CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT OF 1974

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75B00380R000600080002-0
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 85
• Document Creation Date: November 17, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 14, 2000
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: March 21, 1974
• Content Type: OPEN

Mar
respect to
to in subsec
tamed, gives
of such record
"(A) To med
necessary to mee
gency.
"(B) To qualifi
pose of conducting
agement audits, finan
evaluation, but such
Identify, directly or indi
',talent in any report of s
or evaluation, or otherwi
identities in any manner.
, :"(C) If authorized by an a
of a court of competent jure
after application showing goo
for. In assessing good cause th
weigh the public interest and t
disclosure against the injury to t
to the physician-patient relationsh
the treatment services. Upon the
of such order, the court, in determin
extent to which any disclosure of all o
part of any record is necessary, shall im
appropriate safeguards against unauthor
disclosure.
"(c) Except as authorized by a court orde
granted under subsection (b) (2) (C) of this
section, no record referred to in subsection
(a) may be used to initiate or substantiate
any criminal charges against a patient or to
conduct any investigation of a patient.
"(d) The prohibitions of this section con-
tinue to apply to records concerning any in-
dividual who has been a patient, irrespective
of whether or when he ceases to be a patient.
"(e) The prohibitions of this section do
not apply to any interchange of records? '
"(1) within the Armed Forces or within
those components of the Veterans Admin-
istation furnishing health care to veterans,
,
or
"(2) between such components and the
Armed Forces.
"(f) Any person who violates any provision
of this section or, any regulation issued pur-
stiant to this section shall be fined not more
than $500 in the case of a first offense, and
not more than $5,000 in the case of each
subsequent offense.
"(g) The Director of the Special Action
Office for Drug Abuse Prevention, after con-
sultation with the Administrator of Veterans'
Affairs and the beads of other Federal 'de-
partments and agenaies substantially
affected thereby, shall prescribe regulations
to carry out the purposes of this section.
These regulations may contain such defini-
tions, and may provide for such safeguards
and procedures, including procedures and
criteria for the issuance and scope of orders
under subsection (b) (9) (C), as in the
judgment of the Director are necessary or
proper to effectuate the purposes of this
section, to, prevent circumvention or evasion
thereof, or to facilitate compliance there-
with.",
(b) (1) Effective on the date specified in
section 104 of the Drug Abuse Office and
Treatment Act of 1972 (21 U.S.C. 1104), the
first sentence of section 408(g) of that Act
(21 U.S.C. 1175) is amended by striking
"Director of the Special Action Office for
Drug Abuse Prevention" and inserting in
lieu thereof "Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare", and the second sentence of
such Section is amended ,by striking "Direc-
tor ' and inserting "Secretary" in lieu thereof.
. (2) Effective on the date specified in para-
graph (1) of this subsection, section 408 of
such Act is further amended by?
(A) striking out "The"- and inserting in
lien thereof "Except as provided in subsec-
tion (h) of this section, the" in the first
sentence of subseOtion (g) of snail section;
and
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP751300380R000600080002-0
21, 197.4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE S 4075
ther or not the patient, with
om any given record referred
n (a) of this section is main-
written consent, the content
ay be disclosed as follows:
1 personnel to the extent
bona fide medical emer-
rsonnel for the pur-
ntific research, man-
audits, or program
ersonnel may not
tly, any individual
research, audit,
disclose patient
opriate order
tion granted
ause there-
ourt shall
need for
patient,
and to
nting
the
any
(B) adding at the end of such section the
following new subsection:
"(h) The Administrator of Veterans' Af-
fairs, through the Chief Medical Director,
shall, to the maximum feasible extent con-
sistent with their responsibilities under title
38, United States Code, prescribe regulations
making applicable the regulations established
by the Secretary under subsection (g) of
this section to records maintained in con-
nection with the provision of hospital care,
nursing home care, domiciliary care, and
medical services under such title 38 to vet-
erans suffering from drug abuse. In prescrib-
ing and implementing regulations pursuant
to this subsection, the Administrator shall,
from time to time, consult with the Secretary
in order to achieve the maximum possible
coordination of the regulations, and the im-
plementation thereof, which they each pre-
scribe.".
(c) The Administrator of Veterans' Affairs
shall submit to the appropriate committees
of the House of Representatives and the
Senate a full report (1) on the regulations
(including guidelines, policies, and proce-
dures thereunder) he has prescribed pur-
suant to section 408(h) of the Drug Abuse
Office and Treatment Act of 1972, (2) ex-
plaining the bases for any inconsistency be-
tween such regulations and the regulations
f the Secretary of Health, Education, and
elfare under section 408(g) of that Act,
) on the extent, substance, and results of
h consultationa with the Secretary respect-
in the prescribing and implementation of
the' ministrator's regulations, and (4) con-
taIni such recommendations for legisla-
tion a?administrative actions as he deter-
mines e necessary and desirable. The Ad-
ministr r shall submit such report not
later tha sixty days after the effective date
of the reg tions prescribed by the Secretary
under such ection 408(g), and shall timely
publish suc sport in the Federal Register.
(d) Any re lation under or with respect
to section 408 the Drug Abuse Office and
Treatment Act 1972 (21 U.S.C. 1175) is-
sued by the Di tor of the Special Action
Office for Drug Ab e Prevention prior to the
date specified in s tion 104 of that Act (21
U.S.C. 1104), whet ''r before or after the
enactment of this A shall remain in effect
until revoked or am ded by the Director
or the Secretary of H lth, Education, and
Welfare, as the case may e.
ORDER FOR PRINTIN OF A BILL
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. 'esident, on
September 11 the Senate dreed to an
amendment to HR. 7724, t Nation:d
Service Awards and Protecti of Hu-
man Subjects Act. No copies we printed
at the time. Because of the un ual in-
terest in the amendment, I ask unani-
mous consent that H.R. 7724, as a nded
and passed by the Senate, be prin d.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT OF
1974
The Senate continued with the con-
sideration of the bill (S. 1541) to provide
for the reform of congressional proce-
dures with respect to the enactment of
fiscal measures; to provide ceilings on
Federal expenditures and the national
debt; to create a budget committee in
each House; to create a congressional
office of the budget, and for other pur-
poses.
AMENDMENT NO. 473
Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, I call up
my amendment No. 473 and ask that it
be read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is
not a copy of the amendment at the desk.
Mr. HAR'TKE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARTKE's amendment (No. 473) is
as follows:
TITLE II. OFFICE OF COUNSEL GENERAL
DECLARATION OF PURPOSE
SEC. 201. The Congress finds and declares
that there is a need for a professional legal
counsel to the Congress learned in the law,
the Constitution, and the legislative process;
that the Congress is a coequal branch of the
United States Government with specific pow-
ers under Article I of the United States Con-
stitution; that the enacment of laws neces-
sitates the continual review of such laws
under the United States Constitution; that
representation of the Congress in the coequal
judiciary branch in all matters of law and
fact is now a function of the coequal branch,
the executive; that to insure the continued
equality of the three branches of Government
under the United States Constitution and to
advise Members of the constitutionality of
proposed legislation, it is hereby declared to
be the intent of Congress to establish with
the legislative branch an Office of the Counsel
General which will carry out the purposes
herein set forth.
ESTABLISHMENT
SEC. 202. (a) There is established in the
legislative branch of the Government the
Office of Counsel General (hereinafter re-
ferred to as the "Office") ;
(b) There shall be in the Office of a Coun-
sel General (hereinafter referrer to as the
"Counsel") and a Deputy Counsel General
(hereinafter referred to as the "Deputy Coun-
sel") , each of whom shall be appointed by
the President pro tempore of the Senate and
the Speaker of the House of Representatives
and confirmed by a majority vote of each
House;
(c) The Counsel and Deputy Counsel shall
be chosen without regard to political affilia-
tion and solely on the basis of fitness to per-
form the duties of the Office;
(d) The Office shall be under the control
and supervision of the Counsel, and shall
have a seal adopted by him. The Deputy
Counsel shall perform such duties as may be
assigned to him by the Counsel, not incon-
sistent with this Act, and during the absence
or incapacity of the Counsel, or during a va-
cancy in that office, shall act as the Coun-
sel;
(e) The annual compensation of the Coun-
sel shall be the same as Members of Con-
gress. The annual compensation of the Dep-
uty Counsel shall be at the rate provided for
level IV of the Executive Schedule in title 5
of the United States Code.
(f) No person may serve as Counsel or
Deputy Counsel while a candidate for or
holder of any elected office, whether local,
State, or Federal, or while engaged in any
other business, vocation, or employment;
(g) The terms of office of the Counsel and
the Deputy Counsel first appointed shall ex-
pire on January 31, 1977. The term of office of
Counsel and Deputy' Counsel subsequently
appointed shall expire on January 31 every
four years thereafter. Except in the case of
his removal under the provisions of subsec-
tion (h), a Counsel or Deputy Counsel may
serve until his successor is appointed.
(h) The Counsel or Deputy Counsel may
be removed at any time by a joint resolution
of the Senate and House of Representatives,
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
S 4076 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE March 21, 1974
when, in the judgment of the Congress, either
has become permanently incapreitated,, or
has been guilty or any felony, ixiisconduct, or
any other conduct involving moral turpitude.
DI7TIES OP THE COUNSELOR GENERAL
SEC. 2.0a. (a) It shall be the duty of the
Counsel General, under such reles as the
Committee on-the Judiciary of the Senate
and the House of Representatives may jointly
prescribe from time to time, to:
(1y Render to committees, Members;, and
disbursing officers of the Congress, the Comp-
troller General, and other officers exclusively
within the legislative branch, legal opinions
upon questions arising under the Constitu-
tion and laws of the United States;
(2) Render to committee and Members ad-
vice with respect to the purpose and effect of
provisions contained in Acts of the Congress,
or to be inserted in proposed legislative
measures;
(3) Perform such duties with respect to
legislative review of executive actions as shall
be prescribed by such rules;
(4), Appear as amicus curiae, upon the re-
quest, or with the approval, of the Commit-
tee on the Judiciary of the Senate or the
House of Representatives, in any action pend-
ing in any court of the United States in
which there is placed an issue the constitu-
tional validity or interpretation of any Act
or the Congress, or the validity or any official
proceeding of or action taken by either House
of Congress or Isy any cemmittee, Member,
officer, office, or agenny a the Cougress; and
(5) Represent, upon the requast, or with
the approval of the Committee on the Judi-
ciary of the Senate or the House of Repre-
sentatives, either House of Congrese or any
committee, Member, officer, office, or agency,
of the Congress in any legal action pending
in any court a the United States to which
such Hourse committee, Member, officer, of-
fice, or agency is a, party and in which there
is placed in ISSUE the validity of .sny
proceeding a or action taken by each House,
committee, Member, officer, office or agency.
(b) Upon receipt of written notice from
the Counsel to the effect that he has under-
taken pursuant to subsection (a) (5) of thi,e
section to perform any; such speced repre-
sentational service with respect to any de-
signated action or proceeding perding or to
be instituted in a court of the United States,
the Attorney General shall he relieved of re-
sponsibility and &hien have no authority to
perform such service in such action or pro-
ceeding except at the request or with the
approval of the Counsel Genteel.
(c) The Counsel General shall seek the as-
sistance and cooperatien of a Menber, com-
mittee, officer, office, or agency in all pro-
ceedings under this Ace when such Member,
committee, officer, office, or agency is a party
to an action or has a present or future inter-
est in the action.
AINNINISTRATIVII PROVISIONS
Sze. 204. (a) In order to Carry out the pro-
visions of this Act, the Counsel General is
authorized to?
(1) appoint and ftx the compomation of
such Assistant Counsels General, elerks, and
other personnel as may be necessary to carry
on the work of the Office. Assistant Counsels
General shall be appointed without reference
to political affiliations and solely on the basis
of fitness to perform the duties of the -Office;
(2); to- Make, promingate, issue, reccind,
and amend such rules and regulations as
may be neeessary to- carry out the duties a
the Office under this Ant;:
(3) delegate authority for the performance
of any such duty to any officer or employee
of such Office;
(4) obtain the services of experts and con-
sultants-in accordance with the provisions
of smitten 3109 of title 6, United Seates Code:
(5) use the United States inelis in the
same manner a,nd upon the same conditions
as other departments afad agencies of the
United States.
AUTHORLTATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
SEC. 205. There are hereby authorized to
be -appropriated to the Office a the Counsel
General such sums as may be required for
the performance of the duties of the Counsel
General under this Act. Amounts so appro-
priated shall be disbursed by the Secretary of
the Senate on vouchers approved by the
Counsel General.
Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, this
amendment provides for the establish-
ment of the Office of Counsel General, or
what my be called Congressional Counsel
General:
This is not a new measure before the
Senate; it is one which I have been pro-
posing for a number of years. Our Con-
stitution states that the Legislature is a
coequal branch of the Government. How-
ever, at the present time, in regard to
interpretation of the laws or other mat-
ters affecting the Legislature, the Con-
gress has had to rely upon one of two
procedures: either to depend on the At-
torney General of the United States, as
a part of the executive branch, to inter-
pret and present congressional intent,
or ask for the appointment of special
committees, such as in the case of the
Watergate Committee.
I have discussed the Office of Counsel
General with the floor manager, the
distinguished Senator from North Caro-
lina, and he has indicated, on his own
volition, that he intends to hold hear-.
ings on my proposition. However. I would
like to have that stated for the RECORD
as conclusive evidence that the matter
will be given the attention it deserves.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, the distin-
guished Senator from Indiana is correct.
He has introduced a bill to establish an
Office of Counsel General for Congress. I
might state that, prior to the time the
present measure was reported to the Sen-
ate, the JUdiciary Subcommittee on Sep-
aration of Powers had made arrange-
ments to conduct a hearing on such bills,
I believe next week, and I invite the dis-
tinguished Senator from Indiana to ap-
pear as a witness at that hearing.
Mr. HARTIKE. I thank the distin-
guished Senator from North Carolina for
those assurances. and I withdraw the
amendment.
The FRES WINO- OFFICER. The
amendment is withdrawn.
A1KENDNIE'4T NO. 468
Mr. HAR.TEE. Mr. President, I call up
my amendment No. 468, and ask that it
be read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
Mr. HARTIM. I ask unanimous con-
sent that the reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARTNE'S amendment (No. 468) Is
as follows:
'ITTLE II--OPIPICE OF CONSTITUENT
ASSISTANCE
DECLARATION OP PURPOSE
Sac. 201. The Congress finds, and declares
that there is a need for a more explicit and
reasonable method of handling constituent
Inquiries to the various Members; and that
the bureaucratic process in the Federal Gov-
ernrnent is much that citizenry-1s unable
to ascertain the appropriate remedy to pur-
sue in cases of grieviences; that the various
Issues which; concern tee citizenry are so nu-
merous that an analyeti of these iseues will
lead to an informed representation; and that
the staffs of the yarie es Members are unable
to expertly assist their constituents. In order
L. meet the needs of the conetituents of the
Members and to este latish a framework of
national issue analysis within which. the de-
cisions of the Congrese persons can 'be made
in a consistent and ecnsidered manner, and
to stimulate an infor ted awareness of the
nations priorities, it er hereby declared to be
the intent of Conferrer: to establish an office
within the Congress stench will carry out the
purposes herein set ice Li.
ESTABLIE NMENT
SEC. 202. (a) There Is established in the
legislative 'branch of tee Government the Of-
fice of Conetituent Aisittance (hereinafter
referred to as the "0111re").
(b) There shall be te the Office a Director
of Constituent Assists:ice (hereinalter re-
ferred to as elle "Direciere) and an Assistant
Director of Constituent Assistance (herein-
after referred to as the 'Assistant Dtector"),
each of whom shalt be appointed by the
President pro tempera of the Senate and
the Speaker of the Bo vie of Representattves
and confirmed by a majority vote of each
House.
(c) The C;ffice shall be under the control
and supervireon of the Director, a:ad shall
have a seal adopted by him. The Assistant
Director shall perform ouch duties as may be
assigned to him by the Director, and during
the absence or incapac ley of the Director, or
during a vacancy in teat elle*, shall act as
the Director.
(d) No person ITISV serve as Director or
Assistant Direcitor while a candidate for or
holder of any elected ifflice, whether local,
&ate, or Federal, or ;while engaged in any
or her business, vocation, or employment.
(e) The arnual compensation of the Direc-
tor shall be 1st; the rate erovided for level III
of the Executive Schedule in title 5 of the
United States Code. The annual compensa-
tion of the Assistant Director shall he at the
rate provided for level IV of such Executive
Schedule.
(f) The terms of office for the Director and
the Assistant Director first appointed shall
expire on January 31, te77. The terms of of-
fice of Directors and Aneistant Directors sub-
frequently appointed shall expire on Janu-
ary 31 every four year thereafter. Exc,ept tu
the case of kits remove.: under the provisions
of subseetion (g), a Director or Assistant
Director may serve until his successor is
uppointed.
(g) The Orector or Ate:steed Director may
be removed tit any time by a joint resolution
of the Senate and Flouse of Representatives,
when, in the judgment of the Congress, either
has become permanently incapacitated, or
has been guilty of any reiony, misconduct, or
any ether conduct involving moral turpitude.
(h) The professionel staff members, in-
cluding the Director and Assistant Director,
shall be persons selected without regard to
political affilietions Who, as a result of train-
ing, experience, and attainments, are excep-
tionally quaLified to scute the purpose of
the Office.
DUTIES OP THE DILIELI OR AND ASSISTANT
DISECTOR
Sec. 203. (a.) Upon the request of any Mem-
ber of either House of Congress, or the re-
quest or any standing cornmittee, special
committee, or select committee of the House
of Representatives or if the Senate, or any
joint committee of the Congress, the Director
Is authorized?
(1) to conduct or cruse to be conducted,
In such mariner as he etetermines to be ap-
propriate, an appropriate investigation of
any administrative act ton not exempted un-
der section il05, which might be?
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
March 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 4077
(A) contrary to law or regulation;
,(B) unreasonable, unfair, oppressive, or
inconsistent with the general course of an
administrative agency's functioning;
' (C) mistaken in law or arbitrary in ascer-
tainments of facts;
(D) improper in motivation or based on
irrelevant considerations;
(E) unclear or inadequately explained
when reasons should have been revealed;
(F) inefficiency performed; or '?
(G) otherwise objectionable;
(2) prepare a complete report on the re-
sults of the investigation, and furnish a copy
of the report to the requesting Member or
" committee and furnish a copy of the report
to the head of the agency concerned with a
request for a reply, and whenever he deter-
mines not to investigate, inform the re-
questing Member or committee of his
determination, with his reasons therefor;
and
(3) prepare such interim reports to the
Congress as he deems appropriate.
(b) The Director shall cause to be issued
a questionnaire each week to each Member
and committee which shall request informs,
tion pertaining to a list of issues which each
recipient shall promptly return to the Di-
rector indicating the number of constituent
inquiries on each issue. The questionnaire
shall?
(1) be without regard to political ?Alia-
' tion;
(2) contain available space for the addi-
tion of issues;
(3) contain space for comments peculiar
to regional analysis; and
(4) reflect patterns peculiar to a single
issue.
raNaTIONS
SEC. 204. (a) The Office shall make such
studies as it deems necessary to carry ' out
the purposes of section 201. Primary empha-
sis shall be given to supplying such analysis
as, will be most useful to the Congress in
voting on the measures which come before
it, and on providing the framework and
overview of priority considerations within
which a meaningful consideration of indi-
vidual measures can be undertaken.
(b) The Office shall, submit to the Con-
gress on the first Monday of each month,
unless a legal holiday in which case the first
working day thereafter, and annually on
March 1 of each year, a report on constitu-
ent inquiries and copies of such reports shall
be furnished to each committee and each
Member of the Senate and the House of Rep-
resentatives. The reports shall contain?
(1) an index of the issues and the total
number of inquiries per each issue as fur-
nished by the office of each Member and
committee;
(2) issues under investigation by the
Office, and the agency involved; and
(3) recommendations concerning priorities
among Federal programs and courses of ac-
tion, including the identification of those
programs and courses of action which should
be given greatest priority and those which
could more properly be deferred as reflected
by the constituent inquiries.
EXEMPTED MATTERS
? . .
- SEC. 205, No complaint shall be subject to
investigation by the Director Under the pro-
visions of this Act if- such complaint in-
, ,
volvea?
(A) any administrative action concerning
the appointment, removal, discipline, bene-
fits, or other personnel matters with respect
to?
(1) any member of the Armed Perces of
the United States; -
(2) any officer or employee of the Gov-
ernment of the United States;
(B) any administrative action, which oc-
curred more than one year prior to the date
on Which the person complaining of such
action had actual notice thereof, except in
unusual circumstances, the Director may in-
vestigate a complaint of an administrative
action that would otherwise be exempt un-
der this paragraph;
(C) any administrative action based upon
a complaint which the Director determines,
at his discretion, to be trivial, frivolous,
vexatious, or not made in good faith:
DEFINITIONS
SEC. 206. As used in this Act, the term?
(A) "administrative action" includes ac-
tion, omission, decision, recommendation,
practice, or procedure;
(B) "agency" means each authority of the
Government of the United States, whether
or not it is within or subject to review by
another agency, and any officer, or member
thereof acting or purporting to act in the
- exercise of his official duties, but does not
include?
(1) the President;
(2) the Congress;
(3) the courts of the United States;
(4) the governments of the territories or
possessions of the United States;
(5) the government of the District of Co-
lumbia;
(6) agencies composed of representative's
of the parties or of representatives of orga-
nizations of the parties to the disputes de-
termined by them;
(7) courts-martial and military commis-
sions; or
(8) military authority exercised in the field
in time of war or national emergency.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
SEC. 207. (a) In order to carry out the pro-
visions of this Act, the Director is author-
ized to?
(1) employ and fix the compensation of
such attorneys, clerks, and other personnel
as may be necessary to carry on the work of
the Office, and such personnel shall be em-
ployed without reference to political affilia-
tions and solely on the basis of fitness to
perform the duties of the office;
(2) to make, promulgate, issue, rescind,
and amend such rules and regulations as
may be necessary to carry out the duties of
the Office under this Act;
(3) delegate authority for the performance
of any such duty to any officer or employee
of such Office;
(4) request such information, data, and
? reports from any agency as the Director may
from time to time require and as may be
produced consistent with other law;
(5) hold private discussions or meetings
with either the person complaining of an ad-
ministrative action under investigation or
officers or employees of the agency concerned,
or both;
(6) prepare and submit annually to the
President, to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and to the President pro
tempore of the Senate a report on the activi-
ties of the Office during the previous year;
(7) obtain the services of experts and con-
sultants in accordance with the provisions of
section 3109 of title 5. United States Code;
and
(8) use the United States mails in the
same manner and upon the same conditions
as other departments and agencies of the
United States.
(b) Upon request made by the Director
each agency is authorized to make its infor-
mation, data, and reports (including sugges-
tions, estimates, and statistics) available to
the greatest practical extent consistent with
other laws to the Director in the performance
of his functions.
(e) Section 2107 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended by?
(1) striking out the "and" at the end of
paragraph (7); ?
- (2) striking the period at the end of para-
? graph (8) and inserting in lieu thereof a
semicolon and the word "and"; and
(3) adding at the end thereof the fallow-
ing new paragraph:
"(9) the Director, Assistant Director, and
employees of the Office of Constituent
Assistance.".
EFFECT OF OTHER LAWS
SEC. 208. The provisions of this Act shall
be in addition to the provisions of any other
law or regulation under which any remedy or
right of appeal is provided for any person,
or any procedure is provided for the inquiry
into or investigation of any matter, and
nothing in this Act shall limit or affect any
such remedy, right of appeal, or procedure.
The powers conferred on the Director by
this Act may be exercised by him notwith-
standing any other, provision of law to the
effect that any administrative action or omis-
sion shall be final or that no appeal shall lie
In respect thereof.
AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION
SEC. 209. There are hereby authorized to be
appropriated to the Office of Constituent
Assistance such sums as may be required for
the performance of the duties of the Office
under this Act. Amounts so appropriated
shall be disbursed by the Secretary of the
Senate on vouchers approved by the Office
of Constituent Assistance,
Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, this
amendment also seeks congressional re-
forms similar to mine, and would estab-
lish the previous amendment, an Office
of Constituent Assistance.
The purpose of my amendment is to
find a more explicit and efficient method
to deal with the work of the Congress. We
have at present staff members spending
a great deal of time doing casework.
They are trying to assure that constit-
uents receive proper attention from the
massive governmental bureaucracy.
I have discussed this amendment with
the chairman of the Subcommittee on
the Separation of Powers with the act-
ing floor manager, the distinguished Sen-
ator from North Carolina (Mr. ERVIN) .
He has assured me that hearings will be
held on this proposal. I should like the
assurance of the floor manager that such
hearings will be held at a time con-
venient to the committee.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, the Sen-
ator from Indiana has a bill to establish
an Office of Constituent Assistance. The
staff has had consultations with the
distinguished Senator from Montana
(Mr. METCALF), who is chairman of the
Subcommittee on Budgeting, Manage-
ment, and Expenditures, and he has
agreed to held hearings on that concept
as speedily as possible. I can assure the
Senator from Indiana that if he does not
press his amendment to S. 1541, the Sub-
committee on Government Operations
will conduct speedy hearings on the con-
cept put forward in his amendment.
Mr. HARTKE. I want to thank the
distinguished Senator from North Car-
olina. Hearings on both amendments
which I have proposed are preferential to
proceeding with them here on the floor
at this time. With that assurance, I ask
unanimous consent that amendment No.
468 be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
ABOIIREZK). Before the yeas and nays are
ordered, the Chair will state that the
Senator has a right to withdraw his
amendment without asking unanimous
consent.
The amendment is withdrawn.
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
S 4078 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE March 211 1974
Mr. HARTKE. President:, I ask
unanimous consent that two statements
concerning the two amendments I have
just offered be printed in the RECORD.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection., it is so ordered.
STATAMENT ST SENATOR MATTE ?
A LIAGAL COITNSEL POIL THE COMREHS
The founding fathers of our nation pro-
vided that the powers of the United States
government be distributed among the Legis-
lative.. Executive, and Judicial branches. By
this separation of powers and a number of
checks and balances, the writers ief the Con-
stitution hoped to avoid excessive ccncen-
tration of power which would lead to abuse.
This system has stood the test of time be-
cause it has allowed for flexibility and change
in a world in which enormous changer have
taken place. To meet, the changes, major
shifts of power from the States to the Federal
Government and from the Legislative branch
to the Executive branch have taken place.
These shifts in power have to some extent
been necessary to cope with the problems of
our age. The Courts have kept in seep with
the times by challenging the encroactiment
of the Federal Government upon the eights
and liberties of citizens. The Executive has
grown to meet the demands of a modern
society. However, the Legislative branch has
not kept in step with these developments and
has not acted to preserve its domain in a
changing world. Consequently the doctrine
of separation of powers and the doctrine of
checks and balances are threatened by the
fact that the Legislative branch has not
developed the means of dealing with the vast
amount of power In the Executive bureauc-
racy.
As the volume of business, size, and number
of agencies and departments in the Executive
branch has proliferated, Congress has been
forced to allow the Executive branch to de-
velop its own rules, regulations, and pro-
cedures, while at the same time relying more
and snore upon the Executive branch to
supply it with the Information needed to
legislate on complex subjects. As the raze of
this Executive leviathan has grown to power-
ful proportions, Congress has done Iltele to
see that It remains responsive to Congres-
sional oversight and thus to the people.
Today the Legislative powers of Congress are
In feet threatened by the vastness of the
Executive complex.
There is an increasing need for Congress
to expand its watchfulness not in order to
interfere with the proper functioning of the
Executive branch, but to insure its proper
functioning by timely action to eeevent ab-
dication of its powers and abuse of powers
delegated to the Executive agencies. When
Congress has been specific in its delegations
of power, the agencies concerned have tended
to be more able to apply themselves to the
tasks at hand. By the same token, agency
performance should be Improved if Congress
has a pines*. to Indicate when the depart-
ments and agencies have lost sight of the
direction Congress has set forth
The conflicts between the interests of Con-
gress and those of the Executive bieanch have
increased with the proliferation of depart-
ments and agencies designed to serve special
constituencies. These constituencies repre-
sent separate interests, which makes it in-
creasingly necessary for Congress to have
someone who can speak not for the constitu-
encies which become involved in the daily
administering of legislation, but for the Con-
gress and the people who sought the 'Aegis-
lation in Die first place. Congress has always
depended upon the Courts and litigation to
control the Executive branch, and upon the
Justice Department, whlehils simply another
arm of the Executive, to represent the view
of Congress before the Courts. However, in
view of the vast changes which have taken
place in recent years, the time has now come
to equip Congress with the tools needed to
challenge the vowing supremacy of the Ex-
ecutive in this area.
There have been cases in which there has
been a sufficient confliiitent interest between
Congress and the Executive, or sufficient spe-
cial interest by Congress, to make it desirable
for special counsel for the Congress' to be
appointed to appear before the Courts as
amicus curiae. It is the duty of Congress to
enact legislation, and there Is certainly
enough work in this area to keep it busy,
but Congress needs assistance in seeing that
the legislation once- passed actually becomes
the law and remains the law. This Is not
to suggest that the enforcement of laws or
the interpretation of laws is the proper do-
main of Congress, nor that the Courts have
an obligation to read statutes the way Con-
gress reads a statute. Indeed Congress does
not always have one clear intention, nor has
its intention always been expressed clearly
in the law it enacts. However, in an age where
executive powers have become so extensive,
the Courts should be eager to seek the view-
point of Congress on its laws in order to
offset the growing power of the Executive.
and it should be the practice for Congress
to present Its view before the Courts if it
so chooses.
At present the Justice Department repre-
sents the "United States" in Court proceed-
ings, and this is as it should be. However,
the Courts, like the framers of the Constitu-
tion, have always been concerned about the
absolute power of the man who not only en-
forces the law but can also make the law
he will enforce. Thus, since the Justice De-
partment acting as a party to a case often
presents the view of the Executive branch
that has made the regulations involved in
the outcome cif the case, it would seem to be
only appropriate for the Courts to consult
Congress which made the law as to whether
those regulations were an appropriate exer-
cise of its delegation of authority. A Counsel
for the Congress would not be in the business
of enforcing the law, but rather he would
provide an authoritative interpretation of
the laws on behalf of the institution of Con-
gress rather than for the Courts to rely solely
upon the Justice Department or another
party to the ease. The Court in the final
analysis is to make the decision in the case
as to which view of the law will be held
valid, but it will be after listening to argu-
ments, not only by the Executive branch, but
by the Congress as well.
Thus, in some cases, a remedy to abuse of
Executive powers may be found by the pres-
entation of Coromessionaj intent to the Court.
However, there often Is no real remedy to be
obtained from a Court. In these cases which
involve resolutions 'on foreign affairs or cases
which are Still at an earlier stage of executive
rule making, if members and Committees of
Congress could obtain the legal opinion of its
Counsel upon raatters In dispute, some re-
straining Influence might be exerted upon
the Executive branch.
To summarize, Congress needs a voice after
legislation has been passed. This voice is that
of a lawyer who win go before the Comas and
represent the Congress just as a private law-
yer does, but he will not, except in excep-
tional cases such as contempt of Congress,
actually intervene or initiate a case. Like a
private lawyer, he will have functions as an
advisor to Congress and in the presentation
of legal opintens to Committees or Members
of Congress he will indicate whether the laws
which Congress has adopted are being re.
spected by the Executive branch of the gov-
ernment. I am today introducing legislation
to establish a Legal counsel for Congress.
The Counsel of Congress should be the
finest legal counsel Coegress can obtain. Al-
though this proposal limits his term of of-
fice to four years, It is probable that he
would remain in office even as the compo-
sition Of Congress chunges. That is not only
because his appoinbanint is to be made with-
out regard to. political affiliation, but also
because Congress would hesitate to remove
a man who COIISCien tiously attempted to as-
certain the meaning of legislation and rep-
resent the interest of Congress as an in-
stitution. Congress would hesitate to po-
litically devalue an office which would be
so valuable to it. It is not, however, in-
conceivable that Ccin gess may decide that
its Counsel has failed to maintain those
high standards which it hopes. In such cases,
it would be in Congressional 'Merest to
mama. a new masa. Thus, the power of the
congressional Counsel would be directly pro-
portlohal to his loyalty to ascertslning as
accurately as possible the meaning and in.-
tent of legislation.
There are certain ituilt-in checks on the
CouniSel General. First, he must have the
authority oi' either the House or Senate Ju-
diciary Committee to enter a Court as an
amicus. Secondly, his position as an amicus
Is limited to presenting the viewpoint of
Congress on the coast ltutionelity of its laws
and to representing Congress in assisting the
Courts to ascertain the meaning of Its legis-
lation. To the extent that his views on the
meaning of legislation are solidly based, he
will become respected by the Courts. How-
ever, to the extent that he would come
under control of some political faction, he
would tend to be disregarded by this Courts.
There will be a grew:. deal cif restraint act-
ing on any man who dares to present the
legislative intent of Congress and ant as the
lawyer representing Congress,. Like a, private
lawyer he must represent his own client, and
also be persuasive to the Court. It is indeed
the quality of the Counsel which would
determine his success. Furthermore, there
is essentially nothing new in his function
since the Congress already has someone in-
terpreting Its intent in the form of the
Attorney General. However, no matter how
tile a lawyer he may tie, the Attorney Gen-
eral is still a part at the Executive branch
which the Congress is seeking to control and
cannot escape represeating the interests of
the Executive branch. In an age w:aere the
volume of business bass become so great that
Congress cannot maintain a watchful eye
over all the executive agenclee, the iclea that
the Attorney General can present the view
of Congressional intent Is in effect to allow
the administrative agoncies of the govern-
ment to have more anti more opportunity to
promulgate 'Law at variance with the will of
Congress. Much of the history of fidininis-
trative law centers around -the question of
the delegation of authority of a growing and
complex society. Thls delegation of authority
has often been necessary. However, the
Courts in their development of administra-
tive law have laid down limitations on the
powers of the legislative agencies to make
their own law. The delegation doctrine may
at times seem rather broad, but the Idea re-
mains that Congress. must not abdicate its
powers wholesale to the Executive branch.
The Congressional Cots read General might be
considered as an additional check against
the Executive power In support of that doe-
1 rine.
The precedent for such an officer In the
Legislative trench cornea in part from the
existence of the General Accounting Office
which functions as art agency of Congress.
The General Accounting Office under the
, Comptroller General makes independent ex-
emanations of the way that government
agencies fulilll their financial responsibili-
ties. The Comptroller General has access,
with limited exceptions, to the papers of all
departments. He also determines accounting
procedures, settles accounts for disbursing
end collecting officers, and renders decisions
Ors the legality of expenditures of public
funds. In many respects the Congressional
Counsel General would be far more limited
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000600080002-0
March 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE S 4079
than the Comptroller General in that he will
have no access to papers nor will he have
any decision-making powers affecting the
other branches of the government.
The functions of the congressional counseZ
- general
? The Counsel for Congress under my amend-
ment Will perform functions at several stages
of the legal prodess subject to "such rules as
the Committees on the Judiciary a the Sen-
ate and House of Representatives may pre-.
scribe jointly from time to time."
First of all, the Congressional Counsel Gen-
eral wrould" perform such duties with respect
to legislative review of 'executive actions as
shall be prescribed by such rules." Congress
often fails to take into account all the factors
which later arise in the administration of
legislation. In order to encourage the Admin-
istrative agencies and departnients to respect
Congressional legislation, Congress must do
a far better job of legislative oversight. Thus,
the Counsel of Congress could assist Congress,
in the initiation of new and corrective legis-
lation. By reviewing the actions of Courts and
administrative agencies, he will uncover areas
of policy where there is no existing legisla-
tion, where the existing legislation is unclear,
er where legislation is in effect being Made
? by the Executive. Each year the Counsel
? could present to Congress an agenda of law
revisions with recommendations and alter-
natives to be considered. This would greatly
help Congress perform its oversight and leg-
islative review function. Emphasis upon this
particular role of the Counsel General may
very well reduce the role he will have to play
in subsequent Court proceedings.
Secondly, the Counsel of Congress would
"render to Committees and Members of Con-
gress advice with respect to the purpose and
effect of provisions contained in Acts of the
Congress or to be inserted in proposed legis-
' lative measures." Thus, the 'Co'unsel would
provide upon request confidential advisories
On the effect's and constitutionality of pro-
posed legislation during the legislative proc-
ess so that legislation will have more likeli-
hood of having effect and being enforced.
Third, the Counsel of Congress would "ren-
4er tO committees, Members, and disbursing
officers of the Congress, and to the Comp-
troller General, legal opinions upon' questions
arising under the Constitution and laws of
the United States," Trie Congressional Coun-
sel General, through the rendering of legal
opinions upon the laws of Congress to com-
mittees of Congress, will provide a way for
Members and committees of Congress to pre-
sent an authoritative viewpoint to Executive
departments and agencies upon the validity,
but not the merit, of regulations such as the
new antidumping regulations or various in-
come tax regulations. In this capacity the
Counsel , will speak authoritatively in the
sense of being the counsel representing Con-
gress. However, he will have no dictatorial
powers in as much as any department or
agency will still be able to promulgate any
rules it wishes and then test their validity in
Court.
in this capacity the Counsel of Congress
could maintain, with the co-ordination of
the respective committees of Congress, the
history, purpose, and Intent of legislation so
that after enactment of legislation there will
be a complete and authoritative legislative
history. This legislative history would be-
come part a the material to be sent to the
President with a Oill and entered into the
Federal Register or a similar publthation.
This will not only enable the Executive to
perform its function better but also assist
future Counsels of Congress in performing
their functions of rendering legal opinions
aild representing Congress before the Courts
on the meaning of its laws. It should be
noted that the proposal does not seek to
Integrate the legal staffs of the Committees
or Legislative Counsel. This is deliberate in
_
order to maintain the pluralism of views
within the Congress which the present sys-
tem provides.
Fourth, the Counsel would "appear as
amicus curiae, upon the request, or with the
approval, of the Committee on the Judiciary
of the Senate or House of Representatives, in
any action pending in any court of the
United States in which there Is placed in
issue the constitutional validity or interpre-
tation of any Act of the Congress, or the
validity of any official proceeding of or 11C-
tions taken by either House of Congress or
by any committee, Member, officer, office, or
agency of the Congress." The Courts will still
have the right to determine who may appear
as amicus curiae, but this section will make
it possible for the Courts to accept the Con-
gressional Counsel General in the capacity
of lawyer for Congress.
Fifth, the Counsel would "represent, upon
the request, or with the arproval of the
Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate or
House of Representatives, either House of
Congress or any committee, Member, officer,
office, or agency of the Congress in any legal
action pending in any court of the United
States to which such House committee,
Member, office or agency is a party and
in which there is placed in issue the validity
a any official proceeding of or action taken
by such House, committee, officer, office or
agency." The Congressional Counsel General
would be authorized to replace the Attor-
ney General in this capacity. The reason for
this stems from the peculiar interest of
Congress in these cases, and the right of
Congress to prosecute its own contempt
cases. Although this authority has been in
the past delegated to the Justice Depart-
ment, the existence of a full-time Congres-
sional Counsel would only make it appro-
priate that he be responsible for a case
within the traditional powers of Congress.
The purpose of these provisions is to re-
store the authority of Congress to make valid
law. Individual Congressmen or Committees
could follow the course of a bill after its
enactment, but Congress already has its
hands full with current legislation. Further-
more, no one Congressman can speak with
much authority, nor can a Committee co-or-
dinate these efforts without a large staff
working in this area exclusively. On the
other hand it has been suggested that the
Justice Department could be made into an
Independent agency, but the question would
then arise as to how to control it and make
it resoonsible to the people. The Congres-
sional Counsel General would be tied di-
re?ctly to the legislative branch.
In summary, the proposal to create a
Congressional Counsel General is perhaps
a novel one, but one which is necessitated
by the growth of administrative bureauc-
racy. It is a means to assist Congress inter-
nally by assisting it in performing its over-
sight function, by review of executive and
Judicial acts as well as by assisting in im-
proving its legislation. It is also a means to
assist Congress externally by keeping the
Administrative departments and agencies re-
sponsive to Congress from which their au-
thority is derived. In both his internal and
external functions the Congressional Coun-
sel General will assist in making Congress
a more effective branch of our government
and thus strengthen the principle of sepa-
ration of powers.
AMENDMENT NO. 468 TO S. 1541
? My amendment to establish an Office of
Constituent Assistance is long overdue in the
Congress. The quantity of mail we are re-
ceiving is at an all time high.
During the past fifty years, we have wit-
nessed the growth of an ever-more-complex
society. Problems of housing, employment,
education, and health which hardly were
imagined a half-century ago now beset us.
Whether it is federalism under Alexander
Hamilton, Franklin Roosevelt or Richard
Nixon, the problem is the same, government
of the people, by the people and for the
people in Washington, D.C.
? Today, there are few aspects of our daily
lives that are not touched upon by the
government. One need only look about in
this, the Nation's Capital, to see the vastness
a our government. Behind the walls of glass
and stone sit people whose actions and de-
cisions affect the lives of others who may be
hundreds or thou.ands of miles away.
Inevitably, careless or senseless exercises
of public authority occur. The bureaucratic
process is prone to impersonality and "red
tape." Caught up in confusing regulations,
procedures, and policies, the individual citi-
zen is often helpless. Nearly two hundred
years ago our forefathers entered into a
Declaration of Independence for the people
claiming: "In every stage of those oppres-
sions we have petitioned for redress in the
most humble terins: Our repeated petitions
have been answered only by repeated injury."
We, the elected representatives of the peo-
ple, must establish a peaceful, efficient, pro-
ductive, direct method for the people to pe-
tition their complex government for redress
of their grievances.
The people who come to us in Congress
In search of help, request an answer to a
problem or a redress of a grievance. In short,
they make use of us as their advocates. No
function could be more appropriate, for we
are here in Washington to represent their
interests and look to their welfare.
So great have the needs of our constituents
become that Members of Congress and their
staffs spend from one-third to one-half of
their time on what has come to be called
"casework." Although constituents write to
us about a multitude of problems, many
letters concern a right or a benefit which has
been denied or an administrative action
which was undertaken arbitrarily.
In the face of an ever-increasing amount
of casework, our staffs are finding it difficult
to keep up with the mail. We must protect
against the possibility that constituent re-
quests for assistance receive only perfunc-
tory treatment. The most diligent and
efficient staff has a limit to the amount of
casework which it can handle in depth.
Mr. President, because I join my colleagues
in placing a high priority on case work, and
because I am alarmed at the prospects for its
rapid growth in the future, I am today
offering legislation which would create an
Office of Constituent Assistance as part of
the legislative branch. This office will assist
Members of Congress in handling some of
their casework, and thus free their staffs to
spend more time on legislative activities.
I believe that the ties between a Member of
Congress and a constituent are vital to the
democratic process. Nothing in my proposal
would weaken those ties or intrude upon
that important relationship. In fact, the
office / propose would actually strengthen
our relationship with constituents by mak-
ing it possible for us to serve them better.
The Office of 'constituent Assistance would
investigate those cases which have been
referred to it by a Member of Congress or by a
congressional committee. The director of the
office is empowered to investigate those cases
involving administrative actions which
might be: First, contrary to law or regula-
tion; second, arbitrary or unfair; third, mis-
taken in law; fourth, unclear or inadequately
explained when reasons should have been
revealed; fifth, improper in motivation or
based on irrelevant considerations; sixth, in-:
efficiently performed; or seventh, otherwise
objectionable.
Certain matters and governmental agencies
are exempted from the investigative powers
of the Office of Constituent Assistance. Any
administrative action which relates to a per-
sonnel decision affected a member of the
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
S 4O8 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE March 21, 1974
Armed Forces or an officer or employee of the
Government of the United States, or any
administrative action based upon a Complaint
which the difector of the office determines
to be trivial or frivolous is exempted from
investigation by the director. Similarly, the
director's investigative powers do not extend
to matters concerning the President, the
Congress, the courts of the United States, or
court-martial and military commissions. /
raise these points because / wish to assure
my colleagues that this legislation would not
establish im all-powerful office of investi-
gation. I merely propose to create a con-
gressional office to help us in providing our
constituents with assistance.
The office would also assist us in eetab-
Iishing a priority analysis of issues which are
of the greatest concern to the people. Each
congressperson and committee would send a
weekly report to the office indicating the
number a letters received on each !sane. The
office would make a monthly report of each
congressperson of the inquiries and an
analysis thereof.
The Director of the Office of Constituent
Assistance Would be an officer of Congress,
appointed by the President pro tempore of
the Senate and the Speaker of the House,
upon the advice and consent of both Houses,
for a term of four years: His findings and rec-
ommendations would be reported directly to
the Member of Congress by whom the case
was referred.
The paramount virtue of the Office of Con-
stituent Assistance is that it Would provide
each of us with a central stafl of caseworkers
to assist our personal staffs. As is the case
with the Office of legislative Counsel and
the Congressional Research Service, the Office
of Constituent Assistance would make avail-
able a deep reservoir of expeTt talent to as-
sist us in our work.
There is a second inmortant advantage to
be gained from establishing this office. At the
present time, 535 different offices handle
casework but many of the problems handled
by one office are mirror images a the prob-
lems handled by others. One centralized
office will make it possible to determine if
there are any patterns and common ele-
ments to constituent problems and thus
facilitate legislative efforts to correct the
conditions which cause these problems.
The establishment of such an office does
not mean that we are less interested in the
needs of our constituents, nor will it mean
that we are in any manner removed from
our responsibilities as advocates for our con-
stituents. The Office of Constituent Assist-
ance will enable us to perform these func-
tions more efficiently and more effectively
than in the past.
In summary, I believe that the Office of
Constituent Assistance would have these ma-
jor advantages:
First, It Would assist us in handling the
ever-increasing Volume of ca43ework.
Second; it would enable us to give more
detailed arid expert attention to the prob-
lems of our conetituents.
Third, it would enable our staffs to devote
more time to legislative activities.
Fourth, it would enable each of us to
handle the problems of our constituents
with more efficiency.
Fifth, it would assist the Congress in cor-
recting those administrative d.effeiencies
which give rise to constituent complaints.
Mr. President. / have attempted to draft
my proposal so that the delicate web of
checks and balances and the layers of mutual
respect and trust which exist among the
various branches of Government ere not In-
jured. I am convinced that the coseworkers
on our staffs are dedicated and highly com-
petent professionals whose devotion to their
work is proved every day of the year. In the
final analysis, however, the amount of case-
work and our desire to do our best to meet
the needs of constituents require us to seek
help. That is why I am proposing that the
Office of Constituent Assistance be estab-
lished.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, the bill of
the Senator from Indiana (Mr. HARTHE)
to create a Counsel General for Congress
was originally referred to the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Separation of Powers.
However, the 'present version has been
referred to the Committee on Rules and
Administration. However, the Subcom-
mittee on Separation of Powers is con-
sidering several bills in this field. In
case we report out some other bill, our ob-
jective will be to offer the Senator's bill
as an amendment to it. So the Senator
from Indiana is assured of a speedy
hearing by the Subcommittee on Separa-
tion of Powers, on the General Counsel
bill as well as by the Government Op-
erations Subcommittee on the Office of
Constituent Assistance bill.
Mr. HARTICE. That is very favorable.
I would like to have both proposals given
full consideration. As the chairman
knows, a special counsel had to be ap-
pointed for the so-called Watergate
Committee, of which the distinguished
Senator from North Carolina is the
chairman. The special counsel could have
been appointed by routine regulation
provided by a very orderly procedure.
I want to thank the distinguished Sen-
ator from North Carolina very much for
his cooperation and consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
is open to further amendment.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I suggest
the absence of a quorum and would ask
the aides to inform Senators who have
further amendments to call up that we
are about to go to third reading.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk procedeed to call
the roll.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I send
to the desk a joint amendment on be-
half of myself and the Senator from
California (Mr. TIINNEY) and ask that
it be stated.
The PRESMING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
On page 124, beginning with line 14, strike
out through the period in line 18, and insert
in lieu thereof the following:
(e) Hearings and Report.?Before report-
ing the first canceurrent resolution tne Com-
mittee on the Budget of the Senate shall
conduct hearings each year during which
individual Members of Congress and public
witnesses shall have an opportunity to tes-
tify on matter e to be considered with respect
to the first concurrent resolution on the
budget referred to in subsection (a) for the
fiscal year beginning on October 1 of each
year. On or before May 1 of such year, the
Committee on the Budget of each House shall
report to its House such first concurrent
resolution.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I send
to the desk a joint amendment on be-
half of myself and the distinguished
Senator from California (Mr. TUNNEY)
First of all, I wish to congratulate
the distingtdshed =orogen of toe bill,
the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Farm), and the Senator from Maine (Mr.
Musxxs) , together wi;h the Senator from
Montana (Mr. METCP.Lr) for their mag-
nificent work on the pending bill. I wish
to thank as well the members of the
Committee on Rules under the leadership
of the Senator from Nevada (Mr. CAN-
NON) and the distinguished majority
whip (Mr. ROBERT C. Byro) for their
work in improving the bill.
But the original bilL before the Metcalf
subcon:unitt,ee had many faults.
It proposed Budget Committees with
majorities drawn in tar unrepresentative
manner.
It attempted to set binding ceilings in
March of each year reaching down to
Appropriations Subcommittees er even
individual programs. This would be an
impossible task, and it would virtually
bind the Appropriations Committees?
which do have the time and es pertise
to look at individual program needs?
hand and foot.
It proposed complex procedures for
floor amendments to budget resolu-
tions?so-alled rules of consistency?
which would make floor amendments so
difficult as to be nearly impossible.
The bill now before us is a remarka-
ble improvement. In outline:
It provides for a budget committee
with membership appointed in the regu-
lar manner, by party caucuses.
It provides for establishment of an
overall, recommended target ceiling in
May of each year, with subtargets by
broad budget functions. This will per-
mit the Ilscel policy and priorities debate
which we h:we always lacked.
It then permits the appropriations
process to go forward unhindered.
It provides for a second concurrent
resolution in August of each year, to re-
examine decisions taken in the first reso-
lution in light of subsequent economic
changes and action on individual spend-
Mg and revenue measures.
Finally, it provides for a reconciliation
bill, incorporating revenue changes or
appropriations recessions, to bring ap-
propriations. decisions into line with
budget policies set in the second con-
current resolution. I believe that this
process--while still complex?is far
more flexible, workable, and representa-
tive than the original proposal.
I am particularly pleased that four
approaches which I have long advocated
appear in the pending bill.
First, that ceilings established in the
first budget resolution are recommended
targets, not binding on subsequent ap-
propriations, and that these ceilings do
not extend down to appropriations sub-
committees or individual programs.
Second, that the bill provides for the
option of pro rata reductions in appro-
priations for controllable expenditures
if greement cannot be reached on spe-
ci1c actions to meet the overall budget
le els set in the second budget resolution.
Third, that the 'bill directs the Con-
gressional Office a Budget to prepare a
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
March 21, 1974
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE S 4081
? tax expenditure budget each year, so
that the Congress can make tax deci-
sions, like spending decisions, with a
clear view of who benefits from each
provision. Tax loopholes are a form of
Government aid, and the pending bill
recognizes that fact.
- Fourth, that the bill specifically pro-
vides for review and evaluation, directly
and by grant or contract, of Federal pro-
grams by congressional committees. I
have long felt that we in Congress are
forced to rely too much on evaluations
prepared by or for executive agencies?
and that these evaluations too often fail
to address our real concerns, and often
enough are heavily influenced by official
positions taken by executive agencies.
And I ain pleased that the pending
bill contains other features found in
amendment No. 601, the Congressional
Budget Control and Reform Act of 1973,
which I introduced last year with the
distinguished Senator from New York
?(Mr. JAvrrs) the ranking minority mem-
ber of the Government Operations Com-
mittee. These include a change in the
fiscal year from June 30 to October 1?
we had recommended a calendar year-
fiscal year) to permit detailed examina-
tion of the President's budget before the
fiscal year begins, and exemption of the
Social Security Trust Fund and other
similar open-ended Federal commit-
ments from direct control.
The amendment which the Senator
from California (Mr. TIINNEY) and I pro-
pose is a simple one. It states in the law
that Budget Committees will hold public
hearings, with testimony from individual
members of Congress and other inter-
ested persons, before reporting the first
budget resolution to the Senate.
This first resolution will provide the
vehicle for the great debate over Federal
fiscal policy?the level of Federal deficit
or surplus?which has such tremendous
Influence over the health of our economy.
And it will set initial targets for allocat-
ing Federal funds to broad purposes
within the overall ceiling on expendi-
tures.
Although the first resolution is not
binding in a legal sense, the process set
forth in the pending bill will work well
only if the first budget resolution is an
honest and thoughtful effort by the
Budget Committees and the Congress to
come to grips with these questions. And
this requires that a broad range of views
be spread on the public record.
The report of the Committee on Rules
recognizes the importance of 'public testi-
mony. The report states:
. ? . It is anticipated that the first budget
resolution will be reported after hearings to
take the testimony of Members of Congress
and outside organizations.
However, the bill itself refers only to
? recommendations from congressional
standing committees. Because this refer-
? ence to participation by committees does
appear in legislative language, and I be-
lieve testimony by individual Members of
Congress and interested groups and per-
sons to be of great importance, I am
hopeful that the distinguished managers
of the bill will accept this amendment.
Mr. President, this amendment was
discussed with the acting floor manager,
whi is not now in the Chamber, the Sen-
ator from Maine (Mr. Mumtaz). The.
amendment would make it clear that the
Budget Committee will hold public hear-
ings, with testimony from individual
Members of Congress and other inter-
ested persons, before reporting the first
budget resolution to the Senate.
This is a modest amendment, that pub-
lic hearings will be held prior to the time
the Budget Committee reports, and /
would hope that the distinguished floor
manager of the bill, the Senator from
North Carolina, would accept it.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, will the
Senator give me the number of his
amendment?
Mr. MONDALE. It is an unprinted
amendment which I discussed the other
day with the acting manager of the bill,
the Senator from Maine (Mr. Musxm).
It simply would require that hearings
would be held. I do not believe there is
any controversy about it.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I see no
objection to the amendment as con-
templated. I do not think it is necessary
to spell it out particularly in the bill be-
cause, pursuant to the practice of all
committees considering legislation, it has
been the purpose of those who intro-
duced and have worked on this bill that
the Committee on the Budget will con-
duct public hearings prior to reporting
the first concurrent resolution. That is
what the distinguished Senator from
Minnesota has in mind.
Mr. MONDALE. The Senator is cor-
rect. There is a reference to public hear-
ings in the committee report. I think it
was contemplated that public hearings
would be held. This amendment simply
confirms that fact and requires it by
law.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, if the
Senator will yield briefly for a question,
I have briefly examined the amendment
and since the resolution to be adopted
by the committee would encompass all
areas of Government activity and ex-
penditure, it could be anticipated that a
great many witnesses might request an
opportunity to justify. So for the pur-
poses of legislative history, does the Sen-
ator from Minnesota intend to mandate
or compel the committee, because it has
some public hearings, to listen to every-
one who requests the opportunity to
testify, no matter how large that number
might be? That would be a matter of
possible concern but I do not know
whether I am anticipating problems or
not.
Mr. MONDALE. The answer is "No."
The committee is charged with conduct-
ing the hearings. We would not seek toe-
strict the committee's discretion to im-
pose limits, because it would be almost
Impossible, particularly in controversial
matters, to hear all those who would
seek to be heard. The power to set limits
would still remain exclusively within
the purview of the committee.
This is a modest amendment, simply
to provide that there shall be public
hearings.
Mr. GRIFFIN. That may be a contri-
bution to the legislative history, making
it clear, that there shall be public hear-
ings and that witnesses will be heard.
The statement by the Senator from Min-
nesota at least recognizes that it may be
necessary from time to time for the com-
mittee to have representative witnesses
of various points of view and it may not
be able to listen to everyone who con-
ceivably might want to come down to
testify.
Mr. MONDALE. I agree with the Sen-
ator. There are occasions when it is im-
possible for the committee to complete
its work unless it has some power to limit
the scope of the number of witnesses.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I think this could be-
come a problem, particularly since we are
writing into law a definite timetable
when a resolution has to be reported and
has to be passed.
Mr. MONDALE. I agree with the
Senator.
Mr. President, in conclusion I wish to
say that the bill before us is a very hope-
ful development. It can enable the Con-
gress to conduct a debate over Federal
fiscal policy which we have never really
been able to conduct before. It can help
us to take a tough look at what our real
priorities are?not only in the area of
direct expenditures, but in the area of
tax expenditures as well. It can for the
first time allow us to respond in an inde-
pendent way to the budget submitted by
the executive branch. And it can help us
to look, not just at proposed increases or
decreases in spending, but at how effec-
tive individual programs are in carrying
out their intended purposes and to see
which ones may be obsolete.
It can do all these things. But I hope
we will be mindful of the experience in
1948 when the Congress last -embarked
on a similar effort. I believe the lesson
of 1948 is this: the burden is on the Con-
gress to deal in a responsible and flexible
way with this new process. The experi-
ence of 1948 should teach us that if we
set targets which are attractive but im-
practical, we will destroy the budget
Process itself.
With the broad support which the
pending bill has received, with the wide
consultation which went into its develop-
ment, and with the help of the distin-
guished leadership on both sides of the
aisle, I am hopeful that the Congres-
sional Budget Act of 1974 will mark a
new era of full congressional participa-
tion in this country's financial affairs.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, I am
most pleased to join with the senior $en-
ator from Minnesota in sponsoring this
amendment to the Congressional Budg-
et Act of 1974.
The budget reform bill now before us
represents a landmark in the effort to
assert the responsible leadership role in-
tended for Congress by the Founding
Fathers. This bill is the fruit of many
hours of hard labor on the part of the
members' and staff of the Joint Study
Committee on Budget Control, and the
Committee on Government Operations
and Rules and Administration of the
Senate. It is a significant accomplish-
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP751300380R000600080002-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
S 4082 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE March 21, 1974
ment that will long enhance the reputa-
tion of the 93d Congress as one of the
most fruitful and hardworking Con-
gresses in our history.
Mr. President, last April I offered, for
myself and Mr. Bucieszy, a series of
budget reform proposals in the form of
a bill, S. 1616, the Legislative :Priorities
and Budget Reform Act of 1973. It gives
me great pdeasure to note that many of
the key features of S. 1516 were in-
corporated in the bill before us today.
Last April I called for legislation to
provide procedures through which Con-
gress could systematically review major
spending programs and establish explicit
budgetary priorities. I called also for
the creation of a fully equipped profes-
sional staff of program and budget ana-
lysts naPable of functioning with the
same precision and scope as its executive
counterpart, the Office of Management
and Budget The Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 that is before us now achieves
these worthy objectives.
My statement of April 10, 1973, ac-
companing introduction of the Legisla-
tive Priorities and Budget Refore Act
of 1973, pointed out that?
The decisions of the Budget Committees,
when approved by Congress, will be among
the most iinportant of all deter minations
made each session. They will determine the
magnitude and direction a Federal economic
impact for the indefinite future. They will
set the tone for the entire Federal establish-
ment.
The determinations of the Budget
Committees as provided for in the pend-
ing legislation are no less significant. It
e is, therefore, imperative that all Mem-
bers of Congress and representatives of
the general public have an assured op-
portunity to present their views to the
Budget Committees prior to ihne the
committees report the first concurrent
resolutions to their respective Hotts(;s.
Individuals, Members of Congress and
public interest groups from one end of
the political spectrum to the other have
important contributions to make to the
debate on national priorities. We should
provide that these views have assured ac-
cess to the Budget Committees. The
amendment we are offering today man-
dates and thus reinforces the intention
of the Coznmittee on Rules and Admin-
istration to provide for public hearings
of the Senate Budget Committee on all
matters related to the first concurrent
resolution. Its acceptance by the Senate
will be further proef of our strong de-
termination to enact fair and respon-
sible legislation to' strengthen the role
of the Congress in determining national
priorities and in controlling Federal ex-
penditures.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT NO, 1041
Mr. BEALL. Mr. President, call up
my amendment No. 1041.
The PRESIDING OFF/CER. The
amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk proceeded to read
the amendment.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 173, Immediately below the matter
between lines 15 and 16, insert the Zonowitig:
FEDERAL PROGRAM EVALUATION DIGEST
SEC. 703. The Director of the Office of
Management and Budget shall be responsible
for preparing and making available each year
a digest of all Federal programs, except any
program that the President determines
shonld not be included on the grounds of
national security. With respect to each pro-
gram, the digest shall?
(1) state the name of the program, the
statute authorieng the program, specify the
Federal officials administering the program.
and give a brief description of the program;
(2) state the original purposes, goals, and
objectives of the program, and any changes
thereto;
(3) include an evaluation by the head of
the program on whether and how the pur-
poses, goals, and objectives are being
achieved:
(4) include references to any study, con-
ducted partially or completely with Fed-
eral funds, evaluating the program, and, to
the maximum extent practicable, references
to any study conducted completely with
non-Federal funds, evaluating the program:
(5) state the total administrative costs of
the program paid out of Federal funds, the
total costs a the program paid out of Fed-
eral funds, and the total of such administra-
tive costs so paid as a percentage a such
total costs so paid;
(6) include the average cost to the pro-
gram for each recipient; and
(7) to the maxinnun extent practicable,
include cross references to the program and
matters related to the program which are
included in the latest available catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance (including any
supplements thereto).
Mr. BEALL. Mr. President, I ask unan-
imous consent; that Joe Carter, my legis-
lative assistant, may have the privilege
of the floor during the consideration of
this matter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The Chair would request that the Sen-
ator use his microphone.
Mr. BEALL. Mr. President, I have three
amendments that I had intended to pro-
pose for this bill. The one we are calling
up now is No. 1041.
The amendment I am offering would
require the preparation of a Federal pro-
gram evaluation digest. :Presently, there
Is published each year the Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance. This cata-
log runs some 1117 pages and lists about
1,200 programs. It has proved useful to
our citizens and our communities in de-
termining what Federal programs or
benefits are available and how to apply
for them.
I see the need in the Congress, and
elsewhere, for similar publication that,
in effect, would be a handy reference
guide for all Federal programs. The Fed-
eral Program Evaluation Digest would,
to the extent feasible, be cross-referenced
to the Catalog of Federal Domestic As-
sistance and contain the following infor-
mation:
First, the name of the program, the
statute authorizing the program, specify
the Federal officials administering the
program, and give a brief description of
the program;
Second, the original purposes, goals,
and objectives of the program, and any
changes thereto;
Third, an evaluation by the head of
the program on whether and how the
Purposes, goals, and objectives are being ?
achieved;
Fourth, references to any study, con-
ducted partially or completely with Fed-
eral funds, evaluating the program, and
tO the maximum extent practicable, ref-
erences to any study conducted com-
pleted with non-Federal funds, evaluat-
ing the program;
Fifth, the total administrative costs of
the program paid- out of Federal funds,
the total costs of the program paid out
of Federal funds, and the total of such
administrative costs so paid as a per-
centage of such total costs no paid;
Sixth, the average cost to the program
for each recipient; and
Seventh, cross-references to the pro-
gram and matters related to the program
which are included in the latest available
catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance?
including any supplements thereto.
There is a major cnstinction, however.
In that this digest, unlike the Catelog of
Federal Doraestic Assistance, would in-
chide till Federal programs, and not just
domestic programs, eecept to the extent
that national defense does not permit a
program's listing.
How man:7 of my colleagues, while on
the Senate floor, have been confronted
with an amendment increasing' an appro-
priation for a program for which there
was no ready source of information that
the digest would contain?
I believe that such a digest would be a
useful and valuable tool for improving
our understanding of programs and our
ability to determine priorities.
So I urge the adoption of this amend-
ment in the hope that it will go a little
way toward making us somewhat better
informed than we are now as to the
kinds of programs that re operated
through Federal programs and what the
consequences of our actions with regard
to those programs might be, in view of
the experience we have had with the
programs.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President. I respect-
fully submit the amendment has no place
in this bill. The pending bill is a bill
to establish a congre4siona1 budget sys-
tem. This amendment would impose cer-
tain obligations on tha Office of Manage-
ment and Badget.
I sincerely hope that the distinguished
Senator from Maryland will withdraw
the amendment, or, if he does not, that
the Senate will defeat it. To have effec-
tive legislat.on in this field, we should
stick to our purpose, which is to estab-
lish a congressional budgetary system,
and not complicate it with amendments
that relate to the Off.ce of Management
and Budget.
Mr. BEA1L. 1, of course, respect the
opinion of the distinguished Senator
from North Carolina, but I must hasten
to say that I disagrea with his analysis
that this amendment does not treat the
purposes of the bill. I think it is very
much to the point of the bia.
As I understand the bill, it is to create
machinery that will better equip and
enable us in the Congress to carry out
our primary constitutimal responsibility,
that being the responsibility to provide
funds for the operat.on of the Federal
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP751300.380R000600080002-0
? Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP751300380R000600080002-0
March 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE S 4083
Government; and I laud the purposes of
the bill. I have introduced legislation on
this subject I believe the pending bill
is a good measure, and I intend to vote
for it. I hope it is enacted into law. But
I think the proposal we are making here
can be very helpful in carrying out the
purposes of this legislation, because all
we are asking for is to provide ourselves
with information that we are going to
have to have and should have if we are
going to adequately consider the matters
contained in the Federal budget and the
consequences of the actions we might
take with respect to the various programs
being offered by, the Peileral Government.
I am sure we are all aware of the bene-
ficial effects of the Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance. This is a move now
to further equip us with tools to carry
out our responsibility. I believe it belongs
In the bill. I think it will enhance the
bill and will enable us to do the job. I
suggest that an evaluation digest would
be of assistance not only to the commit-
tee but to the new congressional office
being established.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield for just a few questions?
Mr. BEALL, Certainly.
Mr. PERCY. Could my distinguished
colleague concisely state to what extent
such a digest would duplicate or overlap
the Catalog of Federal Domestic As-
sistance, for which our colleague the
Senator from Delaware (Mr. ROTH) has
worked so hard and unceasingly?
Mr. BEALL. The Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance is really just that?
a catalog listing programs. It is of use, of
course, but it is primarily of use to local
and State officials who have to leaf
through the Government bureaucracy
to see what they are entitled to. This
evaluation would be for our purposes. It
Is an evaluation of the program and it is
broader in its contents because it would
include all Federal programs except
those which would be excluded for rea-
sons of national security.
Mr. PERCY. Does not the ?resident's
budget, which comes to us in four huge
volumes, constitute in itself a digest of
all Federal programs?
Mr. BELL. It presents the President's
budget it is not an evaluation of the pro-
grams. That is what I am looking to
here?an evaluation?and that does not
list any evaluation.
Mr. PERCY. Third, since one of the
principles we are trying to achieve is to
price out every bill and every amendment
and have the Congressional Office of the
Budget tell us what it would cost, may I
ask how much it would cost to produce
such a voluminous digest? How many
man-hciurs would be involved by the ex-
ecutive branch of the Government in
producing such a digest?
Mr. BEALL. I cannot answer that
question. It is a legitimate question, and
we should all be concerned about the cost
of all programs, but I should not think
it would cost any more than the present
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance.
Whatever amount spent on it, I believe
would be money well spent, because it is
only through evaluatien that we save
money and the avoidance of the exten-
sion or duplication of programs that
should not be extended or duplicated.
I would say that any money we spend
to equip ourselves will end up in savings
to the taxpayers.
Mr. PERCY. Titles VII and VIII of this
bill have requirements for program eval-
uation and submission of fiscal data,
with GAO participating in this process.
To what extent would that effort and
those titles be duplicated by this par-
ticular amendment?
Mr. BEALL. This amendment does not
duplicate that effort. With regard to that
subsection of the law, I have another
amendment, somewhat similar to the
one the Senator from Minnesota has,
although ours is more specific. I do not
think we are duplicating that. Again, it
Is a supplement rather than a duplica-
tion.
I would find, on that record, that I
would have to oppose the amendment.
But I do thank the Senator from Mary-
land very much, indeed, for his explana-
tion of the amendment. Many of the ob-
jectives he has worked for, I would agree
with. But I must, in my own mind, know
how much it should cost and how much
Work would be involved. I would like to
see an analysi from the Office of Man-
agement and Budget.
We did not have such an amendment
before us in committee. I am not sure
that a part of the objective is not already
provided for in the bill. It is with regret
that I must state my opposition, but I
thank the Senator from Maryland very
much for his amendment.
Mr. ERVIN. I would like to emphasize
what the distinguished Senator from Illi-
nois has just said. The Government
Operations Committee worked on the
bill for 8 months, and the Committee on
Rules for 2 months. They had no such
proposal as this before them.
I submit that the distinguished Sena-
tor from Maryland, if he wants this pro-
posal, should put it in the form of a sepa-
rate bill and let it be processed as new
legislative ideas are. The bill ought to
be considered by the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget, for it would give the
Office of Management and Budget an
awful lot of Work to do. I am advised that
the Office is opposed to the bill.
I hope the Senator from Maryland will
withdraw his amendment, instead of try-
ing to legislate on new matter at this late
hour in the consideration of the bill. Let
him put his proposal in a separate bill,
and let it be processed in a separate man-
ner, rather than by piggybacking it on
this bill.
Mr. BEALL. I appreciate the Senator's
remarks about separate legislation. I
point out that in February 1973 I intro-
duced a bill, S. 758, on the whole subject
of budget reform and improved over-
sight This provision was included as a
part of that legislation.
I testified before the Budget Commit-
tee on that subject, and submitted
testimony to the Government Operations
Committee. So it is not something that
has come fresh today. It is a matter that
has been in the legislative mill for a little
over a year. It is a proposal that has gone
through at least two committees of the
Senate.
I can see why the OMB would be op-
posed to the proposal. I can see why they
do not want to have the additional re-
sponsibility of listing all evaluating of
programs. They already are doing some
of this, but this would require that OMB
do it for us, so that we would have a
ready source of information and listing
of evaluations of programs. I do not be-
lieve, the fact that the OMB is opposed,
mandates opposition on our part.
It is something that is necessary and
helpful, it is perfectly within our rights
to charge the OMB with doing the job.
They and the program directors with the
administration have the material avail-
able that is called for in the amendment.
I just cannot change my mind because
they do not want to do it. I think it is a
job that deserves to be done. I think they
ought to provide us the kind of informa-
tion we need in order to carry out our
constitutional responsibility to provide
and appropriate money to operate the
Federal Government.
Mr. PERCY. Would the Senator from
Maryland be receptive to the possibility
of developing an amendment to his own
amendment that might provide for a
study, so that we could at least carry this
proposal forward? It is certainly not the
desire of the Senator from Illinois to
stand in the way of program evaluation.
We need evaluations. We have frequently
commented on that. The Government
Operations Committee bill had a strong
program evaluation title in its version of
this bill.
The objective is worthy. But soine of
the unanswered questions are such that
I could not support the amendment in
the form of a directive to the Office of
Management and Budget. But certainly
there would be a basis, sufficient and logi-
cal, behind a proposal for a study, so that
we would know more about it. It would
enable the Committee on Government
Operations, with such a study, to report
a separate piece of legislation, if the Sen-
ator would have such a bill that we could
consider?and I believe he has.
Mr. BEALL. I appreciate the sugges-
tion of the Senator from Illinois. I do not
know that a study is necessary. I think
it is a matter that the Committee on
Government Operations could consider,
without an independent committee study
of itself, and get some action that is
agreeable, as far as I am concerned.
Mr. PERCY. I should like to ask the
chairman of the committee, in view of
the fact that we do have a piece of legis-
lation before us, whether we could not
make our own study. We have a com-
petent staff. We could draw on the OMB
staff. The Senator from Maryland is cor-
rect when he says that we could make
our own study in committee.
Mr. ERVIN. The Brock-Metcalf
amendment would direct the Budget
Committee to study methods of improv-
ing the analytical system and an evalua-
tion of the existing program. As I un-
derstand that amendment, the Budget
Committee would be authorized to study
' Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
S 4084 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE March 21, 1974
the matters set forth in the amendment
of the Senator from Maryland. I can as-
sure him, on behalfof the Committee on
Government Operations, that if, instead
of allowing it to be considered by the
Budget Committee under the Brock-Met-
calf amendment, it were to be considered
as a separate bill, we would consider it
as a separate matter in the Committee on
Government Operations.
Mr. BEALL. I appreciate the sugges-
tion of the chairman of the committee.
With that kind of assurance, there is
every indication that this proposal will
get consideration, and the result would
be that we would hain the kind of digest
to provide us the information that would
be very useful when we consider budget-
ary programs.
Mr. President, with that assurance, I
will withdraw the amendment and see
that it is introduced in cleaner form as
a separate piece Of legislation.
Mr. P MCY. I think this a very wise
action. Se that the Senator from Illi-
nois may be clear, then, the legislate!, e
history will indicate the strong desire, on
both sides, to have authority granted to
the Budget Committee. This bill, if fi-
nally passed, would undertake to provide
the very kind of evaluation that the
Senator from Maryland has proposed.
Certainly it would expedite the work of
the staff of the Government Operations
Committee, which will certainly lend its
support to the study. If the Senator
from Illinois serves on the Budget Com-
mittee, he would carry out the obligation
to see to it that we carry stich a study
forward at an early date.
Mr. BEALL,. I appreciate the coopera-
tion of the Senator from Illinois. We are
suggesting the publication of a docu-
ment that would be useful to members of
the ComMittee on the Budget and to
Senators generally.
Mr. President, I withdraw my amend-
ment.
The PRESIDING OFFTCElt. The
amendment is withdrawn.
Mr. BEALL. I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unarebnous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I offer an amendment as follows: That
wherever, in the bitia-or any amend-
ment thereto that may already have been
agreed to--the word "highly" appears
immediately preceding the word "privi-
leged", the word "highly" be stricken.
I offer this amendment because the
word "highly is meaningless, it is sur-
plusage, aid I do not know how it got
there. I thought that he our Rules Com-
mittee meetings with stag people, we
had stricken that word wherever we saw
It,
There lane such thing as a "highly"'
privileged motion or resolution A motion
or resolution is either privileged or not
privileged. There are no degrees of
privilege.
Apparently that language was kept in
as boilerplate language from somewhere,
and I think it is bad for the Senate to
continue to legislate using such termi-
nology when it is absolutely superfluous,
meaningless, and nothing but dead wood.
I ask the Chair, so that all Senators
may have the Chair's reaction to this
question, to determine, upon consulta-
tion with the Parliamentarian, whether
the Parliamentarian agrees with my
statement.
The PRESIleiNG OFFICER. The Par-
liamentarian advises the Chair he agrees
totally with the statement of the Sen-
ator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I offer that
amendment,
The amendment is as follows:
Wherever the word "highly" appears be-
fore the word "prIvileges" delete same in the
language as reported and amendments
thereto.
The PRF.SITIING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the amendment of
the Senator from West Virginia.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I assume that the clerk, when the bill
is finally enacted, will remove that word,
in accordance with the amendment.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I suggest,
as the Senator from Illinois has suggest-
ed, that the ward "totally" also be deleted
with reference to the statement of the
Parliamentarian's concurrence.
I see no objection, to the amendment;
I think it is a desirable amendment.
Mr. PERCY. I see no objection either,
Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
Is open to further amendment.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk
proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
HELMS). Without objection, it is so or-
dered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
on behalf of the distinguished Senator
from Nevada (Mr. CANN-pet), I send an
amendment to the desk and ask that it
be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk -read as
follows:
On page 164, line 14, etrike out "March 20"
arid insert in lieu thereof "March air'.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
this amendment has been discussed with
the two able managers of the bill, Sena-
tors ERVIN and PERCY, and, they have
agreed to accept it.
I shall read a letter addressed to Sena-
tor CANNON from Senator Paoxeseas which
is self explanatory and which in itself
explains the purport of the amendment.
The letter reads as follows:
Ntanon 15, 1974.
Hrn. HOWARD W. CANNOT',
Ci
Chairman, Rule., and /Le/ministration Com-
mittee. U.S. Senate
DEAR HOWAED: I W0111(1 like ti request that
a small technical arner.dment be appended
to S. 1541. as reported by your committee on
February 21, 1974, The bill requires the Joint
Economic Committee to make its Annual
Report on this Preside, t s Economic Report
"not later than March 20th of each year"
(page 164, line 14). In thc same bill the Joint
Economic Committee I? required to report
ter the Budget Commith e on April 1 of each
year. In order to better .:ordinate those two
reports, and aeo to give the Committee some
additional time to prepare our Annual Re-
port, we would like to have the deadline for
the Joint Economic Con reittee`S Annual Re-
port to Congress chang C from March 20 to
March 29 of. eaeh year.
Thank you very much for your considera-
tion.
Sincerely.
WILt IIM PROXMIRE.
Vice Chairman.
Mr. President, the amendment will do
precisely that, that is, change the dead-
line for the joint Economic Committee's
annual report from March 20, as pres-
ently provided in the bill, to March 29
of each year.
Mr. PERCY.. Mr. President, I should
like to address myself o this amendment
both as a longtime me mber of the Joint
Economic Committee laid as a cosponsor
a the pending legislation. I think it will,
to all intents and purposes, bring about
the finest possible analysis we can obtain.
We will depend on ft c' Joint Economic
Committee to give us cc accurate an as-
sessment as it can as ?o the state of the
economy and the impact lime Federal
budget should have on that economy.
The additional 9 days will be valuable
time, well spent by the committee. I fully
support the amendmen t.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the amendment
of the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
ROBERT C. BYRD), on behalf of the Sen-
ator from Nevada (Mr CANN1N).
The amendment was agreed to.
The PRES:DING OFFICER. The bill
is open to further amendment.
'UNANIMOUS -CONSEN T AGREEMENT
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presalent,
f have cleared the following requests
with the Republican leadership and with
the two distinguished managers of the
pending bill, Senators FRV1N and PERCY.
All Senators have been : mailed by the hot
line in their riapeetivie ,eoalcrooms that a
unanimous-consent request for an agree-
ment would be propounded on the pend-
ing bill at approximately this hour.
Mr. President, I a,se unanimous con-
sent that there be a time limitation of
not to exceed 6 hours 1 or general debate
on the pending bill and that that debate
be controlled by and equally divided be-
tween Senators PERCY and Inivien pro-
vided further, that the time for limita-
tion on debate begin running immedi-
ately upon the agreement to the unani-
mous-consent proposal I I an, now mak-
ing; provided further, that tme on any
amendment to the bill be limited to 1
hour, to be equally diviced arid controlled
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
March 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE S 4085
In the usual form; Provided further, that
time on any amendment to an amend-
ment, debatable motion or appeal be
limited to 30 minutes, to be equally di-
vided and controlled in the usual' form;
provided also that the agreement itself
be in the usval form, with the final vote
to occur on passage of the bill at 2 Pm.
on tomorrow?paragraph 3 of rule XII
being waived therefor; with the addi-
tional proviso that an amendment to be
proposed by the distinguished Senator
from Mississippi (Mr. STENNIS) and
which is not likely to be Considered ger-
mane to the bill be, nevertheless, in
order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the unanimous-consent re-
quest of the Senator from West Virginia?
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, reserving
the right to object?and I do not intend
to object?for purposes of clarification
my Understanding is that no nonger-
mane amendment would be in order
'except for the Stennis amendment; is
that not correct?
Mr. ROBERT 0. BYRD. That IS cor-
rect. May I say, in furthet response to
the able Senator, that I know of an
amendment which will be proposed by
Senators MONDALE and NELSON. I believe
that amendment is germane. I know of
two amendments that will be offered by
the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Rom).
There is also an amendment which I un-
derstand will be offered by the Senator
from Florida (Mr. CHILES). I anticipate
that that amendment will be germane.
? But, in any event, for the protection
of all the aforementioned Senators, I
would include in my unanimous-consent
request that those amendments be in
order regardless of their germaneness. I
do not think there is any problem.
Mr. PERCY? Further to indicate the
protection that has been provided to Sen-
ators on this side of the aisle, I have
conferred with the assistant minority
leader, the Senator from Michigan (Mr.
-GRIFFIN) , and he has checked to the
best of his ability as to whethe, Senators
who have amendments need more time,
or more time for debate and discussion;
and, to the best of his knowledge, there
are no Senators who have made any such
requests. All have been notified on the
audio system, and their offices have been
notified. As. a: matter of fact, the floor
manager of the bill, -the 'chairman of the
Government Operations Committee, the
Senator from North Carolina (Mr. ER-
viN), and the Senator from Illinois, have
Indicated several times that it would be
,their hope, that we could actually finish
by this evening; but we have all agreed
that 'every Senator should have all the
time necessary because of the tremen-
dous importance of this bill to the Senate,
to the Congress, and to the procedures
under which we onerate.
I have had a request from the distin-
guished Senator from Nebraska (Mr.
Gowns) that be have time to speak on
the bill. The distinguished Senator from
New York (Mr. Jams) wishes to do so
also, and he will do so at the time he
offers his amendment.
So far as I know, the rights of all Sen-
ators have been protected by this. I feel
it is now appropriate that we move for-
ward to a time certain for a vote on the
bill.
I would merely like to indicate the im-
portance attached to this bill by everyone
with whom we have been in touch. I think
every Senator who has participated with
us, particularly the leadership, which has
leaned over backwards to make certain
that we have given as thorough an anal-
ysis as possible and move forward as
expeditiously as possible, should be
commended.
? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
before the Chair propounds the request,
it occurs to me that Senator PROximao
had indicated to me that he may or may
not have an amendment which he would
wish to offer. I cannot recall precisely
the nature of that amendment at this
time, but I would venture to say that it
would be germane. In any event, I think
he ought to be protected, and we ought
to have that understanding likewise in
accepting this request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the unanimous-consent re-
quest of the Senator from West Virginia?
The Chair hears none, and it is so
ordered.
The text of the unanimous-consent
agreement is as follows:
Ordered, That during the further consid-
eration of S. 1541, the so-called "Federal
Act to Control Expenditures and Establish
National Priorities", debate on any amend-
ment shall be limited to 1 hour, to be equally
'divided and controlled by the mover of such
.and the manager of the bill, and that debate
on any amendment in the second degree,
? debatable motion or appeal shall be limited
to I/2 hour, to be equally divided and con-
trolled by the mover of such and the man-
ager of the bill: Provided, That to the event
the manager of the bill is in favor of any
such amendment or motion, the time in op-
position thereto shall be controlled by the
minority leader or his designee: Provided
further, That no amendment that is not ger-
mane to the provisions of the said bill (ex-
cept two amendments to be offered by the
Senator from Delaware (Mr. ROTH), and one
amendment each to be offered by the Sena-
tor from Mississippi (Mr. STENNIS), the Sen-
ator from Wisconsin (Mr. PROXMIRE), the
Senator from Florida (Mr. Clin,Es), and the
Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. NELSON) shall
be received.
Ordered further, That on the question of
the final passage of the said bill, debate shall
not exceed 6 hours, to be equally divided and
controlled, respectively, by the Senator from
North Carolina (Mr. Erwin) and the Senator
from Illinois (Mr. PERCY) : Provided, That
the said Senators, or either of them, may,
from the time under their control on the
passage of the said bill, allot additional time
to any Senator during the consideration of
any amendment, debatable motion or appeal.
Ordered further, That the vote on final
passage of the said bill shall occur at 2:00
p.m., on Friday, March 22, 1974.
ORDER FOR ADJOURNMENT TO
10 A.M. TOMORROW
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, it
stand in adjournment until 10 a.m. to-
morrow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
ORDER FOR CONSIDERATION OF
THE UNFINISHED BUSINESS, S.
1541, TOMORROW
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that immedi-
ately folowing the recognition of the two
leaders or their designees under the
standing order tomorrow, the Senate re-
sume consideration of the unfinished
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
ORDER FOR THE NELSON-MONDALE
AMENDMENT TO BE LAID BEFORE
THE SENATE
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment to be offered by Mr. NELSON
and Mr. MONDALE be laid before the Sen-
ate at the close of business today and
made the pending question on tomorrow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
ORDER FOR RECOGNITION OF
SENATOR ROTH TOMORROW
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I would certainly want to protect Senator
ROTH, who I understand wanted to call
up his amendment tomorrow. He has two
amendments, one of which he will call up
today, and one tomorrow. I ask unani-
mous consent that Mr. ROTH be recog-
nized upon the disposition of the Nelson-
Mondale amendment tomorrow, to call
up his amendment.
The PRESIDING OloieiCER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT OF
1974
The Senate continued with the con-
sideration of the bill (S. 1541) to pro-
vide for the reform of congressional pro-
cedures with respect to the enactment of
fiscal measures; to provide ceilings on
Federal expenditures and the national
debt; to create a budget committee in
each House; to create a congressional
office of the budget, and for other
purposes.
The PRESIDING OloriCER. The bill
is open to further amendment.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presi-
dent, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk
proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous Consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING 0.N101.CER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Who yields time?
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. Presi-
dent, will the Senator from North Caro-
lina yield me 3 minutes?
Mr. ERVIN. I am delighted to yield 3
minutes to the Senator from Virginia.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I thank the
'Senator from North Carolina.
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP751300380R000600080002-0
"*.
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
S 4086 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE March ?l, 1974
"NATIONAL SECURITY" TAPS
Mr. HARRY F. ByRD, JR. Mr. Presi-
dent, the Washington Post today pub-
lished an excellent article written by the
distinguished Senator from Wisconsin
(Mr. Nelson). The article deals in same
detail with the question of wiretapping
and the need to protect the citimnrY of
our Nation against unwarranted invasion
of privacy.
Obviously, Senator Nrisoies article in-
volves a great deal of research. It is
handled with great care, and it explores
this very important subject in a compre-
hensive manner.
I mainland the able Senator from
Wisconsin (Mr. NELSON) on this article.
I am not necessarily in agreement with
every detail, but I support the general
concept that he enunciates, and I am in
general agreement with the views he
expressed.
I ask unanimous consent that the arti-
cle by Senator NELSON, published in to-
day's Washington Post, be printed in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
"Niteweren. Secourry" Tees
(By GAYLOW) NerasoN)
Civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Je.,
newspaper columnist Joseph /Kraft, former
Nixon presidential aides William Befire and
John Sears former Natloeal Security Council
staff members Morton Halperin and Anthony'
Lake, former congressional aide Dunn Off-
ford, and bolter Muhatiamed Ali?these citi-
zens have isoMething In common. Their tele-
phone convetwattons save been wiretapped
by the federal government for so-caned "na-
tional security" reasons. And they are merely
a handful among thousands.
In each case the government acted without
obtaining a judicial warrant approving of
the "tap." The government therefore did not
explain to a court the juetilication for the
surveillances. Nor did the government volun-
tarily inforru any of the individuals involved
that their telephone conversations had been
secretly intercepted. Most of those tapped
never learn about It.
Despite the rigbteous indignation of con-
gressional representative, lawyers, end the
public, warrantless wiretapPing cm-Aimee,.
Last January the Justice Department re-
ported that in one week it had anthorizeil
three warrantless wiretaps in national secu-
rity cases?au average week's quota accord-
ing to the departneent. The departraent did
not indicate whether the taps included sur-
veillances of American. citizens. Nor did the
department indicate the basis for believing
the taps necessary. And that ks precisely the
problem.
Warrantless wiretaps give the government
an unreviewed and unchecked power to In-
vade a citizen's privacy. The government
alone determines whom it should tap and
when it should tap. Neither a court, nor the
Congress, nor the individual involved has an
opportunity to demonstrate that there is no
justiiication for the tap.
Because they' eseape scrutiny by anyone
outside government, warrantless wireteps are
a dangerous and fundamental assault on the
laadividuars right to privacy and other civil
liberties. They pose a threat to the freedom
of every citizen, regardless of his or her sta-
tion in life. In a 1028 aurveillance iaase Su-
preme) Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
called warrantless wiretaps "dirty businensie
In 1931, J. Edgar Hoover?who by then had.
been FBI director for seven years?calted
them "unethical" (his paattion !softened In
later years).
Warrantless tegii also are, In my view, Un-
constitutional. The Fourth Amendment ex-
plicitly provides that every citizen should
be free from government searches and seiz-
ures that are not authorized by a judicial
warrant. There is no exception for "national
security". cases. The basic notion underly-
ing the araendrnent is that a neutral court?
not a government blinded by its lawful in-
vestigatory resiioneibilities---should decide
whether any search contemplated by the
government is reasonable.
In the 1987 Katz and Berger decisions, the
Supreme Court held that the Pourtia Amend-
ment's protections apply to government
wiretapping. The Court ai:30 held in the 1972
Keith case that the government could not
wiretap American citizens without a judi-
cial warrant even when the citizen's activ-
ities threaten "domestic security." The Court
reserved judgment, however, for those cases
In which American citizens have a "signifi-
cant connection" with foreign powers and
their agents.
Because the Court has not yet decided
this latetr question, the present administra-
tion maintains that the government can,
without a warrant, tap American citizens
and others whose activities involve foreign
affairs. It was on this basis that the Justice
Department authorized three warrantless
wiretaps last January.
Congress should not tolerate the continued
use of these warrantless wiretaps for so-
celled "national security" purposes. It is In-
deed ironic for the government to invoke
"national security' to violate those conetitu-
ttonal rights and liberties which the govern-
ment is obligated to defend. And remedial
legislation should include at least four ba.sic
elements.
First, before the government could wiretap
American citizens for national security pur-
poses, it should have to obtain a judicial
warrant based on probable cause that a crime
had been or was about to be committed.
This provision would simply recognize the
rights guaranteed to every citizen by the
Fourth Amendment.
Second, before the government could wire-
tap foreign powers (i.e., embassies) or their
agents, it should have to obtain a judicial
warrant based on a belief that the surveil-
lance is necessary to protect national secur-
ity. The warant standard; for foreign pow-
er taps should thus be less rigorous than
those applied to American citizens.
The justification for this second provision
Is plain. The government's desire to wiretap
should be reviewed by a court. There should
be no exceptions. Otherwise the exceptions
could be stretched to sanction an unreason-
able invasion of an American citizen's pri-
vacy. This second warrant r equirement would
in no way undermine the government's abil-
ity to protect against foreign attack or sub-
version; the government would be able to
wiretap foreign powers and their agents any
time there is a real need,
Third. every American citizen wiretapped
should be informed of the surveilaince with-
in 30 days after he last Authorized inter-
ception. This would afford the individual an
opportunity to protect against violations of
his constitutional rights. The disclosure of
the wiretap should be postponed, however.
if the government satisfies the court that the
person wiretapped is engaged in a continu-
ing criminal enterprise or that disclosure
would endanger national security interests.
Fourth, there should bi3 continuing con-
gressional oversight of wiretaps and other
surveillance activities engaged in by the gov-
ernment At least once a year, representa-
tives of the government should testify, un-
der oath, before a joint congressional com-
mittee about their surveillance activities, in
this way, Congress can determine whether
the government Is complying fully with the
laws and whether additional legislation is
needed to protect individual privacy.
A nuralier sai! Senators have jointed me in
introducing two bills (S. 2820 and S. 2738)
which incorporate these easie element!. Oth-
er bills might be able to improve on these
measures. But in any event. 'ho need for
congressional itction is clear. A 7itizen's con-
stitutional rig et to ptivacy shauld not ex-
ist at the sufferance of Exile goirerenrient of-
Sclera definition of "national security."
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields tinae?
Mr. HARRY F. ByRD, JR. Mr. Presi-
dent, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OITICER. On whose
time?
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. The time
to be equally divided.
The PRESIDING 01710ER. The clerk
will call the loll.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent thE t the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRES:EDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it L so ordered.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. ERVIN. I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished majority leader.
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
A message from the House of Repre-
sentatives by Mr. Hackney, one of its
reading clerk;, annouri3ed that the :Elouse
had passed a bill (HR. 1192)) to amend
section 15d of the Tennessee Valley Au-
thority Act of 1033 tc provide that ex-
penditures for pollution control facili-
ties will be credited against recitared
power investment return payments and
repayments, in which it requested the
concurrence of the Ser ate.
ENROLLED BILL SIGNED
The message also announced that the
Speaker had affixed his signature to the
enrolled bill (HR. 52:a6 to provide for
the conveyance of certain ,:nineral in-
terests of the United. States in property
in Utah to the record Owners of the sur-
face of that property.
The VICE PRESIDanCT sabsequently
signed the enrolled bit.
HOUSE BILL REFERRED
The bill (HR. 11929) to amend section
15d of the Tennessee Valley Authority
Act of 1933 to provide that expenditures
for pollution control facilities will be
credited against required power invest-
ment return payments and repayments,
wa.s read twice by its title and referred
to the Committee on Public Works.
DEATH OF CHET HUNTL.EY
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, it is
with a sense of deep personal regret that
X note the passing yesterday morning of
an old friend and a man well known to
all of us, Chet Huntley, who Passed away
In :Bozeman, Mont.
Chet Huntley was born in Montana.
He lived in Saco, akin; the .aighline, in
Cardwell, in the Jefferson county. His
folks had a ranch in that axe?, and one
later at Reedpoint, in the eastern part
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
C'xifit-11
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP751300380R000600080002-0
March 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE S 4087
of the State. His mother, of course, lives
in Billings.
About four years ago, Chet 1-runtiey left
a well-paying position as the other half
of the Huntley-Brinkley team to return
home to Montana, and there he was the
driving force behind the Big Sky recrea-
tional facility. It is sad to note that the
formal dedication of Big Sky was to take
place this corning weekend.
Chet had a great love for Montana, and
Montana had great affection for him.
There is not much that one can say about
a friend who is so well known. I can only
say that, while / did not expect him to
last too long after cancer was found 2
months ago, I certainly did not expect
him to pass away from this Earth so
soon.
Chet made many contributions be-
cause of his frankness and candor, not
only on a nationwide scale but I think in
the field of international affairs as well.
Certainly, he had a great effect upon. his
native State. His was a most productive
and fulfilling life and he left his mark
indelibly in the pursuits he chose; chiefly,
as a newscaster, analyzer and interpreter
of prominent significance. It is for these
reasons that we mourn the passing of
this distinguished American, this Mon-
tanan of the first rank, this man who was
a good friend, and this man who contrib-
uted so much to his State and to the
Nation.
At this time, on behalf of Mrs. Mans-
field and myself, I wish to extend deepest
condolences to his wife, Tippy, to his two
daughters, and to his mother, who, as I
said earlier, lives in Billings, Mont.
May his soul rest in peace.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the obituary in today's New
York Times beprinted in the Ramo%
There being no objection, the obituary
Wa,s ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
CHET HUNTLEY, 62, IS DEAD; GAVE THE NEVVS
TO 1Yrus IONS?HALF OF HUNTLEY-BRINKLEY
TEAM ON NBC TV ALMOST 15 YEARS
(By Michael T. Kaufman)
Chet Huntley, the former television news-
caster, died of cancer yesterday in Bozeman,
Mont., where he was preparing for the dedi-
cation this Saturday of a $25-million recrea-
tional complex called Big Sky, which he had
organized. He was 62 years old and had
undergone surgery two months ago for
abdominal cancer.
Until almost four years ago, Mr. Huntley
appeared nightly on the National Broadcast-
ing Company's "Huntley-Brinkley Report."
A consumer-research company found in 1965
that he and David Brinkley, his news partner,
were recognized by more adult Americans
than Cary Grant_ James Stewart, the Beatles
and John Wayne.
Not all of these adult Americans were sure
which of the two was which, but most rec-
ognized that the tall, rangy one with the
low-timbered voice was Chet Huntley. Mr.
Brinkley, who is still on the air, is more boy-
ish and slight.
They appeared together almost 15 years,
describing wars, assassinations, strikes, elec-
tions, floods. They also reported on long hair,
roller-skating postmen and lesser events of
the day. With dashes of humor spicing an
essentially serious, authoritative delivery,
they created one of television's most con-
sistently successful programs.
"GOOD NIGHT, DAVID"
The program's coda, "Good night, David"?
"Good night, Chet," was heard each night by
many millions. It, was parodied each day by
thousands and like Jimmy Durante's "Good
night Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are," and
Edward R. Murrow's "Good night and good
luck," the sign-off became part of the lan-
guage.
Last night the "N.B.C. Nightly News," Mr.
Brinkley spoke of the years the two men
worked together.
"Most pleasant to think about," Mr. Brink-
ley said, "was that wherever we traveled
around this country we both ran into younger
people, college age and older, who said: 'You
know I grew up with you guys. You were
part of my youth, part of my education and
part of my life.' He certainly was touched
and moved and affected by that. He had that
to think about and the knowledge that he
always told them the truth as far as he knew
it. . . .
"I guess we and television grew up to-
gether. Now, that part of it is over, and I
believe Chet had every right to think he
had left the American people something use-
ful, honest and of permanent value."
Mr. Huntley's last good night as his partner
came in July of 1970. The first was in 1956,
when he and Mr. Brinkley were the staff
correspondents chosen by N.E.C. as anchor
men for news coverage of the Democratic and
Republican National Conventions.
Originally, the intention had been that
they would alternate. But without previous
design, the two stayed on camera together,
interweaving their commentary.
REPLACEMENT FOR SWAYZE
At that time network executives were
searching for someone to take the place of
John Cameron Swayze on the nightly news.
They had wanted John Hersey, the author,
but he had turned them down. Others sought
Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., who preferred to stay
on as United States representative at the
United Nations. Mr. Huntley and Mr. Brink-
ley were the third choice. They did their first
show Oct. 20, 1956.
From the start the two complemented each
other. Mr. Brinkley was the sophisticated
easterner, with a dry understated irony and
a puckish smile. Mr. Huntley was more seri-
ous, even somber. He was the rangy West-
erner, who with a naive doggedness ques-
tioned what seemed to him unusual or
strange. Sometimes the commentary consist-
ed of nothing more than an expressive raised
eyebrow.
Mr. Huntley's ties to the West and the
frontier' were very strong. The furnishings
of his modern office at Rockefeller Center
included the rolltop desk his father had used
as a railroad telegrapher in Bozeman, a brass
Spittoon and an 1870 Winchester rifle.
His experiences growing up on his grand-
father's sheep ranch near the Canadian bor-
der formed the heart of his 1968 book, "The
Generous Years: Remembrances of a Frontier
Boyhood."
In it, he wrote of a high school English
teacher named Callie Allison, who taught
him grammar and instilled in him a respect
for the language. With her encouragement
he won a scholarship in a national debating
contest.
He went to the University of Washington,
and in his last year worked at KPCB, a small
radio station in Seattle.
"I did everything from sweeping out the
joint to spinning records, writing advertis-
ing copy, dreaming up new programs and
running the transmitter when the engineer
went out for coffee," Mr. Huntley recalled.
Jobs at a number of local stations fol-
lowed and stints as an announcer at dance-
band contests. In 1937, he joined the N.B.C.
affiliate in Los Angeles. For the next 20 years
he worked mostly on the West Coast for
each of the three major networks. He won
national awards for a radio series on dis-
crimination against Mexican Americans and
for his reporting on the wartime relocation
of Japanese Americans.
He gained a reputation as a hard-working
reporter who was not afraid to interject com-
mentary. In the early nineteen-fifties he was
attacked by anti-Communist vigilantes an-
gered by his outspoken criticism of Senator
Joseph R. McCarthy. At one point, Mr. Hunt-
ley went to court and won a $10,000 slander
judgment against a woman who had de-
nounced him as a Communist.
CROSSED PICKET LINE
Perhaps his most controversial move came
on March 29, 1967, when he crossed picket
lines set up by striking members of the
American Federation of Television and Radio
Artists. His partner, Mr. Brinkley, honored
the strike. Mr. Huntley, who was then be-
lieved to be earning about $200,000, said he
didn't think newsmen belonged in a union
with singers and dancers.
Shortly after that, Mr. Huntley had to sell
his New Jersey cattle farm because of van-
dalism and sniping attacks on his herd.
In 1968, the Federal Communications Com-
mission rebuked N.B.C. for allowing Mr.
Huntley to deliver attacks on Federal meat-
inspection requirements while having inter-
ests in a cattle-feeding concern. More re-
cently, he was attacked for the Big Sky proj-
ect by conservationists who said the scheme
defaced wilderness area. Characteristically,
Mr. Huntley fought back, calling his critics
"so-called conservationists."
Mr. Huntley's first marriage, to Ingrid
Rolin, ended in divorce in 1959.
He is survived by his widow, the former
Tipton Stringer, who was a television weather
broadcaster; two daughters of his 'first mar-
riage, Mrs. Sharon Arensmeier and Mrs.
Leanne Khajazi; his mother and three
sisters.
Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, the Na-
tion and his home State of Montana
mourn today the passing of a distin-
guished American, Chet Huntley. One of
the truly great newsmen of this country,
he will be missed by all who knew him.
Pioneer in television journalism, win-
ner Of nearly every major award, em-
ployee of all three national networks but
best remembered for his long associa-
tion with David Brinkley on NBC, Chet
was known to millions of Americans. His
death at 62 to lung cancer was not totally
unexpected, but that does not ease our
loss.
Chet was born and raised in Montana
and received most of his undergraduate
college education at Montana State Uni-
versity in Bozeman. When he retired
from broadcasting, in mid-1970, he re-
turned to the beatitiful Gallatin Valley.
There he died yesterday, within a few
miles of Bozeman.
Chet Huntley has always occupied a
special place in the hearts of Montanans.
We were proud of his national accom-
plishments, pleased that he returned to
us after retirement, and terribly sad-
dened at the news of his death. We will
miss him very much.
Mr. President, Mrs. Metcalf and I ex-
tend to Tippy and to the other members
of the Huntley family our deepest con-
dolences on the death of Chet. He was a
fine person and a great American.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT
OF 1974
The Senate continued with the consid-
eration of the bill (S. 1541) to provide
for the reform of congressional proce-
dures with respect to the enactment of
fiscal measures; to provide ceilings on
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
S 4088 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE March 21 1974
Federal expenditures and the national
debt; to create a budget committee in
each House; to create a congressional
office of the budget, and for other pur-
poses.
The PRESIDING (DeoriCER. Who
yields time?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I suggest the absence of a quorum. I
ask that the time be charged equally
against both sides on the bill.
The PRESIDING OrasiCER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk
proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I ask e nan-
'moue Consent that the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OlerICER. Wiehout
Objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ERVIN. I yield 5 minutes on the
I111 to the Senator from Alabama for
such use as he may see fit to make of it.
Mr. ALLEN. I thank the distinguished
Senator from North Carolina.
PUBLIC FINANCING OF FEDERAL
ELECTIONS
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I uader-
stand from the leadership that after the
present bill has been disposed of, S.
3044, the public financing of Federal
elections bill, will be laid before the Sen-
ate and made the pending business
I would like to outline several amend-
ments that I plan to offer to this bill. I
have one amendment I wish to send to
the desk at the conclusion of my remarks
for printing and to lie on the desk.
Mr. President, the first amendment
that I will offer is an amendment that
would provide that the so-called check-
off, which is being doubled under the bill,
require affirmative action by the tax-
payer. The bill as reported by the Com-
rnittee on Rules and Administrator pro-
vides that if the taxpayer does not ob-
ject to the checkoff then it will be pre-
sumed that he wants the checkoff to ap-
ply.
The amendment would be an amend-
ment that was offered last year and
adopted, / believe, by a voice vote in the
Senate. It was offered by the distin-
guished Senator from Louisiana and it
would require affirmative action by the
taxpayer to implement the checkoff.
Under the bill coming out of commit-
tee the effect of that would be that if
the taxpayer did not check off the $2
or $4, as provided by the bill, then it
will be presumed that he intended that
it be checked off, which LS Just the op-
posite 6f what his action would indicate
he wanted done. That would require that
it be affirmative.
Another amendment would strike title
I in its entirety, which provides for the
public fhiancing of Federal elections.
There is a lot of good in the bill and
if we could prune out the public financ-
ing feature then certain other feettires
of the bill would be good. So an effort
will be made to strike title I.
Then, another amendment will be of-
fered which would cut the amount of
the permissible contributions from the
$3,000 per person per election down to
the amount which the bill provides can be
matched with Federal funds, that
amount being $100 in congressional elec-
tions, congressional meaning House and
Senate races both, and then $250 in cam-
paigns for the Presidential nominations
of the major parties. So an effort will be
made to cut the amount of the maximum
contribution from the $3,000 provided in
the bill, which is a deduction, of course,
under the present law, down to $250 in
Presidential nomination campaigns and
down to $100 for congressional races, the
theory being that those amounts are the
only ones that can have equal matching
from the public treasury, and what is
the use of permitting excess contribu-
tions which could not be matched.
So, Mr. President, another amendment
will be offered to strike title V in its
entirety. That is the one that doubles
the checkoff and the amount.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time
of the Senator has expired.
Mr. RVIN. I yield to the distinguished
Senator 3 additional minutes on the bill.
The PRESEDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator is recognized.
Mr. ALLEN. The other feature is a
doubling of the credit amount or the
deduction ainount or the deduction
amount by a taxpayer contributing to
political races.
Another amendment would be to add
a new section providing for the elimina-
tion of honoxuria to Members of Con-
gress. That amendment reads:
No Member of Congress shall accept or
receive any honorarium, fee, payment, or
expense allowance other than for actual out-
of-pocket traveling and lodging expenses
from any source whatsoever for any speech,
article, writing, discussion, message, or
appearance other than in payment of his
official salary and for official reimbursements
or allowances from the U.S. Treasury.
The theory behind this amendment
would be that inasmuch as the Senate
has acted and has vetoed, in effect, the
President's recommendation for a salary
increase for Members of Congress, this
would prevent Members of Congress
from receiving honorariums and it is
closely allied to the matter of contribu-
tions. It was with that thought in mind
it is being offered.
Mr. President, I send the last amend-
ment to which I made reference to the
desk and ask that it lie on the table
and be printed, to be called up at a later
date.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be received and printed,
and will lie ,D11 the table.
CONGRESSDDNAL BUDGET ACT OF
1974
The Senate continued with the con-
sideration of the bill (S. 1541) to provide
for the reform of congressional proce-
dures with respect to the enactment of
fiscal measures; to provide ceilings on
Federal expenditures and the national
debt; to create a budget committee in
each House; to create a congressional of-
fice of the budget, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. TOWER. Mr. Prseitient, I suggest
the absence of a quorum, and ask unani-
mous consent that the time be equally
charged to both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will
call the roll.
The secceid assist ant legislative clerk
proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I .send an
amendment to the desk and ask for its
Immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum
call is in progress.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unarimous consent that the order
for the qu Drum cal be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ,ordered.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I call up an
amendment which I have at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICE:R. The
amendmert will be stated,
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to read the amendment.
Mr. ROTH. I ask. unanimous consent
that further reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROTH'S amendment Is as follows:
On page 184, line b, strike all or Title X
and insert, in its pia se, Title X-1mpound-
merit Control Proced:u res,
SEC. 1001. Transmission of Special Messages
by President.
(a) In general.?Ntlisenever the President,
the Director of the (Mice of Management and
Budget, the head of any department or
agency of the United States, or any officer or
employee of the United States impounds any
budget authority authorized or =de avail-
able for a specific purpose or project, or
orders, pertsits, or eipproves the impounding
of any such budget suthority by any other
officer or employee of the United States, the
President shall, withhi ten days thereafter,
transmit to the House of Representatives
and the Senate a special message specify-
(I) the iunount of the budget authority
impounded;
(2) the date on which the budget author-
ity was ordered to be Impounded;
(3) the date the budget authority was
impounded':
(4) any account, ,cie partmost, or establish-
ment of the Government to which such im-
pounded budget autlority would have been
available fcr obligation except for such im-
poundment, and the tipecific projects or gov-
ernmental functions involved;
(5) the period of Arne during sithich the
budget authority is t.) be impounded;
(8) the reasons for the impoundment, in-
cluding any legal authority invoked by hint
to justify the impoundment;
(7) to the maxim trn extent pzacticable,
the estimated fiscal, economic, and budget-
ary effect of the impoundment; and
(8) all ificts, circumstances, find con-
siderations relating to or bearing upon the
impoundment and the decision to effect the
impoundment, including an analysis of such
facts, circumstances, and considerations in
terms of .their appticatkin to any legal
authority and speciflo elements of legal au-
thority invoked by him to justify such
impoundment, and to the maximum extent
practicable, the estimated effect of such
impoundment upon the objects, purposes.
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
March 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE S 4089
and programs for which the budget author-
ity was provided.
(b) Delivery to House and Senate.?Each
special message submitted pursuant to sub-
. Section (a) shall be transinitted to the House
of Representatives and the Senate on the
same day, and shall be delivered to the Clerk
of the House of Representatives if the House
Is not in session, and to the Secretary of
the Senate if the Senate is not in session.
Each special message so transmitted shall
be referred to the Committee on Appropria-
tions of the House of Representatives and
to the Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate; and each such message shall be
printed as a document for each House.
?
(c) Transmission to CoMptroller Gen-
eral.?A copy of each special message sub-
mitted pursuant to subsection (a) shall be
transmitted to, the Comptroller General of
the United States on the same day it is
transmitted to the House of Representa-
tives and the Senate. In order to assist the
Congress in the exercise of its functions
under sections 1002 and 1004 the Comptroller
General shall review each such message and
Inform the House of Representatives and the
f3enate as promptly as possible with respect
to (1) the facts surrounding the impound-
tient set forth in such message (including
the probable effects thereof) and (a)
whether or not (or to what extent), in his
judgment, such impoundment was in ac-
eordance with existing statutory authority,
provided, however, that the authority hereby
conferred shall not be ;wed for the purpose
of eliminating a program the creation or
continuation of which has been authorized
by Congress.
(d) Transmission of supplementary mes-
sages.?If any information contained in a
special message submitted pursuant to sub-
section (a) is subsequently revised, the
President shall within?ten days transmit to
the Congress and the Comptroller General
a supplementary message stating and ex-
plaining such revision. Any such supplemen-
tary message shall be delivered, referred, and
printed as provided in subsection (b); and
the Comptroller General shall promptly
notify the House of Representatives and tne
Senate of any changes in the information
submitted by him under subsection _lc)
which may be necessitated by such revision.
(e) Printing.?Any special or supplemen-
tary message transmitted pursuant to this
section shall be printed in the first issue of
the Federal Register published after such
transmittal.
" (fl Publication of impoundments.?The
President shall publish in the Federal Regis-
ter, each month a list of any budget author-
ity impounded as of the first calendar day
of that month. Each such list shall be
published no later than the tenth calendar
day of the month and shall contain the
Information' required to be submitted by
special message pursuant to subsection (a).
Sac. 1002. Disapproval of impoundments by
House or Senate.
Any impoundment of budget authority set
forth in a special message transmitted pur-
suant to section 1001 shall cease if within
sixty calendar days of continuous session
after the date on which the message is
received by the Congress the specific im-
poundment shall have been disapproved by
either House of Qongress by passage of a
resolution in aCeordance with the procedure
set out in section 1004. The effect of such
disapproval shall be to require an immediate
end to the impoundment.
SEC. 1003. Definition of Impoundment.
For purposes of this title, the impound-
ing of budget authority includes?
(1) withholding or delaying the expendi-
ture or obligation of budget authority
(whether by establishing reserves or other-
wise) appropriated for projects or activities,
and the termination of authorized projects
or activities for which appropriations have
been made, and
(2) any other type of Executive action or
Inaction which effectively precludes the obli-
gation or expenditure of authorized budget
authority or the creation of obligations by
contract in advance of appropriations as spe-
cifically authorized by law.
Ste. 1004. Congressional Procedures.
(a) Definition of resolution; Continuity of
session.?
(1) For purposes of this section and sec-
tion 1002 the term "resolution" means only
a resolution of the House of Representatives
or the Senate which expresses its disapproval
of an impoundment of budget authority set
forth in a special message transmitted by the
President under section 1001, and which is
introduced and acted upon by the House of
Representatives or the Senate (as the case
may be) before the end of the first period
of sixty calendar days of continuous session
of the Congress after the date on which the
President's message is received by the Con-
gress.
(2) For purposes of this section, and sec-
tion 1002, the continuity of a session shall
be considered as broken only by an adjourn-
ment of the Congress sine die, and the days
on which either House is not in session be-
cause of an adjournment of more than three
days to a day certain shall be excluded in the
computation of the sixty-day period referred
to in paragraph (1) of this subsection? (and
in section 1002) and the thirty-day period
referred to in subsection (c) (1). If a special
message is transmitted under section 1001
during any Congress and the last session of
such Congress adjourns sine die before the
expiration of sixty calendar days of con-
tinuous session (or a special message is so
transmitted after the last session of the Con-
gress adjourns sine die), the message shall
be denied to have been retransmitted on the
first day of the succeeding Congress and the
sixty-day period referred to in paragraph (1)
of this subsection and in section 1002 (with
respect to such message) shall commence on
such first day.
(b) Referral.?Any resolution introduced
with respect to a special message shall
be referred to the Committee on Appropria-
tions of the House of Representatives or the
Senate, as the case .may be.
(c) Discharge of Committee.?
(1) If the committee to which a resolu-
tion with respect to a special message has
been referred has not reported it at the end
of thirty calendar days of continuous ses-
sion after its introduction, It is in order to
move either to discharge the committee from
further consideration of the resolution or to
discharge the committee from further con-
sideration of any other resolution with re-
spect to the same message which has been
referred to the committee.
(2) A motion to discharge may be made
only by an individual favoring the resolu-
tion, may be made only if supported by one-
fifth of the Members of the House involved
(a quorum being present), and is highly
privileged (except that it may not be made
after the committee has reported a resolution
with respect to the same special message);
and debate thereon shall be limited to not
more than one hour, to be directed equally
between those favoring and those opposing
the resolution. An amendment to the mo-
tion is not in order, and it is not in order to
move to reconsider the vote by which the
motion is agreed to or disagreed to.
(3) If the motion to discharge is agreed to
or disagreed to, the motion may not be re-
newed, nor may another motion to discharge
the committee be made with respect to any
Other resolution with respect to the same
special message,
(d) Floor consideration.?
(1) When the committee has reported, or
has been discharged from further considera-
tion of, a resolution with respect to a special
message, it shall at any time thereafter be
in order (even though a previous motion to
the same effect has been disagreed to) to
move to proceed to the consideration of the
resolution. The motion shall be highly
privileged and not debatable. An amendment
to the motion shall not be in order, nor shall
it be in order to move to reconsider the vote
by which the motion is agreed to or disagreed
to. _
(2) Debate on the resolution shall be lim-
ited to not more than two hours, which shall
be divided equally between those favoring
and those opposing the resolution. A motion
further to limit debate shall not be debata-
ble. No amendment to, or motion to recom-
mit, the resolution shall be in order, and it
shall not be in order to move to reconsider
the vote by which the resolution is agreed
to or disagreed to.
(e) Motions.?Motions to postpone, made
with respect to the consideration of a res-
olution with respect to a special message,
and motions to proceed to the consideration
of other business, shall be decided without
debate.
(f) Appeals.?All appeals from the deci-
sions of the Chair relating to the application
of the rules of the Senate or the House of
Representatives, as the case may be, to the
procedure relating to any resolution referred
to in this section shall be decided without
debate.
SEC. 1005. Reports of Impounchnents by
Comptroller General.
If the Comptroller General finds that the
President, the Director of the Office of Man-
agement and Budget, the head of any de-
partment or agency of the United States, or
any other officer or employee of the United
States has impounded any budget authority
authorized or made available for a specific
purpose or project or has ordered, permitted,
or approved the impounding of any such
budget authority by any other officer or em-
ployee of the United States, and the Presi-
dent fails to transmit a special message with
respect to such impoundment as required by
this title, the Comptroller General shall re-
port such impoundment and any available
information concerning it to both Houses
of Congress; and the provisions of this title
Shall apply with respect to such impound-
ment in the same manner and with the
same effect as if such report of the Comp-
troller General were a special message sub-
mitted by the President under section 100/,
with the sixty-day period provided in section
1002 being deemed to have commenced at
the time at which the Comptroller General
-makes the report. As used in section 1001,
the term "special message" includes a report
made by the Comptroller General under this
section.
Sso. 1006. Suits by Comptroller General to
enforce controls.
The Comptroller General is hereby ex-
pressly empowered as the representative of
the Congress through attorneys of his own
selection, with the approval of the Congress
In any particular case, to sue any depart-
ment, agency, officer, or employee of the
United States in a civil action in the United
States District Court for the District of Co-
lumbia to enforce the provisions of this title,
and such court is hereby expressly empow-
ered to enter in such civil action any decree,
judgment, or order which may be necessary
or appropriate to secure compliance with
the provisions of this title by such depart-
ment, agency, officer, or employee. Within
the purview of this section, the Office of
Management and Budget shall be construed
to be an agency of the United States, and the
officers and employees of the Office of Man-
agement and Budget shall be construed to
be Officers or employees of the United States,
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
S 4090 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE Narch 21, 1974
Esc. 1007. Repeal of existing impoOndment
reporting provitkoix.
Secton 203 of the Budget and Accounting
Procedures Act of 1960 is repealed.
Sec. 1008. Disclaimer.
Nothing contained in this title shell be
construed as--
(1) asserting or conceding the corutitu-
tional powers or limitations of either the
Congress or the President;
(2) ratifying any impoundment heretolore
or hereafter executed or unproved In the
President or any other Federal officer or
employee, except insofar as pursuant to stat-
utory authorization then In effect; or
(3) affecting in any way the claims or de-
fenses of any party to litigation concerning
any impoundment ordered or executed be-
fore the date of the enactment of this Act.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, this is an
argument I have made before in this
Chamber, so I will try to keep my re-
marks brief. The amendment follows very
closely the language of the House passed
bill H.R. 7130 in which the issue of irn-
Poundrnents was thoroughly debated and
upheld by a vote of 295 to 108. I have in-
troduced this House title as a substitute
for the existing title X of S. 1541, but I
want to point out to my colleagues that
I have added one important feature.
Under the language in II.R. '7130, the
Comptroller General is required to rule
on his interpretation of the legality of
any impoundment, to act, in a. sense, as
the Congress agent, so that every reser-
vation of funds need not necessarily be
presented for a vote of affirmetien or re-
jection. This is only sensible, since I feel
that many of us agree that the Executive
should have certain limited authority to
save public money when this is done in
the spirit of prudent administrative and
managerial responsibility. But I have
added the following clause, to insure that
the CoMptroller has the ability to chal-
lenge wholesale impoundments that
might clietort or even negate the intent
of Congress.
That language is that--
The authority hereby conferred shall not
be used for the purpose of eliminating a pro-
gram, the creation or continuation of which
has been authorized by Congress.
FIAPORTAWCE OF BALANCE
Mr. President, earlier in this debate
over the budget reform bill, I made an
earnest plea to have Congress put some
teeth back into the legislation, to have
us construct a system, a mechanism un-
der which the budget resolution would
become a meaningful step in the annual
cycle of budget decisions. I feet most
strongly that a resolution, easily
breached, is no re301UtiOn at all. Instead.
It is a device to allow Congress the lUxurY
of touting reform without being con-
strained by any real discipline.
As I see the legislator at this point, I
feel that the President must have some
latitude to recommend program reserva-
tion, provided that he can not use this
authority to totally subvert the will of
Congress.
Specifically, this language seeks to
change the thrust of the language lit title
X. My amendment would provide that
Impoundments made by the President
will stand unless Congress overrule him.
I think this makes only good sense. Let
me point out why. Congress adopts, from
tithe to time, a debt ceiling. The Presi-
dent, under the Constitution, has the re-
sponsibility and the obligation to abide by
that debt ceiling.
Ile cannot spend in a manner that
would exceed that ceiling, so long as
there is no further action by Congress.
Yet if we passed this legislation as
submitted, next year we could be putting
the President in an inflexible position
unless Congress chooses to act.
Last fall, Congress adopted a debt ceil-
ing that is consistent with $250 billion in
spending during the current fiscal year.
Any spending beyond that amount would
exceed the debt ceiling and violate it.
So if the President is withholding for that
purpose, he is merely trying to abide by
the ceiling adopted by Congress, and that
only makes sense to me.
But what we are saying under the
present title is that the President could
not use any Executive discretion at all.
Unless Congress saw to it that all of its
actions were truly consistent, we could
possibly be in the ambiguous position of
not complying with the debt ceiling, and
that could raise all kinds of ramifications.
Let me stress that Congress has the
opportunity to disprove any Presidential
impoundment action by a simple ma-
jority vote, in either House. That is
hardly an overwhelming task for us. We
approve an disapprove hundreds of mo-
tions every year.
Second, we will not be bombarded with
referrals to the floor. The Comptroller
General will act as a filter, picking out
those actions he feels have been taken
without proper statutory authority. His
expertise and counsel should help us to
deal with this problem more expedi-
tiously.
The existing title X, based on a bill
submitted recently by Senator ERVIN,
would ban all but the most tightly de-
fined impoundments, and give the Comp-
troller General the right to sue, in our be-
half, to have :en action overruled in court.
But should this be a matter we delegate
to the courts.? Are we saying that Con-
gress, which most closely represents the
interests of the program recipients,
should wash it hands of the matter,
delegating it to the GAO and the courts?
I, for one, feel we would be abdicating
our authority and responsibility, if we
did. Why under the system, I propose,
our House of Congress could settle the
Issue in a day, in a matter of hours, if it
took such umbrage with a Presidential
impoundment referred through the
Comptroller. All that would be required
under expediting rules is a simple resolu-
tion of disapproval from the Appropria-
tions Committee and a simple majority
vote of one house. With a minimal
quorum present, as few as 26 Senators
could overrule the President under my
proposal.
Mr. President, I would like to make a
couple of observations. I think most of
the principal points have already been
covered.
First, I should like to reemphasize that
at one time., the distinguished principal
sponsor of this title proposed the use of
congressional disapproval.
Second, the chairman of the House
Appropriations Committee apparently
feels that this is an appropriate method
of bringing about some control, as does
a firm majority of the entire }Ouse. So
It is hardly a partis an fight. We are all
faced with the real, and ever present
problem of gaining effective control over
our actions.
But I think the most important point
to make is that Congress will not be ful-
filling its responsinility merely by the
impoundment proposal now contained in
S. 1541. We would le making it impos-
sible, really, to brlr g the budget within
control. The House and the Senate do
not?I would like te. emphasize do not?
consider each appropriation in the con-
text of the whole Midget. And under the
mechanism the Senate has approved, I
suspect we will not depart too :far from
our present day pat :erns of behavior.
If we really are going to be fiscally
responsible, we oug .1t to adopt a legisla-
tive budget, break: :t dow:a by priorities,
and set the limits c f each of those cate-
gories. We are not doing that. But here
we are saying to the President, "You
cannot impound unie,ss the courts get
around to approving your action." We
could get by, doing nothing, Just sitting
on our ha:ads. We would not be required
to indicate our volt
I think it should be our obligation,
when impoundments are reported, that
we stand up and be counted.
At the present time, the President
does not have aver, effective voice in the
final enactment o ! spending bills. We
have 13 regular appropriations, each in-
cluding many item s. They come fate in
the year. Normally it is imposible for the
President to veto t iem.
I feel that this en: in its present for
will only continue ' he fragmented budg-
etary process; and by passing this meas-
ure, we are going to malse it more dif-
ficult to bring control into the picture.
The President is impounding now be-
cause Congress hes not been willing to
live within a butt et and establish dif-
ficult priorities. He is acting because
there is a vacuum r think it is our re-
sponsibility to ad.o )t both a comprehen-
sive procedure which will insure that
Congress has to 'race the music." and
failing that, at leas t has to be counted on
the occasion of ane impoundment which
the Cometroller feels has been made out-
side the legitimate territory of statutory
guidelines.
Mr. musruE. :M r. President, may I say
first that title X as a way to deal with the
impoundment issue was developed as a
way to cut througn the impasse between
the Howe and Senate versions of the
impoundinent legiSation.
The version enacted by the Senate,
three times in the Congress, provides very
precisely that impoundment shall not
take effect unless approved by Congress.
The Heim version provides that im-
poundment shall bake effect unless dis-
approved by Congress.
Clearly, the di (Terent* between the
two is that with. else House version, the
burden is placed on. Congress to act. With
respect to the Se-nste version, the appro-
priation initially approved by Congress
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
March 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE S 4091
stands until Congress itself agrees to the
modification.
What we are talking about in impound-
ment legislation is to strengthen the
hand of Congress in a situation where
power has shifted toward the Presi-
dent because of his excessive use of au-
thority under the Antideficiency Act.
Those two pieces of legislation enacted in
two Houses, so diametrically opposed to
each other, have left us in an impasse for
several months. Neither side was inter-
ested in going to conference because
there was no way of compromising those
two fundamentally contrary theories.
It is for that reason that Senator ERVIN
and I introduced legislation, which is
now incorporated in title X of the bill,
which seeks to cut through the impasse.
We seek to do it by a simple amendment
of the Antideflciency Act.
It might be useful if I explain the
technique.
The purpose of title X is to define and
clarify the authority of the President and
other officers and employees of the exec-
utive branch to place appropriated funds
in reserve. The Antideficiency Act, as
amended in 1950 (31 U.S.C. 665), per-
mitted executive officers to establish re-
serves "to provide fo:r contingencies, or to
effect savings whenever savings are made
possible by or through changes in re-
quirements, greater efficiency of opera-
tions, or -other developments subsequent
to the date on which such aPPropriation
was made available." The language of
section 1001 in the pending measure re-
tains the authority to establish reserves
for contingencies, or to effect savings
Whenever savings are made possible by
changes in requirements or greater effi-
ciency, of operations. That language in
the Antideficiency Act is retained. In-
deed, it is essential in terms of sensible
administration of programs authorized
by Congress. But the "other develop-
ments" clause would be deleted by this
bill because it has been treated by some
officials of the executive branch as a jus-
tification for establishing reserves be-
cause of economic or other developments.
Clearly that use was never intended by
the Congress. It is that use which has
provoked this controversy over impound-
ments.
Section 1001 further defines the
boundaries of the Antideficiency Act by
prohibiting the use of reserves for fiscal
policy purposes or to achieve less than
the full objectives and scope of programs
enacted and funded by Congress. The
apportionment process is to be used only
for routine administrative purposes such
as to avoid deficiencies in executive
branch accounts, not for the making of
policy or the setting of priorities.
The committee's amendments to the
Antideficiency Act are fully consistent
with the legislative intent and history
of the 1950 amendment. The 1950 lan-
guage was anticipated in a June 5, 1947
joint report by the Bureau of the Budg-
et and the General Accounting Office.
The Senate Committe0 on Appropria-
tions had asked the two agencies to rec-
ommend ways of improving the Antide-
ficiency Act. The resulting report, which
recommended clarified authority for set-
ting aside reserves for contingencies and
savings, stated that the authority "must
be exercised with considerable care in
order to avoid usurping the powers of
Congress." In reporting the antidefici-
elacy language in 1950, the House Com-
mittee on Appropriations explained that
the technique of setting aside reserves
was not to be used to thwart the will of
Congress: "It is perfectly justifiable and
proper for all possible economies to be
effected and savings to be made. But
there is no warrant or justification for
the thwarting of a major policy of Con-
gress by the impounding of funds." H.
Rept. No. 1797, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., P.
311. Moreover, nothing in the language
or legislatiVe history of the Antidefici-
ency Act suggests in any way that Con-
gress intended the executive branch to
place funds in reserve as part of eco-
nomic policy.
That the committee's amendments to
the Antideficiency Act are also consist-
ent with recent decisions by Federal
courts is demonstrated with regard to
withholding funds for fiscal policy pur-
poses. Judge Oliver Gasch of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colum-
bia disagreed with the administration
that the executive branch could withhold
funds simply because it?
Desires to control overall federal spending
or to give priority to other programs which
it believes are more laudable. Control of
federal spending is an entirely laudable ob-
jective, but there is no authority either in
Article II of the Constitution or in the case
law, for the defendants' position that they
may achieve this by refusing to comply with
the terms of a statute.
Massachusetts v. Weinberger (Civ.
Action No. 1303-73, D.D.C.) and District
of Columbia v. Weinberger (Civ. Action
No. 1322-73, D.D.C.). Reprinted at 119'
Cong. Rec. S15044-46 (daily ed. July 30,
1973).
So, Mr. President, title X is designed
to correct the problem that was gener-
ated by improper interpretation of the
Antideficiency Act by the executive, to
use it for purposes it was never designed
to serve. So, in order to break the im-
passe between the House and the Senate,
which has left us in a stalemate on this
issue for the past several months, this
technique was developed by Senator
ERVIN and myself. I think it makes a
great deal of sense. It makes a great
deal of sense that it be included in a
piece of legislation dealing with con-
gressional procedures dealing with the
budget, procedures designed to develop
budgetary and fiscal discipline in the
ways in which Congress manages its fis-
cal affairs.
It is our belief, those of us who have
participated in the development of this
legislation, that it will have that effect.
If it will not, then this is all a hopeless
exercise. If it will not, Congress will find
other ways to be spendthrift, I am sure.
But if budget reform legislation achieves
its objective of fiscal discipline in the
Congress and in the executive, there will
be no need in the future for the kind of
confrontation between the executive
branch and the Congress which has been
represented by this impoundment issue.
May I make the point that the im-
poundment issue has reached several of
the district courts. It has been decided by
one circuit court and in nearly every
case where there has been a judicial de-
cision, the result has been favorable to
the congressional position on impound-
ment, justifying?at least, from the point
of view of this Senator?my interpreta-
tion of the legislative history behind the
Antideficiency Act.
So I think that the technique in this
bill devised by Senator ERVIN and myself
is right on point. It deals with the prob-
lem in a precise way. It simply extends
the Antideficiency Act in accordance
with its initial philosophy.
For that reason, in order to settle this
issue, and in order to get it resolved, in
order to get impoundment legislation
adopted, I would oppose the amendment
of the distinguished Senator from Dela-
ware, who has contributed much to the
development of this budget reform legis-
lation, but who I believe is eminently
wrong on this issue.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I agree with
the distinguished Senator from Maine
that the question of impoundment should
be resolved. I believe very strongly that
the President should not use the power
of impoundment to kill or basically elim-
inate any program that has been au-
thorized by Congress. As I mentioned
earlier, it was for that reason that I did
add a proviso to the House version that
would make that perfectly clear in the
legislation.
What concerns me is the cure. It seems
to me that Congress, itself, and not the
courts should be the one to decide wheth-
er or not an impoundment should be put
into effect. I believe that is the respon-
sibility of Congress. There has been much
talk in recent months and in recent days
not only about the President improperly
using the impoundment, but likewise,
about Congress not living up to its full
responsibility.
All I am proposing is that the enforce-
ment procedures be put in Congress
rather than in the courts. I should like
to point out that what I have proposed
is not a partisan matter. As a matter of
fact, it has been adopted by the U.S.
House of Representatives, of which the
Democratic Party is the majority. So
what we are arguing about today is not,
as I said, partisan in nature.
Second, it seems to me that what we
are saying here is that Congress does
have a responsibility to look at eabh pro-
posed impoundment of the President. My
proposal would give greater authority to
Congress, as we could kill any impound-
ment, whether or not it was within the
antideficiency legislation.
For that reason, I urge the adoption
of my amendment, on the grounds that,
in my judgment, it would bring a greater
voice in governmental affairs to Congress
and greater responsibility to its Mem-
bers.
Mr. President, I intend to ask for the
yeas and nays at the appropriate time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the dis-
tinguished Senator and I are interested
in resolving this impoundment issue. He
would prefer to see it resolved in Con-
gress rather than in the courts.
May I say, in commenting on that,
that the only progress toward resolying
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP751300380R000600080002-0
S 4092 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE Moich 21, 1974
it has been made in the ceurts, and no
Progress has been made in Congress. On
that record, I do not think we should
adopt a procedure which excludes the
Judicial process from a resolution of the
issue.
I repeat that all title X does is to
Incorporate the original intentien of the
Antideficiency Act, so that it will
clearly not support the abuse of the im-
poundment authority which the courts
have documented, the abuse of the hn-
poundment authority as exercised, by
this administration.
So if the Antideficiency Act was origi-
nally sound?and I believe it was?as
originally intended, all title X does is to
reestablish it on its original base. I do
not see how there can be serious quar-
rel with that objective.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I :eave
agreed to many of the efforts of the dis-
tinguished Senator from Dela ware and
what he has tried to accomplish. Ever
since he became a Member of the Senate.
he has been the voice and the conscience
of the taxpayer. He has been the watch-
dog over the Treasury, and has served
with distinction on both the Joint Study
Committee on Budget Control and the
Government Operations Committee
working on this bill. As I said the other
day, he has become a worthy successor
to another great Senator from Delaware.
Senator WILLIAMS.
In this case, I think we have egreement
in philosophy, but a difference 'ne how we
implement our philosophy.
I was interested_ when Arthur Burns,
in talking of the budget reform legisla-
tion, made this comment with respect, to
impoundment of funds:
Once those procedures are Modified to en-
able Congress to regain control over total
outlays and to determine priorities among
competing prOgrams, there should be no oc-
casion for broadscale tmpouncling of roads
by the President.
That, of course, is the hope all of us
have.
I have the feeling that sometimes
when we have been able to shift respon-
sibility, we have not always taken the ac-
tion we would take or the position we
would assume if our action were final
and had to stand.
I hare no hesitancy in saying teat I
have heard Members of this body vote on
Issues, toed then when they leave been
asked, 'How can you justify such a large
spending figure?" they hive said to :me,
"Oh, the House is going to cut it, any-
way." That was a recognition that what
we did was vote for too much, but what
we were actually doing was voting a bar-
gaining position. We did not believe-sin
fact, we hoped?that the House wculd
not accept the figure because the figure
we put In would be an irresponsible one.
I presume that in years past, as Presi-
dents have impounded funds, Congress,
as a whole, has in a sense said, "Well, we
will send it downtown. Let them take the
rap down there for not spending the
money. After all, it will be their decision.
We added money to the program. We pro-
vided the funds: and if the President
wants to take the rap for cutting them
back. then let him do it."
I have seen President Johnson have to
step up and stop the construction, in the
middle of a building boom in Chicago, of
a second big Federal building, because he
felt it would simply add to inflation, that
it would be a misuse of funds at that par-
ticular time. Why not build certain of our
Federal buildings?those that are not
urgently needed?at a time when we need
a stimulant to the economy, rather than
when they would add to inflation? We
have seen the same in the spending of
highway trust funds, and so forth.
I believe that the whole philosophy of
what we are trying to accomplish in this
bill is now to have Congress take back
the resporisibility that the Constitution
gives us and to have us say to ourselves
that once we put these figures in and
commit spending at these levels, we have
to count on the fact that they are going
to be spent. Now we have had district
courts support the fact that their inter-
pretation of the situation is such that
the President cannot impound these
funds, and in effect they must be spent.
Therefore, I feel that we should now
put Congress in the position where it has
to bite the bullet; it has to take the final
responsibility; and it cannot pass the
buck to the executive branch a the Gov-
ernment and say, "We are going to pass
all these bills and then if it is improper
if it should not be done, if it is going to
have an adverse effect on the economy,
whatever it may be, you take the rap for
impounding them." We are going to have
to take the rap. I want us to take the
rap; because if we have that final re-
sponsibility, we may not authorize that
much money in the first instance and we
may once again become what the Con-
stitution expected us to be?the watch-
dog of the Treasury?by keeping that
responsibility right here in Congress,
where it belongs.
We are doing so now, with the provi-
sions of this bill, providing for ourselves
adequate staff, adequate research, and
adequate backup for these positions.
For that reason, I would tend to ole-
pose?in fact, I will have to vote
against?the amendment offered by the
distinguished Senator, though I respect
very much hi a overall efforts, with a
great portion of which I have found my-
self in agreement.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask for
the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered,
Mr. ROTH., Mr. President, I should
like to answer the distinguished Sena-
tor from Illinois. There is not a great
deal of need to continue the discussion
further, as this matter has been much
debated.
What I am saying to him is that the
legislation in title X, in its present form,
simply means that Congress is passing
the buck. It is passing the buck to the
courts. What I am asking is that we take
that power back here, that Congress.
should determine whether or not an
Impoundment should go into effect.
I point out, further, that under my
amendment-,which, as I noted earlier,
has been adopted by the House?only a
simple majority of either House is re-
quired to veto an impoundment of the
President. I think that has great advan-
tages. First of all, it does provide some
flexibility in Federal spending. I believe
that the average citizen in this Country
feels that this GOITE foment, spends too
must unwisely, and will heartily endorse
ern, efforts we make to cut back on Fed-
eral spencUrg.
Second. I agree -with those who say
that the President should riot preempt a
program by impouniment He will not
be able to de that yeller my amendment.
We are merely givir g the Congress the
effective voice to say yes or no to any pro-
posal of the President.
Mr. President, I urge adoption of my
amendment, in order to bring more power
back to Congress rather than passing the
buck- to the Federal courts. ?
The PRESIDING OFPICER. DO Sena-
tors yield back their time?
Mr. ROTH. I yield back my time.
The PR4SIDING OFFICER. Does the
Senator from Illinois yield back the re-
mainder of his time
Mr. PERCY. Mr. Pi esident, as far as I
know there are no Senators who wish to
speak on this matter
I yield back our tree.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is
yielded back. The question is on agreeing
to the amendment oi the Senator from
Delaware. The yeas and nays have been
ordered, ar.d the clerk tvili call the roll.
The legislative clerk celled- the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. I3YRD. I announce
that the senator from Missouri (Mr.
.EAGLETON), the Senetor from Arkansas
(Mr. FOLI:R/GHT), the senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY), the Sen-
ator from Louisiana Mr. Lowe) , the Sen-
ator from Arkansai. (Mr. MCCLELLAN),
and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
RANDOLPH) are nec.eesarily absent
I further announce that, if preeent and
voting, the Senator irom West Virginia
(Mr. RANDOLPH) wend wee 'nay."
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senator from Oregon (Mr. Flaremer)
and the Senator from North Dakota (Mr.
Yonne) are absent on ()tidal business.
I also announce tliftt the Senator from
Vermont (Mr. Ance-1) is bsent because
of illness in the fan-. ily.
I further announce that the Senator
from Colorado (Mr. Dopamine), the Sen-
ator from Nebraska (Mr. IleusuA), and
the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
THURMOND) are necessarily absent.
On this rote, the Senator from Oregon
Mr. HATFIELD) is pnred with the Sena-
tor from South Ceroline (Mr. THEIR-
moND) .
If present and votirg, the Senator from
Oregon would vote -nay" and the Sena-
tor from South Carolina wotdd vote
'yea."
The result was announced?yeas 28.
nays 60, as follows:
(No. ) Leg.'
YEA 3- 28
Allen Cook flange a
Baker Cotton Helms
Bartlett Curtis McClure
I3eall Dole Roth
Bellmon Bastian Stennis
Bennett Fannm Stevens
Brock Fong Taft
Buckler Oo1dwavr Tower
Byrd, Griffin Weicker
Harry F,, Jr. Gurney
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP751300380R000600080002-0
March 22, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE S 4093
Abourezk
Bayh
Bentsen
Bible
Eiden Inouye
Brooke Jackson
Burdick Javits
Byrd, Robert C. Johnston
Cannon Magnuson
Case Mansfield
Mathias
McGee
McGovern
McIntyre
Metcalf
Metzenbaum
Mondale
Montoya
Moss
Muskie
Nelson
NOT VOTING-12
Aiken Hatfield McClellan
Dominick Hruska Randolph
Eagleton Kennedy Thurmond
Pulbright Long Young
So Mr. ROTH'S amendment was re-
jected.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I move
that the Senate reconsider the vote by
which the amendment was rejected.
Mr. PERCY. I move to lay that motion
on the table.
The motion to 1,aY on the table was
agreed to.
NAYS-60
Hollings
Iluddieston
Ilughes
Humphrey
Chiles
Church
Clark
Cranston
Domenici
Ervin
Gravel
Hart
Hartke
Haskell
Hathaway
Nunn
Packwood
Pastore
Pearson
Pell
Percy
Proxmire
Ribicoff
Schweiker
Scott, Hugh
Scott,
William L.
Sparkman
Stafford
Stevenson
Symington
Talmadge
Tunney
Williams
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
A message from the House of Repre-
sentatives by Mr. Berry, one of its reading
clerks, announced that the House had
disagreed to the amendment o the Sen-
ate to the bill H.R. 11793) to reorganize
and consolidate certain functions of the
Federal Government in a new Federal
gnergy Administration in order to pro-
mote more efficient management of such
functions; agreed to the conference asked
by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of
the two Houses thereon, and that Mr.
HOLIFTELD, Mr. ROSENTHAL, Mr. Sr GER-
MAIN, MT. FUQUA, Mr. HORTON, Mr. ERLEN-
BORN, and Mr. WYDLER were appointed
managers on the part of the House at
the conference.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT
OF 1974
The Senate continued with the con-
sideration of the bill (S. 1541) to provide
for the reform of congressional proce-
dures with respect to the enactment of
fiscal measures; to provide ceilings on
Federal expenditures and the national
debt; to create a budget committee in
each House; to create a congressional
office of the budget, and for other
purposes.
Mr. SCHWEIKER. Mr. President,
some people seem to think Federal
Spending is about like death and taxes;
nobody likes it, but not much can be
done about it.
I reJect that. Not only can we do some-
thing about Federal spending, but if
we are going to preserve the economic
vitality of the United States, we must
do something about it. Federal spending
sets the pace for the rest of our econ-
omy?and as long as Federal spending
is out of control, our galloping inflation
Is going to continue out of control. We
simply cannot afford this any longer.
? During the first session of the 93d
Congress, I introduced S. 1213, the Fed-
eral Spending Control Act of 1973. I am
pleased that the legislation before us
today, S. 1541, has adopted the basic
features of my bill: A strict Federal
spending ceiling, tight controls on back-
door spending, and creation of a con-
gressional budget committee to impose
businesslike discipline over the entire
Federal spending process.
Back in 1972, I joined a majority of
my colleagues in both houses in fighting
for a $250 billion budget ceiling?and
such a ceiling finally passed both Houses
of Congress after a bitter fight. But it
was never enacted into law, because the
President and the Congress could not
? agree on where the cuts would be made.
Last year, when I introduced S. 1213, I
favored a spending ceiling substantially
less than the President's proposed budget
request for that year. So the issue is not
between the spenders in Congress and
the savers in the executive branch. Mr.
President, the issue is a battle of prior-
ities, a debate over how the same amount
of our tax dollars should be spent. I be-
lieve our constitutional form of Gov-
ernment requires that the representa-
tives of the people, in the House and the
Senate, make these crucial decisions. S.
1541 will finally give us the machinery
to do that, and I strongly support this
measure.
In closing, let me stress that S. 1541
Is only a first step. Reform of the Fed-
eral spending process must be coupled
with reform of the Federal taxing
process. It is high time we end the special
interest tax breaks, the "golden gim-
mick" which has encouraged the major
oil companies to raise world oil prices
by giving them a dollar for dollar tax
credit against U.S. income tax for for-
eign royalties paid, and the regressive
taxes imposed on our poor and elderly.
. S. 1541 is a strong first step, but I in-
tend to continue fighting for compre-
hensive tax reform, this session.
Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, I send
? to the desk an amendment and ask that
it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk proceeded to read
the amendment.
Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the further
reading of the amendment be dispensed
with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment ordered to be printed
in the RECORD is as follows:
On page 129, line 16, strike out "401(c)"
and insert in lieu thereof "401(c) (2) (A)
and (B)".
On page 129, strike out lines 17 through
19 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
"(2) with respect to any matter referred
to in section 401(d);".
On page 149, beginning with line 19, strike
out all through line 5 on page 151, and insert
the following:
(2) Report by Appropriations Commit-
tees.?Whenever any bill or resolution which
provides new advanced spending authority
described in subsection (c) (2) (C) is re-
ported by any committee of the Senate or
the House of Representatives, the Commit-
tee on Appropriations of that House may,
within 10 calendar days (not counting any
day on which that House is not in session)
beginning with the day following the day
on which it is so reported, submit a report
to its House setting forth its recommends-
tins with respect to the level of new ad-
vance spending authority provided by such
bill or resolution, such renort to be issued
as a separate reoort by the Committee on
Appropriations or to be included in the
report of the committee reporting such bill
or resolution. It shall not be in order in that
House to consider such bill or resolution
until the Committee on Appropriations of
that House has submitted the report required
by this paragraph or, if such Committee fails
to submit such ronort, until the expiration
of such 10-day ?s,"orl.
On page 158, strike out lines 16 through 20,
and insert the following:
"4. As provided in section 401(b) (2) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, reports on
new advance spending authority described
in section 401(c) (2) (C) of that Act."
On page 159, strike out lines 7 through 11,
and insert the following:
"(d) As provided in section 401(b) (2) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, re-
ports on new advance spending authority
described in section 401(c) (2) (C) of that
Act."
Mr. RIBIcOFF Mr President, this
amendment is a modified version of my
printed amendine-t No. 1044. My aniend-
ment in no way a ff-cts the discipline im-
posed by the bill. It relates only to the
jurisdictional question affecting certain
specific types of legisln tinn.
Mr. President, S. 1541 is designed to
promote fiscal responsibility by reform-
ing the budget nroc.ss so as to make it
reflect congreQvi nriorities. It will
establish a fram"worlr.. reflecting Con-
gressional priorities, which will provide
a discipline under which all congres-
sional action affecting, the budget can
be seen in an overall context.
I strongly Support S. 1541 for the .disci-
pline it creates and for the central role
it gives congressilna 1 decisionmaking.
As I have said, my amendment in no
way affects the di-Inipline imposed by the
bill. It relates only to a jurisdictional
question affecting, certain specific types
of legislation. The amendment would de-
lete the requirement that legislation af-
fecting certain programs be referred to
the Appropriations Committee, but in-
stead offers that committee an oppor-
tunity to report on this legislation before
the Senate acts on it.
Under S. 1541, legislation creating a
new entitlement to payments or increas-
ing existing entitlements must be re-
ferred to the Appropriations Committee
.for a period of 10 days after it is re-
ported by a substantive committee. This
requirement of referral to the APProrirl-
ations Committee would not affect exist-
ing trust fund programs but it would
apply to such programs as veterans' com-
pensation, veterans' pensions, veterans'
educational benefits, payments to needy,
aged, blind, and disabled persons, medi-
cal assistance to the needy, and food
stamps.
This additional referral to the Appro-
priations Committee was not requested
by that committee and it will occur at
a time when the Appropriations Com-
mitio.
tntee
will be fully occupied in attempt-
ing to process all appropriations legisla-
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
S 4094 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE March 21, 1974
Mr. President, it has been my experi-
ence that entitlement programs handled
by the Finance Committee often involve
complex legislation. Usually, this legis-
lation does not merely add dollar costs
to a program but instead reflects many
complicated changes in the law. The
value of our committee system in the
Senate is that it permits each committee
'to develop expertiae in the area it
handles. FOr example, major legislation
enacted in recent years has made dozens
of modifications in the programs of aid
to the aged and in medicaid, and these
changes have not merely represented
payment increases.
Furthermore, the rereferral in S. 3541
is required even when the substantive
corrunittee reports legislation whose
budgetary impact has been fully pro-
vided for in the congressional budget.
Since the bill creates a discipline for the
Congress, there is no need for :an addi-
tional step which adds nothing to that
discipline.
The Senate is, I am sure, aware of my
Interest in our programs for veterans. I
have always been concerned that when
we increase social security benefits, we
assure that veterans do not suffer a loss
in pension benefits. It has been the pat-
tern of the Congress to meet this prob-
lem by rewriting the veterans' pennion
provisions in the law. This is a matter
requiring careful work, and is not simply
a matter of adding additional funds to
the veterans' pension program.
My printed amendment in its orignal
form would have deleted the pf0eeSS of
referring certain legislation to the Ap-
propriations Committee. In its modified
form now pending, worked out with the
staff of the Senator from Maine, my
amendment will providelbe Appropria-
tions Committee an opportunity to re-
port on the legislation before it is con-
sidered by the full Senate.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. RIBICOFF. I yield.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I rise only to extend
my support to this very worthy amend-
ment. Many of us have been deeply con-
cerned about this subject matter, par-
ticularly when we get to the matter of
social security increases and what has
been the effect on some of the ol,her
pension rights our citizens, are entitled
to. We always depend on the Senator
from Connecticut to help us out on these
matters, and I extend my full support to
his amendment.
Mr. RIBICOFF. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, among the eceponsors
of this amendment are the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Finance
(Mr. Lome), the distinguished chairman
of the Committee on Labor and Public
Welfare (Mr. WiLLIAMS), the distin-
guished chairman of the Committee! on
Veterans' Affairs (Mr. HARTKE) , and the
distinguished chairinan of the Commit-
tee on Public Works (Mr. Retaroien),
who all feel that this is a most itnporta:at
amendment and should be adopted.
I ask tmaniraous consent that commu-
nications in support of this proposal
from the National Association of Con-
cerned Veterans, the American Legion,
the Disabled American Veterans, the
Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the
AMVETS be printed in the Recoil.%
There being no objection, the letters
were ordered to be printed in the REC-
ORD, as frallOWS:
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
CONCERNED VETERANS,
Washington, D.C., March. 20, 1974.
Hon. ABRAHAM A. Rancor,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR Seavaron Marco= : The Oongressioreil
Budget Act of 1974, S. 1541, provides many
sensible and much needed budget reforms.
However, the National Association of Con-
cerned Veterans strongly opposes section 401
of this measure.
Section 401 details a provision requiring
a number a veterans entitlement programs
to be re-referred to the Appropriations Com-
mittee for poseible imposition of spending
limits?before reaching the Senate floor.
Certain non-veterans' entitlement programs
are to be exempted from this re-referral
provision.
Aside from objecting to the obvious dis-
criminatory nature of section 401, NACV be-
lieves this re-referral provision to be un-
necessary. Other provisions a S. 1541 es-
tablish effective controls over veterans en-
titlement programs.
The NAM, formerly the National Associa-
tion of Collegiate Veterans, consists mainly
of young veterans currently training under
the GI BM, and many who receive disability
compensation.
The NACV fully endorses your amend-
ment to S. 1541 which would eliminate this
referral process,. We thank you for taking
such action, and urge Senate adoption of
your amendment.
'Respectfully yours,
JAMES M. MAYER, President,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Senator ABRAHAM RIBICOFF,
US. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
The American Legion supports your pro-
posed amendment to exempt veterans bene-
fits legislation from the re-referral provisions
of section 401 of S. 1501, the budget reform
bill now under consideration by the Senate.
We oppose that provision which would per-
mit the Appropriations Committee to limn
spending authority of any veterans entitle-
ment legislation referred to it. As you know.
veterans benefits including compensation.
pensions, educational assistance and medical
and hospital treatment represents only 4.4
percent of the toisal Federal budget not with-
standing a 21-percent increase in the Nations,
veterans population in recent years.
The American Legion believes that the cost
of veterans benefits is a delayed cost of war.
To subject the veterans entitlement pro-
gram to the re-referral provision a section
401 would not control back door spending
and would vest partial jurisdiction over vet-
erans legislation in another committee. To
single out the veterans benefit program for
re-referral is unnecessary and discriminatory
and would impede the progress of needed leg-
islation.
Your continued interest in protecting the
rights a veterans is deeply appreciated.
RIBALD STRINGER,
National Legislative Director, the Amer-
ican Legion.
DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS,
March 21, 1974.
ROM ABRAHAM A. RIBICOVF,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
Dealt Saistieron Marconi: The Disabled
American Veterans is greatly concerned over
the adverse affect that the re-referral pro-
visions of Section 401 of the Congressional
Budget Act (S. 1541) meld have upon the na-
tion's programs of veterans' benefits and
services.
We firmly believe that referral of Veterans'
entitlement legislation to the Oorcunittee on
Appropriations is unwarranted, and we
strongly support the amendment tliat you
will offer to delete this discriminatory sec-
trim from the bill.
Sincerely yours,
Cinternm L. Hume,
Narional Direstf.if of Legislation.
VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS
OP TDB CRITES, STATES,
Washington, C., March 21, 1974.
Hon. ABRAHAM RIBICOP1,.
LT 43. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENAIOR R/BICO Fr: The Veteeans of
Foreign Wars is extremely pleased that you
propose to offer an rus.enciment on Thurs-
day. March 21, to S. UK), the Congressional
Budget Act cc! 1974, whteln if approved, will
delete a highly discrimknatory provision re-
garding vetersns statutory and entitlement
programs.
I am referr Mg to the re-referral provision
for veterans entitlement legislation in S.
HAL A thorough analysis of this provision
leads to the conclusion that is is unwar-
realted and unnecessary and discriminates
against veterans pregrarns.
Because it is most important to the Veter-
ans of Foreign Ware, our Cormier:Hier-in-
Cele Ray Soden is sending a letter to each
al' your 99 colleagues urging ti-em tovote in
favor of your amendment to delete the re-
referral provision as 11 relates to veterans
programs.
You have the highest commendation for
your initiative and lerdership in bringing
this matter to the attention of your Senate
colleagues and senate 14ecept ance of your
amendment will be deeply apprecie,ted by
the more than 1.8 million members of the
Veterans of Foreign Wars,
A copy of Commander-in-C.hief Soderes
letter is enclosed.
With kind personal r31.ICITc1S, I am
Sincerely,
Ina As W. Bra VE,
, National 1.egislo live Service.
WASFE ENGTON, DC.
Senator VANCE HARTICRI
Capitol Hill, W'ashingion,
Amvets urges the adoption ce! Senator Rib-
icoff amendment to Senate bill 81541 as it
pertains to excluding veterans programs
from fixed budgetary anocatkan .
COM mender Bs Bei: Ayr, nsmeer,
National C am arrander Amvets.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the pro-
posed amendment or the distinguished
Senator from Connecticut has not yet
been cleared with all Senasors who are
Interested in the issue at this time, so
I wonder if it might not he helpful if
I took a few moments to explain why
this provision is in the bid, and what
purpose we hone the ..avised amendment
of the distinguished 3enater front Con-
necticut would serve. It t; a complex
issue to understand. This statement is
not intended as a d tea. thrust at the
Senator's amenchnent, but at the over-
all problem of entitlement tegislation.
REASONS WITT' ENTITTEMENTS MST BE =-
PORTED TO APPROPRIATIONS ,IODIMITTEE
:Entitleme:ats are easy to give but
virtually impossible to take away. They-
are the least controllable portion of the
Federal budget and the portion most
In need of reform. Unless Congress estab-
lishes a proeedure be bring them under
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
March 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE S 4095
effective control, the objective of budget
reform will be seriously_ compromised.
Entitlement authority exists when
Congress vests a person or Government
with certain benefits. An obligation to
pay the benefits is thus established in
advance of or without appropriation.
Often such entitlements are open-ended
with the actual amount of expenditure
determined by outside forces?such as
the size of the beneficiary population. In
these instances, the budget merely con-
tains an estimate (4 the amount that
will be required in the fiscal year to pay
the obligations. In recent years, the
budget has tended to underestimate the
benefits that will have to be paid with
the result that actual expenditures have
-exceeded the budgeted amounts.
Many entitlements are in the form of
permanent appropriations; that is, the
money becomes available without any
current action by Congress. Even when
an entitlement is funded through appro-
priations, Congress has no genuine con-
trol over the matter, for a legal or moral
obligation already exists.
Well over $100 billion in the 1975
budget takes the form of mandatory
entitlements which are uncontrollable
under current law. These entitlements
are the_ fastest growing portion of the
budget and they account in good part for
the mandatory year-to-year rise in Fed-
eral spending. Of the $30 billion escala-
tion in the 1975 budget, at least half of
the increase occurs in entitlement pro-
grams. This means that even before the
President or Congress makes a single
decision on 1975 programs and priorities,
they are faced with approximately $20
billion more in spending than in the
previous year.
The only point at which entitlements
can be controlled?the only point at
which Congress can make meaningful
decisions?is before the entitlement is
established. Afterwards it is too late, not
only for this year but for future years
as well. This is the reason why S. 1541
establishes a special procedure for the
consideration of entitlement legislation.
Under section 401, entitlement legisla-
tion would have to be referred to the Ap-
propriations Committee?under a 10-day
limit?from the committee of original
jurisdiction. Thus, when the matter
comes to the floor for determination,
Members would have the legislation as
reported by the authorizing committee as
? well as any amendments offered by the
Appropriations Committee. At this point,
the Senate would be in a position to
determine the extent to which it wishes
to establish an entitlement.
This procedure does not restrict in
any way, the ability of Congress to es-
tablish new or expanded entitlements.
Its sole intent is to relate entitlements
to the appropriations procees and there-
by to give Congress additional informa-
tion on the possible costs of the proposed
program as well as the opportunity to
consider KV alternatives which may be
put forward by the Appropriations Com-
mittee. 13ut once Congress has acted to
establish an entitlement, the program
would function in precisely the same
manner as it now does. The only change,
therefore, would be to give Congress more
information and more alternatives.
It bears mentioning that this proce-
dure stops short of the two-step pro-
cedure which is required of most
programs. Most programs must go
through both an authorizations process
and an appropriation in order for fund-
ing to be made available. Under S. 1541,
entitlement programs would only go
through the authorizations process, but
the Appropriations Committee would
have an opportunity to consider the
legislation prior to floor action.
Certain entitlement programs such as
veterans benefits and public assistance
go through the appropriations process
each year. But at this stage, the appro-
priation is a completely perfunctory ac-
tion for Congress must provide whatever
funds are required for the obligation. In
fact, if the appropriation does not suf-
fice to cover the obligation, Federal law
authorizes agencies to spend at a rate
which would compel 'a deficiency appro-
. priation. Consequently, the appropria-
tion of funds after an entitlement has
been established offers no opportunity
for spending control.
The argument has been made that
Congress does not require the new pro-
cedures for entitlements because they
would be effectively controlled by the
concurrent resolution on the budget.
That is, funds to be spent pursuant to en-
titlements would be allocated in the
budget resolution in the same manner as
all other Federal programs. Therefore,
why not place entitlements under the
discipline of the new congressional
budget process.
The trouble with this argument is that
It does not reckon with the character of
the budget process or with the peculiar
problem of entitlements. The budget
resolution in its present form functions
as a target?not as a limitation on ex-
penditures. Whatever virtue a target has
for regular expenditures, it is not apt to
be as effective for backdoor entitlements.
The reason is that the congressional
resolution on the budget will address
spending for the ensuing fiscal year
whereas an entitlement relates to future
fiscal years, not only to the one covered
by the budget. It is an appealing practice
for Congress to establish entitlements in
a way that imposes no additional cost on
the current budget but mandates higher
costs in future years. If this were done,
the entitlement legislation might be
within the target set in the budget reso-
lution, but it would create an uncon-
trollable expense for future years. When
the future year to which the entitlement
applies comes, it would take effect auto-
matically without any action by Congress
and allocations would have rto be made
for it in the budget resolution.
In sum, the budget resolution relates
only tot he next fiscal year, while entitle-
ments impose costs for many future years
and often impose them permanently. It
is erroneous therefore to look to the
budget resolution for additional control
over entitlements. As I have indicated,
control can be achieved only before the
fact in a manner that gives Congress
full discretion and full information. For
this purpose, the referral procedure
spelled out in S. 1541 is both a balanced
and equitable way of weighing the costs
and benefits of entitlement legislation.
Let me say something about that pro-
vision and then I will comment on the
Senator's modified amendment.
The rereferral process provided in the
pending legislation is designed to do just
what I have described. It does not create
new substantive jurisdiction with respect
to entitlement legislation in the Appro-
priations Committee. It does not deprive
present committees of any of their en-
titlement authorization. All it does is to
provide that any entitlement legislation
shall be referred to the Appropriations
Committee for 10 days and only for the
purpose of making whatever recommen-
dations in the form of amendments or
otherwise the Appropriation Committee
believes is consistent with the overall
budget objectives of Congress and the
Government. The Appropriations Com-
mittee cannot change the legislation. The
Appropriations Committee amendments
will be sent to the floor for separate con-
sideration as amendments to the legisla-
tion. The entitlement legislation will go
to the floor in the form which it took re-
ported from the authorization commit-
tee. So the purpose of this provision in
the bill is to provide to the Senate and
to the House additional information as
to the impact on the budget of the en-
titlement authorization on the overall
appropriations so that the Senate can
take it into account before establishing
the entitlement.
I think that that is the full extent
of the committee provision. I think that
the modified amendment presented by
the distinguished Senator from Connec-
ticut (Mr. R/BICOFF) achieves the same
objective or is designed to achieve the
same objective. It is designed to make
available to the Senate the same infor-
mation that would be made available
under the referral process established in
the committee bill. It would be designed
to give the Appropriations Committee
the same opportunity, 10 days, to de-
velop recommendations with respect to
that entitlement legislation either in the
form of amendments or purely in the
form of information and recommenda-
tions.
So I think that both versions would
serve those two purposes. The differ-
ence between the two is the fact that
under the committee provision, the Ap-
propriations Committee would consider
the bill in a form of referral, for what-
ever difference that makes.
So far as I am concerned, the prin-
cipal impact of that change is to de-
prive the proponents of a change in the
argument that somehow the committee
bill changes the jurisdiction of the au-
thorization committee and the juris-
diction of the Appropirations Committee.
I do not believe it does. I do not believe
it was intended to do so. So I can go
along with the modified Ribicoff amend-
ment to that extent.
May I say to the Senator that all in-
terested Senators have not yet had a
full opportunity to consider the amend-
ment. The distinguished manager of the
bill on the Republican side is one.,I, do not
-
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
8 4096 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENA TE March 21, 1974
know what he is going to- say about, the
amendment, but I think, at this point,
it is appropriate that he have an oppor-
tunity to state what is on his mind.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I thank my
distinguished colleague. I only with I had
been able to give him an instant reaction,
but the amendment is such a profound
one, and there were several forms. I com-
mend the distinguished Senator from
Connecticut for modifying it from the
form in which we originally saw it, to
bring it a little closer in line, bui; I am
still troubled with ie.
The principal reason I am troubled
with it is that it may run counter to the
representations the Senator from Mimes
made to members of the Appropriations
Committee. I can well recall the colloquy
in which I engaged with my beloved col-
league from the State of Washington
(Mr. Mamsusoie). He took a position one
night on the floor of the Senate that
there ia a possibilit,y the budget reform
bill covild detract from or undercut the
power,? influence, and ability of the Ap-
propriations Committee to control ex-
penditures. They have exercised as best
they could the power they had to restrain
Federal spending and keep us a respon-
sible body and not participate in what we
have been seeing for the past 5 3rears,
regrettably, I muse say, of $100 billion
being added to the Federal debt. Yet the
Appropriations Committee, in a sense,
has been powerless because, as the little
series of charts placed on every Senator's
desk shows, chart 3, for instance, shows
signals a trouble in the present system.
The first point I wanted to make vera
clear is that 75 pereent of the budget is
relatively uncontrollable.
Why, Mr. President, you tell that to
businessmen, you tell that to the lob-
byists around here who think they know
a great deal about the Government, and
? they are absolutely astounded. Yet, those
are the facts. ,
When I came to the Senate in 1967,
I was flabbergasted to find that we really
did not have a control. At that time, it
was 63 percent that was uncontrollable.
The trend has been steadily upwards.
I imagine that we will get to the point,
If we keep going as we are, when we will
be as pure as Ivory aoap, 99 and 44,400ths
percent pure?uncontrollable; and we
will have the remainder coming down
here debating aboat it. But that is not
the way to run our fiscal affairs.
The second problem is that only 44
percent of the budget is subject to the
appropriations process. 56 percent by-
passes the Appropriations Committee. I
said that night on the floor, because I
was thinking in terms of the way we had
been carrying on our deliberations, that
this bill would strengthen the Appro-
priations Committee because tehat it
would Mean is that a great deal of all
this ba,ekdoor spending, particularly the
entitlements, would now be referred to
the Appropriations Committee.
The amendment does give some ad-
ditional authority and control to the Ap-
propriations Committee than otherwise
because what it does say is that we shall
have a period of 10 days to stop, look,
and listen, and before that entitlement
bill can come to the floor, or before ac-
tion can be taken. The Appropriations
Committee would be given 10 days to
look at it and then issue a report.
That might sotmd very good except all
of us know how we operate. There is a
vast difference?a subtle difference--but
a vast difference between being able to
issue a report, either a separate report or
language in the report of another com-
mittee, and being able to offer a com-
mittee amendment. Under the bill, the
Appropriations Committee would have
the legislation before it for 10 days and
would then send it to the floor with an
amendment that says. "We cannot see
how, once this spending limit has been
established, this entitlement program
can go forward and you can stay con-
sistent. We recommend, therefore, that
it be cut back 20 percent, 10 percent, 5
percent, 1 percent--or 50 percent." That
then gives the Appropriations Committee
a chance really to deal with the legisla-
tion, write a report of its own, attach it
to the legislation, rather than having it
incorporated..
There are certain programs that the
Senator from Illinois very much favors.
I must recognize the fact that when we
tighten the procedures to make it more
difficult, it may be that a bill the Senator
from Illinois is most interested in seeing
kind of slip through a little easier is the
one that will be cut. But I really believe
that we need a discipline. We must give
to the Appropriations Committee the au-
thority necessary to make its imprint on
this, and remind us of where we are
going.
I have not made a definitive decision
because, as :t have told the distinguished
Senator from Maine, I have just barely
read the modified amendment, but me,
tendency is teg oppose it, although I cer-
tainly wish to keep my mind open until
I have heard all the possbile arguments
In its favor. But my tendency right now
would be ea oppose the amendment.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, will the Sen-
ator from Minois yield for a question?
Mr. PERCY. I yield.
Mr. NUNN: As the Senator from
Georgia understands the present pro-
posal, it would really, in effect, remove
from the Appropriations Committee the
review, with the power to amend and
to make a report. Is that the understand-
ing of the Senator from Illinois on this
amendment?
Mr. PERCY. That is correct.
Mr. NUNN. Does the amendment fur-
ther provide that the action on any en-
titlement which follows a concurrent
resolution, which we feel would take
place somewhere around June the 1st,
that the entitlement legislation tmder
the proposed Ribicoff amendment would
take place during the sumer months of
June, July, and August, when all the
other appropriations bills are being con-
sidered? Is that the Senator's under-
standing of the Ribicoff amendment?
Mr. PERCY. The Senator from Georgia
is correct.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, a further
question. Ts it the Senator's understand-
ing of the present legislation, S. 1541 as it
emerged, that entitlement legislation
could begin to be considered before June
1, if the Appropriations Committee had
the 10 days and did the review, thereby
not compacting all the entitlement leg-
islation and the apprepriation legisla-
tion in a brief period of 3 months?
Mr. PERCY. The Senator, from Geor-
gia has once again demonstrated his pro-
found knowledge and understanding of
the legislation. That is correct.
Mr. NUNN. It is not likely that what is
going to happen, as we will have such a
logjam in June, July, and August that
there will be tremendous pressure to re-
move only the little teeny-weeny re-
straint left on entitlement legislation,
and further that there would be tre-
mendous pressure to remove the eon-
straint that it has to follow the concur-
rent resolution, aud that thereby there
will be tremendous pressure to go back to
where the entitlement legislation has no
control? .
Mr. PERCY. Th it is generally correct,
because we would have to consider all
spending -bills anc. entitlements.
Mr. NUNN. And it would be virtually
impossible, given the practicality to con-
sider all the apprepriation measures in
June, July, and August, and at the same
time have all the E ntitlexnent legislation,
We are proposing !I practical inapossibil-
ity kr the Sense to perform if we ac-
cept this amendment.
Mr. PERCY. I suppose it could not be
said that it would be absolutely impos-
sible. Anything i possible. But it is
highly improbable and extraordinarily
difficult.
Mr. NUNN. I wi 1 amend my "possibil-
ity" to say that it is highly u:alikely, as
the Senaeor has said.
I thank the Sent or.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. Pres:ident, will
the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. PERCY. I yield.
Mr. MAGNUSON. When the Senator
speaks of 10 days.. is he speaking of
legislative days?
Mr. PERCY. Yes; that is correct.
Mr. MCCLELLAN. When the Senate
Is in session.
Mr. MAGNUSON. It might be at a
time when the Appropriations Commit-
tee is not there.
Mr. PERCY. The distinguished Sena-
tor from Connecticut has provided for
10 legislative working days.
The ]?RESIDINTG OFFICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. R:LBICOFF I yield to the distin-
guished Senator from California.
Mi. CRANSTON Mr. President, in re-
gard to this anienchnent, I first want
to thank the many people on all sides of
this matter for their efforts to try to
work something out that could be ac-
cepted by all conierned. We have made
progress in that direction, whether or
not it is entirely ironed out and agreed
to yet.
Great work h:ae been done by the two
committees and by others ea working
out the proposed legislation and by all
the many, many ,Caff members who did
magnificent work when they were work-
ing with Senator BYRD on this matter.
If there is a problem?as has been
indicated by the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Nog's) ?about the logjam between
June 1 and when the next step comes
in early August, :mder this new budget
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/27_: CIA-RDF'751300380R00060008004-9-00
March 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
process, I think that really has more
to do with the calendar setup in the
reported bill as it applies to all legisla-
tion. We all want to see effective controls
brought to bear on spending by this
budget act. The question here is on a
discriminatory and unnecessary aspect
of one item in the bill.
In regard to the workload question,
27 bills that relate to so-called back
door spending have been considered dur-
ing the past 2 years. Eleven were trust
fund bills exempted here; sixteen were
new entitlement bills of the sort we are
now discussing.
In regard to the figures given by the
distinguished Senator from Illinois, who
was concerned about uncontrollable ex-
penditures amounting to 75 percent of
the total budget, the actual point in re-
gard to this amendment is that we are
only talking about $5 billion in the few
entitlements covered at present levels of
spending. The other--so-called uncon-
trollables of huge amounts?are not af-
fected by this amendment, and they are
not brought under the controls that we
are talking about here.
Mr. President, I also want to thank
Senator Risicdrr for assuming leader-
ship on this matter and the other Sena-
tors with whom I personally discussed
the need for a modification in the pro-
vision, as reported from the Rules Com-
mittee, requiring that certain hew en-
titlement authorization legislation be
rereferred to the Appropriation. Com-
mittee for 10 days. I refer to the distin-
guished committee chairmen of the
Committee on Finance (Mr. LONG) , the
Committee on Public Works (Mr. RAN-
DOLPH) , the Committee on Labor and
Public Welfare (Mr. WILLIAMS) , and the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs (Mr.
HARTKE) , the Senators STAFFORD, TAFT,
McGovERN, and MONDALE.
Mr. President, S. 1541, the Congres-
sional Budget Act of 1974, is designed to
provide the mechanism and procedures
for Congress to establish its own annual
Federal budget and to consider, spend-
ing revenue sharing, and debt limit leg-
islation in the context of the budget. The
bill, as reported from the Rules Com-
mittee, required that a special?and in
our view unnecessary and discrimina-
tory?burden be imposed upon certain
entitlement legislation, principally vet-
erans' benefits legislation?compensa-
tion, veterans' survivors benefits, GI bill
benefits, pensions, housing grants, and
burial benefits, supplemental security in-
come to the aged, blind, and disabled,
medical and family assistance to the
needy, black lung benefits, and food
stamps.
This additional impediment would not
'be imposed on '75 percent of the ex-
penditures arising from so-called entitle-
ment laws since all trust funds?includ-
ing approximately $86.5 billion in social
security and unemployment compensa-
tion expenditures--revenue sharing, and
advance -contract authority are not cov-
ered by the re-referral process in the
reported bill.
Mr. President, despite the fact that
under the reported bill all Federal ex-
penditures will be considered in the
context of the overall budgetary proc-
00,
ess?both initially with the adoption of
the first concurrent resolution and fi-
nally with the adoption of the second
concurrent resolution to reconcile all
prior congressional legislative and ap-
propriations actions?S. 1541 singles out
those types of legislation I discussed
above for special and, we believe, dis-
criminatory treatment by requiring their
re-referral to the Appropriations Com-
mittee for 10 days after being reported
by the substantive committee, and by
giving the Appropriations Committee
authority to amend the bill by placing
overall spending limits on it. The bill
also requires that any floor amendment
approved by the Senate regarding an
entitlement matter not considered in the
bill as reported must again be referred
to the Appropriations Committee for 10
more days, but not, I should add, to the
authorizing committee.
Our original amendment would delete
entirely this duplicative procedure under
which the authorizing committee would
have had the burden of overturning an
Appropriations Committee spending limit
amendment if it disagreed with it. We
believe that the authorizing committees
are the most conversant with and,
therefore, the most competent to under-
stand the many complex principles in-
volved in the entitlement legislation in-
volved here.
In a cursory 10-day period?especially
before the principles and policies to be
imposed by the first concurrent resolu-
tion have been established?the Appro-
priations Committee hould hardly have
time to carefully analyze the impact
or all the bill's provisions and thus
might act precipitously in a manner
which might upset the balance that the
authorizing committee had worked long
and hard to achieve.
Moreover, Mr. President, this duplica-
tive and discriminatory rereferral
procedure would apply to such legisla-
tion even when the authorizing commit-
tee reported legislation of which the
budgetary impact had been fully pro-
vided for in the congressional budget
contained in the first concurrent resolu-
tion.
Again, I want to stress that those of
us who support this amendment in no
way intend to remove any entitlement
legislation from the full purview of the
new budgetary process which the re-
ported bill would establish. Rather, we
have confidence in that prooss and
believe it should be appliM even-
handedly to all types of legislation.
Finally, the rereferral provision could
create problems in restricting the Sen-
ate's ability to act in a crucial situation,
particularly in some areas under the
jurisdiction of the Finance Committee
where the Senate may act to amend a
House-passed bill, very often on a tight
deadline. Requiring a 10-day rereferral
for certain floor amendments affecting
entitlement programs, as proposed in the
reported bill, might also have the unfor-
tiMate effect of restricting the rights of
Senators to offer floor amendments.
In sum, anyone who would char-
acterize our amendment as somehow
weakening the budgetary process pro-
posed in the bill is in reality saying that
They have little confidence in that proc-
ess under which, before any new entitle-
ment legislation would be permitted to
become effective, action would be re-
quired on six separate occasions com-
bined in the House and Senate without
any rereferral process.
Our original amendment No. 1044
would simply have eliminated this un-
necessary re-referral process and pro-
vided that floor action on these entitle-
ment measures could not take place un-
til after the first concurrent resolution is
adopted on June 1 each year. Let me
stress that this step is actually a tighten-
ing of the budget control process as to
these entitlement programs although
preserving the jurisdiction of the Veter-
ans' Affairs Committee, the -Labor and
Public Welfare Committee, the Finance
Committee, and other authorizing com-
mittees.
In regard to the amendment before us,
let me say, first, that I am delighted that
this bill provides for control over uncon-
trollables through the Budget Committee,
through the budget process, that we do
not have presently. We need that control
over so-called uncontrollables, but we do
not need the additional, dilatory review
process that is proposed in the bill, where
the Appropriations Committee would en-
ter the act by the referral process.
The amendment as we have modified
it does provide full opportunity for the
Appropriations Committee, with its great
weight, to make a recommendation in a
report, before action will ensue on the
sort of legislation that at the moment is
presently not controlled. Tinder our re-
vised amendment, there would be a full
opportunity for the Appropriations Com-
mittee to render a report if it wished to
move over under our amendment as mod-
ified, we would retain our program of not
permitting entitlement bills to be taken
up on the floor until after the concurrent
resolution has been adopted. Finally, it
would eliminate the ridiculous provision
to refer floor amendments on entitle-
ments back to the Appropriations Com-
mittee.
The amendment would remove a re-
striction on the Senate's ability to act
with swiftness.
In regard to the veterans aspect of this
matter, I point out that the historical
record reveals that the veterans' benefits
have not been a traditional budgetary
problem. In recent years, 6 million Viet-
nam era veterans have joined our coun-
try's veteran population. We have had
added expenses occasioned by that war.
These include compensation payments
for 385,000 men wounded in Vietnam and
survivor benefits for some 49,000 widows
of men who have died of service-con-
nected causes.
Almost 3 million Vietnam era service-
men have received educational assistance
benefits.
Yet, despite the cost of these programs
and a 21-percent increase in the Nation's
veteran population, the veterans' portion
of the budget?let me stress this?is no
greater today than it was 4 years ago;
and despite Vietnam, it Is less than it
was 10 years ago. It seems to be quite
obvious that veterans' benefits are not
the source of our budgetary problems j
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
?
S4
proved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE March 21, 1974
and should not be singled out for unnec-
essary controls which are considered
discriminatory in the present way they
are in the bill by veterans, older citizens,
disabled persons, and their spokesmen.
The following veterans organizations
strongly support this amendment: the
American Legion, the Veterans of For-
eign Wars, the Disabled - Veterans, Am-
vets, and the National Association of
Concerned Veterans.
Rather plainly, we are considering a
cost of war that must be paid.
Let me stress again that there is al-
ready an adequate review through the
new budget process that is a new re-
straint on this form of so-called back
door spending.
For these reasons, I believe the
arriendment is very important, and I urge
its support.
I congratulate the Senator from Con-
necticut (Mr. Rrencoer) for the able way
he has handled the matter and has
presented it.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield for a question?
Mr. CRANSTON. I an delighted to
yield.
Mr. NUNN. First, the Senator from
Georgia would like to say that he com-
pletely agrees with and endorses every-
thing the Senator from California has
said about veterans, and if they were in
fact singled out here, we would have a
different question.
Is the Senator aware that the projec-
tions in the 1975 budget of the President
shoe that between 1975 and 1979, the so-
called entitlement outlays, if they con-
tinue along this trend, will increase by
$58 billion and reach a total of -$227 bil-
lion; that by 1979, the so-called entitle-
ment legislation will be 58 percent of the
total outlays of this country?
Mr. CRANSTON. I am well aware of
those figures, but those are not the fig-
ures we are talking about here.
The Senator includes social security
benefits, which are not covered; revenue
sharing contract matters, numerous ex-
empted trust funds, retirement benefits,
and other matters not covered by the
provision for referral to the Committee
on Appropriations that we have under
discussion here. In the bill as reported,
the only entitlements subjected to this
process are veterans benefits, SSI bene-
fits that relate to senior and disabled cit-
izens and, health care for the poor and
other benefits totaling last year only
$5 billion out of the $13 billion in lemon-
trolla,bles.
The Senator from Illinois is correct
when he said that 75 percent of the
budget is uncontrollable, but we are not
talking about that. We are talking about
$5 billion and that is only 38 percent of
the uncontrollables added last year.
Mr. NUNN. According to all projec-
tions, the growth trend will take place
between 1975 and 1979. Is; the Senator
aware that under this bill exempting so-
cial security it includes black lung, school
lunches, disaster relief, air traffic con-
troller requirements, CSC retirement,
food stamp programs, Federal employees
pay raises, school lunch amendments.
unemployment benefits, Federal health
employee insurance, welfare-medicaid
amendments-411 of that ia ineluded?
Mr. CRANSTON. No, all of that is not
Included. The Senator is reading a num-
ber of trust funds, retirement funds and
many other programs that are self-fi-
nancing.
Mr. NUNN. I have another amendment
on trust funds. The Senator identified
the largest loophole in the bill. The Sen-
ator from Georgia is going to identify
that area.
Mr. CRANSTON. Will the Senator do
that and talk to that issue, then, when
It is relevant?
Mr. NUNN. It is relevant to this dis-
cussion because these are two loopholes
that can render ineffective a lot of action
that has taken place in the last year and
a half in budget reform. This amend-
ment plugs the loophole already in the
bill which says that the trust fund is ex-
empted if 30 percent is self-financing,
and is relevant to this discussion because
we have exempted from this bill 70 per-
cent funding out of the general fund for
any program that comes along, in the
form of an extension on a trust fund
which is already in existence, of which
there are about 75.
I think the two loopholes should be
discussed as one because they are inter-
related.
If the so-called trust fund exemption
remains like it is, it is going to con-
tinue to cause a lot of problems. To some
extent if the trust fund exemption is
left like it is, the amendment of the
Senator from California will make the
loophole larger.
Mr. CRANSTON. It may be somewhat
relevant to our general discussion, but
not to this amendment. The railroad
retirement and other programs will not
be affected be' the decision made by the
Senate on this amendment. The Social
Security Act and all those other acts
come under the budget process, and if
the committee recommends more than
the Senate wants to approve, in the
course of the new full budget process it
can make reductions. That Is a new step
and a good step. That process should
be applied to all the entitlements uni-
formly.
But if we do not think the procedures
in the Congressional Budget Act are ef-
fective, we should admit it.
I am amazed that some of the chief
sponsors of S. 1541 have so little faith
in the process they set forth in this
committee report that they believe it
necessary to add an additional step to a
small $thillion portion of the so-called
uncontrollables. If they think one step
is so important why have they not ap-
plied it to all uncontrollables?
Mr. PERCY. My comments may have
been somewhat ambiguous before but I
would like to clarify the fact that I shall
vote "nay" on this amendment. I do so
because I feel there is adequate provision
in the bill; if Congress wishes to act it
can act. The Committee on Appropria-
tions sends this legislation back to the
floor with an indication that there should
be a 10-percent cut because it exceeds
the spending limit provided for in the
concurrent resolution. Congress by ma-
jority vote can Override that, but it does
so with the clear understanding that the
Committee on Appropriations felt it
would exceed those spending limits and if
we continue to do that on this entitle-
ment or another one, we are going to bust
the spending limit that nas been estab-
lished and we would not be accomplish-
ing our overall puepose.
So there is no way Congress is going to
be acting in such a. way it cannot and will
not be able to e:epress its will, should it
desire to do so.
Also, of course, as has been made very
clear in the committee report, and I refer
to pages 36 and 57? it is clearly indicated
that:
The Appropriatiorz Committees are given
Jurisdiction to report any bill or resolution
providing entitlement authority which has
been refezred to such committees (as de-
scribed above) with an amendment Which
limits the total amnia of entitlement au-
thority contained tberein. The Appropria-
tions Committees wifuld not be authorized
under this procedure to report amendments
in any way dealing with the substance of the
legislation, even if some substantive change
would clearly be needed to meet the spending
/imitation on the program which the Appro-
priations committees amendment provides.
The Rules Committee, which I believe
wrote this section, recognized that en-
titlement legislation is complex and is
not amenable to control through the
appropriation process. Under the terms
of the legislation:
Actual outlays in any given year can not be
known with certainty in advance. Should
Congress decide, for budgetary reasons, to
limit the potential obligation under new en-
titlement legislation to a figure less, than the
legislation as reported would provide. it will
express that decision by adopting a limiting
amendment, at the time of consideration of
the basic legislation. Such limitation may be
at the level provided in the limiting amend-
ment repor ted by the Appropriations Com-
mittee, if any, or at nay other level Congress
may select.
I wish to make just one or two other
points. Removing entitlements from Ap-
propriations Committee oversight would
result in discriminatory treatment for
entitlements as opposed to backdoors like
contract authority and borrowing au-
thority. Under the bill, new contract au-
thority, new borrowing authority, and
new trust funds which have a contribu-
tion from general revenues greater than
10 percent, must come under Appropria-
tions Committee oversight.
Obviously, I am fearful if this amend-
ment is adopted, there may be offered
between now and 2 o clock tomorrow cer-
tain other amendments for further ex-
emptions.
In the Rules Committee, the treatment
for entitlements was changed to take
account of the special nature of entitle-
ment programs. The re-referral provision
of the present bill already provides spe-
cial treatment for entitlements. Only
entitlements have the special provision
for only a 10-day re-referral to appro-
priations, and a specific proviso that
appropriations- can only make recom-
mendations about the total of funding
that would :result from the bill.
In actual practice. the Appropriations
Committee could send the legislation, if
it exceeded the limit, to the floor with
a suggestion or request that it be cut by
a certain percentage. More probably, it
'would send :it back to the original com-
mittee with that recommendation and
let the committee itself work its will In
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/2_7_. CIA-RDE751EN0380R000600080002-699
March 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECuku
whatever way it could to come under the
ceiling, or develop its argument for a new
concurrent resolution or new spending
limit if its Members felt that the com-
pulsion was so great that they would
have to exceed that spending limit.
Finally, control of backdoors through Ap-
propriations Committee review has been one
of the central principles of budget reform
called for by budget experts including espe-
cially the Joint Study Committee on Budget
Control.
If we exclude this particular feature
from the bill and say, "Well, we are going
to try to control spending, all except en-
titlements," then we are going to have
direct authority over spending eroded be-
fore we get started. We are going to have
an erosion of the very principle we have
been trying to work for.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. PERCY. I yield.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Entitlements in past
laws have provided that moneys shall be
paid to certain people if they become en-
titled under the law. There are many
cases where there are estimates, but the
Appropriations Committee has to handle
that. Estimates are made as to how many
people rnight be eligible. Appropriations
usually goes along with the estimates.
Sometimes they are way off.
Certain laws, such as the veterans'
laws, make it absolutely mandatory that
payment be made.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time
of the Senator has expired.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I yield my-
self 10 minutes on the bill itself.
Mr. MAGNUSON. The estimate as to
Veterans benefits? is pretty close to what
It should be. It has never been very far
off. I have never known the Appropria-
tions Committee not to appropriate the
money.
I want to make an observation. I am
not critical, but no one who is involved in
this bill is serving on the Appropriations
Committee that I can see. I am going
to vote for the bill, but we have to achieve
a balance. When we get to yearly appro-
priations for entitlements, which must be
paid, they are nearly impossible to move
up and down, any way the committee
wants. I just wanted to point out that
It is not possible for the Appropriations
Committee to adjust appropriations for
entitlements after they are law.
I hope the Senator will excuse me. I
just wanted to make that observation.
Mr. PERCY. Of course, I would like
to make a small technical correction. The
Senator from Arkansas (Mr. McCLEL-
LAN), obviously, is on the Government
Operations Committee and has worked
on this legislation and serves as chair-
man of the Appropriations Committee
and served on the joint study committee,
as did a considerable number of distin-
guished members of the Appropriations
Committee who made these very rec-
ommendations to us. ?
Of course, the Senator from Wash-
ington would not forget the fact that
the qenator from Illinois served on his
own appropriations subcommittee while
the Senator from Illinois served on the
Appropriations Committee, and it was
during that period of service that the
Senator from Illinois became disturbed
and concerned at the amount of expendi-
tures that were going on that were not
really under the control of the Appro-
priations Committee.
I would say the comments the Senator
from Washington has made relating to
entitlements have helped in the colloguy
and helped in a better understanding of
the situation. There are programs relat-
ing to public assistance, veterans'
benefits and others?very often the
most highly complex and time-consum-
ing legislation?that involve entitle-
ments.
Just looking at the last 2 years, Con-
gress has considered 27 measures of the
entitlement variety, 16 in 1972 and 11 in
1973.
The logjam the Senator from Georgia
referred to makes it increasingly obvious
that legislation would be required to
come on the floor between the period
June 1 and the first weekend in August.
I would just like to close my ,comments
with a quotation from the President's
budget, on page 38, where it says that
if we are concerned about the trend
now or what is happening now and the
lack of control, just take a look into the
future and see where we are actually
going.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Perhaps we ought to
do what we did on revenue sharing. We
Passed the bill and appropriated the
money at the same time. Nobody had
anything more to do with it. The lobby-
ists for revenue sharing were in the gal-
leries applauding.
Mr. PERCY. Against the Senate rules.
Mr. MAGNUSON. There was a time
when the legislative committees of the
Congress authorized and appropriated at
the same time. Maybe we can simplify
this whole matter by going back to that
system?I do not know?but we did it for
revenue sharing.
Mr. PERCY. But there is not any ques-
tion that local officials from the mayor
of Cairo, Ill., to Mayor Daley, of Chicago,
Ill, would want revenue sharing to be
continued in the same manner, if it came
up for a vote today.
Mr. MAGNUSON. We may have to go
back to that.
Mr. PERCY. As I indicated, I should
like to close my colloquy with a quota-
tion from the President's budget looking
ahead as to the effects of Federal spend-
ing:
Federal spending has shifted markedly in
the past twenty years?and with particular
abruptness in the last five years?away from
direct Federal purchases of goods and serv-
ices, for such programs as defense and space,
and toward direct Federal payments to in-
^ dividuals and aid to state and local govern-
ments. From 1959 to 1973, payments to in-
dividuals and aid to state and local govern-
ments have almost doubled as a percentage
of total outlays, and increased five-fold in
dollar terms.
The present outlook indicates that (such
payments) under existing programs will grow
to about 58% of total outlays by 1979. Be-
tween 1975 and 1979 these outlays will in-
crease by $58 billion and reach a total of
$227 billion.
It is very difficult to say that we
are the captain of our own ship and
that we are going to manage our own
affairs, when much of the money that
passes through Congress, passes without
going through the Appropriations Corn-
mate. It passes without that committee
having a chance to take a look at it and
at least report the legislation to the
floor of the Senate with good, firm rec-
ommendations. Therefore, I would be
greatly concerned if this amendment
were adopted. I think it is of such im-
portance that we should have the yeas
and nays.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Connecticut yield?
Mr. RIBICOFF. I am pleased to yield
to the distinguished Senator from
Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. I should like to put a
question to the distinguished Senator
from Connecticut; but before doing so,
I should like to make one or two obser-
vations.
First of all, neither the committee
provision nor the amendment of the
Senator from Connecticut is going to
meet the problem described by the Sena-
tor from Illinois.
Mr. RIBICOFF. The Senator is cor-
rect.
Mr. MUSKIE. So it is not a, choice be-
tween the amendment offered by the
Senator from Connecticut and some type
of overall measure. What we are consid-
ering here is a choice between the pro-
vision in the bill and the amendment of
the Senator from Connecticut. It is to
that that I think we should focus our
attention. It is to this, too, that I should
like to put a question to the Senator
from Connecicut.
Mr. RIBICOFF. I shall be pleased to
try to answer the Senator's question.
Mr. MUSKIE. First of all, the rerefer-
ral provision of the bill would place the
bill in the physical possession of the Ap-
propriations Committee.
Mr. RIBICOFF. That is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. As I understand the
amendment of the Senator from Con-
necticut, the Appropriations Committee
would also have physical possession of
the entitlement provision for the same
purpose.
Mr. RIBICOFF. Under the bill, the
Appropriations Committee could amend
the bill. Under my amendment, they
could not amend the bill but could report
back to the Senate, and could offer an
amendment on the floor of the Senate to
be considered by the entire Senate.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator from Con-
necticut and I disagree on the effects of
sending the bill back. The Appropria-
tions Committee could not amend the
bill.
Mr. RIBICOFF. That is correct; but
they could have 10 days to make their
recommendations.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am trying to identify
the similarities, if we can identify them.
I may say to the Senator that, as I un-
derstand the committee bill, it is re-
referred to the committee.
Mr. RIBICOFF. It is re-referred to the
Committee on Appropriatitons; that is
correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. The committee can rec-
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
S 4Mproved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP751300380R000600080002-0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE March 21, 1974
ommend amendments, make any other
recommendations, or submit a report to
the Senate.
Mr. RIBICOFF. That is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. Under the Senator's
amendment again, the Appropriations
Committee could take possession of the
bill, consider amendments, recommend
them to the floor of the Senate, and make
such other recommendations as it may
wish.
Mr. IRIBICOFF. It is not actually
physically sent to the Appropriations
Committee, but they are assured 10 days
in which, to report.
Mr. MUSKLE. The point I am --ialsing
Is that, like any other Senator who is
not a member of the Appropriations
Committee, members of the Appropria-
tions Committee could get copies of the
bill, consider it, and' make amendments.
We are construing situations that do not
exist.
Mr. RIBICOFF. I think the Senator is
making the point very well.
Mr. MUSKIE. The whole argurne:at re-
lates to the word "rereferral," because
there are those who are concerned about
veterans legislation and the jurisd:ction
of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, who
say that the word "rereferral" means
that the bill gives the Appropriations
Committee substantive jurisdiction over
a bill which is now considered in the Vet-
erans' Affairs Committee. I did not be-
lieve that when We supported that pro-
vision, and I do not believe it now. X do
not believe the committee version
changes jurisdiction with respect to vet-
erans legislation one iota. If I thought
it did, I would not have supported the
rereferral provision in the first instance.
The only effect of the committee pro-
vision is to give the Appropriations Com-
mittee 10 days to look at the bill and
make such recommendations as it may
choose to make to the Senate. That is
all that is involved in the committee bill;
that is all that is involved in the Sen-
ator'a modified amendment. So if those
provisions provide 10 days, then the Ap-
propriations Committee can get the bill,
develop whatever recommendations it
chooses, and submit them to the Senate.
I think that to describe either thing in
different terms would be a disservice to
an understanding of what this amend-
ment provides. -
So all we are debating is the word "re-
referral," and making an argument about
the conditions which have been woven
around the word "rereferral." I think it
is a distinction without a difference.
So far as I am concerned, that is a
rereferral, and I can disabuse those -who
have an interest in the legislation. I am
all for striking the word "rereferral."
I think all we have done is to clothe
the word "rereferral." We have retained
the right of the Appropriations Com-
mittee to look at any entitlement pro-
vision, retained the right of the Appro-
priations Committee to look at any
amendment, retained the right of the
Appropriations Committee to report an
amendment to the floor of the Senate.
The elimination of. the word "re-
referral" may be the kind of subtle
change that the Senator from Illinois
projects, but I do not see that fearful
result. I think the difference between the
two, as I have stated, is a distinction
without a difference.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I should like
to ask the Senator a question on this
particular point.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I get from the Sen-
ator from Connecticut a response to the
question which took me a little time to
develop?
Mr. RIBICOFF. I think the Senator is
correct, but the word "rereferral" be-
comes very imperrtant so far as the vet-
erans of the country are concerned. The
difficulty that arose was when the com-
mittee exempted the trust funds, the
social security funds, from the procedure.
The veterans became horrified, thinking
that their compensation from pensions
and other benefits would be placed in a
different category and treated differently
than social security. I think we will all
find that, historically, we have tried to
keep veterans benefits in tandem with
changes in the social security law.
The Veterans' Affairs Committee has
always worked with the other committees
to make sure that there was not an
imbalance. Suddenly the veterans see in
this bill a danger they will face. They
want to place the veterans benefits on-the
same basis as social security benefits.
Am I stating the situation accurately?
Mr. CRANSTON. The Senator from
Connecticut is stating exactly what is in-
volved in this matter. I am delighted that
the distinguished Senator from Maine
has taken part in the discussion, and
made the point about what we are talk-
ing about and what we are not talking
about with this amendment.
The Senator has gotten us right down
to the meat of the matter.
I would like to stress one other point
while I have the floor. I would like to
make the point that this amendment
actually tightens the controls, rather
than reducing controls over these entitle-
ments. I believe the amendment in its
present form?and I thank the Senator
for narrowing down the discussion to
what we are really talking about and ex-
cluding what we are not talking about?
actually provides for more control than
we would have without amendment. The
amendment provides that we can only
consider these entitlements after June 1,
when we know what the total budget
picture?expenditures and revenues pro-
posed?will be.
Otherwise we could have had a situa-
tion where the Appropriations Commit-
tee would have considered the matter,
the Budget Committee would have con-
sidered the matter, the Senate and the
House of Representatives would have
passed the bill, and it would have been
enacted into law before we knew 'what
the total budgetary picture was under the
first concurrent resolution, and we might
thereafter have found we had made a
mistake, when it would have been, in
practical fact, too late.
Under this amendment, when we can-
not consider the entitlements until after
June 1, the Appropriations Committee
Will have is voice, the Budget Committee
will know all the factors, and Congress
will know all the factors. We will then
have an oppollunity for better control
under this timetable than ender the
original bill.
Mr. MITSME. The Senator is correct.
I doubt that many Senators have had a
chance to read this amendment, so on
this point, let me read the provision of
the amendment.
In the ilrst place, I emphasize the point
that entitlement legislation cannot be
brought to the floor until after the first
concurrent resolution is adopted. Under
the committee bill, entitlement legisla-
tion could come up before that time, and
the only ecourse hen would be under
the rereferral process under the bill.
Mr. CRANSTON The Senator is cor-
rect.
Mr. MUSKIE. Secondly, the amend-
ment says this:
The Committee on Appropriations of that
House?
meaning whichever }louse is in-
volved?
may, within 10 c.aleriiar days?
That is, legislative days--
beginning with the day following the day on
which it is so reported, submit a report to
its House setting forth its recommendations
with respecS to the leyel of the new advance.
spending authority provided by such bill or
resolution.
Then there is this sentence:
It shall not be in order in that House to
consider such bill or resolution until the
Committee -pii Appropriation-3 of that House
has submitted the rrport required. by this
paragraph or, if such Committee fails to sub-
mit such report, until the expiration of such
10-day period.
I think there is a Toile safeguard here
of the prerogatives of the Appropriations
Committee, I think there is ample safe-
guard in the language for the right of
the Senate to have all information and
all alternatives before it, before,it votes
on new entitlement legislation.
Mr. RIBICOFF. That is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. Arid that is precisely the
objective of the provision in the commit-
tee bill.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, who has the
floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Connecticut has the floor.
Mr. NUNN. Will the Senator yield for
a question?
Mr. RIBICOFF. I yield.
Mr. NUNN. The Senator from Georgia
is under the impression that this amend-
ment, although I am sure that the author
is aiming it teavard the veteran---
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time
of the Senator from Connecticut has ex-
pired. All time on the amendment has
expired.
1Vir.NUNN. Will the Senator yield time
on the bill- for one question!"
Mr. MUSKIE. flow much time would
the Senator like?
Mr. NUNN. I think about 4 minutes
would be enough.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield the Senator 5
minutes.
Mr. NUNN. The Senator from Georgia
Is in Sympathy with she case which the
Senator from Connecticut has made re-
garding veterans and social security. I
wonder if the Senator would modify his
amendment to apply only to veterans,
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/27: CIA-RDP751300380R00060008000g-b0.
March 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
thus avoiding a loophole here that the
Senator from Georgia believes would ap-
ply to nonexempt trusts. I am under the
impression that nonexempt trusts in
most cases, in fact in 95 percent of the
cases, are entitlements, and if that is so,
we have at least 60 or '70, or perhaps 100
nonexempt trusts which will come under
this amendment.
If the Senator would confine his
amendment to veterans, which is ob-
viously the Senator's main wish, I be-
lieve we could reach some agreement
here.
Mr. RIBICOFF. May I say to the Sen-
ator from Georgia that he is also talking
about payments to needy aged, blind,
and disabled persons. I do not feel per-
sonally that I want to exclude that cate-
gory of people, nor medical assistance for
the needy and food stamps. We are talk-
ing, really, of the most needy segments of
our population, and I believe it is impor-
tant to place them in a situation where
their needs are taken care of and placed
In the same category of social security
recipients.
Mr. NUNN. Suppose we included all
those groups, but confined it to those
groups, instead of having broad entitle-
ments. I am in sympathy with that. Sup-
pose we take in them, as well as veterans,
and try to restrict it to that.
The Senator from California and the
Senator from Conneeticut have been
talking about veterans, veterans, vet-
erans. The Senator from Georgia agrees
with them on that. But what the Senator
has done, as I read his amendment, is
make a loophole that is large enough for
all bills in the future which will in any
way be debated, or when their author
thinks they will be hard to pass, he will
seek to put them under the term entitle-
ment legislation or under the term of an
exempt trust, and we can see, as I said
a while ago, that we could have '70 per-
cent of the general funds going into
trusts that will still be exempt, and that
would come under the term entitlement
legislation if they are not exempt. So I
am asking if the Senator will confine his
legislation to the specific categories the
Senator from California and the Senator
from Connecticut aim to help.
Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, may I
say that the programs I listed in my
earlier statement?veterans' pensions,
veterans' compensation, veterans' educa-
tional payments, medical assistance to
the needy, aid to the aged, the blind, the
disabled, and food stamps?those are the
categories I have in mind. There may be
others, but they do not come to mind
right at this moment.
Mr. NUNN. There are a good many
others. I do not think it is fair to present
this amendment as one to assist veterans
only, when it includes other broad
categories.
Mr. RIBICOFF. May I say that in my
opening statement I named the other
categories besides veterans. I do not want
this body, however, to receive the im-
pression that this applies only to veter-
ans. Veterans are perhaps the largest
category, but there are the additional
categories I have named.
Mr. NUNN. Is the Senator willing to
limit his amendment in any way, then,
or does he want to include all entitle-
ments, including nonexempt trusts, of
which I am informed there are many?
Mr. RIBICOFF. May I ask the Senator,
if I limited the entitlements to those I
have named, would the distinguished
Senator then support my amendment?
Mr. NUNN. I would joint in supporting
it, if the Senator from Connecticut would
limit it so that we would not be creating
a loophole of unknown dimensions here,
such that no one would know what we
are talking about. I would join with the
distinguished Senator in urging the
adoption of his amendment.
Mr. RIBICOFF. How would the Sena-
tor from Maine feel about that?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 5
minutes of the Senator from Georgia has
expired. Who yields time?
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I suggest
the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On whose
time? The Chair inquires of the Senator
from Illinois, on whose time?
Mr. PERCY. Can the time be equally
divided?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. BY unani-
mous consent.
Mr. RIBICOFF. May I say to the dis-
tinguished Senator from Georgia that I
stand on the amendment as it is.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I withdraw
my request for the quorum.
Mr. NUNN. How can we vote on an
amendment when no one knows how
broad it is?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I yield my-
self 5 minutes on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from North Carolina is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I wonder
whether there is any difference between
the original bill and the amendment. I
invite the attention of the Senate to page
149, which reads:
Whenever any bill or resolution which pro-
vides new advance spending authority de-
scribed in subsection (c) (2) (C) is reported
by any committee of the Senate or the House
of Representatives, such bill or resolution
shall then be referred to the Committee on
Appropriations of that House with instruc-
tions to report it, viith the committee's rec-
ommendations, within ten calendar days (not
counting any day on which that House is not
In session) beginning with the day following
the day on which it is so referred.
There is a line in that provision on
which I stated yesterday in response to a
question put to me by the distinguished
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. STENNIS) .
that I was of the opinion the original bill
did not give the Senate Appropriations
Committee any authority to make
changes in the substantive provisions of
the bill as it was reported by the commit-
tee having the jurisdiction.
On the bottom of page 150 of the bill,
and the top of the page 151, it reads as
follows:
The Committee on Appropriations of each
House shall have jurisdiction to report any
bill or resolution referred to it under para-
graph (2) with an amendment which limits
the total amount of new advance spending
authority provided in such bill or resolution.
My interpretation of the provisions of
the bill was that the only amendment
the Senate Appropriations Committee
could make or suggest was one limiting
the total amount as contradicting
changing any specific provision as to
who was entitled to the benefits of the
bill.
So I wonder whether there is any sub-
stantial difference between the original
bill and the amendment of the Senator
from Connecticut.
Mr. RIBICOFF. This is what the Sen-
ator from Maine and I, in our colloquy,
felt we had arrived at in order to clarify
the rnatter in trying to work this out.
We believe that we had come to a com-
promise that did not really wrench the
basic purpose of the Government Opera-
tions and the Rules Committees in for-
mulating this legislation.
MUSKIE. That is correct, I say to
the Senator, and this approach was one
that I suggested this morning.
Mr. ERVIN. The next question goes to
the question of re-referral.
Mr. RIBICOFF. That is another case
of a possible interpretation that the Ap-
propriations Committee, under these cir-
cumstances, could actually amend the
bill. What the Senator from Maine and
I were trying to work out is the result
that the distinguished chairman of the
committee believes is in the bill. There
was a question of ambiguity. I believe'
that this is what the Senator from
Maine and I tried to work out in the
amendment to my amendment.
Mr. ERVIN. In other words, the Sena-
tor from Connecticut feels that the
amendment is necessary to remove the
ambiguity.
Mr. RIBICOFF. That is correct.
Mr. ERVIN. That it might be suscepti-
ble to interpretation different from the
specific provision that has nothing to do
with this one.
Mr. RIBICOFF. I believe that is so.
That is what we attempted to work out
with the Senator from Maine as 'a
compromise.
Mr. ERVIN. Under the amendment,
the Appropriations Committee, or the
referral of the bill to it, v uld have re-
tained authority to make recommenda-
tions as to changes in the substantive
provisions as to who is entitled to the
benefits of this particular bill as st forth
in the original bill. The amendment of
the Senator from Connecticut would re-
move any ambiguity on that point.
Mr. RIBICOFF. That is correct. They
could not actually amend the bill, but
they could make recommendations in
their report.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. Presidszt, will the
Senator from North Carolina yield for
a question?
Mr. ERVIN. I yield.
Mr. NUNN. Does not the Senator from
North Carolina realize that under the
proposed amendment, the Appropria-
tions Committee would not have to make
a report, that there is simply permissive
language saying that they may make a
report; yet the bill itsCf. makes it man-
datory that the Appropriations Commit-
tee make a report on the issues. So that
we have gone from mandatory to per-
missive.
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
S 4102 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE
Mr. ERVIN. That eles not make much
change because they can recommend
that no changes be made. We would not
disable any individual Senator who dis-
agreed with the bill as reported by the
committee having jurisdiction from pro-
posing any amendments.
Mr. NUNN. What if a Sceator had a
report but did not know what the entitle-
ment would do?
Mr. 211,VIN. He would be in the same
fix if you have a mandatory provision
saying they shall make recommenda-
tions, as the recommendation that there
should be no change.
Mr. NUNN. Except they would have to
have a report.
Mr. CRANSTON, Mr. President, if I
may interject there, under the bill, if the
Appropriations Committee did not report
in 10 days, it would be discharged. There
is no requirement that it report.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I yield my-
self 3 minutes, one of which I would be
happy to yield to the proponents. I think
I can summarize quickly my ftim convic-
tion that the amendment should be re-
jected.
First, if there is no substantial differ-
ence between the committee language
and the amendment, I see no real rea-
son, then, to change the language that
has carefully been reviewed by the Gov-
ernment Operations and the Rules Com-
mittees. The more the proponents cf the
amendment talk about the narrow dif-
ferences, the more I realize that there is
no real reason to change at all.
Second, the Senator from Maine used
the word "rereferral." I find no mention
of rereferral as it relates to the action
provided for in this amendment.
On page 159 of the bill, at the bottom.
it simply indicates that the bill shall be
referred to the Committee on Appropria-
tions. Well, it may not have been there
ever. So, it is not reref erred.
On page 151, at the top of the page,
the bill provides that the Appropria-
tions Committee can only make or offer
an amendment which limits the total
amount of new advance spending author-
ity described in subsection (c) (a) (A) or
(B) or any amendment which provides
such new advance spending authority.
So I very vigorously oppose the amend-
ment as I Would oppose any amendment
that would compound the problem faced
by Congress at the end of the session
after we have passed a second concur-
rent resolution or a third or a fourth and
then we come down to the end of the line
and have a reconciliation tell which puts
us up against the situation where we have
to roll back many of the eimenditures
already authorized and approved.
I feel that we should fade the issue
earlier and give the Appropriations Com-
mittee a chance to study the bill, send the
bill back to the floor of the Senate, or
send the bill to the authorizing commit-
tee, showing the impact that that bill
and the entitlements provided would
have on the spending limits we have al-
ready agreed to, and do this as we go
along, rather than pass them all over
and face the music when the reconcilia-
tion bill comes through and handle it
like supplemental appropriations and
throw up our hands at the last Minute,
and raise the ceiling, and have to study
the effect on the spending limits each
and every time we break through some
targeted point.
For all these reasons, I oppose the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
HATHAWAY). The question is on agreeing
to the amendment of the Senator from
Connecticut.
On this question the yeas and nays
have been ordered and the clerk will call
the roll.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, let me
take some time on the bill. May / say the
Senator from Arkansas (Mr. McCLEL-
LAN), asked earlier this afternoon for an
opportunity to engage in colloquy. So I
would hope that we could do that at this
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. How
much time does the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Whatever time the Sen-
ator from Arkansas desires.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I am very sorry that
I had to leave the Chamber a while ago
and have not been able to hear all the -
colloquy and discussion on this subject.
What I was 1,rying to find out was the
difference between the bill and the
amendment of the Senator from Con-
necticut
Maybe this will clarify it. The bill as
I understand it would refer backdoor
spending bills, contract authority loans,
and entitlement bills such as veterans
Pensions, black lung, and so forth, to the
Appropriations Committee, and the com-
mittee would have 10 days to report back
its recommendations and/or with an
amendment to limit such spending. Is
that a correct interpretation of the bill?
Mr. MUSEIE. It is correct only as to
entitlements. There is a different provi-
sion with respect to contract authority
and borrowing Which would also come to
the Appropriations Committee, but not
under the provision to which the Senator
is referring.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Tell me the differ-
ence between the amendment and the
bill, in a succinct manner. What is the
difference? We have the amendment to
vote on.
Mr. MUSKIE. The provision in the bill
would provide?just as the Senator has
described it?that the entitlement legis-
lation, whether it occurred prior to June
1 or after?Jane 1 being the day when
the first concurrent resolution must be
enacted?would be referred to the Ap-
propriations Committee for 10 days for
amendment or such recommendations as
the committee may recommend for the
purpose of limiting the spending which
would be mandated by the entitlement
authority.
Under the amendment of the Senator
from Connecticut the bill as it comes out
of the authorizing committee cannot go
to the floor until the Appropriations
Committee has had 10 days to consider
it and to make recommendations to the
floor with respect to it.
Mr. McCLELLAN. What is the differ-
ence between making recommendations
and offering an amendment?
Mr. =SIMI The difference is the eli-
mination of the formal rereferral pro-
cess.
larch 21, 1974
Mr. McCLELLAN. How would it be be-
fore the Appropriations Committee if it
was not referred to the committee?
Mr. MUSKIE. It would have been re-
ported out of the authorization commit-
tee. The Appropriations Committee
would be required, under this proposal, to
take cognizance of it and to consider it
in any way it wished. X have argued all
afternoon that all ?,ve have been arguing
about is a, semanti difference.'
The rereferral ;irovision has raised
questions on the part oi many people,
Senators as well as others, that what the
bill does is change the jurisdiction of the
authorizing committee and the Appro-
priations Committee with respect to such
entitlement legislation, that it creates an
ambiguity that is a threat to programs
in which they are interested. Because I
believe that the bill before the Senate is
designed only-to give the Appropriations
Committee a chance to loek at it and to
evaluate its implications, I was willing to
go along with the amendment. I do not
think that the referral language of the
bill was intended in any way to change
jurisdiction.
All the amendment does is to eliminate
that doubt. The responsibilities in the
Appropriations Committee would be the
same under either proposal. That is my
view.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I think I under-
stand. There is not enough difference; it
,s only a matter of semantics.
Let me ask another question: Does
anyone believe that the Appropriations
Committee can act responsibly within
10 days on a bill that propose; multi-
bi lion- dolla r spendirg?
Mr. MUSKIE. X think that is a legiti-
mate question, but the 10-day period aP-
piels to both proposals.
Mr. 1VIcCLFMAN. I understand. I ask
this: Does anyone think that the Ap-
propriations Committee can act respon-
sibly?do the evaluation and make a
report in 10 days on a big spending bin
that is reported by a committee?
In the first place, the committee is not
yet staffed to do it. Second, It would have
to have a staff of experts?a limited
staff, at least?for this purpose.
I am just, pointing out that it seems
to me there is going to be an overall
budget committee; and if any committee
Is going to be staffed to do it under this
bill, it would be that budget committee
and the committee that is being set up
in the bill, the Congressional Onice of
the Budget.
A responsibility is being placed on the
Appropriations Committee which it is
not capable of performing under the
present circumstances. It 'makes no dif-
ference to me whether this is done one
way or the other. The consequences are
going to be the same. It is a burden, an
impossible task in that, limited time, with
the staff the committee now has. The
committee is not equieped to do it.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator, as chair-
man of the Apppropriations Committee,
knows a great deal more about the ca-
pability of the Appropriations Coimnit-
tee than I do. But let me make a couple
of observations.
Mr. McCLELLAN. We can make a
guess in 10 days.
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP751300380R000600080002-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000500080002-0
March 21, 1971; CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 4103
Mr. MUSKIE. In the first place, I have
made it clear that the committees did
not intended to change the jurisdiction
with respect to the substance of entitle-
ment legislation. The referral to the Ap-
propriations Committee was simply to
get the Appropriations Committee's
judgment on the budget impact, not on
the deatils, the substantive details, of the
legislation.
The second point I would make is that
the Congressional Office of the Budget
would be available to the Appropriations
Committee in the same way that it would
be to the budget committees, to make
those kinds of analyses and to present
to the budget committee the figures.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Who would have
jurisdiction of this?
Mr. MUSKIE. This would give the Ap-
propriations Committee an opportunity,
and indeed a duty under this bill, to give
the Senate the benefit of its judgment
as to the budget impact.
Mr. McCLELLAN But we do not have
jurisdiction over the budget staff that
is being set up. We have no jurisdiction
over it.
Mr. MUSKIE. The language of the bill
makes the Congressional Office of the
Budget available to every committee.
Mr. McCLELLAN. It is available. We
can call on them, yes. But we cannot di-
rect them to get on to this and do it. In
other words, we can direct our staff to
get on something and give it immediate
attention.
Mr. MUSKIE. Obviously, the Appro-
priations Committee and the Finance
Committee, which are also given respon-
sibilities under this legislation, should
have sufficient authority to utilize the
COB.
Mr. McCLELLAN. say this to the
Senator, and I say this now so that we
may be on notice as to what we are
doing: If the Appropriations Committee
Is charged with this responsibility, it
should have under its immediate con-
trol some staff that is competent in this
field. It cannot be said that "you have
to do it." All we can do under the cir-
cumstances, in my judgment, under the
proposed legislation, is that when it is
sent to us, we will send it back.
Mr. MUSKIE. I agree with the
Senator.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I want to make clear
that there would be a responsibility on
the Appropriations Committee that is
impossible for it to perform at present.
Mr. MUSKIE. I say to the Senator that
is not the intent of the proposed legisla-
tion. If we have not implemented that
adequately in the bill, we will do so before
we finish work on the bill.
I cannot agree more with the Senator
that those kinds of frustrations should
not be imposed on the committee.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I yield my-
self 2 minutes in order to comment on
the remarks of the distinguished chair-
man of the Appropriations Committee.
I refer the Senator from Arkansas to
page 68 of the bill, which covers the
provision as reported by the Govern-
ment Operations Committee. This. ob-
viously would have provided more time
for the Appropriations Committee to
have operated and did not contain the
10-day limitation. That WM placed an it
as a result of ?revisit= that were incor-
porated in the bill bx the Committee on
Rules and Administration.
The reason why the Senator 'from Illi-
nois opposes the amendment i$ ttukt there
Is indeed a difference between the Appro-
priations Committee simply being asked
to make a report and literally having the
legislation before it and being able to
send the legislation back to the author-
izing committee, or sending it to the
floor with an amendment. There is a
distinct difference. The difference has
been minimized on the floor. I think
there is a difference, and for that reason
I prefer staying with the committee
version.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. PERCY. I am happy to yield.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Without it being re-
ferred to the committee, the committee
has no official jurisdiction over it. On this
theory, any bill that comes out here that
provides for spending, we would auto-
matically have to take judicial notice and
try to act on it.
Mr. PERCY. I think the Senator has
put his finger right on the point. That is
a big difference.
Mr. MUSKIE. I would like to comment
on that. Talking about minimizing a dif-
ference, there is such a thing as maxim-
izing a difference.
I wish to read from the Ribicoff
amendment. It states:
The Committee on Appropriations of that
House may within 10 calendar days (not
counting any day on which the House is not
In session) beginning with the day following
the day on which it is so reported, submit a
report to its House setting forth its recom-
mendation.
This amendment -confers jurisdiction
and responsibility upon the Committee
on Appropriations. The language is really
to maximize a difference. The language
speaks for itself.
Mr. McCLELLAN. It states "may."
Mr. MUSKIE. It states "may." The
Senator just said he is not sure he has
the staff resources.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I do not think I
have.
Mr. MUSKIE. The "may" is to be exer-
cised by the Senator.
Mr. McCLELLAN. As pointed out, all
we can do is send it back to you.
Mr. MUSKIE. On the question of
whether this language imposes a respon-
sibility on the Appropriations Commit-
tee. It is the intention of this bill to make
the Congressional Offices of the Budget
available to every committee, and espe-
cially those committees which are sub-
ject to the procedure requirements of the
bill, and that includes the Appropria-
tions Committee. If there is any doubt
about the provisions of the bill in that re-
gard, we will certainly clarify it.
So I say to the Senator whatever max-
imization of differences we get, this
amendment, if adopted, imposes a re-
sponsibility on the Appropriations Com-
mittee. More than that, this bill Intends
to provide the staff of the Appropriations
Committee sufficient to meet this and all
other responsibilities, just as it does to
the Finance Committee and the Budget
Committee.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield briefly so that I may make
an observation for the Senator from
Arkansas?
Mr. MUST-T1. I yield.
Mr. NUNN. I think the Senator from
Arkansas was not here when we pointed
out in colloquy one certain difference
that is important for the Senator's judg-
ment. The bill as written would allow
entitlement legislation to be considered
at any point in the year provided it
complied with the sending of the entitle-
ment legislation to the Appropriations
Committee. The amendment would re-
quire it be done after June 1. The sig-
nificance is that entitlement legislation
will have to be considered by the Appro-
priations Committee and the Senate dur-
ing the same 3-months period when all
appropriation bills have been considered.
I made the point that the result may
well be that entitlement legislation will
bring sufficient pressure that it will be
removed from all restraints and we will
be right back at this point.
Mr. BROCK. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. PERCY. I yield.
Mr. BROCK. I wish to follow up on the
point of the Senator from Georgia. It is
Important to note to the Senator from
Georgia that the Committee on Govern-
ment Operations reported this bill vir-
tually unanimously with a section which
gave jurisdiction over entitlement leg-
islation to the Appropriations Commit-
tee. There was no referral or any ques-
tion about it. Jurisdiction was placed in
the Appropriations Committee because
this section of our budget is the one seg-
ment that is totally out of control. We
are talking about 58 percent of the total
budget by 1979. Somebody has to watch
it, somebody in whom this body reposes
confidence and trust. We placed that
responsibility with the Appropriations
Committee. That was stricken by the
'Committee on Rules and Administration.
Then, it was simply referred for 10 days
and the Committee on Appropriations
was given the staff with the direction to
bring in the figure as it affects the budget,
but they were allowed to offer amend-
ments so far as the total funding level.
Now, we have even stricken that oppor-
tunity for oversight and review from the
authority of the Committee on Appropri-
ations.
It may very well be you have been
given a label without any substance to
it and you are being put in a position of
being criticized for not doing something
you would not be able to do. I think that
Is the effect of the amendment, whether
we overmaximize it or not. The fact is
when we get back to the end of the year
and all of these entitlements have been
increased over the concurrent resolution
passed in June the Appropriations Com-
mittee is going to bet hit with a situa-
tion where Congress has passed entitle-
ments that violate the ceiling, unless we
cut back on specific programs; and the
Appropriations Committee is going to be
burdened with having to cut back on the
legislative programs to encompass the
increase over which it had no jurisdic-
tion. That is what is wrong with the
amendment.
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
S 4104 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE licoch 21, 1974
Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Maine yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. CRANSTON. The Senator from
Tennessee speaks of 58 percent. We are
talking principally about two entitle-
ments: veterans and certain of their en-
titlements, and senior citizens and dis-
abled persons, for a total of $5 billion.
We are not talking about all or even most
entitlements. Most, and by far most of
the dollars, are not affected by this
amendment.
Mr. BROCK. The Senator from Geor-
gia asked the Senator from Connecticut
to list them and he said he would limit
it to those two.
Mr. NUNN. The Senator from Georgia
has already accepted those two.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President--
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, may we
have order? The Senate is not in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ate will be in order. The Senator's time
has expired.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I yield my-
self 2 minutes. I am happy to yield 1
minute to the Senator from California.
The PRESIDING OFFICE:FL The
Senator from California is recognized.
Mr, CRANSTON. Mr. President, the
other point I wish to make is for those
Senators who have come to the Chamber.
A new and better control is; proposed by
this amendment because it requires that
entitlements cannot be acted on by the
Senate or House until June 1; until that
time the Budget Committee, the Ap-
propriations Committee, arid the entire
Congress cannot know the entire situa-
tion on overall revenues and expendi-
tures. Prior to that time, you deal with
it only in a fragmentary way in the Ap-
propriations Committee and the Budget
Committee, without those (ximmittees or
the Congress knowing the total :picture.
This is a far better eituation, and this
amendment would add a responsibility to
the Appropriations Committee which it
does not have now. Now, the Appropria-
tions Committee has no voice at all in
entitlements of any sort.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, in the re-
maining moment I wish to respo:nd to the
Senator from Arkansas with respect to
the inadequacy of the staff of the Com-
mittee on Appropriations to deal in such
a short time frame with these problems.
This point was brought up by the
Senator from West Virginia f Mr. ROBERT
C. BYRD). I would like to ask him if it
is his intention to offer RD amendment
which will change the duties and func-
tions under section 202 -of the bill so that
there will be a dual relationship and
responsibility between the Director of the
Congressional Office of the Budget and
the Committee on Appropriations, as
well as the Committee on the Budget, so
that whenever a load is imposed on the
Committee on Appropriations the Staff
would be available to help analyze, ap-
praise, and provide sufficient information
so that a decision could be made within
the time frame.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Such lan-
guage has been prepared.
Mr. PERCY. The Senator from Illinois
would be most supportive of it,
Mr. President, service on the Com-
mittee on. Appropriations ha s convinced
me that many times the staff is Made-
tante for the job and the responsibilities
we have, and this would place at the dis-
posal of every committee and every Sen-
ator a group of professional people corn-
parable in 15tature and quality to the Of-
fice of Management and Budget, which
the Congress now lacks.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield for just a brief
observation?
Mr. PERCY. I am happy to.
Mr. McCLELLAN. We have a marvel-
ous Appropriations Committee staff, but
it is a housekeeping staff; it is not a pro-
fessional staff that would normally be
prepared to immediately make an anal-
ysis and report back intelligently to the
Senate on an issue like this.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I would like
to have about 2 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield 2
minutes to the Senator from North Caro-
lina.
Mr. ERVIN. I would like to say that
I agree with the Senator from Tennessee,
There was no reason why entitlement
legislation should not be subjected to two
committees, just as we do now generally
with the authorizing committee and the
Appropriations Committee. That is why,
I believe, the bill reported unanimously
from the Government Operations Com-
mittee provided for that on page 88. Un-
der that provision, the Appropriations
Committee could make amendments. It
seems to me we are arguing here the
difference between tweedledum and
tweedledee, as to whether one should
support the bill as it was revised by the
Committee on Rules and Administration
or the Government Operations Commit-
tee version. I think it comes to the same
thing. I do not know which way I am
going to vote when it comes to a vote,
but personally I would like to go back to
the Government Operations Committee
version on this and have two committees
look at the matter before we saddle the
American people with billions of dollars
of additional obligations; but neither the
amendment nor the bill pending before
us will accomplish that purpose.
I thank the Senator for yielding.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time
on the amendment having expired, the
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Connecticut
(Mr. RII3IC'OFF) . The yeas and nays have
been ordered, and the clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. RO:BERT C. BYFtD. I announce
that the Senator from Missouri (Mr.
Eaer..zeor), the Senator from Arkansas
(Mr. FULBRIGHT) , the Senator from Lou-
isiana (Mr. Loses), the Senator from
West Virginia (Mr. :RANDOLPH) , the Sen-
ator from Indiana (Mr. HARTKE) , the
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KEN-
NEDY ) , the Senator from Ohio (Mr. MET-
ZENBA1734) and the Senator from Mis-
souri (Mr. SYMINGTON) are necessarily
absent.
On this vote, the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) is paired with
the Senator from Ohio (Mr. METZEN-
BAUM) .
If present and voting, the Senator
from West Virginia would vote "yea" and
the Senator from ChM would vote "nay."
Mr. GRateriN. I announce that the
Senator from Oregon (Mr. HATFIELD) , the
Senator .from North Dakota (Mr. Youste
are absent on al( business
I also announce that the Senator from
Vermont (Mr. AIN), is absent because
of illness in the family.
I further announce I,hat the Senator
from Colorado (Mr. DonerNrcx), the Sen-
ator froin Arizona (Mr. GOLDWATER) , the
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. THUR-
MOND ) a re necessarily thsent.,
On this vote, ak Senator from Oregon
(Mr. HATFIELD) 1 paired with the Sena-
tor from South Carolina (Mr. Tune-
worm) .
If present and voting, the Senator from
Oregon would vote "nay," and the Sena-
tor from South Carolina would vote
"yea."
The result wa3 announced?yeas 31,
nays 55, as follows:
Abourezk
Bayh
Bentsen
Bible
Brooke
Case
Church
Clark
Cranston
Ervin
Gravel
Allen
Baker
Bartlett
Beall
Bellmon
Bennett
Biden
Brock
Buckley
Burdick
plc. 81 Leg.]
YEAS-81
Hs.rt
Het he way
HudilestOn
Hughes
Humphrey
Jack on
Javits
Magnuson
McClovern
Mor dale
Mos 3
N
Don ten ici
East land
Fannin
Fong
Griffin
Gurney
Han sen
Has mll
Helms
Holl trigs
Byrd, Hru 3ka
Harry P., Jr. Inouye
Byrd, Robert C. Joh: iston
Cannon Mansfield
Chiles Mat hies
Cook McClellan
Cotton McClure
Curtis McGee
Dote McIntyre
Aiken
Dominic
Eagleton
Fulbright
Goldwater
Mt: skie
Ne son
Pell
Ribicoff
Sparkman
Ststfford
Taft
icker
Williams
Nis tcalf
Mc ntoya
Nunn
Pa ckwood
Pastore
Pearson
Percy
Proxmire
Roth
Schweiker
Scott, Hugh
ScOtt,
William L.
Stennis
Stevens
Stevenson
Talmadge
Tower
Tunney
Nur VOTING-14
Her ace
Hat field
Ker.nedy
Lon g
Metzenbawn
Rs.ndolph
Symington
Thurmond
Young
So Mr. RIM( OFF'S amenchnent was
rejected.
Mr. GRateeeN Mr. President, I move
to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment PISS rejected.
Mr. PERCY. I move to lay That motior
on the table.
The motion ts lay on the table was
agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Wh(
yields time?
Mr. ,JAVITS. Mr. President, will thf
Senato:T from Illinois yield me 5 minute
on the bill?
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I yield t
minute .3 to the Senator from New York
Mr. ZAVITS. Mr. President, I hope no
to take 5 minutest.
First, I should like to invita the atten
tion of the mar agars of the bill. I as
unanimous consent that when whateve
other amendments on which unanimot
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
Approved
March 21, 1974
For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP751300380R000600080002-0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 4105
consent has been granted have been com-
pleted?I understand the last amend-
ment is by the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
TAFT)?I may be recognized to submit an
amendment for myself, the Senator from
Minnesota (Mr. HUMPHRSY),. the Sena-
tor from Florida (Mr. Onnzs) , the Sen-
ator from Maine (Mr. Musxiz) , the Sen-
ator from Louisiana (Mr. jonNsToN) , the
Senator from Utah (Mr. Moss) , and the
Senator from Minnesota (Mr. MoNainz)
which is a slight variance from amend-
ment No. 1047, about which I have al-
ready conferred with the floor managers
of the bill.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
reserving the right to object, I should like
to ask the Senator from Illinois if I may
proceed with a request which will place
in sequence the amendments that have
not yet been called up.
Mr. PERCY. I yield.
Mr. JAVITS. Of course.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that following
the disposition of the amendment by Mr.
ROTH, the Senator from Mississippi (Mr.
STENNIS) be recognized to call up his
amendment; that on the disposition of
his amendment, the Senator from Ohio
(Mr. TAFT) be recognized to call up his
amendment; that upon the disposition
of his amendment, the Senator from
New York (Mr. Savrrs) be recognized to
call up an amendment; that upon the
disposition of his amendment, Mr.
Nunn be recognized to call up his amend-
ment.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, the
Senator from Minnesota has three
amendments at the desk.
? Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. This is one of
them.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I do not want to
waste any time. I have spoken with mem-
bers of the committee. I shall call up one
of the amendments for the purpose of
discussion, because I think the three
amendments are relevant, but I shall not
ask for a vote on all of them. I may on
one. In fact, I would suggest a maximum
time of 10 minutes to a side on my
amendments.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
will the Chair rule on my request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the unanimous-consent re-
quest of the Senator from West Virginia?
Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield? I simply wish to have
an amendment of mine added to the end
of the list.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that, follow-
ing the disposition of the amendment by
the Senator from Georgia (Mr. NuNN),
the amendments the Senator from Minn-
espta has requested?
Mr. HUMPHREY. I will call them up
and dispose of them as quickly as pos-
sible.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD, Be considered,
and, following the amendments of the
Senator from Minnesota, the amendment
of the Senator from Florida, who had
asked previously, and then that the Ben-
ator from California. (Mr. Campion) be
recognized 'to offer an amendment.
The PRESIDING OPPICIa. Is there
Dbjection?
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, reserving
, the right to object, has the acting major-
ity leader made a reconciliation of all
these amendments, and reconciled them
with the unanimous-consent agreement
to have final passage by 2 p.m.? Is that
possible, or should we come in at an
earlier hour?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today it
stand in adjournment until the hour of
9 o'clock a.m. tomorrow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection?
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, reserving
the right to object?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. To which
unanimous consent does the Senator re-
serve the right to object? There are two
pending.
Mr. BAYH. Addressing myself to the
last unanimous-consent request, I reserve
the right to ebject.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the request of the Senator
from West Virginia with reference to the
list of Senator from West Virginia with
reference to the list of Senators offering
amendments. The Chair hears none, and
it is so ordered. ?
With respect to the request to convene
tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock?
Mr. BAYH. Can the Senator from West
Virginia tell me, when would the first
vote occur under that procedure?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. If the full
hour is taken with respect to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Wisconsin
(Mr. NELSON) and the Senator from
Minnesota (Mr. MONDALE), the first vote
would occur at 10 o'clock.
Mr. BAYH. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OierICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. It may be
necessary to shorten the time on amend-
ments tomorrow.
Mr. JAVITS. That would be agreeable
to me.
Mr. PERCY. I think that would be a
good idea.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Perhaps we
ought to attempt to do that now.
Mr. CHILES. The Senator from Flor-
ida certainly would not object to that.
It may be that the Senator from Wis-
consin (Mr. NufsoN) should be consulted
if, we are going to surrender any of his
time, but I have no objection concern-
ing the time on my amendment.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
may I propound a question to the distin-
guished assistant Republican leader?
Does he believe that the Senator from
Delaware would object to shortening the
time on his amendment?
Mr. GRIFFIN. This is a problem. I
suppose, without getting his consent, we
would have to reserve an hour for his
amendment. He did want an hour and a
half. We were able to talk him into re-
ducing that to an hour. But other than ,
that one, I know of no reason why we
could not have a half hour on
amendments.
I would also respectfully suggest that
after the first rollcall vote, all rollcalls
-be limited to 10 minutes tomorrow.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that on
the amendment by the Senator from
Florida (Mr. Clings) there be a time
limitation of 20 minutes, to be equally
divided.
The PRESIDING OrteiCER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr, ROBERT C. BYRD. I yield.
Mr JAVITS. I will take 20 minutes for
mine, because we have so many cospon-
sors. But as to the other side, if the
Senator says 20 and 10, I think they will
take it.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Very well.
Twenty minutes on the proponents' side,
and 10 minutes on the manager's side, on
the amendment of the Senator from New
York (Mr. Jams).
I hesitate to shorten the time on the
amendments of Senators NELSON, Tarr,
and STENNIS, but in the morning we will
attempt to do that.
Mr. JAVITS. Does not the Senator
think he ought to provide 5 minutes on
any amendment to an amendment? That
is always stultifying.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that on amend-
ments to the amendments that have been
enumerated, on which the time limita-
tion has been lessened, there be a time
limitation of 10 minutes, to be equally
divided.
The PRESIDING late.rICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, one fur-
ther problem we may have in our plan
for tomorrow is that there are 41/2 hours
remaining on the bill. This side has only
had a request from the Senator from
Nebraska (Mr. Claims) for 15 minutes,
and obviously we will honor that request.
I would think it possible to restrict our
time to, say, 1 hour, which then could be
yielded back in advance, but if Senators
would like the remaining time, we could
dole it out very judiciously tomorrow, if
necessary, particularly to someone who
may feel he has been cut back without
adequate notice on an amendment.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. The time for
debate poses no problem, because there
will be a final vote at 2 o'clock, and if
there is any time remaining at all, of
coUrse, Senators may yield it back.
I ask unanimous consent, in accord-
ance with the suggestion of the distin-
guished Republican whip, that after the
first rollcall vote tomorrow, all other roll-
call votes consume 10 minutes each, with
the warning bells to sound after the first
21/2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, Itis so ordered.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, may I have
3 additional minutes on the bill to make
my speech?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from New York is recognized for 3
minutes.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I am very
much for this bill. It has been very
thoroughly and, I think, very well worked
out with the cooperation of many Sen-
ators. I believe it presents us with a pack-
age which will?and this is very close to
my heart?represent the acceptance by
Congress of the responsibility which it
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
roved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP751300380R00060008000,2-0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE march 21, 19
must accept if it wishes to exercise equal
authority with the President in budget
making.
Mr. President, few issues have im-
pacted with greater force upon the
Ainerican public in recent yeare than
that relating to the integrity and respon-
siveness of government. Watergate has
indeed focused and intensified that issue.
But we have heard again and again.
quite apart from Watergate, that our
People have become disillusioned and
cynical about the institutionai capability
and willingness of Congress, to cope with
the increasingly complex questions of
modern government
As we are all aware, the 'United States
has increasingly faced the most serious
budget problems brought about by the
fact that we in the Congress have been
voting to spend money at a rate faster
than our ability to generate revenues
at full employment. No reasonable per-
son could deny that one of the chief con-
tributing factors to this deplorable situ-
ation has been the absence of any way
to inform and guide the Congress about
the hard facts of priorities planning and
budget reconciliasion.
No existing office or committee leas the
authority or the wherewithal tc, provide
the kind of overview which is necessary.
This arises simply from the fact that
most committees are specialists in and
advocates for a certain slice of the Fed-
eral dollar. It is assumed that when a
bill is considered by the E3enate or the
House on the floor the t an overview will
be provided. But, as we are all aware,
Congress as a whole proceeds piecemeal?
as do the committees--without overview.
The legislation we debate today is crit-
ically Important. It represents the care-
ful and comprehensive work of my own
Government Operations Committee and
the COmmittee on Rules and Adminis-
tration. It represents a major stride to-
ward reassertion by the Congress of its
constitutional control over the liederal
budget.
It tracks very closely the decisive ac-
tion of the Congress last year in pass-
ing the landmark War Powers Act and
in dealing with the issues of executive
impoundment and executive privilege.
The Federal Act to Control Expendi-
tures and Establish National Priorities
which is before us today is, as I have al-
ready stated, the result of an extraordi-
nary effort of many Senators I particu-
larly wish to commend four of a much
larger number: our distinguished chair-
man, Senator Envier, our ranking mi-
nority member, Senator PIIRCY, Senator
MUSKIE, and also Senator ROBERT BYRD.
S. 1541 will modernize the organiza-
tion of Congress to deal with the entire
budget process. It will establish a Senate
Budget Committee consisting of le mem-
bers to oversee congressional budget
matters. In addition, it will create a Con-
gressional Office of the Budget ?COB?
to provide both Houses of Congress with
staff resources they do not now have in
order to analyze the budget recommen-
dations of the President and test the as-
sumptions =on which they are based.
In submitting estimates to the COB,
the executive departments and agencies
will be required to identify both the cost
of existing programs, activities and
services; and second the cost of pro-
posed new and expanded programs, ac-
tivities and services. It will be able to
recommend alternative levels of revenues
and outlays based on its own estimates.
including the amount of revenue loss
attributable to tax benefits and related
matters. The COB will establish a per-
manent, institutional capability to pro-
vide sophisticated expertise to the Mem-
bers and committees of Congress on
budget making. I think it is important to
emphasize that all standing committees
have aCCOSS to the COB. By utilizing this
new capability and obtaining new
sources of information from the execu-
tive departments and the White House
as provided for in S. 1541, the Congress
will have more tools than ever before to
consider the budget overall and in detail
in an intelligent way.
By changing the fiscal year to Octo-
ber 1, the Congress will have more time
following the submission of the Presi-
dent's budget message to accomplish
this.
Most importantly, S. 1541 will bring
about fundamental reform of the mech-
anism by which the Congress processes
the annual Federal budget. The process
includes two budget resolutions and a
final reconciliation bill in a logical and
orderly procedure which allows the Con-
gress to reassess and revise its spending
and revenue decisions M the second
budget resolution and the reconciliation
bill. This process mandates the informed
Input of the Appropriations Committee,
the Finance Committee, the Joint Eco-
nomic Committee and the authorizing
committees of the Senate. Most Mem-
bers of the Senate have in the past voiced
concern that all spending bills should be
passed early in the fiscal year. The bill
requires all such measures to be com-
pleted by early August. This is a most
important reform.
Mr. President, for some years I have
advanced a proposal for an Office of
Goals and Priorities Analysis?in effect,
a budget bureau responsible to the Con-
gress?so that we might be able to make
rational choices among items with the
same analytical capability as the execu-
tive branch when drafting its own
budget proposals. The most recent ver-
sion of my proposal was contained in
title II of S. 5 which was reintroduced
in 1973, after having passed the Senate
the previous year. Senator MONDALE
joined with me on both occasions in pro-
posing S. 5 and urging its enactment.
In view of the consideration of S. 1541
by the Government Operations Coen-
mittee, we moved to have title II of S. 5
referred to Government Operations in
order that It might be considered in the
light of the proposal to create a Con-
gressional Office of the Budget. Senator
CHILES jOrILS With Senator MONDALE atild
I to offer an amendment to S. 1541 to
require the Director of the COB to pre-
pare a report on national goals and
priorities on or before June 1 of each
year.
Mr. President, The Committee on Gov-
eminent Operations reported this meas-
ure dealing with national goals and
priorities, in a seearate bill sponsored by
the Senator from Florida (Mr. CHILLS),
That bin, S. 1414, which I strongly sup-
port and cospons ored would provide the
Congress with ern:teeny important budget
Information which it does not now get
in a timely and teeful inannen
So the amendment ethich I shall call
up tomorrow I seed to the desk for print-
ing under the rules, on behalf Of myself
and Senators CI n eS, HUMPHREY, MON-
DALE, MUSICIE, Jougsoet and Moss?car-
ries out that idea. I submit it to the man-
agers; I hope they wil consider it fav-
orably.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will )e received and printed.
and will lie on the table, and without ob-
jection it will be printed in the RECORD.
AMEND AENT O. 1057
On page 116, at er line 25, insert the fol-
lowing:
asporta ON NAT1:0 'AL GOA LS AND Praoarrims
SEC. 203. (a) ANNUAL Etrporm?The Di-
rector shall submit to the Congress on or be-
fore May 1 of each year (beginning with
1978) a national g oals and priorities report
which shall inclvder but 3lot be limited to, a
description and difoussion of?
(1) the President's rec.crnmendations OD
national priorities reflected in he propose
allocation a budget authority and budget
outlays or each major national need as set
forth in the bud.ct submitted by the Presi-
dent for the fiscal year beginning on Octobef
1 of each year;
(2) the goals, or objectives, associated with
each major natior al need and the goals, of
objectives, being sought by all Federal pro-
grams directed at meeting such national need
and a balanced national growth;
(3) ari assessme it of Vie adequacy of the
resource; allocated to etch national need
In view of the f oats or objectives being
sought; and
(4) an assessnurd of he probable effect
of such proposed budget cutlays and budget
authority and of such allocation of resources.
upon the balanced growti and development
of the nation, site i assesiment to be drawn
from information, data, reports and analyse!,
which shall be f irnished to the Director
upon his request by such Federal depart-
ments, s.gencies and bureaus as he may de-
termine and as riay have such requested
subject matter wftlain their official juris-
diction.
(b) ABSISTANCE V) CON MITTEES AND MEM
BERS.?At the request of any committee or
Member of the Elinate or the Rouse of Rep-
resentatives or aDy joint committee of the
Congress,_ the Office shal provide to such
committee, Member, or joint committee
further information, data, or analysis rele-
vant to the subject mattar of subparagraph
(a)?
?Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, item 4 in
this amendment was suggested by Sena-
tor HUMPHREY, who propoeed, in the
judgment of all of us who are cosponsors
a most iinporta et idea. tyirg into the
development a the national goals anc
priorities report, an assessment of thc
potential for balanced growth and eco-
nomic developm int of the Nation anc
what it requires in the larger context oi
budget planning.
The work of the Senator from Florich
(Mr. Clams) on this and related amend
meats in committee was extremely ine
portant and helpful. I assure these gen
-tlemen that though I may have bee)
In a way an early proponent Df the ides
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 ; CIA-RDP75B00380-R000600080002-0
March 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENAm 4107
several years ago, their contributions are
fully equal to mine, and I express my
gratitude to all of them.
Mr. President, S. 1541 also deals with
the subject of tax expenditures. During
the 1969 Tax Reform Act debate I intro-
duced an amendment which would have
required the Secretary of the Treasury
in his annual report to the Congress to
include estimates of indirect expendi-
tures through the application of the tax
law or "tax expenditures." That amend-
ment was not passed and consequently
in 1971 I offered an amendment to the
Revenue Act of 1971 which would have
required the President's budget or the
special analysis presented with the
budget to contain estimates of losses in
revenue from provisions of the tax laws
and also estimates of indirect expendi-
tures through operation of the tax laws.
This amendment passed the Senate
but was modified in conference to have
the estimates of tax expenditures made
by the Treasury Department submitted
annually to the Committee on Ways and
Means of the House, the Committee on
Finance of the Senate, and the Joint
Committee on Internal Revenue Taxa-
tion. These reports of tax expenditures?
have been submitted as required and I
ask unanimous consent that the report
dated June 1, 1973, be included in the
RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the reports
were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
FEDERAL TAX EXPENDITVRES
In the Senate version of the Revenue
Act of 1971, a provision added on the floor
would have required the inclusion in the
budget of estimates of losses in revenue from
provisions of the Federal income tax laws and
also estimates of indirect "expenditures"
through the operation of the Federal tax
laws. Data of this type have commonly be-
come known as "tax expenditures." The
statement made by the conferees in this
respect is as follows:
"The conferees concluded that it would
be more appropriate to have such estimates
Of tax expenditures made by the Treasury
Department and to have the estimates sub-
mitted annually to the Committee on Ways
and Means of the House, the Committee on
Finance of the Senate, and the Joint Com-
mittee on Internal Revenue Taxation. It is
expected that these tax expenditure reports
to the tax committees will initially
be modeled after similar reports previously
made and included in the annual reports
of the Secretary of the Treasury in 1968 and
1970. Modifications may, of course, be made
froth time to time in consultation with the
tax committees. In addition to making these
reports to the tax committees on an annual
basis, the Treasury Department may desire
to include these data on tax expenditures in
the annual report of the Secretary of the
Treasury. The Treasury Department has in-
dicated its willingness to submit information
to the tax committees in the manner in-
dicated above and as a result the amend-
ment no longer appears necessary."
The Staffs of the Treasury Department and
Joint Committee did cooperate in the prep-
aration of such a report last year. This pam-
phlet, which is a continuation of this coop-
erative effort, presents data for 1972 and re-
produces the data for calendar years 1967
through 1971 which were contained in the
reports issued on October 4, 1972.
In general terms "tax expenditure" items
are intended to represent the amount of tax
reductions which occur because of the allow-
ance of an exclusion, deduction, preferential
rate of tax, or deferral of tax liability. There
are differences in points of view as to the "tax
expenditure" concept,' including differences
as to the items which should be included in,
and excluded from, such a listing. Questions
have also been raised as tato whether there
should also be included in such an analysis
those items which are taxed more heavily
than income generally (such as corporate
income) or deductions which are subjected
to special limitations (such as capital losses).
In this report the staffs have not attempted
to consider any changes in the items listed
as "tax expenditures." Instead, the items in-
cluded in this report are those which have
previously been included in any of the earlier
reported versions of tax expenditure esti-
mates made by the Treasury Department
prior to the Revenue Act of 1971 plus items
in the Revenue Act of 1971 which are of sim-
ilar character. Among items not included as
tax expenditures are the personal exemptions
and the minimum standard deductions.
This report includes two tables. Table 1
shows estimated Federal income tax expend-
itures for the calendar years 1967 through
1972. The 1971 and 1972 tabulations are
broken down into effects on corporate income
tax liability and effects on individual income
tax liability. Only the 1972 data represent a
new tabulation. The data shown in this table
are broken down into categories which are
comparable to those in the functional classi-
fication of budget expenditures. The report
also includes a table (Table 2) showing the
estimated distribution, by adjusted gross in-
come class, of the decrease in individual in-
come tax liability estimated to result from
tax expenditure items affecting such liability.
The purpose of these tax expenditure data
is to provide information as to the economic
benefits provided by the tax laws to the vari-
ous sectors of the economy. To aid in the
analysis, the cost and beneficiaries (in terms
of areas of activity) are shown by the same
functional categories as outlays in the Fed-
eral budget. The listing of any of these pro-
visions involves no direct, or indirect, pre-
sumption about the desirability of any of
them in terms of public policy. These tables,
however, are intended as a tool which may be
helpful to the tax committees of Congress in
reviewing various provisions of the tax laws.
The estimates of tax expenditures are dif-
ficult to determine and are subject to impor-
tant limitations. It is believed, however, that
despite these limitations, the order of magni-
tude of the amounts involved may be helpful
to the tax committees.
'See, e.g., the criticism in Bittker, "Ac-
counting for Federal Tax Subsidies in the
National Budget," XXII National Tax Jour-
nal 244 and the reply in Surrey and Hell-
south, "The Tax Expenditure Budget?Re-
sponse to Professor Bittker," XXII National
Tax Journal 528.
The major limitations with respect to the
estimates of tax expenditures are:
1. The estimate of each tax expenditure
item is made independently of any other bax
expenditure item. As a result, if two or more
items were to be eliminated, the result of the
combination of changes being made at the
same time might produce a lesser or greater
revenue effect than the sum of the amounts
shown for each item individually. This, of
course, also means that the addition of the
various tax expenditure items is of quite lim-
ited usefulness. This is why totals are not
shown for table 1, sxcept in a footnote.
2. In the case of many of the items,
especially those for which information is not
available on tax returns, the lack of data
makes estimates quite tenuous. Where in-
formation is not available on tax returns, it
has been necessary to obtain information
from whatever sources are available, and,
when sources are limited, to make assump-
tions on which to base the estimates.
3. The estimates for the various tax ex-
penditure items do not take into account
any effects that the removal of one or more
of the items might have on investment pat-
terns, consumption, or other aspects of eco-
nomic activity. In other words, the estimates
shown do not take into account the in-
duced effects of changing the provisions. Re-
peal of a provision, therefore, would not
necessarily raise the revenue associated with
removal of that provision.
4. Often, tax expenditure items which have
been added in recent years do not become
fully effective until the lapse of several
years. As a result, the eventual annual cost
of some items added in recent years is not
fully reflected in the year 1972. Conversely,
if various items now in the law were to be
eliminated, it is unlikely, in many cases, that
the full revenue effects shown would be
realized until an extended period of years
has passed.
5. In some cases, if a tax expenditure item
Were to be eliminated, it is probable that
Congress would, at least to some extent, de-
sire to deal with the underlying problem by
a direct expenditure program. The effect of
any such program is not taken into account
in the estimates shown. In addition, if some
of these provisions were removed from the
tax laws, this removal might be accompanied
by revisions in tax rates, personal exemptions
or the minimum standard deduction; as has
happened in the past. This has not been
taken into account in the estimates.
6. There are features of the law which are
not taken into account in the estimates
shown. For example, personal exemptions, the
minimum standard deduction, the foreign
tax credit, and the effect of income splitting
and head-of-household treatment, as well as
the graduation in the rate structure of the
individual income tax, are not taken into ac-
count in these tables. Also, the effect of
estate and gift taxes is not shown nor is the
interrelationship of these provisions with
some of the tax expenditure items taken into
account.
7. Differences in personal income levels
and corporate profits can also account for
differences in the cost of tax expenditure
items from year to year. Also, some tax ex-
penditure items themselves may be larger
or smaller from year to year, wholly inde-
pendent of tax considerations.
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600080002-0
S 4108
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE Match 21, 1914
I ESTIMATED FEDERAL INCOME TAX EXPENDITURES; CALENDAR YEARS 1967-72
Bo millions of dollars]
Item 1967
1968
I9e9
1970
1371
1072
-Cepa Int-
rations viduaLi To al
Coley- Indi-
Mous viduals
Total
NATIONAL DEFENSE
Exclusion of bertefits and allowances to Armed For:es personnel 500
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
Exemption for certain income earned abrorld by U.S. 0itizens 40
Exclusion if income earned by individuals in possessions 10
Western Hemisphere trade corporations 50
Exclusion of gross up on dividends 0.f le i-4 - d evel o p e d country corporations 5l7
Deferral of income of controlled fornign corperilions. 150
Exclusion of income earned by 0orporatione in U.S. pc ssessions 70
Deferral of income of domestic international saes coreorations
AGRICULTURE
Farming: Expensing and nodal gain treatment 800
Timber: Capital-gain Dealt ent for itertain 11144410 130
NATURAL RESOURCES
Expensing of exploration arid develc pm?nt cot i __________ ____. _ 300
Excess of percentage over cost dephition ___. __________________ . _____. __ 1,300
Capital gain treatment of royalties on coal and iron ore 5
COMMERCE AND TRANSPORTATION
Investment credit2,300
Depreciation on buildings (utile( than rental housing) in excess of straight-line_ _ 500
Ass0t dept lion range
Dividend exclusion 225
Capital gains: Corporation (ether th An farming and tinter) 3 500
Capital gains: Individuals (other then fa ming iml timber) 3