength around the world or in
specific areas. However, we are convinced, and
there is widespread agreement among experts,
that if past trends continue, the U.S.S.R. will
within several years achieve strategic nuclear
superiority over the United States. The U.S.S.R.
already enjoys non-nuclear conventional
superiority in several important areas.
Soviet Communist doctrine
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
111
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13: CIA-RDP88-01,315R00Q2001f0007-2
ambitious goals; Soviet actions prove that it
continues persistently to pursue those goals. It
may meet temporary delays because its resources
are limited, and it is forced to deal with major
internal and external difficulties. Nevertheless, it
is driven by historical and ideological pressures
toward a policy of expansion which, together with
its enormous military strength, makes it a highly
dangerous opponent. There is no evidence that
past or present SALT talks, expanded trade and
cultural exchanges, the international Helsinki
agreement on human rights, or any of the other
features of "detente" have weakened the Soviet
drive for dominance.
3) PEACE WITH SECURITY: Based on
your analysis of the Soviet threat, prescribe a plan
for American foreign policy. In particular, focus
on the questions of defense spending and nuclear
arms.
The expansionist policy of the Soviet Union
threatens to unbalance the world relationship of
forces on which the survival of freedom depends.
If we see the world as it really is, and if we restore
our will, our strength and our self-confidence, we
shall find resources and friends to effectively
oppose the Soviet threat.
There is a crucial moral difference between
the two superpowers in their character and ob-
jectives. The United States-imperfect as it is-is
essential to the future of those countries which
desire to develop their society in their own way,
free of outside force.
There is still time for effective action to en-
sure security and prosperity through the peace-
ful policies and diplomatic efforts of our country
and its allies. Only on that sound basis can we
seek reliable conditions of peace with the Soviet
Union rather than through a policy of detente
based upon false hopes.
We must restore the strength of allied de-
fenses in those areas vital to our interests. The
goal of our strategic forces should be to prevent
the use of, or the threat to use, nuclear weapons in
world politics; that of our conventional forces, to
prevent other forms of aggression directed against
our interests. Without a stable balance of forces
in the world and policies of collective defense
based upon it, no other objective of our foreign
policy is attainable.
Taking inflation into account, United States
defense spending is lower than at any time in the
past years. or t e unite Cates to be free,
r as
secure and influential, high levels of spending are
now required for our land, sea and air forces, our
nuclear defenses, and above all, the continuing
modernization of those forces through research
and development.
While supporting increased levels of spend-
ing, we should insist on the effective use of
defense funds. We must also expect our allies to
bear their fair share of the burden of defense.
Based on a foundation of strength, we can
pursue a constructive and confident diplomacy
with the many economic, military and social
problems around the world. It is only on this basis
that we can expect successfully to negotiate hard-
headed and verifiable agreements to control and
reduce armaments.
If we continue to drift, we shall become
second best to the Soviet Union in overall mili-
tary strength; our alliances will weaken; our
growing friendship with China could be reversed.
Then we could find ourselves alone in a hostile
world, facing the powerful pressures of aggressive
Soviet policies backed by overwhelming military
strength. We would then face bitter choices be-
tween war and knuckling under.
On the other hand, if we meet the Soviet
threat, we and the other democratic industrial-
ized nations can cooperate with the developing
Third World countries to create a just and pro-
gressive world economy. Under those circum-
stances, we would be better able to promote
human rights and to help cope with the over-
whelming problems of food, energy, population
and the environment.
We live in an age in which there is no alter-
native to vigilance; indeed, it is essential to the
pursuit of genuine detente and the achievement of
prudent and verifiable arms control agreements
which would realistically serve to reduce the
danger of war.
Weakness invites aggression; strength deters
it. Thus, American strength holds the key to our
quest for peace and to our survival as a free
society in a world friendly to our hopes and ideals.
Approved For Release 2004/1 7/113 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
WORLD DEVELOPMENT The World in 1977: Facing Grave Perils
AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY:
THE OPPORTUNITY
BEFORE US
U.N. Ambassador
Andrew J. Young
In 1972 Andrew Young was elected to the
U.S. House of Representatives from
Georgia's Fifth District, the first black
elected to Congress from the "deep South"
since Reconstruction. During the 1950's and
1960's he had been a leader of the civil rights
movement and a chief aide to the late Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr. In December, 1976,
President-elect Carter appointed him U.S.
Ambassador to the United Nations. In this
article he discusses the problems of develop-
ment faced by so many nations in the world
today. He also proposes changes in American
foreign policy which will make us more of a
world leader in meeting these problems. His
article, written especially for Perspectives,
helps you understand why relations with the
Russians is not the only issue in foreign
policy.
Thirty years ago, Secretary of State George
C. Marshall brought to the American people the
challenge of what came to be known as the
Marshall Plan. It was a bold but thoughtful
response to meet a grave situation that was as
serious a threat to freedom in the world as had
been the just-defeated Axis.* It was the danger of
collapse of the recently liberated European
countries and their possible domination by the
ruthless Stalinist government of the Soviet Union.
Europe was in ruins from the War, its economy
was disorganized, its equipment and machines
were worn out or outdated, its political systems
were in chaos, and its people were left listless and
leaderless by the War.
This year, in 1977, we. are probably in as
great a peril as the world was in 1947. Yet, if we
can forge a foreign policy based on the same
creative spirit of the Marshall Plan, this can also
be a time of great opportunity for all nations and
for the United States as a world leader.
*Editor's Note: "Axis" was the name given to the alliance
of Germany, Italy and Japan during World War II.
Our grave situation today can be summar-
ized under the following headings:
? A steadily escalating world arms race is
building more and more weapons for destruction.
The annual world military budget in 1976 is $350
billion (1976), unprecedented in a time of relative
world peace. This translates into an average of
one dollar in six of all money spent by all the
governments in the world, going towards military
arms. This arms race is being led by the two
super-powers, the U.S. and the Soviet Union.
Rather than contribute to the world development
process, the U.S. and the Soviet Union divert
much of their resources to the arms race.
"There are as many as 400 million people
(15% of the world's population) starving,
and hundreds of millions more are mal-
nourished."
? Hunger and famine affect most drastically
and directly the greatest number of human
beings. Because of unusually high harvests the
past few years, the danger of immediate, wide-
spread famine was lessened temporarily, but the
long-range prospect is still very dim. There are as
many as 400 million people (15% of the world's
population) starving, and hundreds of millions
more are malnourished. More and more people
are simply not being integrated in useful ways into
the spreading industrial and technological
society. The gap between the poor and the rich in
each nation continues to grow.
? Human rights continue to be repressed.
Political opposition leaders are tortured, the press
is censored, labor unions are outlawed, univer-
sities are muzzled and peasant movements are
repressed. However, we can all take heart from
the fact that during the past five years, four na-
tions-Greece, Portugal, Spain and India-have
restored democracies in their lands without
bloody revolutions. In the same vein, we should
gain hope from the new style of democracy that
emphasizes social and economic rights perhaps
more than civil and political rights as it has de-
veloped in the new nations of the world, such as
Mozambique and Tanzania. But the problem is
that unless there is more development, there will
be more repressive regimes, as the social pressures
build up to the bursting point, and bloody
revolution becomes inevitable-and perhaps self-
defeating.
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 SIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 ? A world energy crisis could wreck the
economic system of the industrialized nations
within twenty years unless massive and serious
remedies are started within the next five or ten
years.
? The growing gap between the rich and the
poor nations, the "developed" and the "develop-
ing" nations, may hold the most serious threat to
world peace in the long term. This gap stems from
the problems of development.
Development: Social, Political and Econom
Increasingly, we are recognizing that
"development" as applied to nations means about
the same thing as it does when applied to people.
When a person develops, it means that he or she is
moving towards realization of his or her full
potential as a person. We would not say that a fat
person who is getting fatter is necessarily "de-
veloping"; at least we would not confuse the fat
with development, though it certainly is a
"growth" of some sort.
So development must mean more than
economic growth. How the growth is distributed
must be taken into account. If the economic
growth is concentrated in the hands of a few,
there is no social development. The shine of steel
from a new mill is quickly dulled if the workers or
their brothers and sisters must live in fear, be it
fear of political repression or fear of not being
able to feed their children.
The problems of development are faced by
nearly all of the nations of Latin America, Africa
and Asia. What is needed is a dynamic develop-
ment model that is flexible enough to include the
many, many lessons learned over the past thirty
years in the many different developing nations.
No longer can we afford to try to export the de-
velopment model of the United States of the last
generation-too much has changed, and it keeps
changing!
The new model of development must con-
sider the special conditions of climate, geo-
graphy, culture and human resources of the
different nations. It must be developed from the
best thinking of many nations. In 1947, the
European nations met with the United States in
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
Approved For Release 2004/14143 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 ~4pprove F.or Release 2004/10/13
Paris, and they r w up t eir own mode or e-
velopment under the Marshall Plan. We must not
be afraid to let other nations say how they want to
develop, as long as their goals are consistent with
the goals of the United Nations Charter, which is
the best expression of the common conscience of
humankind.
Four principal elements must be included in
any development model today. Firstly, there must
be a new style of cooperation or partnership
between the public and private sector. We must
move beyond the distrust and sometimes open
hostility that so often characterize relations
between corporations and governments. The big
corporations are in so many ways innovative and
creative, and they are organized to produce and
spread technology and ideas and to distribute
goods and services-to meet the challenges of
development.
"If we attempt to be `ostriches' and bury
our heads in the sand or any other policies
of isolationism, we shall be a part of the
problem rather than the solution."
Secondly, there needs to be a realization that
economic and political development must go
hand in hand. One without the other is dangerous
to both. Growth without development means
growth without justice, and no society can ever
afford to neglect its search for a more just society
at any moment in its history. Any dynamic model
of development must put as one of its top prior-
ities the quest for social justice for all.
Thirdly, for development to be a reality in
terms of the quality of life of the poor, their pur-
chasing power must be expanded. Efforts to
employ those who are now outside the money
economy must be rewarded. Incentives must be
given to those who will produce the basic
necessities, and distribute them, to those who are
lacking these now. There is a tremendous world
market waiting to be developed.
Fourthly, there must be a massive investment
in human resources. Lack of education is both the
mother and child of poverty. Even after the losses
of World War II, Western Europe had a trained
labor force, high literacy rates, and many pro-
fessionals. In the training and education of the
poor lies part of the solution to widespread
poverty.
CIA-RDP8Leader
Once the leadership of the United States
realized how seriously Europe had been affected
by World War II, it was decided that the
American people must "be shocked into assum-
ing leadership" (in the words of then Under-
Secretary of State Will Clayton). This is also true
today. If we attempt to be "ostriches" and bury
our heads in the sand, or any other policies of iso-
lationism, we shall be part of the problem rather
than the solution.
This is a task for which I believe the
American people to be ideally suited. We have the
skills and we have the good will. We have the
experience of our own New Deal, as well as the
Peace Corps and ACTION of more recent years.
Are we ready to enter into an international
program of this sort? Are there still American
youth ready to give several years of their lives so
that the world might live and develop?
To me, this is perhaps the key: sharing of
skills with the Third World-technical skills,
teaching skills, social skills, organizational skills.
Notice that I said, "sharing". I think, as was the
case of the Peace Corps, volunteers will learn as
much as they teach-and we will enrich our own
nation in the process.
Conclusion: World Development is the New
Name of World Politics
International politics has traditionally been
defined as the struggle for the accommodation of
interests among nations. But I believe that the
world has become so interdependent that our
national interests are inevitably and rapidly merg-
ing. We must build on the community of interests
and values, or the world will destroy itself in
chaos. So, rather than continuing to try only the
way of compromising among conflicting interests,
we need a whole new vision of what world politics
is really about. World politics, I say, is the
struggle for world development.
World development is in the interest of every
person and every nation. It will help to preserve
our scarce natural resources, protect and promote
human rights and dignity, and strengthen
freedom. These are compelling motives for build-
ing a world community.
Approved For Release 2004/10/131lnA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 FORETM WtrX'ffM&ckK'6W
THE WORLD
When the League of Nations was founded in 1920, there were 42 member nations.
In 1977, the United Nations has 147 members. This chart will help you learn about
some of these other countries with whom we share the Earth. For each country, fill
in the name of the continent on which it is located. Then, select the letter or letters
from the list below which best describe that country's relations with the United
States. Consult the Glossary at the end of this chapter for any definitions you need.
There are spaces at the bottom of the chart for you to add more countries.
A) MernberofNATO
B) Member of Warsaw Pact
C) Non-aligned
D) Receives American military or economic aid
E) Trades with American businesses
RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES
SOVIET UNION ( EUROPE/ASIA
B, E
Approved For Release 2004/1011 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 TABLE:
AMERICAN FOREIGN AID
(Economic Assistance)
The United States gives two types of foreign aid:
economic and military assistance. This table
examines economic aid, and the one in Chapter 8
looks at military assistance. Foreign economic aid
is given to poor developing nations, primarily to
assist them in agriculture, health, education,
technology and other problems of social and
economic development. Aid is given either
directly to a nation (called bilateral aid) or to an
international organization which uses
member nations (called multilateral aid).
TOTAL: $5.7 billion
it for
Egypt $912 million
Israel $746 million
International $375 million
Development
Association (World
Bank, International
Monetary Fund)
Inter-American $345 million
Development Bank
Pakistan $145 million
Indonesia $126 million
India $123 million
Portugal $115 million
Bangladesh $108 million
Syria $ 98 million
"U.S. Economic Assistance, Military Assistance and Credit
Sales Programs Estimated for FY 1977" in report to the
U.S. Congress, "Fiscal Year 1978: Summary", March 1977,
Agency for International Development.
"I hope that we shall not forget that we
created this nation, not to serve ourselves
but to serve mankind."
Woodrow Wilson
CIA-RDP8 20F A
THIRD WORLD NATION:
An Interview With Ambassador
Neville Kanakaratne of
Sri Lanka
His Excellency Neville Kanakaratne has been
Ambassador of Sri Lanka to the United
States since 1970. Sri Lanka is an island
nation of about 14 million people, located in
the Indian Ocean. It became an independent
nation in 1948, under its old colonial name of
Ceylon, and in 1972 formally changed its
name to Sri Lanka. Its government is headed
by a president, prime minister and uni-
cameral legislature. The majority of the
population are Sinhalese; the principal
religion is Buddhism. The economy is based
on the export of tea, rubber and coconuts
supplemented by some small manufacturing
industries such as chemicals, ceramics and
textiles.
Approved For Release 2004/10/1311QIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 This interview w can uctea onJun2e0 10/13
1977, in Ambassador Kanakaratne's office.
The Close Up Foundation wishes to express
its gratitude to the Ambassador for sharing
his time and knowledge with our students. In
the study of American government and es-
pecially of foreign policy, it is vital to be ex-
posed to the views of the leaders of other
nations, whose positions on the issues and
whose national interests frequently differ
from those of the United States Government.
Q-Close Up: Ambassador Kanakaratne, you
represent a nation which is considered part of the
"Third World", a term which may be unfamiliar
to many people. How do you define "Third
World" and to what other nations does this refer?
A-Ambassador Kanakaratne: Third World is
generally used to describe the group of nations
who are not industrialized and are primarily
agricultural and producers of raw materials. Geo-
graphically, they almost all happen to be situated
in the southern hemisphere: Latin America, Asia
and Africa. Historically, nearly all Third World
nations were once colonies of some great
European power-Britain, France, Netherlands,
Belgium, Spain or Portugal.
NORTH
AMERICA
CIA- JDP88-0131 OOcO2o016 007;2
ecause of is co onia Heritage, we never
were given the opportunity to learn how to process
our own raw materials into manufactured goods.
This was done by the so-called mother countries
in Europe who took the raw materials over there
and processed them with their own industrial
technology. So we continued to be primarily
agricultural, non-industrialized and techno-
logically imperfect.
This common colonial heritage and its
economic legacy have brought us together in the
past twenty years. We are all suffering from the
same economic problems. We all must import
nearly all of the manufactured goods we need,
including agricultural equipment. We are all
dependent on raw materials for our income, and
these are subject to changing world prices over
which we have no control.
Of the 147 members of the United Nations,
about 121 are regarded as economically under-
developed, as Third World nations. You can see
that common experiences and also common
interests have linked us together. Now we are try-
ing to use this commonality of interests to exert
some degree of leverage on the rich countries of
the world.
ANTARCTICA
The Third World
What is the Third World? Which nations are "Members"? Refer to the definition in this chapter's
glossary and read what Ambassador Kanakaratne says on the subject. Then shade in the Third World
nations on this mapApproved For Release 2004/10/i1: CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Q-Close Up: Ba~ rm ethe ~r9 s mos2tOnations3
were perceived as either allies of the United States
or of the Soviet Union. In more recent years, how-
ever, more and more nations define their foreign
policies as "non-alignment." Could you explain
what this term means, and what the difference is
between a "Third World" nation and a "non-
aligned" nation?
A-Ambassador Kanakaratne: Surely. Whereas
Third World is basically an economic grouping,
non-aligned is political. A non-aligned nation
follows policies independent of any alliance or
special military agreements with either the United
States or the Soviet Union. While many Third
World nations are also non-aligned, some are
allied with one or the other of these powers and
therefore are not members of the non-aligned
bloc. Sri Lanka, India and many African nations
who are non-aligned are members of the British
Commonwealth, but this is not a military alliance.
If Great Britain were to get involved in a war, that
doesn't mean every Commonwealth nation has to
be on her side, as it did when we were colonies.
Last August (1976) my country hosted the
fifth Conference of Heads of State of the Non-
Aligned Nations. There were 84 nations who
participated. You can see that the political group,
the non-aligned, is smaller than the economic
group, the Third World, although the trend has
been that more and more countries have ended
their military links with the super powers because
they find themselves getting dragged into other
people's problems.
Q-Close Up: Wasn't there a declaration issued
at last year's conference?
A-Ambassador Kanakaratne: Oh, yes, the
"Colombo Declaration."* It consists of about 27
resolutions divided into a political section and an
economic section. A number of the political
resolutions passed dealt with the situation in
southern Africa-the apartheid policies of South
Africa, independence for Namibia and the
Rhodesian situation.
Q-Close Up: When I was in school we were
taught to view the world as divided into the
West-the United States, Western Europe and
other fellow "democracies"-and the East-the
Soviet Union and other Communist regimes.
From what you've already said, I get the feeling
*Editor's Note: Colombo is the capital of Sri Lanka.
rl.
that you believe that this is no longer an accurate
perspective...
A-Ambassador Kanakaratne: Yes, there is no
doubt that the economic divisions which separate
the rich nations of the North and the poor nations
of the South are much more crucial than the
differences in ideology or political systems. Two
years before he retired as Secretary General of
the United Nations, U Thant made a very inter-
esting statement at a news conference. When
asked about the future tensions in the world, he
said that in his view the future problems would
arise from a conflict of interests between the
northern hemisphere-the rich, developed,
industrialized nations-and the poor,
agricultural and technologically underdeveloped
nations of the southern hemisphere. He said this
division would create more problems than the
East/West peril.
Q-Close Up: In this context what is the meaning
of the call for "a new international economic
order," made by leaders of some Third World
nations?
A-Ambassador Kanakaratne: I think the phrase
you have used is unfortunate. When one says a
new international economic order, it is presumed
that one is talking about pulling down the entire
structure and starting from scratch. But this is
not the intention.
The intention is to bring up to date an
economic system created two hundred years ago
when the world was dominated by six or seven
European maritime industrial nations. These
Approved For Release 2004/10/1311SIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 leaders worked out i R tql tFd4reS ! 10/13 g l&F n$lerRA~8e0 9P41? WROJAtical reasons,
ments around tables in Paris, London, Brussels or but suddenly the world awoke to the fact that the
The Hague which didn't take our interests into Third World controlled much of the world's
account. wealth.
What we are agitating for is a restructuring,
or a revision, of the existing system taking into
consideration the needs and interests of all
nations in the present day world. When we ask for
a new international economic order, all we are
stating is that like every human system-whether
it is the Roman Catholic Church, the Communist
Party, or the Constitution of the United States-it
has to be amended from time to time.
Let me add that this has already begun to
happen. The nations of OPEC proved that they
could exercise some clout, because while they are
not developed nations they control a raw material
upon which the rest of the world is very de-
pendent. Until the 1973 oil crisis, we were just
complaining at the United Nations and other
international agencies, pleasing and arguing, but
we lacked strength. We certainly did not have
military strength, nor financial or economic clout
either. ..we were like people flying around the
tables of the rich and every so often a crumb
would be thrown to keep us quiet. Then in 1973
there was a revolution. The oil countries got to-
"It is a question of partnership, of inter-
dependence. You are necessary for us, and
we are necessary for you. It is in your
interests to give us a fair share of the
economic pie."
Q-Close Up: So America really does need not
only the oil producing nations but also other
Third World nations for our economy, as much as
you need us?
A-Ambassador Kanakaratne: That's correct.
You see, the trouble with Americans is that your
nation is so big and so powerful that the average
Amerian cannot imagine that America depends
on the materials of other nations. Cobalt,
manganese, bauxite, nickel, copper, tin, rubber-
the United States imports supplies of all of these.
In fact, the United States does more trade with
the Third World than with all of Western Europe.
Interdependence in a World Plagued by Hunger and Poverty Photo courtesy of the State Department
Approved For Release 2004/10/l1) CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approvd For Release 2904/10/13: CI RDP88-013158000200160007-2
It is a question of partnership, or inter- their own han s. our governments fall to
dependence. You are necessary for us and we are radical movements it won't be because Moscow or
necessary for you. It is in your interests to give us Peking was poking around. It would be because of
a fair share of the economic pie. If our people lack of food, lack of jobs, and a lack of education.
improve their standard of living, it will also
benefit you by making more markets available for Q-Close Up: So world peace and the internal
your exports. stability of nations seem to be linked together
We want a situation where the United States through economic factors. Maybe we all need to
Government will encourage freer trade. The more fully realize how important and how per-
difficulty here is that there are certain vested vasive the interdependence of nations is. . . My
interests who place their special interests before thanks, Mr. Ambassador, for having shared your
the interests of the American nation and cer- thoughts on this subject with our students. I have
tainly the interests of the rest of the world. greatly enjoyed our conversation and I know that
it will be an important contribution to the global
Q-Close Up: From your perspective as an education of Close Up students. Thank you, sir.
Ambassador and from the perspective of your A-Ambassador Kanakaratne: Thank you very
nation and its interests, what are the prospects for much. As we all know, and as the charter of
a stable world order and even a lasting peace? UNESCO states, "it is because wars begin in the
A-Ambassador Kanakaratne: Personally I don't minds of men that the seeds of peace must be
see a danger of armed conflict in the sense of sown in the minds of men. . . " especially in the
another world war. But that doesn't mean that the minds of the younger generation. Once they are
world will be either peaceful or stable. There will made aware of world problems, they are intelli-
be many, many problems-some political and gent and sensible enough to work towards solu-
military, others economic conficts. tions.
It still is unclear what will happen in the
Middle East. Israel has just elected a new govern-
ment and there have been many pressures within
the Arab nations.
We still don't know what is the future of
southern Africa. My country has always ad-
vocated non-violent solutions, and both the
American and British governments are trying
their best to avoid a major racial confrontation.
But I fear that too much time has been allowed to
go by during which the white regimes of South
Africa and Rhodesia have felt that they could
continue to rely on Western support. Fortunately,
President Carter, Vice President Mondale and
Ambassador Young have made it clear that these
regimes can no longer expect the U.S. to back
them against any effort to bring majority rule to
their countries. I don't know what will happen but
I am not too optimistic. There will unfortunately
be a lot of bloodshed.
In the economic field the world will continue
to go through a very tough time. There is going to
be a lot of muscle-flexing by the oil-producing
countries and by other poor countries which
produce other minerals. If the economic situation
is not satisfactorily worked out, it will produce
very serious political problems for our govern-
ments at home. When people are starving and un-
employed, they're not just going to wait for the
next generation. They will try to take the law into
"It is because wars begin in the minds of
men that the seeds of peace must be sown
in the minds of men..."
UNESCO Charter
PERSPECTIVES PANEL:
FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR
AMERICAN FOREIGN
POLICY?
In recent years there has been as much in-
tense debate over both the ends and the
means of our foreign policy as at any other
time in our history. Old definitions no longer
explain the world to us, old strategies no
longer effectively cope with its challenges and
crises. We are confronted by radically
different global realities.
-In our search for a new consensus,
what should be the guiding philosophy and
goals of our foreign policy?
-What do you identify as the most
crucial foreign policy issue(s) for the present
and near future?
Approved For Release 2004/10/1312CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Senator Claiborne PW49MR. jor Release 2004/10/13J.Pr481JJA5R000200160007-2
Member of Senate Foreign Relations Committee Administrator, Agency for International
Coming to grips with today's world requires
that we view the world realistically. Lord
Palmerston once said, "We have no eternal allies,
we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are
eternal and perpetual and those interests it is our
duty to follow." Our task today is not to
determine whether the United States should
remain involved in the world or withdraw, but
rather to take stock of our interests-and the
commitments that flow from them-in light of
changed conditions.
To do so, we must shed the vocabulary of
isolationism and internationalism. The all-or-
nothing choice inherent in these concepts is in-
creasingly unrealistic. As a result, I prefer the
vocabulary of contraction and expansion-con-
tracting those activities which respond largely to
yesterday's challenges, and expanding those
activities which are urgently required to meet
today's challenges. Our resources are not un-
limited, and we must ensure that in planning for
the future, we direct our financial and intellectual
assets where they are most needed.
Militarily, we are over-extended. The latest
figures (1976) show that the U.S. has 481,000
military personnel at 305 major bases and 1,428
other installations in 34 foreign countries. We
must also reduce confrontation and weapons
competition with the USSR, and we should de-
emphasize military assistance and arms sales.
Politically, just as we cannot be the world's
policeman, nor can we always be the world's
peacemaker. We should press for a more active
U.S. role in peace negotiations. CIA covert
activities should be limited to those few cases
where our vital security interests are directly in-
volved.
Economically, trade negotiations and the
lowering of trade barriers deserve higher priority.
This will be greatly assisted by a coherent export
promotion policy, which we now lack. We also
should give greater food aid to those in need, The
international environment and oceans also
deserve greater attention.
Ideologically, the U.S. should utilize the
Helsinki Final Act to increase humanitarian
cooperation and exchange of information/people
with Eastern Europe. We should spend a great
deal more on international exchanges.
Development (AID)
Hunger-disease-illiteracy-unemploy-
ment. These inter-related problems comprise one
of the great challenges facing the world in the
next twenty years. They afflict the vast majority of
people in the developing countries and are a goad
to conscience, a deterrent to progress, and a
threat to world peace for those who live in the
more affluent nations.
For the past quarter-century, the United
States, through its foreign economic assistance
program, has sought to help the developing
countries solve these problems. Today, more than
ever before, we are concentrating most of our
assistance on helping the poorest people of the
world.
Under this "New Directions" policy, the
United States is helping the poor nations improve
food production, nutrition, health care, education
and voluntary family planning.
To implement these efforts, AID employs
modern technology, where appropriate, and
person-to-person techniques to reach the poor.
We help small farmers grow more food and help
in providing better health care and education for
their families. We also try to involve more women
in the development process, and to help the poor
countries find new sources of energy and conserve
their environment.
A major aspect of our approach to develop-
ment is also the belief that economic development
can be achieved without sacrificing or ignoring
human rights. The rights of all individuals to live
in dignity-and in decency-is an attainable goal,
and what is at stake is a better world for this and
future generations.
Congresswoman Millicent Fenwick (R-NJ.)
No one, I think, seriously questions world
peace as a continuing goal of U.S. foreign policy.
A war between the great powers, armed with
nuclear weapons, is unthinkable. The questions
come when we consider the means toward this
end.
Addressing the question about the
philosophical basis for our foreign policy this is
what I wrote in March, 1975, when The New York
Times asked me to write an article about my in-
spection trip to South Vietnam and Cambodia:
Approved For Release 2004/1011Z: CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 "We must have ~~ : CIA 881 0 pOGS7d3th and Central
public debate and consensus as to our responsibilities. With America?
these firmly in hand, we should concentrate on a sincere
concern for all people and sensible actions to express that
concern."
There is really no other idea, or attitude, that
has such wide support in long-standing American
reactions to world events. The age of adventurism
is over. Very few of us would cheer nowadays for
events such as the Spanish-American War, or the
landing of the Marines at Veracruz. The reper-
cussions of the actions of major nations today are
not easily calculated or controlled; public opinion
in a free society, with a free press, is not easily
directed.
The applications of the principle of sincere
human concern would have to be studied in re-
lation to each particular case. To take Angola as
an example: should we have intervened with
troops when the Soviet Union arranged to have
Cuban troops sent there? I think not. An anti-
colonialist war had turned into a fratricidal tribal
war and, even if U.S. public opinion had been
prepared to support the sending of an expedi-
tionary force (which I don't think it was) the end
result would have been counterproductive. To
extend the duration of such a tribal war, with all
the suffering it entails, would certainly not be
humane. Neither would it have served any abiding
national interest. Africa has repeatedly proved
itself willing to accept foreign intervention for
awhile-while it is useful-but in the long run the
foreigners have been asked to leave.
Although human concerns are primary,
practical concerns must follow. A good heart
must be supported by sound common sense. We
should send food to the starving, no matter what
kind of government is sitting in the palace,
because that is the right thing to do. But we
should not hand the food over to a government
which may sell it for profit or exchange it for guns
(both have happened). We should give the food on
the condition that it be distributed directly to the
people by bona fide groups such as World Service,
Catholic Relief, Lutheran Relief, CARE, etc.
These groups were organized in Cambodia, for
example, in such a way that members of the
groups met the food at the airport and stayed with
it until it got into the rice bowls of the starving
right before their eyes.
Now, as to the two most crucial foreign policy
issues-how does one choose two among them all:
the Soviet Union, the Pacific, Korea, China, and
Taiwan; India and Pakistan; the Middle East;
Photo courtesy of the State Department
Granted that all are important, I believe that
the Middle East and the Americas are the most
vital to us. In the first issue, we must be absolutely
firm that Israel has the right to exist as an in-
dependent state within secure borders. This is im-
portant because we must support the principle of
an orderly world. Israel's right to be an inde-
pendent nation was established by the United
Nations. We cannot stand by and watch naked
force trample on small states without losing all
the safeguards of a just and lawful world.
In the second issue-the Americas-we must
make every move in the same spirit of seeking
justice. This certainly does not mean that the
United States should acquiesce in any arrange-
ment because it fears trouble, or is anxious to
appease ruffled feelings; but it does mean that
because we are so conspicuously the biggest
nation in the Western Hemisphere, we must avoid
at all costs any action which suggests that we are
trading on the fact. The bully is out of fashion at
home and abroad. It is right to seek justice and
stand up for it, and it is a glory and honor to a
strong nation to submit to principles of justice
and law.
To sum up-if our goal is peace, and it surely
is, we must pursue justice, because without jus-
tice, there is no peace.
Ray S. Cline, Director of Center for
Strategic and International Studies and
Former CIA Official
American foreign policy must reflect our
society's moral and political traditions but also
has to take into account that many nations in the
world around us have different values and goals.
In promoting our safety and interests abroad, our
policy should be founded on prudence and prac-
Approved For Release 2004/10/112'PIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
ticality. Unrealism-however high-minded-is a
recipe for disaster.
The United States is the strongest and richest
among the world's approximately 160 indepen-
dent nations. It is also a leading model of repre-
sentative government, human and minority
rights, and freedom of political and economic
choices for its individual citizens.
Only five percent of the world's four billion
people live in the United States. Many nations are
hostile to our ideals, envious or indifferent. The
primary task of American foreign policy is to
maintain a strong alliance system linking us to at
least ten to twenty other strong, friendly countries
with similar aims and interests.
We must guarantee our allies against all
hostile encroachments, especially from powerful
dictatorships like the Soviet Union and the
Chinese People's Republic. These Communist
nations' leaders plan gradually by force and in-
timidation to gain control of scarce economic
resources around the world, particularly oil, on
which our high standard of living is based. Our
alliance system must protect the world sea lanes
and air lanes along which economic commodities
and mutual detense forces move. With strong
allies the United States can preserve a global
power balance that protects political freedoms,
facilitates worldwide trade and investment, and
insures nonviolent resolution of social and inter-
national conflicts.
Congressman Dante Fascell (D-Fla.), Member of
House International Relations Committee
The 1973-74 oil crisis made Americans
conscious of our increasing dependence on inter-
national developments. Since then, we have been
importing an even higher percentage of our
energy, and thus we are more dependent on other
nations now than before the oil embargo. A
similar trend is true of other raw materials which
we need from "Third World" and developing
supplier nations.
Because of these and other factors, we know
that previous foreign policy goals and the
mechanisms for achieving them must be re-
examined. We need to devote as much interest
and effort toward sound international strategies
as we do to domestic programs. We cannot
succeed in one area without moving ahead in the
other.
Above all, our foreign policy should be well-
founded and clearly stated so that it can receive
the sustained support from the American people
that is necessary for long-term progress. This
means that foreign policy must be based on es-
tablished principles that enjoy a broad consensus
in this country-individual freedom, the rule of
law, and an economic order that fosters maxi-
mum opportunities for growth. These factors
must be implemented by officials and perceived
by the people in an honest, open and consistent
manner.
Peace is the end product of successful foreign
policy, not a stepping stone to another goal.
Liberty, social justice and economic development
are among conditions which permit political
amity to exist. Therefore, we should encourage
these values in our relations with other nations.
Hopefully, the result will be reduced hostility and
greater cooperation in meeting international
needs in such areas as health, food supply and
environmental pollution. Time is growing
desperately short for putting aside the negative
conflicts which are remnants of barbarous times,
and getting on with the positive tasks we face in
meeting the real needs of the world population.
Dr. Brenda Forman, Policy Analyst,
Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense for
International Security Affairs
I think our immediate future will be molded
most decisively by one thing: resource scarcity.
The world's population is expanding at a greater
rate than ever in all of world history. Each one of
these new persons, moreover, consumes a greater
amount than ever in history of this planet's finite
resources-energy, food grains and raw materials.
Our existing sources of energy are limited
and dwindling, and thus far at least, no grand
scientific breakthrough has liberated us from our
traditional dependence on fossil fuels or solved
Approved For Release 2004/10/1114 CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 the difficult pro- 'IiPi iosveac fo~f&~pVfl0pfitl@&1.3 : CIA-RDg58?-Qi14' (AQZ4Qi' QWM&don the welfare
energy. More and more of the world's people are of our citizenry to unrealistically hopeful foreign
altering their eating habits to eat more meat. It policy objectives. National self-interest-in-
takes four or five times as much food grain to feed
people on meat as it does if they consume the
grains directly. Meanwhile, the industrial age is
spreading to more and more areas of the world,
heightening the material expectations of millions
of the world's people and consuming historically
unprecedented amounts of the planet's raw
materials.
None of these trends is reversible to any
significant extent. We cannot call a halt to
technological and industrial advance; not only
would we ourselves be most unwilling to do with-
out the comforts it produces, but the advances it
brings represent the chief hope for millions of the
world's people to improve their lot. And even if we
are able somehow, miraculously, to lower the
entire world's birthrate, right now, the world's
population in absolute numbers would continue
to grow for many years more. In short, I see a
difficult future in which more and more people
are going to be wanting the world's material
benefits, at a time when the world's total available
resource pool is stretched in some areas at least
(such as energy and food) very nearly to its limits.
If I am right, then this is a relatively "high
risk" future. It contains a much higher potential
for friction and conflict than we like to assume
when we think about our future as a nation. It
poses a world in which the United States is going
to have to remain a strong world power, both
politically and militarily. Our national interests
are unlikely to contract-and by interests, I mean
the ideals we stand for, as well as things like our
overseas investments. The challenges to these
interests, however, are very likely to grow. We
would do well to be prepared.
Maybe I am wrong. Certainly, there are those
who confidently maintain that technology will bail
us out, producing yet more wonders that will
make today's disturbing predictions into
tomorrow's bad dreams. But I believe we cannot
plan our future on the basis of a technological
rabbit appearing on cue from the sceientific hat.
Senator Dick Clark (D-Iowa)
Member of Senate Foreign Relations Committee
The fact of change has brought about a
necessary pause and reevaluation of American
foreign policy goals, the means of attaining them,
and the entire philosophical framework of our
international conduct.
eluding economic strength and the ability to pose
a credible deterrent to potential adversaries-
must have a high priority in our world outlook.
But this is clearly not enough.
Our policies must also reflect the best of
what Americans are-an elemental humanism
and compassion for peoples and nations different
from and less advantaged than our own, as well as
a basic respect for the rights of the individual.
Five international issues stand out as de-
manding our most urgent attention: the pro-
liferation of nuclear weapons technology; stability
and order within the international economic
system, as well as a rational and compassionate
approach to critical North-South issues; stable
reductions of strategic arms between the U.S. and
the USSR; resolution of the Middle East conflict
and resolution of the southern African situation.
Dr. Robert J. Pranger,
Director of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies,
American Enterprise Institute
In the immediate aftermath of Vietnam it
became somewhat fashionable to speak about
declining American power and diminishing
public will to keep the United States as active in
world affairs as it was in the cold war years after
World War II. Evidence now exists, however, that
some observers may have spoken too soon about
these matters: analysis of informed public opinion
now indicates that there is still substantial
support for a strong, principled American foreign
policy that rests on our traditional values of world
peace and national freedom. Debate will persist
over just what kind of peace and what definition
of freedom is most appropriate for international
action by the United States, because I doubt that
the same kind of crusading consensus that bound
America together during the cold war years will
exist in the future.
One new direction that foreign policy will
take, therefore, is to find basic areas of agreement
among Americans about specific international
programs, while at the same time recognizing that
foreign and defense policy will be subject to the
same kind of on-going debate that is typical of
other policies of the national government. Sacred
cows will be fewer in the so-called national
security area, and this means that goals will have
to be made more articulate for an increasingly
sophisticated audience. But I don't think this will
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 1A-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
indicate any lessening of American commitment waste of our taxes and resources, at worst to un-
to strong international action. On the contrary, believable devastation. If, on the other hand, the
more public participation in the life-and-death problems are identified as the spread of nuclear
issues of foreign policy may actually improve this weapons, the superpower arms race, shortages of
policy by keeping it consistent with traditional food and natural resources, population pressures
Mr. Sanford Gottlieb, Director,
Citizens' Organization for a Sane World (SANE)
In seeking new guidelines for foreign policy,
much depends on how the problems are identif-
ied. If the main problem is identified as the Soviet
military threat, then the response is likely to be a
continuing, costly and dangerous arms
competition between the superpowers. In an age
of mutual overkill, that path leads at best to the
and pollution of the oceans, then the response
should logically move in a different direction.
These problems do not stop at borders. They
cannot be solved by the use of military force. (In
fact, military force becomes less relevant in this
kind of world.) They require new forms of inter-
national cooperation.
U.S. foreign policy should be based on a
hard-headed understanding of the need for
cooperation on a tiny and dangerous planet, with
priority given to reversing the arms race and halt-
ing the spread of nuclear weapons.
REFLECTIONS
The authors in this Perspectives Panel have presented you with a wide range of viewpoints on many
issues. In the space provided fill in the names of those authors who would agree with the various state-
ments. As you do this think about whether YOU agree or disagree and indicate this by "YES" or "NO. "
1. A strong alliance system is central to our national security.
2. We should give food aid to all needy nations, regardless of the form of government which rules.
3. Containing the Communist threat is still the major concern of our foreign policy.
4. Resource scarcity, food shortages and population growth are the most important issues. In particular,
whoever controls the world's oil resources will exercise a great deal of power.
5. A successful foreign policy must be based on established American values such as human rights and
social justice.
6. We need to redefine our commitments and priorities in foreign affairs without becoming isolationist.
Approved For Release 2004/10f12~ : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Fj~l~a
Ue4/ A A-R g 8-L~3 I.R300200160007-2
(ij-, oreign ojic
Alliance-formal treaty between two or more nations in which they pledge mutual military, economic and/or political
support.
Detente-literally, "the relaxation of tensions." Characterizes relations between the U.S. and the Soviet Union in recent years
in which both nations have attempted to move away from the confrontation of the Cold War and towards cooperation.
Various aspects include increased trade, cultural and educational exchanges, cooperative space exploration (Apollo-Soyuz
missions), SALT negotiations and the Helsinki accords.
Embassy-the official diplomatic mission of one nation in the capital city of another, headed by the Ambassador. Over 140
nations maintain embassies in Washington, D.C. The United States has embassies in London, Moscow, Mexico City, Tokyo,
Nairobi and over 100 other capitals around the world. The Ambassadors are nominated by the President and must be
approved by the Senate. Their responsibilities include the administration of political, economic and cultural relations be-
tween the nations, as well as representing the American government at official and social functions.
Executive Agreement-agreement between the chief executives (Presidents, Prime Ministers, Premiers, Kings) of two nations
on a particular matter. Differs from a treaty in that it is law without having to be ratified by the Senate.
Foreign Policy-a nation's course of action towards the other nations in the world.
Interdependence-applied to international relations, means the mutual and inescapable dependence of all nations-big and
small, rich and poor-on each other.
Isolationism-attempt to withdraw from international affairs, to isolate yourself or your nation from world problems. Con-
trasted with internationalism.
Multinational Corporation-corporation which has expanded beyond its home country base and has direct investment in
other nations. Has a "global perspective," in that its management makes its decisions based on alternatives available any-
where in the world. Examples are the major oil companies, IT&T, General Motors, United Fruit and Anaconda Copper.
Nonaligned Nation-refers to those nations who claim to follow neither strictly pro-U.S. nor pro-U.S.S.R. policies; similar to
"netural." Many Third World nations are nonaligned; 84 attended the fifth Conference of the Nonaligned Nations in August,
1976, in Sri Lanka.
Organization of American States (OAS)-established in 1948 as an alliance of the nations of the Western Hemisphere.
Presently has 25 members; Cuba was suspended in 1962. Purpose of OAS is to promote cooperation and preserve the peace in
this hemisphere.
Third World-the poor, economically underdeveloped nations of Asia, Africa and Latin America. "Fourth World" refers to
the least developed and most poverty-stricken of these nations, such as Bangladesh.
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 iPA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
AN INTRODUCTION TO FOREIGN POLICY:
A Close Up Briefing
Before the seminar on foreign policy, one of your program instructors will conduct a short "Brief-
ing" as an introduction to this subject. The purpose is to provide some background information which
will help you participate in the seminar with your guest speaker. Refer to the Glossary and to the general
outline which follows for some of the subjects which may be discussed. Use these pages to take notes
during both the briefing and the seminar.
? In the formulation of foreign policy, what are the roles of: the President, his advisers, the State De-
partment, the Defense Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Congress?
? What are some of the groups which influence the making of foreign policy?
? What are the major issues of American foreign policy today?
NOTES (BRIEFING)
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
128
 Approved For Release 20Q BQ(13. -P% 01315R000200160007-2
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 1%A-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
8.
DEFENSE POLICY:
`(,To Provide for the Common Defense"
"World peace like community peace, does not require
that each man love his neighbor-it requires only that
they live together with mutual tolerance, submitting
their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement. "
John F. Kennedy
There is only one principle which has been common to all forms of government throughout the
history of the world. Tribal organizations, monarchies, dictatorships and democracies have all had the
function of "providing for the common defense."
For the newly independent United States, war was a living and continuing reality, and a national
defense was crucial to its survival. The Constitution designated the President as Commander-in-Chief of
the armed forces and vested the powers to create a standing army and navy in the Congress. Yet it would
have been extremely difficult for them to have envisioned the problems of supersonic bombers, chemical
warfare, overseas troops, nuclear weapons and cost overruns.
As in so many other aspects of our government, the constitutional principles have remained the
same while the problems to which they apply have grown more complex. No one has ever disputed the
need for a strong defense, but many will and do heatedly debate the definition of what is a strong defense.
"Providing for a common defense" is now a major industry, a source of employment for millions of
civilians. American troops are stationed around the globe, as "providing for the common defense" has
become intermeshed with the defense of our Asian, European and other allies. Finally, the development
of nuclear arms has raised the spectre of possibly destroying the world in the process of "providing for
the common defense." Lieutenant Colonel H. A. Staley and Major Rob Purdie have written an article
which provides an important overview of the "what, why and how" of American defense policy. This is
followed by a detailed discussion of nuclear arms policy by Thomas Halsted, who answers many of your
questions about this complex and controversial subject. This chapter also features a diagram illustrating
the general structure of the Department of Defense and a series of tables which provide some interesting
facts on how our government and its armed forces "provide for the common defense" here in the late
1970's.
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
AMERICAN MILITARY
AROUND THE WORLD
Army (Number of Troops)
Europe 198,400
West Germany 189,000
West Berlin 4,400
Turkey 1,200
Italy 3,000
Greece 800
South Korea 30,000
Air Force (Number of Troops)
Europe 73,000
West Germany Turkey
Spain Great Britain
Italy Greece
(exact figures unavailable)
Pacific 50,000
Japan
Okinawa
South Korea
Taiwan
Philippines
(exact figures unavailable)
Atlantic
Navy
5 carriers, 68 surface
combatants (Second Fleet)
2 carriers, 16 surface com-
batants (Sixth Fleet)
Eastern Pacific 4 carriers, 59 surface com-
batants (Third Fleet)
Western Pacific 2 carriers, 18 surface com-
batants (Seventh Fleet)
(plus one Marine battalion
landing team)
Persian Gulf 1 command ship, 2 surface
combatants
Source:
Military Balance, 1976-77
International Institute for
Strategic Studies, London,
England
Approved For Release 2004/10/131-?IA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13: CIA-R
AMERICAN DEFENSE
POLICY:
WHAT, WHY AND HOW?
Lt. Colonel H. A. Staley and
Major Rob Purdie
Lt. Colonel Staley and Major Purdie are
faculty members of the Air Command and
Staff College at Maxwell Air Force Base,
Alabama. Both hold Master's degrees in
political science. Lt. Colonel Staley is also the
author of Tongue and Quill: Communicating
to Manage in Tomorrow's Air Force. Major
Purdie is a lieutenant colonel selectee and
pilot of the world's largest aircraft, the C-5.
Their article is a highly informative
explanation of this complex subject of
defense policy.
What is Defense Policy?
You might be surprised how close you could
come to guessing what defense policy is, why we
have such a thing, and how we use it. It's really
not as complicated as many people think.
The dictionary defines "policy" as "any plan
or course of action adopted by a government...
designed to influence and determine decisions,
actions and other matters." You already know
that the word "defense" means to "protect"
something. United States defense policy, then, is
the general plan of action our government uses to
maintain our security as a free nation. American
defense policy is an important part of a larger
plan called U.S. foreign policy.
Defense policy could also be described as a
collection of ideas or guidelines. Defense Sec-
retary Harold Brown has said that the spread of
sophisticated nuclear and nonnuclear weapons
technology has three major implications for U.S.
defense policy and programs. First, our defense
planning should encourage prospects for
reasonable arms control agreements. Second, we
should maintain a strong nuclear capability while
also placing emphasis on nonnuclear forces.
Third, defense planning should stress the
importance of nuclear and nonnuclear forces in
preventing war.l In broad terms, these are the
defense policy guidelines of the Carter Adminis-
tration.
fly-fiJ J%W01%N&7p;licy?
These guidelines represent this adminis-
tration's approach to achieving a broad set of long
range objectives known as national security goals.
At the present time our goals are:
to protect the U.S. from attack or enemy
pressure.
to assure our ability to buy and sell freely
in world markets.
to contribute to a world environment that
allows democratic values and institutions
to survive and prosper.2
To achieve these long-term national security
goals it is necessary to develop more specific
shorter term goals. These are called national
security policy goals. In 1975, former Secretary of
State Henry Kissinger listed six national security
policy goals; they remain basically unchanged
today:
Maintain national strength and purpose.
Revitalize bonds with allies.
Reduce perils of nuclear war.
Build rational relationships with potential
enemies.
Help settle regional conficts.
? Help solve crucial economic issues.3
Are you beginning to understand the "what"
and "why" of defense policy? Those two questions
are difficult to separate.
"To be prepared for war is one of the most
effective means of preserving peace."
George Washington
Are you beginning to understand the "what"
and "why" of defense policy? Those two questions
are difficult to separate. Defense policy is a
general plan to keep our nation secure. It should
be obvious that if we had no goals or plan we
would be like a football team without a play
book-we would lose every game.
*Authors' Notes:
1. Statement by Harold Brown, Secretary of Defense,
February 22,1977, Survival (May-June 1977), p. 121.
2. Testimony of Amos A. Jordan, then Principal
Assistant Secretary of Defense, International Security
Affairs., to Committee on Armed Services, U.S. House of
Representatives, December 9, 1975 (H.A.S.C. No. 94-32), p.
141.
3. Henry A. Kissinger, Statement to House Committee
on International Relations, November 1975.
Approved For Release 2004/1041: CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R00020016 007-2
How is Defense Policy Made and Used? The Instruments of National Power
We've saved the hardest question for last:
"How is defense policy really made and used?"
It's also the most interesting question because the
answer often involves us personally. Defense
policy is made through a process that can be
illustrated like this:4
701, E M S
INTERNATIONAL CONDITIONS
If we start with international conditions, or more
specifically, a change in these conditions, we find
that new problems are constantly being
generated. Let's take as an example a major
increase in the price of oil. The problems created
by such an action would be considered in depth by
the President, his advisors, and the Congress. The
decision or decisions concerning the problems
would then be translated into policy. In our
example, the decision might be to restrict arms
shipments and manufactured goods to the
countries that raised their oil prices, or simply to
apply diplomatic pressure. Any such decisions
would require minor to major changes in policy.
The changes would affect international
conditions; although the original problem may be
solved new problems are bound to be created. The
complex and changing nature of the international
system insures that this process will never
stagnate.
4. Lt. Colonel Conrad C. Gonzales, Chief, Military
Environment Division, Air Command and Staff College,
Maxwell AFB, Alabama.
You'll recall that our defense policy is a
"plan" to guide government leaders. In many
ways it is like a carpenter's blueprint, and we all
know a carpenter needs tools. So too does our
government need "tools" to carry out policy;
these tools are called instruments of national
power. America's three basic "tools" or instru-
ments are:
? The political instrument.
? The economic instrument.
? The military instrument.
These instruments are used to project power;
that is, to influence other nations to undertake or
avoid certain courses of action. To understand
these instruments, it helps to consider them
separately, although in practice they are seldom
used alone. The political instrument encompasses
diplomatic pressure, treaties, executive agree-
ments, and a host of other actions, activities and
agreements. The economic instrument includes
tariffs, embargoes, special trading privileges,
monetary policies and various other forms of
pressure. Finally, the military instrument (the
armed forces) is used to deter or encourage
actions through its existence or when it is
determined to be in the national interest to apply
force.
Focusing on the military instrument more
specifically, see that it is embodied in civil
authorities of the Department of Defense (DOD),
the senior military officers in the Joint Chiefs of
Staff (JCS), and the armed services. The head of
DOD, the Secretary of Defense, is the President's'
principal civilian advisor for defense matters and
is immediately beneath him in the line of
authority to the military. This is consistent with
the American tradition of civilian control of the
armed forces. The JCS acts as the principal
military advisory body to the President and
Secretary of Defense. Each member of the JCS,
with the exception of the chairman, is also the
military head of his respective service branch. The
chairman's position is rotated among the various
services. In addition, each service is represented
by a civilian secretary appointed by the President.
Naturally, defense policy is implemented
through the armed forces in many ways short of
actual war. For example, troops stationed over-
seas or naval fleets in the Mediterranean do far
more than stand by waiting for war. The power
represented by these forces helps convince
potential enemies not to start a fight! These forces
Approved For Release 2004/10/131-CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 also demonstrate to po~ir~lies ourejti?R0aj(A0/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
determination to preserve order or protect our
interests. Paradoxically, the most successful
defense policy may well be one in which the armed
forces never fight. Our soldiers, sailors, marines
and airmen are really "doing their best" when
they are not fighting because their extensive train-
ing, advanced weapons and high morale in-
fluence potential enemies to keep the peace.
If members of your family have ever served in
one of our military services or worked for the U.S.
government, they have been personally involved
with American defense policy. You may decide in
the future to serve America in some capacity-if
you do, there is a-good chance that your work will,
in some way, be aiding our President and
Congress in keeping the United States free and
prosperous.
Now that you know what it is, why we have it,
and how we use it, perhaps you can tell others
about... American Defense Policy.
TABLE:
AMERICAN FOREIGN AID
(Military Assistance)
This table should be studied with the one on
foreign economic aid in Chapter 7. There are
many different kinds of military assistance which
the United States gives to friendly governments.
This table covers grants, sales and credits for the
purchase of American military equipment,
training and other military related services.
Figures cover the period from October 1, 1976
to September 30, 1977.
TOTAL: $2.5 billion
Israel $ 1 billion
Turkey $214 million
Greece $170 million
South Korea $158 million
Spain $137 million
Jordan $136 million
Brazil $ 60 million
Thailand $ 57 million
Indonesia $ 47 million
Philippines $ 47 million
Source:
See Chapter 7
&1't Supost You fee( tiko heating up
x`ht'C` rations?
ARMS CONTROL AND
DISARMAMENT
IN THE NUCLEAR ERA
Thomas A. Halsted
Many novels have been written and
numerous movies have been produced about
nuclear war; coffeehouse folksingers have
lamented the impending doom. We have
practiced air raid drills at school and have
frequently heard "this is a test. . . in case of a
real emergency. . . " on our local radio
stations. Fortunately, the world has thus far
avoided nuclear war, but we continue to live
under the menacing spectre of The Bomb. In
this article Thomas Halsted discusses in
detail the problems posed by the nuclear age
and explains why he believes arms control
and disarmament to be the only possible
road to a true national security. Mr. Halsted
is Director of the Arms Control Program of
the Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace and Executive Director of the Arms
Control Association. Read his article care-
fully. As our government continues its
attempts to negotiate a treaty with the Soviet
Union for arms control, and encourages the
rest of the world not to develop nuclear
weapons, it becomes increasingly important
that we as citizens understand and have a
voice in nuclear arms policy.
Approved For Release 2004/10419: CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Relegse2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-Q11315R0 020Q160007 2
They shall beat their swords into plow- power o most merican an Russian nuclear
shares and their spears into pruninghooks," says weapons. Some American bombs are 1,000 times
the prophet Isaiah. The prophet Joel says, "Beat as powerful; the Russians have a missile warhead
your plowshares into swords and your pruning- that's nearly 1,700 times as powerful as the single
hooks into spears." bomb that fell on Hiroshima thirty-two years ago.
"The likelihood of a disastrous new war has
been growing, with the very real possibility
that it might involve nuclear weapons, and
awesome destruction never before seen."
Since the end of World War II and the be-
ginning of the atomic age, Joel has clearly had
more influence than Isaiah. Over 1 trillion
(1,000,000,000,000) dollars have been spent,
chiefly by the United States and the Soviet Union,
on sophisticated armaments in efforts to improve
their security. Yet few would argue that the world
is more secure because of this vast expenditure.
Rather, the likelihood of a disastrous new war has
been growing, with the very real possibility that it
might involve nuclear weapons, and awesome
destruction never before seen.
Only a lunatic fringe really believes that a
full-scale nuclear war could be fought and won.
Political and military leaders are well aware that
the use of even a small number of such weapons,
in a conflict involving the United States and the
Soviet Union or even other adversaries, could
expand into an all out war. This is why efforts to
control armaments have concentrated on the
control of atomic weapons.
More than half the people on earth have lived
with nuclear weapons all their lives, and have
come to accept them as a fact of life. Yet nuclear
war, for which these weapons are designed, would
mean an end to civilization as we know it. "The
living," as President John F. Kennedy quoted
Soviet Premier Khrushchev, "would envy the
dead" after a nuclear war.
Nuclear weapons are very different from
"conventional" (non-nuclear) ones. A single
atomic bomb dropped over the Japanese city of
Hiroshima killed nearly 100,000 Japanese
civilians in a few seconds and leveled the heart of
the city. The bomb, which was dropped from a B-
29 bomber, exploded with a force equal to 15,000
tons of high explosive TNT. It was three thousand
times as powerful as the largest bomb that had
been used in warfare before then. Yet today that
1945 bomb is puny compared to the destructive
The U.S. and Soviet Union now have over
30,000 nuclear weapons between them. Some are
warheads on intercontinental ballistic missiles
(each side has over 1,000 of these ICBM's); some
are on missiles carried by nuclear submarines;
some are on bombers capable of flying 6,000 miles
or more. Others are on shorter-range "tactical"
missiles and aircraft based in Europe and the Far
East. The U.S. has over 7,000 such tactical
nuclear weapons in Europe alone, the U.S.S.R. an
estimated 3,500.
Given the enormous numbers of weapons
available on both sides, if a nuclear war were to
break out between the United States and the
Soviet Union, over 100 million (100,000,000) lives
could be lost in each country. Great cities would
be in ashes, and the surviving population would
be desperate for food, shelter and medical care.
Furthermore, not just the two "superpowers"
would be devastated. All of Europe might be in
ruins as well, and, depending on how many other
countries (China? Japan? others?) were drawn
into the conflict, most of the northern hemisphere
could be the victim of a nuclear war.
There are other possibilities for nuclear war.
A small country may acquire a bomb, and use it
on its neighbor; the larger powers are one way or
another drawn into the fight. Or a group of
terrorists steals or manufactures its own weapon
and uses it to extort concessions from a govern-
ment. Perhaps they actually set off their weapon
and destroy a great city; perhaps not. The fact
remains that we, who have created this monster
and allowed it to dominate thinking about war for
the last thirty-two years, have barely begun to find
ways to bring it under control.
Military superiority has little real meaning in
a world of nuclear weapons, yet we and the
Russians continue to build up our arsenals in
efforts to stay ahead of each other. Seeing so little
restraint on the part of these two superpowers,
other countries, seeking better security in the face
of threats from their neighbors, may also be
tempted to obtain nuclear weapons. This is a
problem of growing seriousness as more and more
potential bomb material (plutonium and enriched
uranium) becomes available around the world as
a by-product of increasing reliance on the atom to
generate electricity.
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 :19134-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
The Objectives of Arms Control and Disarament under which they agreed not to build antiballistic
In the face of these and other security
problems involving advanced weapons and the
threat that they might be used, and the increasing
high cost of armaments world wide, arms con-
trol-a system of imposed restraints-has become
increasingly important as an alternative to the
endless search for security through military
strength. Arms control consists of a pattern of
measures of restraint in developing military
planning and force structures which accomplish
some or all of these objectives:
? reduce the likelihood of war;
? reduce the destructiveness of war
one nevertheless occur;
? reduce the costs of armaments, thereby
permitting resources, both human and
material, to be used to better our lives.
Disarmament, on the other hand, means an
extensive reduction in levels of armaments. Arms
control does not necessarily lead to disarma-
ment; that process could be much harder to
achieve while successfully resisting pressures for
actual disarmament. These complaints are
voiced increasingly by spokesmen for smaller
countries who feel that the big powers' concen-
tration on large military forces is at the expense of
development in the impoverished regions of the
world, and that the two superpowers are increas-
ing the likelihood of a war between them that
would imperil everyone else. Thus there have been
growing demands for a vigorous international
approach to disarmament, not just arms control.
In response to these demands, a Special Session of
the United Nations devoted to exploring dis-
armament problems will take place in 1978.
What are the major problems of arms
control and disarmament, and what efforts are
being made to deal with them? Some of the more
pressing concerns are identified below in the
following sections:
Strategic Arms Limitations Talks (SALT)
The United States and the Soviet Union have
been carrying out Strategic Arms Limitation
Talks (so-called "SALT" negotiations) since 1969,
in an effort to stabilize the arms competition
between them in strategic (i.e., intercontinental)
weapons: the ICBMs, long-range bombers, and
submarine-launched missile programs noted
above. In 1972, they signed the SALT I Treaty
missile (ABM) defenses. Both sides agreed that it
was not possible to successfully defend their
countries against missile attacks. Accordingly,
they agreed to scrap attempts to do so, thereby
eliminating the possibility that any political
leader in the future might, erroneously, conclude
that it could be to his advantage to start a nuclear
war. An important result of this "ABM Treaty"
has been to reinforce the concept of mutual
deterrence.* Since an effective defense is not
attainable, both countries are vulnerable to a first
strike or a retaliation. Because both know they are
vulnerable, they are deterred from attacking one
another.
"Six countries (the United States, the
Soviet Union, Great Britain, France, China
and India) have exploded nuclear weapons
and a seventh, Israel, is widely believed to
have nuclear weapons, although it has
never tested them."
Since the 1972 ABM Treaty, SALT
negotiations have focused on setting ceilings on
the number of offensive weapons, and hopefully,
on eventually reducing their numbers. In 1974, a
tentative agreement was reached at Vladivostok (a
city on the Pacific coast of the Soviet Union)
between President Ford and Soviet General
Secretary Brezhnev on the framework of a treaty
which would allow each side no more than 2,400
"delivery vehicles" - ICBMs, submarine-
launched ballistic missiles, and long-range
bombers, and would require that no more than
1,320 of these could have "MIRVs" on them (a
missile armed with MIRVs carries a cluster of
nuclear bombs on it, each bomb able to be
dropped on a different target; thus a MIRVed
missile can be many times as effective in destroy-
ing targets as one without MIRVs). However, that
Vladivostok framework has not yet been trans-
lated into a permanent treaty. Early in 1977,
President Carter proposed a new framework for
agreement, incorporating lower numerical ceil-
lings as well as proposals to prevent moderni-
zation and replacement of weapons. This
proposal has formed the basis of present SALT
negotiations.
*Editor's Note: "Deter" means "to prevent, to check, to
discourage from acting through fear or doubt."
Approved For Release 2004/1 ?!3'163 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 N cPt 010FANKAWOW'Pse 2004/10/13 : CIA o-RENA -g4i1R{ q? $$RZ rograms. There is
Six countries (the United States the Soviet
Union, Great Britain, France, China, and India)
have exploded nuclear weapons, and a seventh,
Israel, is widely believed to have nuclear weapons,
although it has never tested them. Recognizing
that a world of many nuclear powers would be
even more dangerous than the fragile situation
which exists today, governments have worked on a
number of arms control measures to limit the
chances that nuclear weapons could spread to
other countries.
The problem has taken on particular urgency
in recent years because of the fact that nuclear
energy, which can be used to generate electricity,
can also be used to produce plutonium, the ele-
ment from which nuclear weapons are made.
Many countries are building nuclear reactors to
generate electricity. Many more are planning to
do so, particularly as growing oil shortages and
higher oil prices force countries to give a higher
priority to nuclear power in developing their
national energy plans. With nearly 500 nuclear
power plants in operation, under construction, or
on order in 41 countries, the chief concern is that
without adequate safeguards against theft or
diversion some of the plutonium from these
reactors could be used to make atomic bombs.
A hostile government could secretly make a
bomb, or-a growing possibility-a terrorist
group could steal bomb material and either make
a bomb with it or persuade its would-be victims
that it had done so. Concerns about both these
possibilities have led to a number of international
efforts to make it more difficult to acquire
weapons. A Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons (the "NPT") has been in effect
since 1970; over 100 countries are parties. It and
other less formal mechanisms establish certain
international standards and procedures to make
it more difficult for peaceful nuclear programs to
turn into weapons programs.
But the NPT and other means of controlling
peaceful nuclear programs only deal with
capabilities. They do not address the more
fundamental issue of intentions. A government
that has decided it needs nuclear weapons for its
own security will not be deterred from that goal by
technical controls on its ability to make bombs. It
is further inspired, morever, by the superpowers'
unwillingness so far to put any noticeable controls
'Editor's Note: Proliferation means "an excessive, rapid
spread".
a long way to go before both the ability of other
countries to become nuclear weapons states and
their desires to do so are brought under control.
Comprehensive Test Ban
Many arms control experts believe that a very
important way that the nuclear weapons states
can demonstrate that they are, in fact, willing to
put some restraints on their own nuclear weapons
program is to agree to end all nuclear weapons
explosions. A ban on nuclear explosions has been
an arms control objective since the mid-1950's,
when the first test-ban talks began in Geneva. In
1963 a "limited" test ban treaty committed its
parties, which included the United States, the
Soviet Union and Great Britain, not to set off any
more nuclear explosions in the atmosphere, in
outer space, and under water but it allowed them
to continue testing underground. The Treaty
neither slowed nor stopped the testing of nuclear
weapons. Of the more than 1,000 nuclear test
explosions which have taken place since 1945,
more than half have occurred since the 1963
treaty went into effect. Furthermore, France and
China, who did not sign the treaty, have
conducted nuclear weapons test programs.
Pressure to bring about a complete or
"comprehensive" test ban, which would prohibit
tests everywhere including underground, has in-
creased in recent years. In 1974, the United States
and Soviet Union signed a "threshold" Test Ban
Treaty which would limit the size of tests each
would carry out to no greater than 150 kilotons
(but this is 10 times the size of the Hiroshima
bomb!), and two years later they signed a separate
treaty governing the conduct of so-called
"peaceful" nuclear explosions. Neither of these
treaties has been ratified, however, and in view of
President Carter's strong interest in a complete
test ban instead, they may never come into force.
Considerable obstacles remain in the way of
a total test ban, involving all nations. France,
China and India (which has conducted one
underground test of what it calls a "peaceful
device") are unlikely to join, and several
countries, notably the USSR, maintain an interest
in the idea of nuclear explosions for peaceful
purposes. Since such explosions involve
technologies identical to those needed for bombs,
they will make a comprehensive test ban
extremely difficult to bring about as long as they
are not also banned.
Approved For Release 2004/10/13: ff-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Ann Mutual and Balanced Force Keduct nns(MISFK) 0/13
Since the end of World War II United States
and Soviet military forces have faced one another
in Central Europe. Today, more than thirty years
after the conflict ended, nearly 800,000 NATO
troops and 900,000 Warsaw Pact forces remain
deployed there. Both sides have been modernizing
their forces, equipping them with new kinds of
weapons, and backing them up with long-range
sea and ground-launched missiles and long-range
aircraft. In hopes of reducing the potential for
surprise attack as well as lessening the possibility
that conflict in Europe could lead to all-out war,
the two sides agreed in 1973 to attempt to
negotiate an agreement to reduce the levels of
forces on both sides.
Discussions to date have not been very
productive, for a variety of reasons. Firstly, the
Soviets may not have great confidence in their
allies, and fear that a reduction in U.S. forces
could lead to an expansion of West German
influence. Secondly, the United States' NATO
allies have been reluctant, on the other hand, to
increase their contribution, preferring to keep a
strong U.S. presence there. Both the U.S. and
Soviet Union have, in fact, retained or increased
forces in Europe, rather than reducing them, in
part to gain some bargaining leverage for the
negotiations. Nevertheless, there are some
grounds for hope that some reductions can take
place, and be accompanied by understandings on
force deployments which will improve stability
there. A tradeoff involving lowering the level of
U.S. tactical nuclear weapons in Europe by 1,000
in exchange for a reduction in Soviet tank forces
is one such possibility.
Conventional Arms Transfers
In recent years, particularly since the end of
the Vietnam War, the developing world has
become a supermarket for the sellers of con-
ventional (i.e., non-nuclear) armaments-high
performance aircraft, ships, tanks and artillery,
and a wide variety of other military equipment.
The upsurge in this market has been phenomenal,
both in terms of amounts and sophistication of
the weapons involved. The United States, by far
the most energetic arms merchant, accounts for
more than half of all the arms sold worldwide,
with as many as $12 billion worth of orders in a
single year. The Soviet Union, the closest com-
petitor, accounts for less than 1/4 as much.
CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
Much of the arms sold, by the United States
and such other suppliers as the French and
British have gone to the Middle East, principally
Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel. The Soviet Union
has provided sophisticated weapons to others in
the region. The last Middle East war, fought in
1973, involved new generations of high-per-
formance aircraft and anti-tank and anti-aircraft
missiles. The opponents in that war have since
been rearmed many times over, and still more
advanced weapons, and their neighbors have
raced to follow suit. The next Middle East war,
should one come, could involve many more ad-
versaries, perhaps even drawing in the countries
outside the region.
Thus there have been increased pressures to
develop a policy of restraint, not only in the
United States but regionally as well, with respect
to arms sales. In mid-1977 President Carter
announced a policy, so far with little effect, of
approving arms transfers only where the case for
doing so is compelling (until then, the burden of
proof had been on those arguing against such
sales), and of not allowing new types of weapons
to be introduced into a region.
For such a policy to succeed, it must be
emulated by other potential suppliers. Further-
more, the potential customers must also see it in
their interest to restrict arms purchases, or there
is little reason to expect that the arms market will
slow down. Nevertheless, the Carter adminis-
tration, recognizing that the United States is by
far the worst offender in this practice, is attempt-
ing to start a dialogue with others in an effort to
reach international agreement on limiting con-
ventional arms traffic.
These are only a few of the pressing arms
control problems the world faces today. The
United States has taken the lead in many in-
stances in trying to come to grips with these
issues. President Carter has set forth an im-
pressive agenda for arms control and dis-
armament, and has appointed to his adminis-
tration a competent and dedicated team of senior
officials committed to translating agenda into
action. For his arms control objectives to succeed,
however, he must overcome considerable public
skepticism about the value of arms control as an
essential element of national security, as well as
about the wisdom of negotiating with the Soviet
Union; he must also deal with widespread misper-
Approved For Release 2004/1 q/31g3 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
ceptions about the meaning of security in the suit of military superiority, but only when we and
nuclear age. He must convince a now-doubting our adversaries are ready to bring the arms race
public that greater safety is not going to be under control through negotiated arms control
attained through an endless and impossible pur- agreements that really control arms.
Approved For Release 2004/10/13139 A-RDP88-01315ROO0200160007-2
 Approved F1~,~2OSSAOf
l: nse / ue eT -RD I,315R000200160007-2
.1
Arms Control-policy of restraint in the development of military weapons. Used most often today with reference to nuclear
arms.
Arms Sales-a very controversial issue today, concerning the sale of large quantities of weapons by the United States and
other developed nations to Third World nations; e.g., Saudi Arabia and Iran are two of the largest purchasers of arms from
the United States.
Deterrence-the doctrine that war can be prevented by the maintenance of large military arsenals by two foes because the
threat of an effective counterattack will discourage both from ever striking first.
Disarmament-rather than just the restraint of arms control, calls for a total reduction in nuclear weaponry towards the
ultimate goal of elimination of all nuclear weapons.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)-an alliance of the United States, Canada and Western European democracies
for mutual security against Communist aggression and expansionism. Established immediately after World War II.
Nuclear Parity-the condition of roughly equivalent nuclear forces between the United States and the Soviet Union.
Nuclear Proliferation-the spread of nuclear weapons to nations which did not previously possess them.
Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) -negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union on the limitation of
nuclear weapons for the mutual benefit of decreasing the likelihood of nuclear war.
SALT I-treaty signed in 1972 placing a permanent limit on missile defense systems (called anti-ballistic missile or ABM
systems). Another part of SALT I was a five-year limit on the number and the kind of offensive nuclear weapons.
SALT II-with SALT I due to expire in October, 1977, a new treaty becomes necessary to continue the arms control. A pre-
liminary SALT II pact was signed in 1974, but a permanent treaty was still to be reached at the time of this printing (August,
1977).
Warsaw Pact-alliance of the Soviet Union and its Eastern European allies for mutual security against possible NATO
aggression. Warsaw is the capital of Poland, one of the member nations.
Weaponry
Strategic Weapons-long-range nuclear weapons with an intercontinental range.
Tactical Weapons-also nuclear weapons. but have shorter range.
Conventional Weapons-nonnuclear, such as tanks, land troops, etc.
U.S.Air Force
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
140
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
AN INTRODUCTION TO DEFENSE POLICY:
A Close Up Briefing
Before the seminar on defense policy, one of your program instructors will conduct a short
"Briefing" as an introduction to this subject. The purpose is to provide some background information
which will help you participate in the seminar with your guest speaker(s). Refer to the diagram and the
outline below, as well as the Glossary on the preceding page, for some of the subjects which may be dis-
cussed. Use these pages to take notes during both the briefing and the seminar.
? What is the Department of Defense? Who is the Secretary? Who are the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
? How is defense policy formulated? What roles are played by the President, the Congress and the
Defense Department?
? What is meant by the doctrine of deterrence? Containment?
? What is American policy with regard to nuclear weapons? What is the meaning of arms control?
------------------
ARMED FORCES
POLICY COUNCIL
ASSISTANT
ASSISTANT
ASSISTANT
SECRETARY
GENERAL COUNSEL
DIRECTOR OF
ASSISTANT
SECRETARY
SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE
OF THE
ASSISTANT TO
DEFENSE RESEARCH
SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE
OF DEFENSE
(INTERNATIONAL
OF DEFENSE
(MANPOWER AND
1
(PROGRAM
DEPARTMENT
THE SECRETARY
ATOMIC ENERGY
AND ENGINEERING
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS)
SECURITY AFFAIR
S)
RESERVE AFFAIRS)
ANALYSIS
AND EVALUATION)
OF DEFENSE
DIRECTOR
ASSISTANT
ASSISTANT
ASSISTANT
ASSISTANT
ASSISTANT
DEFENSE
SECRETARY
SECRETARY
SECRETARY
SECRETARY
SECRETARY
TELECOMMUNI-
OF DEFENSE
OF DEFENSE
OF DEFENSE
OF DEFENSE
OF DEFENSE
CATIONS
(INSTALLATIONS AND
(COMPTROLLER)
(INTELLIGENCE)
(HEALTH AFFAIRS)
(PUBLIC AFFAIRS)
AND COMMAND AND
LOGISTICS)
CONTROL SYSTEMS
THE
JOINT STAFF
CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS
OF STAFF
CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMY
CHEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS
CHIEF OF STAFF, AIR FORCE
COMMANDANT, MARINE
CORPS
I
H
DEFENSE
ADVANCED
RESEARCH
PROJECTS
AGENCY
DEFENSE
INVESTIGATIVE
SERVICE
F DEFENSE
CIVIL
PREPAREDNESS
AGENCY
DEFENSE
SECURITY
ASSISTANCE
AGENCY
DEFENSE
INTELLIGENCE
AGENCY
DEFENSE
COMMUNICATIONS
AGENCY
ATLANTIC
COMMAND
EUROPEAN
COMMAND
PACIFIC
COMMAND
DEFENSE
MAPPING
AGENCY
READINESS
COMMAND
SOUTHERN
COMMAND
DEFENSE
NUCLEAR
AGENCY
STRATEGIC
AIR
COMMAND
UNDER SECRETARY
AND ASSISTANT
SECRETARIES OF THE ARMY
DEFENSE
CONTRACT
AUDIT
AGENCY
DEFENSE
SUPPLY
AGENCY
AEROSPACE
DEFENSE
COMMAND
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
CHIEF
UNDER
COM-
OF
SECRETARY
MAN-
NAVAL
AND
CANT
OPERA-
ASSISTANT
OF
TIONS
SECRETARIES
MARINE
OF THE NAVY
CORPS
UNDER SECRETARY
AND ASSISTANT
SECRETARIES OF THE AIR FORCE
Source:
U.S. Government Manual
1976-77, Government Printing Office
Approved For Release 2004/10/13 :1cIf-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release ~Q4,~/110// 133 : CIARDP 8-01315R000200160007-2
NOTES (SEMINAR)
Approved For Release 2004/10112 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
9.
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY:
National Security in a Democracy
"Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of
their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to
liberty lurk in insidious encroachments by men of zeal, well-
meaning but without understanding. "
Justice Louis Brandeis (1928)
"It is now clear that we are facing an implacable enemy whose
avowed objective is world domination by whatever means and at
whatever cost. There are no rules in such a game... We must
learn to subvert, sabotage and destroy our enemies by more
clever, more sophisticated and more effective methods than
those used against us. "
Hoover Commission (1954)
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was established in 1947 to gather and analyze intelligence
information relating to the nation's security. While each of the armed services has its own intelligence
arm, the Truman Administration believed that the dangers of the Communist threat and the complexit-
ies of the modern world made it necessary to create the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA was offi-
cially made a part of the Executive Office of the President, responsible to the newly created National
Security Council. Congress also was given oversight powers, divided between the appropriate House and
Senate committees.
However, in recent years tremendous controversy has raged over the failures of Presidential control
and Congressional oversight to prevent illegal activities of the CIA, other intelligence agencies and also
the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Since 1974 the so-called "intelligence community" has been in-
vestigated by a special Presidential commission (headed by then Vice President Nelson Rockefeller) and
by two select Congressional committees (chaired by Congressman Otis Pike and Senator Frank Church).
Their findings revealed illegal intelligence operations within the United States as well as abroad.
Continued investigations by Congress and by journalists have uncovered more illegal programs such as
mind control and drug experimentation. Public confidence in the intelligence community had never
before been so shaken.
The recommendations made by these investigators have fueled the public debate over what actions
need to be taken to prevent future abuses while allowing for the intelligence operations necessary for our
f1" national security. How can we meet national security demands in a dangerous world while guarding
against violations of our democratic principles? This chapter's first article is written by an official of the
Central Intelligence Agency. The author presents a general explanation of American intelligence
operations and then offers a perspective on the questions of covert operations, budget oversight and
secrecy. Senator Frank Church, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Operations
which conducted extensive investigations in 1975-76, has also authored an article. He surveys some of his
committee's major findings and presents a case for reforms of the intelligence community to give
greater oversight powers to the Congress.
Approved For Release 2004/10/1143 IA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 i
Approved For Release 2004/10/13: CIA-RDP8&O1 a1 R 't00200 6000 -2
he n e igence true ure
INTELLIGENCE
Central Intelligence Agency
This article on intelligence was submitted by
the Public Affairs Office of the Central
Intelligence Agency. The authors present you
with an authoritative discussion of the
structure and operations of the intelligence
community. As you read, refer to the
structure diagram at the end of the article,
which will help you understand the power
and authority relationships with respect to
U.S. intelligence agencies.
General Sun Tzu, who was a supreme
military strategist in China long before Christ was
born, wrote, "To win 100 victories in 100 battles is
not the acme of skill. To find security without
fighting is the acme of skill."
It is the goal of intelligence to help America
achieve security without fighting. The mission of
intelligence is to see that America's leaders know
what is happening abroad and to alert them. to
what might happen tomorrow. This combination
of informing and alerting is what intelligence is
really all about.
The United States has conducted foreign
intelligence activites since the days of George
Washington, who wrote to Colonel Elias Dayton
on July 26, 1777: "The necessity of procuring
good intelligence is apparent and need not be
further urged. . ." Funds for foreign intelligence
including a so-called secret service fund, were
sought by President Washington in his first
inaugural address. The legality of keeping such
funds secret has been upheld in the Congress ever
since. Both the notion that foreign intelligence is
the responsibility of the Chief Executive and that
there should be Congressional oversight can also
be traced to the early days of the Government.
"The National Security Act of 1947 gave
birth to a Central Intelligence Agency
(CIA) under the guidance and direction of
the National Security Council-composed
of the President, Vice President, Secretary
of State and Secretary of Defense."
But the need for an American central
intelligence apparatus grew out of Pearl Harbor
and the experiences of the Second World War.
The Congress wanted to make certain that the
U.S. would not be caught short again because of a
lack of good intelligence information. Thus the
National Security Act of 1947 gave birth to a
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) under the
guidance and direction of the National Security
Council-composed of the President, Vice
President, Secretary of State, and Secretary of
Defense.
The Act established a Director of Central
Intelligence (DCI) to be the Director of CIA and
the coordinator of the intelligence activities of the
"Intelligence Community"-that is, the units of
other Federal departments (Departments of
Defense, State, etc.) that have foreign intelligence
responsibilities. As part of his responsibility as
Director of CIA, the DCI is designated the
President's chief intelligence advisor. As the
coordinator of the activities of the Intelligence
Community, the DCI subsequently has been given
the responsibility of being the President's advisor
on intelligence concerns.
The charge by the 1947 Act to be coordinator
of intelligence activities did not carry with it the
authority for the DCI to discharge the
responsibility intended by Congress, and in 1971
the President instructed him by letter to take a
more active role in coordinating resources and
activities of the entire Intelligence Community.
Still dissatisfied that the DCI was not exercising
the authority desirable, President Ford issued
Executive Order 11905 in February 1976, and
President Carter reaffirmed it in Executive Order
11985 in May 1977, to strengthen further the
DCI's management of all foreign intelligence
functions. Especially meaningful for the
collection and production of intelligence is the
new Policy Review Committee (PRC), which is
chaired by the current DCI, Admiral Stansfield
Turner, whenever intelligence matters are
discussed. This Committee establishes policy 1W
priorities for collecting and producing national-'
intelligence and oversees budget preparation and
resource allocation for the intelligence activities of
the entire Intelligence Community.
There is also established the Special
Coordination Committee to make recom-
mendations to the President concerning
special intelligence activities that support foreign
Approved For Release 2004/10/x: CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004I1QI13 : ClA RDP88-0}1 a15R00102001,60007-2t
policy objectives-so-called covert action. ~i ~nis Director o entr0 me igence hen presents and
group also reviews and approves sensitive defends the overall budget for the Intelligence
intelligence collection operations. President Community, as well as the one for CIA, before
Carter has also created an Intelligence Oversight appropriate congressional, committees. Thus, the
Board of three prominent private citizens to process for budget formation and review is the
ensure that the Attorney General and the same as that for any government agency, except
President are properly advised concerning any that the budgets for the intelligence agencies are
activities of questionable legality and propriety. not publicly disclosed.
(The organization of the Intelligence Community The reason budgets for intelligence are not
is shown in the accompanying chart.) Finally, made public is that over a period of time and
strong Congressional oversight mechanisms have with careful study, America's adversaries could
been established to assure that intelligence detect trends in intelligence spending. For
activities are properly guided and controlled. example, when an expensive new collection
Congressional Oversight
Traditionally the Intelligence Community
reports to and receives guidance from seven
Congressional committees; four are in the Senate
and three in the House. The Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence, created in May 1976,
has assumed major responsibility for overseeing
such national intelligence activities as covert
action, all funding requests, counter-intelligence,
the analytic process and collection activities.
Oversight for departmental intelligence, that is
intelligence for use by a specific agency, remains
largely the responsibility of the Senate
committees with traditional oversight responso-
bilities-Armed Services, Appropriations and
Foreign Relations.
The House of Representatives established its
own committee to oversee intelligence activities on
July 14, 1977. When operative, this new
committee will assume exclusive responsibility for
all activities of the CIA and will share responsi-
bility for the activities of the individual agencies
of the intelligence community with those House
committees that traditionally have exercised over-
sight responsibility-Appropriations, Inter-
national Relations and Armed Services. The
addition of this new committee will bring the
number of congressional committees to which the
DCI reports to eight.
Budgets and Secrecy
Review and authorization of proposed fund-
ing for intelligence activities is an integral part of
the government's control of intelligence activities.
Budgets for the intelligence agencies are of course
reviewed by the Intelligence Community staff, by
the Office of Management and Budget and finally
by the President, who approves them. The
system is being developed-such as the U-2 in the
late 1950's-then the intelligence budget in-
creases. Such surges in the budget would easily tip
off others to new developments. This question
whether budget figures for the Intelligence Com-
munity, and more particularly the CIA should be
disclosed publicly has been debated for years.
Thus far Congress has upheld the need for con-
tinued secrecy.
However, the Senate Select Committee is
reviewing the need to continue this secrecy.
Admiral Turner has testified before the Senate
Select Committee that he would not object to the
disclosure of a single, all inclusive figure
representing the entire Intelligence Community's
budget. But Admiral Turner stated strong
objections to revealing detailed budgets, noting
that in the hands of enemies "they would be a
powerful weapon with which they could make our
collection efforts more difficult, more hazardous
to life and more costly."
Secrecy and Openness
Leaks of classified information to the press
from many sources pose one of the more serious
threats to an effective intelligence service.
Protection of the country's foreign intelligence
sources and methods-a responsibility assigned
to the DCI by the National Security Act of 1947-
is severely weakened by such disclosures. First,
disclosures of sources and methods make it a
simple matter for hostile forces to take necessary
precautions that terminate the flow of
information. Second, friendly intelligence
services and individuals cannot risk cooperating
with the U.S. when their activities stand a chance
of becoming publicized.
If divulging sources and methods is to be
avoided at all cost, so is "overclassification" and
using secrecy as a way of hiding from the public.
Approved For Release 2004/10/13t4IA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 AtIV 0/13 ? LR Q O "48A a "finished"
Admiral Turner is a ' a ~$M1ckEipr $J
fronts. He has established the policy of releasing intelligence for the policymakers.
to the public, in unclassified version, as much of There are various types of finished
the CIA product as legitimately possible. Recently
a complicated analysis of world oil reserves that
projected serious shortages by 1985, given the
current usage trends, was released to the public
under this new policy. Admiral Turner has also
made information about the Central Intelligence
Agency more easily available to the press and to
the public. For the first time news cameras have
appeared inside Agency headquarters. CBS was
allowed to film a segment for their Sixty Minutes
series there. Through this and other such
activities, Admiral Turner is attempting to lift
some of the mystique from intelligence and to
inform the public on the continuing need for an
effective intelligence service.
The Intelligence Process
Intelligence as we know it today goes far
beyond traditional concepts and impressions.
Today's concerns are with all aspects of the
capabilities, intentions and activities of foreign
powers and organizations-and with the impact
of political, economic, sociological and
technological developments. Consider a few of
the problems America faces: disarmament,
nuclear proliferation, terrorism, overpopulation,
imbalances between rich and poor countries, oil
and reserves distribution, exploitation of the sea
and space. This country's leaders must have a
systematic knowledge of these and other complex
subjects, a full awareness of the U.S.'s capability
to deal with them, and an understanding of the
intentions of other nations concerned with the
same problems.
To provide the accurate evaluations and
estimates required, information is gathered from
a wide variety of sources. A large part of it is
collected openly from publications, radio and
television broadcasts and from normal diplomatic
exchanges. It is also collected by technical means.
Still other, smaller amounts of information are
collected clandestinely. This method is only used
when there is no other way to obtain necessary
information and when the information is judged
to be sufficiently important to justify the risks of
secret operations.
While the sheer volumes of information
dictate the use of large computers and complex
storage and retrieval systems, intelligence is the
product of the human mind-the work of analysts
intelligence, each is in the form that is most useful
to the particular needs of the users. Current
intelligence takes the form of daily publications
that analyze current developments and evaluate
their impact in the near term. The most
important of these, the President's Daily Brief
presents to President Carter each morning the
critical events on the foreign scene. Another form
of finished intelligence, the National Intelligence
Estimate, is a more in-depth analysis of
international situations that judges new
developments in terms of what they imply for the
future. A third form is the longer research studies
done, for example, on strategic weapons
programs of foreign countries and long range
political developments.
Admiral Turner's fundamental goal as
Director of Central Intelligence remain the same
as that of his predecessors: to produce the highest
quality intelligence possible to meet the needs of
the President, the Congress, and other decision-
makers in government. Rebuilding the confidence
of the U.S. public in the Intelligence Community
and the CIA by earning their trust through fair
mindedness and excellence is a primary tenet of
this fundamental goal.
Approved For Release 2004/10/44: CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2
 Approved For Release 2004/10/13: CIA-RDP88-01315R00
UTO 6
F -
Z
Q
za
HW
,
aH
zz
wzw
w
V)
O
E -
z
w
~H
zU
"' a
w
< a`~1 9
.flea, 4 a rr&eo -2,o points per carne Jur;'? -he regu;ar
ra ;r," NVf m Utratr l ' w -:ame Ourirui -f'ie
-ne '_el ;.ER, ~ee sfw rnade
1rrD'tn~?, (,nf r +r,P f~