CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 63
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 18, 2006
• Sequence Number: 37
• Publication Date: January 26, 1976
• Content Type: OPEN

proved FoEljAwsinpia0itt,? EbekklipP7A11/1110M4R001100210037-0 287
January 26, 19AP
many instances, it has also imposed on
complying firms enormous burdens,
which raise business costs and consumer
prices.
Increasing competition from world
markets and the need to maiatain and
improve the standard of living of a grow-
ing population require constant improve-
ment of the American market system.
For this reason I have asked the Congress
to legislate fundamental changes in the
laws regulating our railroads, airlines,
and trucking firms. The new amendments
will free these companies to respond more
flexibility to market conditions. I have
also urged deregulation of the price of
natural gas and sought essential pricing
flexibility for the oil and electric utilities
industries. We will continue to improve
all essential protection for public health
and safety, trying at the same time not
to increase unnecessarily the cost to the
public. My object is to achieve a better
combination of market competition and
responsible Government regulation. The
programs I have advanced in recent
months have sought such a balance, and
I will continue this course in 1976.
Striking a new regulatory balance is
likely to entail some economic and social
costs during a period of transition, and
changes must therefore be phased in
carefully. In the long run, however, a re-
vitalized market system will bring signifi-
cant benefits to the public, including
lower prices.
While our policies focus primarily on
the economy of the United States, we
recognize that the range of our interests
does not stop at our shores. The other
major countries of the world are also
recovering from the most serious reces-
sion they have experienced since the
1930s. Their first economic priority, like
ours, is to put their economies on a sus-
tainable, noninflationary growth path.
Success in this endeavor, more than any-
thing else, will help developed and de-
veloping countries alike achieve higher
standards of living.
In recent years the economies of most
nations suffered from extraordinarily
high inflation rates, due in large part to
the quintupling of the world price for oil,
and then moved into a deep recession.
The simultaneity of this experience dem-
onstrated once again the strong inter-
dependence of the world's economies.
Individual countries have become pro-
gressively more dependent on each other
as a freer flow of goods, services, and
capital has fostered greater prosperity
throughout the world. Because of this
growing interdependence, however, do-
mestic policy - objectives cannot be
achieved efficiently unless we also take
account of economic changes and policy
goals in other countries.
In recognition of our growing inter-
dependence, I have consulted closely
with the heads of other governments, in-
dividually and jointly. At the Economic
Summit at Rambouillet last November, I
met with the heads of government of five
other major industrial countries. There
we laid the foundation for closer under-
standing and consultation on economic
policies. During 1975 we also began
discussions on international cooperation
with both the developed and the less de-
velOped countries. This dialogue will as-
sure a better mutual understanding of
our problems and aspirations. Finally,
I have agreed with my foreign colleagues
that, in order to create the proper condi-
tions for lasting and stable growth, we
must take important, cooperative steps
in monetary matters, trade, and energy.
We have directed our trade officials to
seek an early conclusion to the continu-
ing negotiations on liberalization of
trade. This month in Jamaica we
reached significant agreements on
strengthening the international mone-
tary system and providing increased sup-
port for the developing countries. We
have also begun to cooperate more close-
ly with oil-consuming countries in the
effort to become less dependent on im-
ported energy. I intend to consolidate
and build upon this progress in 1976.
Of central concern both here and
abroad is U.S. energy policy. Without a
vigorous and growing industry supplying
domestic energy, much of our 'industrial
development in the next 10 years will
be uncertain. And unless we can reduce
our dependency on Middle East oil, we
will not have a sound basis for interna-
tional cooperation in the development of
new fossil fuel and other energy sources.
As an initial step toward greater self-
sufficiency, I signed the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act in December 1975.
I concluded that this act, though defi-
'dent in some respects, did provide a ve-
hicle for moving us toward our energy
goals. With this mechanism the price of
petroleum can be allowed to rise to pro-
mote domestic supply and to restrain
consumption. At the end of 40 months,
under the act, I may remove price con-
trols altogether, and I will utilize the pro-
visions of the act to move toward a free
market in petroleum as quickly as is pos-
sible and consistent with otir larger eco-
nomic goals. The act offers flexibility,
which I have already used to start dis-
mantling price controls and allocation
arrangements in fuel markets where no
shortages exist. The legislation also es-
tablishes a national strategic petroleum
reserve which will make our supply of
energy secure and give other nations less
inducement to impose an oil embargo.
Measures crucial to our energy future
still remain to be enacted, however. Nat-
ural gas deregulation is now the most
pressing of the issues on energy before
-the Congress: shortages grow year by
year, while the country waits for mbre
testimony on supply and demand, or
waits for extremely expensive new syn-
thetic gas plants to replace the natural
gas production choked off by price con-
trols. I urge the Congress to make de-
regulation of new natural gas one of its
first objectives in 1976. The legislation
I have proposed in order to assure ade-
quate supplies of fuel for nuclear power
plants is also critical. If we are to im-
prove our energy situation, these meas-
ures are necessary. They will also rein-
force our efforts to remove unnecessary
and deleterious Government interfer-
ence in economic activities where the
consumer is adequately protected by
market forces..
A year ago I said, "The year 1975 must
be the one in which we face our economic
problems and start the course toward
real solutions." I am pleased with the
beginning we have made. The course is
a long one, but its benefits for all Ameri-
cans make the journey worthwhile. The
year 1976 must be one in which we will
continue our progress toward a better
life for all Americans.
GERALD R FORD.
JANUARY 26, 1976.
MESSAGE FROM THE SENA .1.1,
The SPEAKER laid before the House
the following message from the Senate:
JANTJARY 22. 1970
The Senate having proceeded Ic recon-
sider the bill (S. 2360) entitled "An Act
to amend the National Security Act of 1947,
as amended, to include the Secretary of the
Treasury as a member of the National Se-
curity Council", returned y't resident
of the United States with is
the Senate, in which it o it s
Resolved, That the sa I pass.
thirds of of the Senators.. ent baring vote
In the affirmative.
TO AMEND NATIONAL SECURITY
ACT OF 1947, AS AMENDED, TO
INCLUDE SECRETARY OF THE
TREASURY AS MEMBER OF NA-
TIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL?
VETO MESSAGE FROM THE PRESI-
DENT OF THE UNITED STATES
(S. DOC. NO. 145)
The SPEAKER laid before the House
the following veto message from the Pres-
ident of the United States:
The message and accompanying bill
referred to the Committee on Armed
Services.
To the Senate of the United States:
I return without my approval S. 2350.
a bill "To amend the National Security
Act of 1947, as amended, to include the
Secretary of the Treasury as a member
of the National Security Council."
The National Security Council is one
of the most important organizations in
the Executive Office of the President. The
Council's function, under the law, is to
advise the President with respect to the
integration of domestic, foreign, and mil-
itary policies relating to the national se-
curity. The President, the Vice President,
the Secretary of State, and the Secretary
of Defense are the statutory members
of the Council. In addition, the President
may, under the law, appoint by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate the
Secretaries and Under Secretaries of
other executive departments and of the
military departments to serve at his
pleasure. No President has ever exercised
this latter authority.
In my judgment, enactment of S. 2350
is not necessary. From its establishment
in 1947, each President has invited from
time to time additional officers to partici-
pate in National Security Council delib-
erations when matters specifically relat-
ing to their responsibilities have been
considered. In line with this practice, the
President invites the Secretary of the
Treasury to participate in Council affairs
when issues of substantial interest to the
Department of the Treasury are involved.
Thus, existing arrangements provide for
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
I'll 288
Approved For Rezimtinp3R7Ai9A-M7M9N11400110021003LOu ay
2/ 26, 1976
adequate participation of the Secretary
of the Treasury in National Security
Council matters.
Purtherrnore, additional mechanisms
eaist to assure that the President receives
advise which takes into account the
proper integration and coordination of
domestic and international economic
policy with f 3reign policy and national
;security objectives. Both the Economic
Policy Board and the Council for Inter-
national Economic Policy provide the
President with high level advice on eco-
nomic matters. The Secretary of the
Treasury is the Chairman of these two
:esdies on which the Secretary of State
11J.S0 serves.
j: believe thit S. 2350 is undesirable as
well as unnecessary. The proper con-
cerns of the National Security Council
extend substantially beyond the statu-
tory responsibilities and focus of the
?iesicretary of the Treasury. Most issues
that come be:fore the Council on a reg-
!liar basis do not have significant eco-
amino and monetary implications:
moreover, i large number of execu-
Mee deurartments and agencies have key
responsibilities for programs affecting
international economic policy. From
time to time these programs influence
importantly cur foreign policy and na-
tional securit ir decisions. The Treasury
Department does not and could not rep-
sesent all those interests. Extending full
statutory membership on the National
Security Council-to the Secretary of the
.-ereaeury woad not achieve the purpose
of bringing to bear on decisions the full
:range of international economic consid-
erations,
teir these several reasons. I am con-
seemed that incressing the statutory
..nernioersilip of the Council might well
diminish its flexibility and usefulness as
a most important advisory mechanism
Or the President. '
In sum. S. 2350 is unnecessary, since
adequate arrangements for providing ad-
i:o the President on the integration
of economic End foreign policy already
;exist, and it is undesirable because the
oroposect arrangement is inconsistent
'slash the purposes of the National Secu-
eity Council and would lessen the current
arid desirable flexibility of the President
arranging for advice on the broad
iisiectrum of katernational and national
policy matters.
GERALD R. FORD.
WsrTs ETOUSE, December 31, 1975.
The SPEAKER. The objections of the
President will be spread at large upon
1.0 Journal. ?
'Jr PRICE. Mr. Sneaker, I ask unani-
mous consent that the message, together
with the accompanying bill, be referred
to the Commi,-,tee on Armed Services.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
.request 3f the gentleman from
idols?
-Tesiere was no objection.
1;;,ECIAL ORDER ON SELECT COM-
MITTEE'S RECEIVING TOP-SE-
clarsiT INFORMATION
(Mr. McCLORY asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Speaker, I mit rely
wish to advise the Members of the H use
that I will be taking a special ordi - at
the conclusion of House business tiay
for the purpose of discussing and set. Mg
forth in the RECORD the exchange of or-
respondence and the agreements eith
the executive branch which resulteA in
the House select committee's recei, ing
confidential, secret, and top-secret in-
formation. In my ()onion. the age ee-
ments?and the procedures adoptet by
the committee which resulted in our re-
ceipt of such classified material rem ins
binding on the committee.
I want to call this to the attentio of
the Members of the House so that ley
can decide what, if any, action shout. be
taken with respect to the proposed 1, th-
lication of this material. I will pro4 ed
with this special order at the conclu on
of the House business today.
EXPRESSING APPRECIATION I 41)
ADMIRATION TO CLARENCE M.
MITCHELL, JR.
Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, I orb -
resolution (H. Res. 976) and ask foi its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as ' d -
lows:
H. Ri:s. 76
Whereas Clarence M. Mitchell, Jr., of M 7
land, has labored tirelessly for more Ulan
four decades for the right of all America/ to
share equally the blessin-s of the Const 'u-
tion;
Whereas since becoming director of ,he
Washington Bureau of the National A w-
elation for the Advancement of Colored
ple in 1950 his efforts have been instrume tal
in achieving passage of every major leg la-
*Ave act designed to guarantee ecuality UL ler
he law for all citizens of race;
Whereas his patience. d:gnity, courage, nd
Integrity have resulted in remarkable ef-
fectiveness in his work and won the res ect
of his fellow Americans;
Whereas his abiding fal-,h in the Const u-
tional process and rejection of racism are
manifestations of the democratic systen at
Its finest;
Whereas hundreds of his friends will ga ier
in Washington. D.C. on January 27, 1971 to
pay tribute to him: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That It is the sense of the 1-1,as
that?
(1) sincere appreciation and admira on
be expressed to Clarence 51, Mitchell, Jr. on
behalf of the people of the United St ::es
of America; and
(2) as Clarence M. M..tchell, Jr., car les
forward his work for social justice among his
fellow citizens, he continues to prospei in
good health.
Mr. RHODES. Mr. Speaker, it is .n-
deed a great personal honor for mc to
join with my good friend, the majoeity
leader, in sponsoring a resolution to ex-
press the appreciation and adrniraOon
which this body feels toward Clare ice
M. Mitchell, Jr., of the State of Ma .7-
and.
Clarence Mitchell has been a leader in
the field of civil rights for many years,
long before the public conscience realised
fully the injustices which black Arra :l-
eans were fored to endure.
It was largely through the efforts of
indhiduals such as Clarence Mitchell
that Congress finally made its critically
impertant commitment to the proposi-
tion that race has no place in American
life, that full equality is more than a
cliche; ik is the rockbed upon which
Americaff society is built.
It is entirely appropriate that he be
honored?for his courage, conviction,
and dignity?in this bicentennial year
whet we are rediscovering and rearticu-
lating the wide range of liberties which
we hold so dear.
I salute Clarence Mitchell, Jr., for ail
the great work he has done in the past,
as will as for the equally important work
he will do in the years ahead.
Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Speaker, I join
with the distinguished majority and mi-
nority leaders in support of this resolu-
tion.
Clarence Mitchell is one of the real
statesmen of our time. For many years
as a civil rights leader and more recently
as a U.S. delegate to the United Nations,
he has rendered distinguished service to
our country. In both instances he has
shown wisdom and courage in the pur-
suit of human rights. Recent American
history is marked by our progress as a
society toward equality of opportunity
for all Americans. These advances bear
the imprint of Clarence Mitchell's lead-
ership.
Because of his efforts, the United
States is a better place for all its citizens.
His recent service as part of the U.S.
delegation has helped to advance our ef-
forts toward the protection of human
rights of all peoples throughout the
world.
His remarks in the United Nations have
represented reason and responsibility in
a body often characterized by demagogu-
ery. Els reputation as a man of integrity
and dignity added weight to those re-
marki, credibility to our Nation's identi-
fication with the rights and aspirations
of the world's repressed, and stature to
our delegation.
Since becoming director of the Wash-
ington Bureau of the National Associa-
tion for the Advancement of Colored
People in 1950, he has striven with seem-
ingly tireless energy in support of the
protection of the rights of all Americans.
His reasoned approaches to the means
by which these rights can be protected
and enhanced C.921 be found in bills passed
by this body and enacted into law.
jcin with my colleagues and many
millions of other Americans in expressing
my appreciation for the leadership and
courage of Clarence Mitchell.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid ca
the table.
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. O'NETLL. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 days in which to revise and
extend their remarks on the subject of
the resolution to express appreciation
and admiration to Clarence M. Mitchell,
Jr.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
United States
of America
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
Congressional Record
1h
PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 04 CONGRESS SECOND SESSION
Vol. 122
1??????111=1,
WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, JANUARY 22, 1976 No. 4
House of Representatives
The House met at 12 o'clock noon.
DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO
TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
O'NEILL) laid before the House the fol-
lowing communication from the
Speaker:
WASHINGTON, D.C.,
January 22, 1976.
I hereby designate the Honorable Tuonvis
P. O'NEILL, JR., to act as Speaker pro tern-
pore today.
CARL ALBERT,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
PRAYER
The Chaplain, Rev. Edward G. Latch,
D.D. offered the following prayer:
God is love and he who abides in love
abides in God and God abides in him.?I
John 4: 16.
Our Father God, grant that during the
days of this year we may be filled with
Thy love, the love that never lets us go
and never lets us down, but always seeks
to keep us on Thy way, doing Thy will,
and obeying Thy word.
We confess to Thee the sins we have
committed, the mistakes we have made,
and the faults we have developed. We
are not too proud of the record of our
lives, nor the way we have handled our-
selves in times of trouble, nor our re-
sponse to the needs of our people. Forgive
us, 0 God, for our blindness of heart and
our stubbornness of spirit.
Humbly now we open our lives to
receive the miracle of Thy forgiveness
and Thy love. Send us out into this new
day restored to Thee, redeemed by Thy
grace and renewed by Thy spirit, ready
for the work that needs to be done.
In the spirit of the Master, we pray.
Amen.
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
Chair has examined the Journal of the
last day's proceedings and announces to
the House his approval thereof.
Without objection, the Journal stands
approved.
There was no objection.
A NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER FOR
THE MISSING IN SOUTHEAST ASIA
(Mr. MONTGOMERY asked and was
given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, I
would like to call to my colleagues'
attention a proclamation issued by
President Ford yesterday which calls for
a national day of prayer this coming
Sunday, January 25, for the American
military and civilian personnel still
unaccounted for in Southeast Asia. I
commend the President for this action
and for calling attention to the unknown
fate of our MIA's.
As chairman of the House Select Com-
mittee on Missing Persons in Southeast
Asia, I am very much aware of the
enormous task we have ahead of us in
achieving a full accounting and securing
the return of remains of known dead.
However, we feel that our meetings in
Paris, Hanoi, and Vientiane have been
fruitful and have set us on the right
course to gain the information we desire.
We shall continue to press ahead in the
months to come.
I urge my colleagues to join in the
national day of prayer for our MIA's
this Sunday and to continue their in-
dividual efforts on behalf of the missing.
INTRODUCTION OF THE FOREIGN
PARAMILITARY INTERVENTION
ACT
(Mr. SCHEUER asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. SCHEUER. Mr. Speaker, on De-
cember 12, 1975, CIA Director William
Colby, in testimony before the House In-
telligence Committee, acknowledged the
paramilitary nature of his Agency's ac-
tivities in Angola. Subsequently, press
reports have indicated that our involve-
ment is in the nature of civilian air spot-
ters and ground advisers. Yet, had these
CIA personnel been members of the U.S.
military, rather than civilians, the Pres-
ident, under section 4(a) (1) of the war
powers resolution, would have been obli-
gated to report that fact to the Congress,
and if the Congress failed to authorize
those activities within 90 days, those mil-
itary advisers would have had to have
been withdrawn.
Many in Congress will no doubt feel
that a modest paramilitary operation is
justified * * * that the risks are not as
great as they might appear at first blush
* I * that the deepwater ports of An-
gola and the protection of shipping lanes
from the Persian Gulf are important
enough to warrant greater involvement
by the United States. Others will differ.
Whether or not one favors or opposes
Involvement in Angola, what is important
is that Congress exercise its constitu-
tional mandate on matters involving war
and peace. It is important that Congress,
after carefully considering the risks,
either authorize or stop our involvement
In Angola and in future paramilitary
activities.
Therefore, I am today introducing the
Foreign Paramilitary Intervention Act
which will amend the war powers reso-
lution by making it applicable in cases
where agents or employees of the United
States are engaged in hostilities in a for-
eign country or are advising foreign mili-
tary forces engaged in hostilities.
NEW YEAR'S EVE SPEECH BY DR.
BILLY GRAHAM
(Mr. HUBBARD asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HUBBARD. Mr. Speaker, millions
of Americans listened to the famed and
beloved evangelist, Dr. Billy Graham, on
nationwide television this past New
Year's Eve. Several of the Members of
Congress have referred to this excellent
and timely religious message subsequent
to our return to Washington.
In order that each Member of Congress
and others might have the chance to read
this message from Dr. Billy Graham, I
am sharing this in the CONGRFSSIONAL
RECORD and it will appear in full in the
Extensions of Remarks today.
His message was entitled "Our Bi-
centennial."
11 189
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
190 Approved For ReleftiC211111681100.7A:ICIIAEREMI P.4001144.13e011 0021 00 Va-Qua r y 22. 19'1:
PRWILEGES OF THE HOUSE?SUB-
L'ENA IN CASE OF BOSTON PNEU-
MATICS. INC. AGAINST INGER-
SOLL-RAND CO.
Mr, McDA.DE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to
question oi the privileges of the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
erNsirt.r.). Toe gentleman will state it.
Mr. McDA.DE. Mr. Speaker, I have
subnenaed by the U.S. District
rennet ror the District of Columbia to
eopear at th a office of Stassen, Kostos
"[aeon, 450 :i7ederal Bar Building West,
iiershington, D.C., on January 26, 1976,
at 10 a.m., tc testify on behalf of Boston
Pneumatics, [nc., at the taking of a depo-
sition in the case of Boston Pneumatics.
line. against Ingersoll-Rand Co., civil
action No. 73-1729, now pending in the
ae,S. District Court for the Eastern Dig-
Act of Pennsylvania.
Under the precedents of the House, I
am unable to comply with this subpena
without the consent of the House, the
j)rivileges of the House being involved.
1, therefore, submit the matter for the
consideration of this body.
Mr Speaker, I send the subpena to the
desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk.
will read the subpena.
The Clerk read as follows:
)iii the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia, Civil Action Pile, U.S.D.C.
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 72-1729;
I'S 76-0013.1
Boston Pneumatics, Inc. vs. Ingersoll-
nand Company.
) Joseph M. McDade, United States House
of Representatives, 2202 Rayburn House
_Juilding, Washington, D.C.
You are commanded to appear at the of-
cc if Stassen Kostos and Mason, 450 Fed-
oral Bar Build ng West in the city of Wash-
gton on the 26th day January, 1976, at
0:00 o'clock AM. to testify on behalf of
Plaintiff, Boston Pneumatics, Inc. at the
taking of a de oosition in the above entitled
action pending in the United States District
0Jurt for the Eastern District of Pennsyl-
vania and bring with you any written cor-
respondence tetween your office and the
Ir.gersoll-Rand Company and between your
orace and the General Services Administra-
tt,n, regardinv allegations of violations of
tae Buy-Ameri:tan Act by Boston Pneumatics
during the period around July 1969 to July
lazednj
Janua -y 16. 1976.
uvins F. DAVEY.
Clerk
'
tAny B. DravEas,
Deputy Clerk.
tar subpoenaed organization not a party
to this. Suit is hereby admonished pursuant
30(b) (6), Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, to file a designation with the
curt specifying one or more officers, direc-
tors, or manag ing agents, or other persons
il0 3onsent to testify on its behalf, and
set forth for each person designated,
,ratters on which he will testify or pro-
dare or things. The persons so
deAguated sha:I testify as to matters known
or reasonably 4vailable to the organization.
McFALL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged resolution (H. Res. 971) and
acic for its immediate consideration.
'lTh.s Clerk read the resolution as fol-
lea's
H. RES. 971
Whereas Representative Joseph M. Mc-
Dade, a Member of this House. has been
v- red with a subpena issued by the United
Br
States District Court for the Distri t of
Columbia to appear at the office of St.tssen,
Kostos and Mason, 450 Federal Bar Build-
ing West, Washington, D.C., on the 26th of
January, 1976, at 10:00 AM. to testify on
behalf of Boston Pneumatics, Inc., a' the
taking of a deposition in the case of 13; .ston
Pneumatics, Inc. against Ingersoll. :land
Company, civil action number 72-1729. now
pending in the United States District eourt
for the Eastern District of Pennsyh-.4nia;
and
Whereas by the privileges of the Hot: e no
Member is authorized to appear and t Airy
but by the order of the House: Ther?-tbre,
be it
Resolved, That Repre entative Josei h M.
McDade is authorized to appear in rea:Lanse
to the subpena of the United States Di trict
Court for the District of Columbia to t;-?;dify
at the taking of deposition in the ca e of
Boston Pneumatics, Inc. against ingei-,,o11-
Rand Company at such time as when the
House is not sitting in session; and " is it
further
Resolved, That as a respectful answ?r to
the subpena a copy of this resolutic.; be
submitted to the said court.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid oi the
table.
PERMISSION FOR COMMITTEE ON
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COM-
MERCE TO HAVE UNTIL IID-
NIGHT TOMORROW, JANUAR': 23,
1976, TO FILE CONFERENCE .3,E-
PORT ON S. 2718
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker. I ask
unanimous consent that the Comm. ttee
on Interstate and Foreign Comm erce
may have until midnight tomorrow, Jan-
uary 23, 1976, to file a conference re-
port on the Senate bill S. 2718.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is t 'ere
objection to the request of the gei tle-
man from West Virginia?
There was no objection.
MOTOR VEHICLE INFORMATi ON
AND COST SAVINGS ACT AME"ID-
MENTS OF 1975
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, bo, di-
rection of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 967 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as 'o1-
lows:
RES i67
Resolved, That upon the adoption of .his
resolution it shall be in order to move 'hat
the House resolve itself into the Comm tee
of the Whole House on the State of the U tion
for the consideration of the bill (HR. 1007)
to amend the Motor Vehicle Information Ind
Cost Savings Act to authorize appropriat ,ns,
to provide authority for enforcing proL,b1-
tions against motor vehicle odometer tam er-
ing, and for other purposes. After generai de-
bate, which shall be confined to the bill Ind
shall continue not to exceed one hour, t be
equally divided and controlled by the cl Or-
man and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Interstate and Foreign C,.m-
inerce, the bill shall be read for amencln..nt
under the five-minute rule. At the conclm ion
of the consideration of the bill for ametd-
inent, the Committee shall rise and report the
bill to the House with such amendment as
may have been adopted. and the prey. els
question shall be considered SS ordered on the
bill and amendments thereto to final pas,-.ige
without intervening motion except one 10-
tion to recommit. After the passage of
10807. the Committee on Interstate and For -
eign Commerce shall be discharged from tit
further consideration of the bill S. 1518, an
it shall then be in order in the House to moi
to strike out all after the enacting clause t
the said Senate bill and insert in lieu there( the provisions provisions contained in HR. 10307 ;
passed by the Reuse.
The SPEAKER pro tern pore. The gen -
tleman from Massachusetts is recognize
for 1 hour.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I vi.)1-1:.
minutes to the gentleman from Oh )
(Mr LATTA) , pending which I yield -
self such time as I may consume.
(Mr. MOAKLEY asked and was give. )
pen-Me:ion to revise and extend hti r.
marks.)
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, House
Resolution 967 makes in order considera-
tion of H.R. 1()807, a bill to amend tit s
Motor Vehicle Information and Cos
Savings Act.
This is an open rule providing for
hour of genera], debate.
I would like to commend our distin
guished colleague from California (Mt
VAN DEERLIN) , chairman of the Subcom
rnittee on Consumer Protection and Fl
nanee. for the outstanding work he any
his colleagues have done in bringing thi
legislation before us.
H.R. 10807 will strengthen existing la-,
prohibiting odometer tampering. Man)
States?including Massachusetts?hay
enacted very tough laws in this area. Bu
Federal action is essential because st
large a segment of the used car marke
involves interstate commerce. Once a CP
crosses State lines in the wholesal
market, the State laws collapse. Even i
the buyer and seller both live in State
with strict laws, Federal action is neces
sary to protect buyers in interstate sales
This legislation will also be of invalu-
able aid to consumers in making in
formed decisions in car buying by re-
quiring that information be available or
the comparative crashworthines,s o
automobiles.
House Resolution 967 will dischargi
the Committee on Interstate and For -
iegn Commerce from further consider-
ation of S. L518 and provides tha
it shall be in order to move to strike ali
after the enacting clause of S. 1518 and
insert in lieu thereof the provisions of
H.R. 10807 as passed by the House.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the
rule so that the House may proceed tc
- consider this legislation.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield my-
self such time as I may consume.
(Mr. LATTA asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker as previously
explained, this rule provides for 1 hour
of general debate on H.R. 10807, trig
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Sav-
ings Act Amendments of 1:)75, and that,
the bill shall be open to all germane
amendments.
The purpose of this bill is to authorize
funds to carry out the Motor Vehicle In-
formation and Cost Savings Act for fiscal
years 1976 and 1977, and to amend the
act to provide authority for enforcing
prohibitions against motor vehicle odom-
eter tampering.
The estimated cost of this bill is
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
94rEc CONGRESS ta
21) SESSION
1..t. in. 11476
IN TILE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
.1 A NITAIt. Y 22, 1976
Mr. SCHEUE/1 il1tEOC111Ced the. -following bill; which was referred to the Com-
mittee on Internatiunal Relations
A BILL
To amend the War Powers Resolution to make such resolution
applicable in cases where agents or employees of the fruited
States are engaged in hostilities in a foreign country or are
advising foreign military forces engaged in hostilities'.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tines of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 That this Act may be cited as the "Foreign Paramilitary
4 Intervention Act".
5 SEC. 2. Section 8 of the War Powers Resolution is
6 amended by adding at the end thereof the following new
7 subsection:
8 "(e) Any person in any foreign country who is em
-
9 ployed by, under contract to, or under the direction of any
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
del/A11111(111 411. agVII(*.\- 1/1 flu C I td Stall Government and
1-4 110r ( ) !(Ntilit1( :?41(*11
fOreioll
country, or (0) nth i-i
t ? '
Aar 0) irregular
military 10rees einra!,141 in 11(011F 1.1 ( 'Pig!! CCIII1 rry_
deellled 10 lie a nwitilocrI ?(1 stnir, rmcd
Forces for the purposes of 1IH ioint reso!inion,"
a)
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
S 352
For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R0011002 -0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE YJanuary 22, 1976
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
MEMBERSHIP FOR THE SECRE-
TARY OF THE TREASURY?VETO
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
STAFFORD). Under the previous order,
the hour of 12:30 p.m. having arrived,
the Senate will now proceed to the con-
sideration of the President's veto mes-
sage on- S. 2350, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Veto message on S. 2350, a bill to amend
the National Security Act of 1947, as
amended, to include the Secretary of the
Treasury as a member of the National Secu-
rity Council.
(The text of the President's veto mes-
sage is printed on page S2 of the CON-
GRESSIONAL RECORD Of January 19, 1976.)
The Senate proceeded to consider the
bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is, Shall the bill pass, the objections
of the President of the United States to
the contrary notwithstanding?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I suggest the absence of a quorum and
I ask unanimous consent that the time
be equally charged against both sides.
The PRESIDING 0.torICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk
proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. TOWER. 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. TOWER. Mr. President, I rise in
support of the President's veto of S. 2350,
a bill to amend the National Security Act
of 1947.
I think we can all understand that
there is some merit in having the Secre-
tary of the Treasury serve on the Na-
tional Security Council. Certainly the
position of the United States in the
world economy, the integrity of the dol-
lar, and our trade balances are all mat-
ters that are involved in national secu-
rity, because national security does not
Involve military and political security
alone, but involves economic security as
well.
But I think in this instance the point
the President has made is well taken,
that he is denied some degree of flex-
ibility which he feels he must have so
far as the National Security Council is
concerned.
The National Security Council in its
particular responsibilities, by definition,
does not frequently deal with economic
and financial matters; it deals primarily
with military and political matters, and
it has been the custom and the practice
to invite the Setretary of the Treasury
to sit on deliberations of the Council
when financial or economic matters are
involved.
I think we must consider, then, the
peculiar function of the National Secu-
rity Council as being primarily oriented
toward military matters and secondar-
ily political matters, and note that there
is in existence the Council on Interna-
tional Economic Policy, over which the
Secretary of the Treasury presides; and
that is the entity that is responsible for
international economic planning and
economic concern. The Secretary of the
Treasury quite properly does preside over
that council.
It does not seem to me that we should
dilute the Secretary of the Treasury in
terms of his ability to exercise his many
responsibilities by adding on to the Sec-
retary of the Treasury yet another re-
sponsibility, which is service on the Na-
tional Security Council, when matters
that come within the province of his -
office are not frequently or often taken
up in the National Security Council. I
-think it suffices that we have a Council
on International Economic Planning, of
which the Secretary of the Treasury is
very much a part.
I might note that if we mandated by
statute the membership of the Secretary
of the Treasury on the National Security
Council, we perhaps might have to take
it a step further and mandadte member-
ship on the Council on the part of others
.,who are concerned with international
economic matters. The Secretary of
Agriculture, for example, is very much
concerned about the international eco-
nomy, because he is in the business of
trying to promote markets for the export
of American food and fiber abroad. We
could go on, perhaps, and note that the
heads of other executive departments
could have some interest in what goes on
In the National Security Council. But
that would be unwieldy, and I think the
more we (lo this kind of thing, the more
it reduces the flexibility we give the Presi-
dent. --
Certainly the National Security Coun-
cil does not operate in a vacuum. It does
call in, from time to time, people who
are involved in various concerns that
might be under consideration or discus-
sion in the Council. I think this flexibility
has worked out quite well, and I t ee no
point in mandating the membership of
the Secretary of the Treasury on the Na-
tional Security Council when, if the
President should desire, he can sit in on
the National Security Council when mat-
ters within the purview of his responsi-
bility are under consideration.
I hope the Senate will sustain the
President's veto.
Mr. SYIVIINGTON. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that during this
debate, Mr. David Raymond and Mr.
Paul Donnelly of my staff be allowed the
privilege of the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, I
have held two positions on the National
Seeurity Council in the past. One was as
Secretary of the Air Force. It was wrong
that the three Secretaries of the services
should have been on the National Secu-
rity Council, because that made them
equal with the Secretary of Defense; so
we were rightfully removed 2 years after
the Council had started functioning in
1947.
Later I was chairman of the National
Security Resources Board, and there-
fore, had an opportunity to present the
economic picture. The only reason at that
time the Secretary of the Treasury was
not a statutory member of the council
was because the Secretary of the Treas-
ury, the Honorable John W. Snyder, was
so close to the President that they would
not have-had a meeting getting his ad-
vice on economic matters.
Yesterday, I made a talk on this sub-
ject on the Senate floor. I now have a
very brief r?m?f the reasons fm my
position. Incidentally, many Senators on
both sides of the aisle voluntarily co-
sponsored this legislation, although I did
not ask for any cosponsors.
As I mentioned, the bill has no other
purpose than to strengthen the National
Security Council whose membership
today is limited to but four members; in
addition to the President and the Vice
President, only the Secretary of State
and the Secretary of Defense.
By adding the Secretary of the Treas-
ury as a third cabinet member on this
Council, we would be insuring that in the
highest advisory body to the President
on national security, our vital economic
and financial interests would be consid-
ered in these important NSC delibera-
tions.
Let us recall the purpose of the Na-
tional Security Council as it is described
in the law which established it, the Na-
tional Security Act of 1947. This act says
the purpose of the National Security
Council is "to advise the President with
respect to the integration of domestic,
foreign, and military policies relating to
the national security."
It is incredible that in matters such as
the sale of grain, for example, the price
of oil, and the international monetary
fund agreement which was entered into
by 128 nations in Jamaica a few weeks
ago, there should be no representative on
the National Security Council involved
In these problems, or that the President
would not have the benefit of the advice
of his highest man on fiscal and mone-
tary matters.
Let me repeat, the purpose of the
Council is "to advise the President with
respect to the integration of domestics,
foreign, and military policies relating to
the national security."
As mentioned, any meaningful consid-
eration of domestic, foreign, and military
policies relating to the national security
would include fiscal?economic?consid-
erations, as these relate to both our do-
mestic well-being and foreign relations.
This was precisely the thinking of two
Presidential commissions, the Hoover
Commission in 1949 and the Murphy
Commission in 1975.
In a special report on national security
organization, the Hoover Commission
emphasized the fundamental importance
of economic representation on the Na-
tional Security Council:
The National Security Act of 1947 con-
templates that the National Security Coun-
cil should weigh our foreign risks and com-
mitments against our domestic and military
strength and bring them into realistic bal-
ance. . . . The President should be able to
access the impact of any plans and programs
upon the nation as a whole.
Since the Hoover report, when, inci-
dentally, there were seven members on
the National Security Council, includ-
ing, as I mentioned, the position I once
held, Chairman of the National Security
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
bollary 22, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SEN ATE
General LeMay returned to the United
States al, year later and became commander
ef SAC. Be held thia position until 1957 when
he Was appointed Vice Chief of Staff of the
iJolted States Air Force. Be became Chief of
:ittalf of the United States Air Force in July
04,1 He served in this capacity until his m-
ire aeut in Februal y 1965.
GEN, TH )MAS S. POWER
.11Lt7/ 1, 1957-November 30, 1964
.0.,neral Thomas S. Power became Corn-
:nauder in Chief 0 the Strategic Air Corn-
:nand (SC) on Ju y 1, 1957. In August 1960,
assumed an additional duty as Director of
he newly created Joint Strategic Target
'lat,nirtg Staff.
laider his corm-rand, SAC's nuclear deter-
vent terce was expanded and improved. The
a an mend became a a all-jet bomber force in-
'esgrated with intercontinental ballistic mis-
ailes. General Power initiated action to in-
,rease the commani effectiveness by having
he bombers and missiles on 15-minute
around aaert. He also tested and put into
hying the airborne zalert program, in which a
certain number of bombers were maintained
as the air at all times.
Prior to becominy Commander in Chief of
'3ACL. General Powcr served three veers as
'commander of the Air Research and Develop-
ment Command. F:e served as Vice Com-
mander of SAC from 1948 to 1954.
General Power's military career began in
toebruary 1928 in the Air Corps flying school.
,early in his career, he served as an Army air
mail operations pilot, as a flying instructor
at Randolah Field. Texas, and as an engineer-
0'1.g and armament officer at Nichols Field, in
.he
Goring World War IL General Power first
combat as a B-24 pilot with the 304th
Bomb Wing in Notth Africa and Italy. In
August 1944 he was awned commander of the
1--?29 equipped 314th Bomb Wing which he
moved subsequently to Guam as part of the
21st Bomber Command. On March 9, 1945 he
led the first large-scale fire bomb raid on
'okyo, ithtiating revolutionary new tactics
helped to spe ad the end of the air war
in the Pacific.
in August 1945 General Carl Spaatz, then
mnrnanding general of the United States
Strategic Air Force5 in the Pacific, selected
'General Power as hi a Deputy Chief of Opera-
tions. He served in this capacity during the
40:01THC bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Naga-
atki. In 1946, General Power participated in
e.e 'Crossroads" ate mic bomb tests at Bikini
Atoll as Assistant Deputy Task Force Com-
mander for Air.
After the atomic weapons tests, he served
le Deputy Assistan; Chief of Air Staff for
Operations in Washington and later as Air
Attache in London.
General Power served as Commander in
thief of SAC until November 30, 1964 when
was succeeded lav General John D. Ryan.
General Power retir.ld from the military on
iccember 1, 1964. lie died on December 6,
)79 of she age of 65,
GEN. ,TC HN D. RYAN
1, 1964?January 31, 1967
General John D. Ryan culminated over 17
is of command End staff assignments in
the Strategic Air Command by becoming the
Commander in Chiea of SAC on December 1,
11114,
General Ryan's Mat SAC assignment was
April 1946 with the 58th Bombardment
Wing at Carswell AFB, Texas. While assigned
to the 58th Bomb "Ming he participated in
Lae Bikini. Atoll atomic weapons tests as
aastatant Chief of Staff for Plans for the
ma. He later becarr e Director of Operations
for Ftghth Air Force at Carswell APB.
lie. commanded tee 509th Bombardment
Wing at Walker APB, New Mexico, from
1948 to 1951 and the 97th Bombardment
Wing and 810th Air Division at Briggs AFB,
Texas, from 1951 to 1953. He was 19th Air
Division commander at Carsa ell APB. Texas_
for three years before becoming Director of
Materiel for Headquarters SAC in June 1956.
General Ryan assumed command of SAC's
Sixteenth Air Force in Spain in 1960. He re-
turned to the United States in July 1961 to
command the Second Air Force at Barksdale
AFB, Louisiana.
After one year as Inspector General of the
U.S. Air Force, General Ryan came back into
SAC as Vice Commander in Chief. In Decem-
ber 1964 he became Commander in Chief of
SAC. He held this position until February
1967 when he was assigned as Commander
in Chief of Pacific Air Forces.
While he was Commander in Chief, the
Strategic Air Command became actively in-
volved in the United States military action
in Southeast Asia_ The command's B-52s be-
gan bombing enemy positions in South Viet-
nam in support of ground troops. At the
same time, SAC KC-135 tankers provided air
refueling support for SAC bombers and all
types of tactical fighter missions in South-
east Asia.
? General Ryan was instrumental in the con-
tinued improvement and modernization of
the command's forces. While he was in com-
mand. SAC received the new swing-wing
FB-111 bomber and replaced the 11-47 and
older B-52 bombers. The command also
phased out the Atlas and older Minuteman I
intercontinental ballistic missiles, replacing
them with the more modern Minuteman II
and Titan IT missiles.
From SAC, General Ryan went to com-
mand the Pacific Air Forces and became Vice
Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force in August
1968. The following year he was appointed
Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force,
a position he held until his retirement on
August 1, 1978.
GEN. BRUCE K. HOLLOWAY
August 1, 1968?April 30, 1972
General Bruce K. Holloway served as Com-
mander in Chief of the Strategic Air Com-
mand from August 1, 1968, to April 30, 1972.
A graduate of the United States Military
Academy in 1937, he received his pilot wings
at Kelly Field, Texas, the following year. From
1933 to 1940 ae served with the Sixth Pursuit
Squadron and 18th Pursuit Group in Hawaii
before taking a post-graduate course in aero-
nautical engineering at the California In-
stitute of Technology.
Shortly after the United States entered
World War IT, he went to Chunking, China, as
a fighter pilot with the famed "Flying Tigers"
of the American Volunteer Group. Remain-
ing with that group after it became the Army
Air Force's 23d Fighter Group, he became
its Commander before returning to the
United States in 1944. During, that tour in
China, General Holloway earned status as a
fighter ace, shooting down 13 Japanese
planes.
General Holloway took command of the
Air Force's first Jet-equipped fighter group
(1st Fghter Group) in 1946. As commander
of the unit, he performed pioneer service in
the new field of tactical jet air operations.
After graduation from the National War
College in 1951, he progressed through key
staff assignments in both operations and de-
velopment fields at United States Air Force
Headquarters. Later, as Director of Opera-
tional Requirements, he played a key role in
preparing and evaluating proposals for many
of our present aircraft and missiles.
He spent four years in the Tactical Al
Command (TAC) as Deputy Commander of
both the 9th and 12th Air Forces and in 1961
was named Deputy Commander in Chief of
the U.S. Strike Command at MacDill APB,
Florida. Later in that assignment, he also
fulfilled additional responsibilities as Dep-
uty Commander in Chief of the Middle East/
Southern Asia and Africa South of the Sahara
Command.
S 351
General Holloway assumed command of the
United States Air Forces in Europe in July
1965, servine in that capacity until his ap-
pointment as Vice Chief of Staff of the Canted
States Air Force on August 1, 1966.
He retired from the United States air Force
on April 30, 1972.
GEN. JOHIC C. MEYER
May 1, 1972--July 1, 1974
General John C. Meyer, the leading Amer-
ican ace in Europe during World War IL
became the seventh Commander in Chief of
the Strategic Air Command on May 1, 1972.
He began his military career in the Air
Corps in November 19119. In July 1940 he was
commissiened as a second lieutenant and
awarded pilot wings.
In July 1943 he commanded the 487th
Fighter Squadron and led it into combat
during World War II. :By the end of the year
he had flown over 200 combat missions and
recorded 371/2 aircraft destroyed in the air
and on the ground.
After World War Ti he returned to the
United States as the Secretary of Air Force's
principal point of contact with the House of
Representatives_ In 1950 he assumed com-
mand of the 4th Fighter Group at New
Castle, Delaware. He led this F-86 Sabrejet
group to Korea where the unit flew in the
1st United Nations Counter-offensive and
Chinese Communist Forces Spring Offensive
campaigns. General Meyer destroyed two
communist MIG-15 aircraft during his tour
of duty in Korea.
General Meyer was assigned to the Slate.-
tegic Air Command in 1959 as commander of
the 57th Air Division at Westover AFB, Mas-
sachusetts. In 1961 he became the 45th Air
Division commander at Loring AFB, Maine.
In 1962 General Meyer came to Strategic
Air Command Headquarters as Deputy Di-
rector of Plans, and as Chief Strategic Air
Command Representative to the Joint Stra-
tegic Target Planning Staff.
From SAC, General Meyer served as Com-
mander of the Tactical Air Command's 12th
Air Force. After over two years in TAC, he
was assigned to the Jcant Chiefs of Staff. as
Deputy Director, Vice Director and later as
Director of Operations.
In August 1969 he became Vice Chief of
Staff of the United States Air Force. He
served in this position until May :1972 when
he became Commander in Chief of SAC.
As SAC Commander General Meyer di-
rected SAC's efforts during the peak period
of SAC's combat involvement in Southeast
Asia, which included the climatic LINE-
BACKER II operation. During that 11-day air
campaign in December 1972, SAC B-52 bomb-
ers struck military targets in the Hanoi and
Haiphong area of the Republic of North
Vietnam. Soon after LINEBACKER II a peace
agreement was reached in Vietnam.
General Meyer retired from active military
service on August 1, 1974.
SAC CONSULTATION COMMITTEE
Harold W. Andersen, J. D. Anderson, John
ff. Becker, IViaj. Gen. Timothy J. Dacey, Jr..
USAF, Ret.. Leo A. Daly. Robert B. Daugherty,
John D. Diesing, Charles W. Durham, Kermit
Hansen, John C. Keneflck, Peter Kiewit,
John R. Lauritzen,
Edward W. Lyman, Jack A. MacAllister,
Morris F. Miller, Nick T. Newberry, Julius I.
Novak, Charles D. Feebler, Jr., J. R. Reif-
schnelder, V. J. Skutt, A. V. Sorensen, Arthur
C. Storz, Robert H. Store, Willis A. Strauss,
A. F. Jacobson, Chairman.
CONCLUSION OF MORNING
BUSINESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
further morning business? If not, morn-
ing business is closed.
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
January 22, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
Resources Board, who brought economic
representa2on to the Council, today
there are only these four members on this
Council, and no economic representation.
Now let us consider the final recom-
mendation of the Murphy Commission,
that Presidential Commission on the Or-
?
ganization of Government for the Con-
duct of Foreign Policy, which was estab-
lished by President.Nixon in 1972.
In its June, 1975 final report, this Com-
mission stated:
Increasingly, economic forces define the
strength or weakness of nations, and eco-
nomic issues dominate the agenda of inter-
national negotiation. National Security poli-
cy is no longer simply a mix of diplomatic
and military affairs; properly understood, na-
tional security embraces economic policy too.
Accordingly, the membership of the National
Security Council should be expanded to in-
clude the Secretary of the Treasury, and its
jurisdiction expanded to include major issues
of international economic policy-making.
On October 2, 1975, the Senate Armed
Services Committee, after holding hear-
ings, unanimously approved and recom-
mended that the Secretary of the Treas-
ury be placed on the National Security
Council.
On October 9, this bill unanimously
passed the Senate, with bipartisan sup-
port, including majority .and minority
leaders among the cosponsors.
On December 9, the House Armed
Services Committee, after holding their
hearings, also unanimously approved and
recommended that the Secretary of the
Treasury be placed on the National Se-
curity Council; thereupon, on December
17, this bill unanimously passed the
House of Representatives. '
Then, as we know, on New Year's eve,
President Ford vetoed this bill.
The Wall Street Journal had, reported
on December 12 that Secretary Kissinger
had objected to placing the Secretary of
the Treasury on the National Security
Council.
I do not wish to be critical of the Sec-
retary of State, but sometimes, as I watch
the amount of money that we are putting
out in an effort, as I see it, to buy the
peace, which perhaps was the great mis-
take of Great Britain in the 1930's. I
can understand why he did not want
anyone at Cabinet level on the National
Security Council who represented our
economic interests.
The President?and I refer to his veto
message?tells us that economic matters
are handled as a matter of routine
through other channels; and that it
would be "unnecessary" to have the
Treasury Secretary on the National Se-
curity Council.
That this President, or any President,
would subscribe to the narrow view that
national security is limited on to
diplomatic and military problems?and
would not automatically include eco-
nomic considerations?is to me little
short of astounding.
Mr. President, I believe, in the interest
of the United States, the economy is also
Important to security and also to the
well-being of our country.
Therefore, I urge Congress to override
the President's veto.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I suggest
the absence of a quorum and ask unani-
mous consent that the time be equally
charged against both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to call the roll.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I ask unan.-
imous consent that the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, how much
time does the Senator require?
Mr. PERCY. Three minutes.
Mr. TOWER. I yield 3 minutes to the
Senator from Illinois.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, I
yield the able senior Senator from Illi-
nois as much time as he would like.
Mr. TOWER. And I yield to him as
much time as he desires.
Mr. PERCY. I appreciate my col-
leagues yielding time.
Mr. President, I wish to precede my
comments by simply reiterating my deep
concern and interest in the importance
of economic affairs as they relate to the
future development of our Nation, not
only internally and domestically but also
in the world community.
As I believe the distinguished Senator
from Missouri (Mr. SYMINGTON) and
other members of the Committee on For-
eign Relations know, I have taken the
position for a long time, with the State
Department, that it is unwise for us to
have an alternating Under Secretary for
Political Affairs and then occasionally
an Under Secretary for -Economic Af-
fairs. It seems to me that, for a long
time to come, political affairs of this Na-
tion will be of a permanent nature, and
so will economic affairs. It seems to me
we should have an Under Secretary for
Political Affairs and another for eco-
nomic affairs.
Acting on behalf of the administra-
tion, I submitted a measure, drafted by
the State Department, to implement this.
It is now law, and we have had a full-
time Under Secretary for Economic Af-
fairs for some time.
So, too, I feel in the matter of the
National Security Council, that the Sec-
retary of the Treasury has a great re-
sponsibility throughout the world, as has
been pointed out by the distinguished
senior Senator from Missouri in his re-
marks on the floor of the Senate.
The Secretary of the Treasury has a
role in the world that is important. This
was borne out this morning in testimony
that former Secretary Rusk gave before
the Government Operations Committee,
when he testified on the question of how
we handle oversight over the security
and intelligence activities of the country.
Former Secretary Rusk observed that,
in his judgment, not only did Congress
have a greater responsibility for over-
sight, but also, national security mem-
bers should assume a greater responsi-
bility in oversight, He testified this
morning that he, as Secretary of State,
S 353
was surprised subsequently to find that
certain actions had occurred of which
he was not aware and should have been
aware, as Secretary of State.
I did not specifically put this particu-
lar question to him, because it was not
really germane to our hearings; but his
general assumption that greater respon-
sibility should be taken by national secu-
rity members, I think, would be rein-
forced by making the Secretary of the
Treasury a statutory member. We have
only two members right now from the
Cabinet. I am not so sure that the At-
torney General should not be a statu-
tory member. I think with it written into
law that they have this responsibility,
they would take that responsibility much
more seriously.
As former Attorney General Katzen-
bach testified this morning, the pres-
sures of time on Cabinet officials are very
great indeed. But if they are going to
have this responsibility, I think they
should have it in a more formalized way.
Certainly, they should not be in a posi-
tion where, by leave of the President,
they are just performing that function
then and sitting in. If they looked into
or began to severely question certain of
our activities, let us say in the covert
field, someone might be inclined to ad-
vise that they keep their cotton-picking
hands off their business.
That has been our great trouble in the
intelligence community, that it is their
business when it is really our business.
I think we should do everything we
can to strengthen our oversight and I
think by overriding this veto, we will be
really strengthening the oversight of the
executive branch of Government for a
long time to come.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Will the Senator
yield for a question?
Mr. PERCY. I am happy to yield.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I noticed during the
holidays that the International Monetary
Fund met in Kingston, Jamaica; 128
Countries having to do with our fiscal and
monetary world problems, as well, of
course, as those of the United States. At
that conference, the Secretary of the
Treasury was the No. 1 man for the
United States. The Senator has had
great banking and 'business experience.
He knows that problems of the economy
are inextricably bound up in any diplo-
matic and military problems. Does he not
think it unfortunate that in Jamaica,
earlier this month, 128 countries met to
make major decisions?and they were
major, comparable in many ways to the
Dumbarton Oaks conference?does the
Senator not think it extraordinary that
there was not a single member of the Na-
tional Security Council present at those
meetings?
Mr. PERCY. I should think so. Ob-
viously, the Secretary of the Treasury sits
In on such meetings, but he ought to be a
statutory member, in the opinion of the
Senator from Illinois. I think it fitting
that a member of the Security Council
should be participating, with the kind of
stature he would have, in such a forum.
Mr. SYMINGTON. The only reason 1
brought it up is that the claim is made
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE Januar?/ 22. 197(
that. economic problems are not impor-
tant enough and should be handled on a
selitine basis as against diplomatic and
eiditary problems. The able Senator and
;erve on the Committee on Foreign Re-
!mites. If we are discusing the currency
jeoblems of 128 ccuntries. there is cer-
tainly a great deal of diplomatic interest
end action incident to such a discussion.
Therefore. I do not see how they could
be separated. That was the thrust of my
es tion.
Mr. PERC'Z. To reinforce the distin-
,- eisned Senator's point, I remind the
Senator that at the height of the em-
bargo. when it looked like the whole
r -ionomy of this country and the Western
rid might be imperiled, it was the
secretary of the Treasury who was going
a.cound the world, to the Middle East,
calling on various countries, and de-
nouncing certain actions, pointing out
tile specific implications of those actions.
It is the Secretary of the Treasury,
certainly, wha works with many of the
countries where a tremendous impact
lass been had from these fallout effects,
eay only, once again, that thio is why
I sponsored the legislation to have a
foil-time Under Secretary of State for
Economic Affairs, because it was incon-
refivable to the Senator from Illinois that
eremomics would not be right up there on
Oar with pclitics in the world in which
elf live. The Senator has served as a
roan:Per of the delegation to the U.N.
The Senator from Illinois served in the
fail of 1974. increasingly, the issues are
eUanomie issues in that international
forum. Certainly, we cannot separate our
telligence and all of that from the eco-
romics of the matter.
In fact, the first debriefings I ever
Ive were 20-some years ago to the CIA,
ettfre time I ( ame back. I thought it was
outstandi ig thing that they would
neeh out for businessmen doing business
Istsceid to br.ef them on the economic
iniplications of what they were doing
alaio.ed. That was 20 years ago. The inn-
cit is far treater today on the ecd-
cs of the interrelated world in
iich we live
Certainly, feel that the chief fiscal
edicer of our country should be and de-
tseyes to be a statutory member of the
iesstional Security Council.
-Mr. SYMINGTON. I thank my able
,iefieague. Wculd he not agree that the
inice of oil was a vitally imnortant eco-
ddni.,3 matte-- , as well as a diplomatic
enitler?
Me. PERCY. It seems to me that we
se lid have gone to war over it. In fact.
e is the ecor omics of the Middle East,
ei sr, as much as the politics of the Mid-
de, East that I think have great impact.
. SYMINGTON. I thank the Sen-
iniiRCift I think I can only re-
,c what my distinguished colleague
:lad to say heretofore.
Me SYMINGTON. I thank the Sen-
e PREk;IDINCx" Cie eICER. Who
Ui time?
,Mit TOWEais Mr. President, I am pre-
sed to yield back the remainder of my
I etc.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. Presider t. I
am prepared to yield back my time
The PRESIDING OrIsICER. All time
is yielded back.
Mr. President, before us today it the
question of whether the economic and
fiscal aspects of our national security
should be given full statutory considera-
tion, by congressional mandate, in the
deliberations of the National See' rity
Council. The National Security Council
is directed by law "to advise the Presi-
dent with respect to the integration of
domestic, foreign, and military policies
relating to the national security." Our
distinguished colleague. Senator SYlt..:NG-
TON, whose command of these issues is
matched by few Senators, has arfued
persuasively that the Secretary of the
Treasury. the Cabinet member cha ged
specifically with guarding our econimic
interests, should be a full member of the
National Security Council. Senator
SYMLNGTON has cited the impact of the
197'3 oil embargo and overseas grain ;ales
on the domestic economy, both as exam-
ples of national security matters ero-
founcily affecting economic prosperiee
Everyone here is aware that the Na-
tional Security Council, now compesed
of the President, the Vice President the
Secretary of the State, and the Sem if:try
of Defense, deals with foreign and do-
mestic policies regarding our national
security, with the President making de-
cisions based on Council discussions. And
we are all increasingly concerned elth
the interdependence of these national
security issues with our economic on-
cerns both in the world at large and here
at home.
Senator SYMINC,ToN expresses it be, ter
than I could:
Inasmuch as a sound economy, wi a
sound dollar, is vital tt, national sem. '1,ty,
..hould there not be concern that the Na-
tion's chief fiscal and monetary officer., has
no statutory right to participate in ese
high-level discussions of national sec,T,ity
issues?
This concern was txpressed by the
Congress when this bill was passed mein-
.
nnously by both Houses. Senator SYNCING-
row's bill has been recommended recei itly
by the Presidential Commission on the
Organization of Government for the
Conduct of Foreign Policy, the Mui ohy
Commission, and has been recommer seed
in principle in the past by former Presi-
dent Hoover, in his capacity as Chair nan
of the Commission on the Organization
of the Executive Branch of Government.
And the President haa said the.: to
grant full Council status to our top -s--20-
nomic official is 'undesirable as we.. as
unnecessary."
Both Houses of Congress have aln edy
eisagreed with this judgment.
Both Houses of Congress have reseg-
eized the importance of the econdinic
implications of our foreign policy and
cm-national security, and have addre3sed
the need for closer consideration of eur
economic needs in decisions relatina to
,itir national security.
Both Houses of Coo _tress have ret .0a-
nized that existing mechanisms for
ordination of our, national security and
domestic and international economic
policy are inadequate.
Fcr all these reasons, Mr. President
both Houses of Congress should continus
to insist that, as the Murphy Commis -
sion stated:
NaUonal securi-;y policy is no longer simpl'
a mix of diplomatic and military affairs
properly understood, national security em
braces economic policy as well. Accordingly
the membership of the National Securit,
Council should be expanded to include th-
Secrezary of the Treasury.
We should, therefore, vcte to oven
this -veto.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President. the
question has been raised in connectioe
with this debate as to the status of the
President's action on S. 2350 in light o:
the pocket veto clause of the Constitu-
tion, article I, section 7, clause 2
By returning the bill to the Senate, the
President has -clearly indicated his in-
tention to treat this bill as a normal veto
Without question, the Senate is ampls
justiffed in treating the veto as a norma:
veto, rather than a pocket veto, and ir
proceeding, therefore, to vote on whethe
to override the veto.
The pocket veto question arises be-
cause the President's action in returning
the bill to Congress is as unprecedented
as it is welcome to those of us who have
been endeavoring to obtain a rationale
construction of the pocket veto clause
consistent with the legitimate powers of
Congress under the Constitution,
Heretofore, Presidents have uniformls
treated the sine die adjournment of the
first session of a Congress as an occasioe
for a pocket veto, in spite of the fact thai
the rationale for such a pocket veto hat:
lost its logic during the relatively brie)
adjournments that Congress now takes
When a bill is pocket vetoed, the Presi-
dent is said to "put it in his pocket"--tle
bill is not returned to Congress, and Con-
gress has no chance to override the veto
Since the pocket veto is, in effect, ar
absolute veto, it has been a perioclii
source of friction between Presidents ant:
Congress for many years. In fact, thr
absolute veto power of King George m
was the first of the 26 grievances cited
against the King by the colonists in the
Declaration of Independence:
. IL] et Facts be submit;ed to a candic
World. Fre has refused his Asent to Laws, tl(.
most wholesome and necessary for the public
Good I
Recently. the U.S. Court of Appeals MI
the District of Columbia Circuit ruled it:
my fanor in an action I had brought.
challenging the pocket veto by Presieteni
Nixon of the Family Practice of Medicins
Act during the 5-day Christmas adjourn-
ment of Congress in 1970 The cats
reported in Kennedy v. Sampson 511 F
2d 430 11974) . The adminif tri tior
declined to request Supreme Court re-
view at the decision.
Subsequently, and somewhat bel hig-
erently. ignoring the obvious rationale
of that decision, the administration
chose to try to limit the ruling to its
facts and insisted on its pocket veto
power during longer adjournments of
Congress.
In early 1974 I filed another action
in the U.S. District Court for the Dis-
trict of Columbia. challenging a pocket
veto by President Nixon of a charter bus
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
January 2, 19 AP Pnwed Fctr,61M3119NR?14612ActEDERINAlt4R001100210037-0 S 355
transportation bill during the sine die
adjournment of the 1st session of the
93d Congress.
Later in 1974, President Ford pocket
vetoed an aid-to-the-handicapped bill
during the 31-day election adjournment
of the 2d session of the 93d Congress.
In this instance, the President had
actually returned the bill to Congress,
but with an ambiguous message which
appeared to be a normal veto but which
contained a proviso reserving the right
to call his action a pocket veto.
? Congress treated the message as a
normal veto and proceeded to override
it. But the President insisted the message
had been a pocket veto, in spite of the
rather ridiculous legal posture the
administration was forced to take. The
pocket veto clause provides that a pocket
veto applies where an adjournment of
Congress prevents the President from
returning a bill to the Senate or the
House. In the case in question, the Presi-
dent was maintaining that the election
adjournment had prevented the return
of the bill. But in fact, as everybody
knew, the President had succeeded in
returning the bill to Congress with no
difficulty at all.
The distinguished constitutional law
professor, Thomas Reed Powell, once
said,
If you think you can think about a thing
inextricably attached to something else
without thinking of the thing which it is
attached to, then you have a legal mind.
By this test, the administration
obviously qualifies as having a legal
mind.
So, I amended my pending action in
the district court to include a challenge
to this pocket veto as well. That action,
as amended, is currently pending before
Judge Sirica. The judge ruled earlier
this week that I had standing to bring
the case and that the action was not
moot, thereby disposing of the proce-
dural questions in the case. As a result,
the case is now ready to proceed to a
decision on the merits of the two pocket
vetoes in question.
Last spring, the Ford administration's
hardline position began to thaw. Dur-
ing the 11-day Memorial Day recess In
1975, the President returned two bills
to Congress as completely normal
vetoes?the messages did not contain
the pocket veto proviso used a few
months earlier in the fall of 1974.
However, Congress did not attempt to
override either veto. The legal issue with
respect to these two bills was therefore
moot, since the bills could not become
laws under either the administration's
interpretation or the congressional in-
terpretation of the pocket veto clause.
That brings us to the administration's
recent additional thaw, extending the
practice of returning bills as unqualified
normal vetoes to the sine die adjourn-
ment just past.
Recently, I wrote to Solicitor General
Bork, asking for clarification of the ad-
ministration's apparent shift in position
on the issue, since the administration
finds itself in the ungainly position of
defending its pocket veto power in court
while abandoning it before Congress.
An adjournment of Congress either oc-
casions a pocket veto or it does not.
There is no suggestion in the Constitu-
tion or the pocket veto precedents to sup-
port the proposition that a President has
any discretion to choose between a poc-
ket veto or a normal veto during the
same adjournment of Congress.
I feel we have made a great deal of
progress on this issue since the confron-
tations of recent years. The decision of
the President to return S. 2350 to Con-
gress with a normal veto is a generous
conciliatory gesture to the Senate and
House. I also see it as a clear vindica-
tion of the position that Senator Sam
Ervin, I and other Members of Congress
have been trying for many years to
establish.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that my letter of January 7, 1976,
to Solicitor General Bork may be printed
in the RECORD. I am currently awaiting
his reply, which I hope will lead to a
prompt and final settlement of the
pocket veto issue.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
1J.S. SENATE,
January 7, 1976.
Hon. ROBERT H. BOWL:,
Solicitor General,
Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR Ma. Sm.:comps Cistilaat. I am writing
to request clarification of the Administra-
tion's current position with respect to the
use of the pocket veto during adjournments
of Congress.
The first session of the 94th Congress ad-
jdurned sine die on December 19, 1975. The
second session of the 94th Congress is sched-
uled to begin on January 19, 1976. During the
current sine die adjournment, the President
has vetoed two bills?S. 2350 (to make the
Secretary of the Treasury a member of the
National Security Council), and H.R. 5900
(the Common Situs Picketing Bill) . In both
cases, the President returned the bills to Con-
gress in a form essentially identical to the
form used for a "normal" or "return" veto,
which Congress may vote to override.
In the past, however, President Ford has
chosen to use a form of veto during such
adjournments that preserves the Adminis-
tration's previous position that such bills
may be pocket vetoed, which would prevent
Congress from overriding the veto. The Presi-
dent's recent action thus appears to be in-
consistent with the Administration's prior
Certainly, nothing in the Constitution or
Supreme Court decisions on the pocket veto
power suggests that the President has any
discretion to choose between a pocket veto
or a return veto during an adjournment of
Congress. Either the Pock et Veto Clause of
the Constitution, Article I, Section 7, Clause
2, applies, or it does not.
As you know, I have filed an action in the
U.S. District Court in Washington, challeng-
ing pocket vetoes in similar circumstances
by President Nixon in January 1974, and by
President Ford in October 1974. The case is
now awaiting action by the Court.
Although I supported both S. 2350 and
H.R. 5900 and regret the vetoes, I welcome
the President's decision to send these two
bills back to Congress in the form of a return
veto, not a pocket veto. The President's action
is an appropriate conciliatory gesture toward
Congress that respects the constitutional
prerogatives of the House and Senate to act
on Presidential vetoes. I hope that this action
by the President signals the end of the
pocket veto as a bone of contention between
Congress and the Administration.
I look forward to your clarification of the
Administration's current position, which was
foreshadowed by a statement on the floor
of the House of Representatives by Congress-
man John J. Rhodes, Republican House
Minority Leader on December 19, 1975. Cong.
Rec. 11 13071 (Daily Ed.).
If, as the President's recent action indi-
cates, the Administration has in fact changed
its position and now -agrees that a pocket
veto is unconstitutional during such adjourn-
ments of Congress, I hope that the Depart-
ment of Justice will inform the court forth-
with of the Administration's new position, so
that the continuing controversy over the
pocket veto may be settled, and so that an
appropriate early disposition may be made
of the pending litigation.
Respectfully,
EDWARD M. KENNEDY.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the
bill, S. 2350, presently before the Senate
for consideration to override the Presi-
dent's veto, was passed unanimously by
the Senate Armed Services Committee
last year. Simply stated, it merely re-
quires that the Secretary of the Treas-
ury become a statutory member of the
National Security Council.
This bill, authored by the distin-
guished senior Senator from Missouri,
Mr. SYMINGTON, was passed without ob-
jection by both Houses of the Congress
and in my viewpoint is not a partisan
issue.
I am impressed by the fact that the
action incorporated in this legislation
was recommended by the Murphy Com-
mission established by President Nixon
in 1972. Further, former President Her-
bert Hoover in testimony before the Sen-
ate Armed Services Committee follow-
ing World War II, expressed the view-
point that financial and economic fac-
- tors should be weighed carefully in high
level considerations on national security
issues.
As the Members of the Senate know,
one of the gravest problems facing the
Nation today involves the huge deficit
faced by this Nation. This is graphically
illustrated by the fact that in the fiscal
year 1977 budget $45 billion in outlays
are required simply to pay interest on
the national debt. This outlay alone
amounts to nearly one-half of the $101
billion defense budget outlays for fiscal
year 1977.
Thus, it is obvious that financial con-
siderations and restraints need to be ap-
plied inevery forum within the National
Government, not only the executive
branch, but especially in the Congress.
President Ford has submitted to the
Nation a fiscally constrained budget for
fiscal year 1977. Nevertheless, it contains
a deficit of approximately $43 billion.
As regards passage of S. 2350, Congress
has taken a step which could lead to
even more fiscal constraint, or at the
very minimum, it would assure an input
on fiscal matters in the NSC. Presently
such advice is not always present, al-
though President Ford has frequently
utilized such counsel in the past. Fur-
ther, my view is this bill is not aimed at
a particular President, but is intended to
assist all future Presidents.
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
Approved ForRet9m9RANA/8114%7L: Rkedyittumpicktioppoi oui ooptbotc, ).9-2 2.
'ertainly the Congress should be corn-
tided for tolls action and it would be
iaope that the 2d sessiOn of the
Path Congress would incorporate such
i.17 conservative ideology in its own
-.was in connection with the fiscal year
budget.
'Jr fortunatfly, in my viewpoint the
constress last year added far too much
spencing to the President's re-
niost and the Budget Committee did not
wide the restraining force that I had
eaoisioned when it was created in 1974.
To fact. the Budget Committee and the
egreSS increased the fiscal year 1976
'lie it significantly.
looefully, should the Congress decide
override the President's veto on this
, they will carry forward this phil-
'aoapily in tY.e appropriations decided
4u)on for the fiscal year 1977 budget.
Therefore, while I would normally
;import the President in a matter of this
nature. especially when it involves his
awn advisory counsel, my deep concern
feference the Nation's serious financial
eonchtion cau;es me to cast my vote in
favor of overriding the veto of S. 2350.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, have the
,toos and nays been ordered?
rhe PRESEDING OFFICER. The yeas
Loci nays are mandatory under the
coos titution.
tinder the previous order, all time hay-
:sot expired on the President's veto mes-
.iage pn S. 2350, the question is, Shall the
bill pass, the objections of the President
Ul the United States to the contrary not-
.A; ithstanding?
The yeas and nays are required. The
lock will call he roll.
'the assistant legislative clerk called
roll.
Mr._ ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce
?hat the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
asouREzic), the Senator from Indiana
(Mr. BAYH) . the Senator from Hawaii
Mr. INOUYE) , the Senator from Wyo-
anng (Mr. McGEE), the Senator from
South Dakota (Mr. McGovERN), the Sen-
ator from Minnesota (Mr. MONDALE) , the
Senator from North Carolina (Mr. MOR-
GAN) , the Senator from Mississippi (Mr.
Srarasas) . and the Senator from Califor-
nia (Mr. TUNNEY) are necessarily absent.
further announce that, if present and
'toting, the Senator from North Carolina
MT. MORGAN) would vote "yea."
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Sena tor from Wyoming (Mr. HANSEN)
:Hld the Senator from Nevada (Mr.
1,AltikI.T/ are r ecessarily absent.
further a nounce that the Senator
from Hawaii (Mr. Form) is absent due to
13 iness in the family.
I'll?: yeas and nays resulted?yeas 72,
16, as follows:
aenciai Vote No. 1 Leg.]
YEAS-72
Church
Clark
Cranston
Culver
Cole
nirkin
k:agleton
Eastland
',num
:WrAsen
Bider,
:13rock
i3rook
iiiqupers
tirdick
3ird,
lord
Tarry Y.. Jr. Oarn
,ivrci, Robert C. Glenn
r.%.nnon. Gravel
.'''a d,.3 Hart, Gary
chileS Hart, Philip A.
Hartke
Haskell
Hatfield
Hathaway
Helms
Hollings
Huddleston
Humphrey
Jackson
Javits
Johnston
Kennedy
Leahy
Long
Magnuson Nunn
Mansfield Pastore
Mathias Pearson
McClellan Pell
McClure Percy
McIntyre Proxmire
Metcalf Randolph
Montoya Ribicoff
Moss Roth
Muskie Schweiker
Nelson Scott, Hugh
NAYS-16
Sparkman
Stevens
Stevenson
Stone
Symington
Taft
Talmadge
Thurmond
Williams
Allen Goldwater Tower
Baker Griffin Weicker
Bartlett Hruska Young
Buckley Packwood
Curtis Scott,
Domenict William L.
Fannin Stafford
NOT VOTING-12
Abouresk Inouye Mondale
Bayh Laxalt Morgan
Fong McGee Stennis
Hansen McGovern Tunney
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. r M-
am). On this vote, the yeas are 72 Ind
the nays are 16. Two-thirds of the Sena-
tors present and voting, having votel in
the affirmative, the bill, on reconsidera-
tion, is passed, the objections of the
President of the United States to 'he
contrary notwithstanding.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON
GRANTING OF POLITICAL RIGHTS
TO WOMEN; CONVENTION ON THE
POLITICAL RIGHTS OF WOMEN;
INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNI-
CATION CONVENTION, 1973, WITH
ANNEXES AND FINAL PROTOCOL:
TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE
REGULATIONS, WITH APPENDICES
AND FINAL PROTOCOL: PARTIAL
REVISION OF THE RADIO REGULA-
TIONS (GENEVA 1959) WITH FINAL
PROTOCOL
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. r. -R-
KIN) . Under the previous order, the &n-
ate will now go into executive session and
will proceed to vote on the resolut:ons
of ratification of Executive D, 81st Con-
gress, 1st session; Executive J, 88th C on-
gre,ss, 1st session; Executive J, 93d
Congress, 2d session; Executive E, 93d
Congress, 2d session; and Executha G,
94th Congress, 1st session, with the one
vote to count for the five treaties.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I isk
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the:e a
sufficient second? There is a suffic out
second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The c erk
will state the first, resolution of
ratification.
INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON GRANTIN :OF
POLITICAL RIGHTS TO WOMEN
The resolution of ratification of R.: D
was read as follows:
Resolved. (two-thirds of the Senators ?.res-
ent concurring therein), That the Senate id-
vise and consent to the ratification of the
Inter-American Convention on The Or tot-
ing of Political Rights to Women, For Jun-
lated at the Ninth International Confer, ice
of American States, and signed at Bop ota,
Colombia, on May 2, 1948, by the Plen:po-
tentlaries of the United States of Ann rice
and by the Plenipotentiaries of other AI ler-
loan States (Ex. D, 81st Congress, 1st .es-
sion).
1976
The PRESIDING OrsaiCER. The
question is, Will the Senate advise and
consent to the resolution of ratification
on Ex, D, 81st Congress, 1st session.
Inter-American Conventioa on Grant-
ing of Political Rights to Wcanen? On
this question the yeas and nays have
been ordered, and the clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk call ml the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce
that the Senator from South Dakota
(Mr. ABouREzic) , the Senator from In-
diana (Mr. Hewn) , the Senator from
Hawaii (Mr. INOUYE) , the Senator from
Wyoming (Mr. McGEE), the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. McGovERN).
the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. MON-
DALE), the Senator from North Carolina
(Mr. MORGAN), the Senator from Missis-
sippi (Mr. STENNIS) , and the Senator
from California (Mr. TUNN EY) are nec-
essarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and
voting, the Senator from North Carolina
(Mr. MORGAN) would vote 'yea."
Mr GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senator from Wyoming (Mr. HANsEN),
and the Senator from Nevada (Mr
LAXALT are necessarily absent.
I further announce that the Senator
from Hawaii (Mr. Forza) is absent due to
illness in the faintly.
The yeas and nays resulted?yeas 88.
nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 2 Ex.]
YEAS-88
Allen
Baker
.i.
Beall
Bellmon
Bentsen
13iden
Brock
Brooke
Buckley
Bumpers
Burdick Helms
Byrd, Hol tings
Harry F., Jr. Hru.ska
Byrd, Hebert C. Huddleston
Cannon Humphrey
Case Jackson
Chiles Jay Its
Garn
Glenn
Go: dwater
Gravel
Griffin
Hart, Gary
Hart, Philip A.
Hartke
Haskell
Hatfield
Hathaway
Church
Clark
Cranston
Culver
Curtis
Dole
Domenic'
Durkin
Eagleton
Eastland
Fannin
Ford
Abou e21:.
Bayh
Fong
Hansen
Johnston
Kennedy
Leahy
Long
Magnuson
Mansfield
Mathias
McClellan
McClure
McIntyre
Metcalf
Montoya
NAYS-0
NOT VOTING-12
Inouye Mon-dale
Lax al t Morgan
McGee Stennis
McGovern Tunney
Moss
Muskie
Nelson
Nunn
Packwood
Pastore
Pearson
Pell
Percy
Proxmire
Randolph
Ribicoff
Roth
Schweiker
Scott, Hugh
Scott,
William L.
Sparkman
Stafford
Stevens
Stevenson
Stone
Symington
'raft
Talmadge
Thurmond
Tower
Weicker
William
Young
The PRRSIDING OFFICER (Mr,
Foal)). On this vote, the yeas are 88. the
nays are 0. Two-thirds of the Senators
present and voting having voted in the
affirmative, the resolution cf ratification
is agreed to.
CONVENTION ON THE POLITICAL RIGHTS OF
WOMEN
The resolution, of ratification of Ex. J.
was read as follows:
Resooled, (two-thirds of the Senators pres-
ent concurring therein), .That the Senate
advise and consent to the accession by the
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
S 190 ApproVed. Far Rage;farft
new realism and commonsense in the af- I
fairs of our Government, the budget sub-
mitted certainly does reflect realism and
commonsense.
Furthermore, as one who has served
nearly 20 years in the Congress-10 years
on the other side of the Capitol and
now almost that long in this body?I
cannot recall a year, under any adminis-
tration, of either party, when there has
been such careful preparation and such
an excellent presentation made as in the
case of this budget for fiscal 1977.
Late in the afternoon on yesterday the
President briefed the joint leadership of
Congress on the budget?a group which
included the leadership of committees. I
understand that earlier in the same day,
the President also personally briefed the
press on the budget, and demonstrated
quite effectively just how? thoroughly
familiar he is with the details of this
budget. He demonstrated also, in my
view, some of the advantages and the im-
portance of having a President who has
served and worked for a long time in the
Congress?a President who understands
the budget process from the viewpoint of
Congress as well as from the viewpoint
of the executive branch.
So, despite the fact that this is an elec-
tion year, as the minority leader has
suggested, I hope that it will be possible
to put politics aside with respect to most
of the matters related to this budget. I am
convinced that there is a consensus
among the people in the country that it
is time for restraint in Government
spending, that it is time to hold the line
and fight inflation, by adopting the new
realism and commonsense, called for by
President Ford.
ORDER FOR TIME OF SENATOR
KENNEDY TO BE GIVEN TO SEN-
ATOR SYMINGTON
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that the time
allotted to Mr. KENNEDY under the order
previously entered be given to Mr. SY-
MINGTON, along with his order, which also
has been entered.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
ORDER TO VITIATE ORDER FOR
RECOGNITION OF SENATOR TUN-
NEY
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the recognition of Mr. TUNNEY
be vitiated.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore. The Senator from Missouri Is-rec-
ognized for a time not to exceed 30
minutes.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, I
thank the assistant majority leader for
his typical courtesy.
#J$2'3SD
AL atikERne07-MelrMAFIQ011002100RIOuary 21, 1976
VETO OVERRIDE OF BILL TO PLACE
THE SECRETARY OF THE TREAS-
URY ON THE NATIONAL SECU-
RITY COUNCIL
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, last
New Year's Eve, the President vetoed
S. 2350, a bill to make the Secretary of
the Treasury a statutory member of the
National Security Council.
This proposal to :alace the Nation's top
public servant on financial matters on
this Council was no "casual idea." It had
been recommended by the Murphy Com-
mission, that Presidential Commission
on the Organization of Government for
the Conduct of Foreign Policy which was
established by President Nixon in 1972.
It had been the subject of congres-
sional hearings.
It had been approved and recom-
mended by the appropriate committees
of the Senate and the House of Repre-
sentatives; and was passed unanimously
by both Houses of Congress, with bi-
partisan support.
Ironically, the President vetoed the
bill for the very reason it was introduced,
because as his veto message stated:
The Council's function under the law, is
to advise the President with respect to the
integration of domestic, foreign and military
policies relating to national security.
That is precisely what we had in mind
when Congress passed S. 2350.
As everybody knows, foreign and do-
mestic policies relating to national secu-
rity are discussed at the highest level in
the National Security Council, with the
President thereupon making final deci-
sions.
In addition to the President and Vice
President, however, statutory member-
ship on the National Security Council is
presently limited to but two others, the
Secretary of State and the Secretary of
Defense; and the primary purpose of
S. 2350 was to insure that, in accordance
with the function of the National Secu-
rity Council as described by law, the
economic and fiscal aspect of national
security be considered in any discussion
of various domestic or any foreign policy
matters.
A sound economy, with a sound dollar,
is recognized as a vital aspect of a na-
tional security; therefore, the Nation's
chief financial officer should have the
statutory right to participate in formal
discussions of national and international
policy issues which relate to overall na-
tional security.
Such issues obviously relate to the
area of special knowledge and responsi-
bility of the Secretary of the Treasury;
and they are issues about which all re-
sponsible citizens, regardless of party,
are becoming increasingly concerned.
This was precisely the thinking of the
Murphy Commission. In its June 1975
report that Commission stated:
Increasingly, economic forces define the
strength or weakness of nations, and eco-
nomic issues dominate the agenda of inter-
national negotiation. National security pol-
icy is no longer simply a mix of diplomatic the statutory responsibilities and focus of
and military affairs; properly understood,the Secretary of the Treasury. Most issues
national security embraces economic pol-
icy too. Accordingly, the membership of the
National Security Council should be ex-
panded to include the Secretary of the
Treasury, and its jurisdiction expanded to
include major issues of international eco-
nomic policy-making.
Let us note also that as early as 1949,
2 years after the National Security
Council was "created, former President
Hoover, then Chairman of the Commis-
sion on the Organization of the Execu-
tive Branch of Government, declared in
testimony before the Senate Armed
Services Committee:
It would seem to me that certain funda-
mentals of economics ought to be repre-
sented on that Commission the National
Security Council], because the Nation is in
as much jeopardy from economic overstrain
as it is from military destruction. I was in
hopes that the composition of the Council
would be widened out, with more representa-
tion from the economic side.
President Hoover added:
I have the feeling we are discussing prob-
lems that are constantly intermixed ones?
one is economic capacity and others are
preparedness and action in war.
Since Mr. Hoover made those state-
ments, the National Security Counsel,
once composed of seven people, has now
been reduced to four.
The Hoover Commission on the Orga-
nization of the Executive Branch of
Government, in a special report on Na-
tional Security Organization, dated Jan-
uary 1949, emphasized the "fundamental
importance" of economic representation
on the National Security Council as
follows:
The [National Security Act of 19471 con-
templates that the National Security Coun-
cil should weigh our foreign risks and com-
mitments against our domestic and military
strength and bring them into realistic
balance.
The Council membership wisely includes
the Chairman of the National Security Re-
sources Board, thus bringing into its delib-
erations an appraisal of the effect of its
recommendations upon our domestic econ-
omy.
As a result, the President should be better
able to assess the impact of any plans and
programs upon the Nation as a whole.
I served as Chairman of the National
Security Resources Board under Presi-
dent Truman?a position which no
longer exists?therefore, at present there
Is no economic representation left on
the Council.
President Ford, however?again I re-
fer to his veto message?now tells us
that to place the Nation's top economic?
domestic?representative on the Na-
tional Security Council, would be "un-
desirable as well as unnecessary."
The President noted that any official
may attend Council meetings at tie
President's invitation, but that economic
matters are handled as a matter of rou-
tine through other channels. In his veto
message he further stated:
The proper concerns of the National Se-
curity Council extend substantially beyond
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
)
?
Approved ForRejlease 21006/02 L.CIA-13,13P77M00144R04111(001413 7-0
(-; C
United States
q America
Vot 122
ongressional Record
n
PR EEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE yi CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
?
WAS NGTON. WEDNESDAY. JANUARY 21, 1976 No. 3
9?6911.1.101,M1114.
The Senate met at 12 o'clock meridian
and was called to order by Hon. GARY
LLtar. a senatot from the State of
Colorado.
6! SAYER
The Chaplain, the Reverend Edward
h. R. Elson. D.D. offered the following
prayer;
0 Lord, open our eyes to Thy beauty,
open our minds to Thy truth, open our
hearts to Thy love that we may be fit
to serve Thee in this place. Anoint us
by Thy spirit until the time of work and
the time of worship knows no distinc-
tion. While we labor for So much that is
of material benefit to the Nation, may we
also keep kindled the fires of the spirit.
Shepherd us, we beseech Thee, through
the difficulties and perils of the coming
months. Lead us in paths of righteous-
ness for Thy name's sake in the confi-
dence that goodness and mercy shall fol-
low us all the days of our lives, and our
dwelling place wil be the house of the
7
curd forever. Ame i.
APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESI-
DENT PRO TEMPORE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Clerk
will please read a communication to the
Senate from the President pro tempore
;Mr. EAS.CLAND)
The legislative :,?lerk read the follow-
ng letter:
'U.S. SENATE,
;'REE WENT PRO TEMPORE.
tt'a.hmnqtom., D.C. January 21. 1976.
o .e Senate:
neing temporarily absent from the Senate
on mama! duties, I appoint Hon. GARY HART,
a Senator from the State of Colorado, to
perform the duties of the Chair during my
TAMES 4.), EASTLAND,
President pro tenipore.
Mc. -HARY HART thereupon took the
chair as Acting Prasident pro tempore.
THE JOURNAL
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President. I ask
unanimous consent that the reading of
the Journal of the proceedings of Tues-
day. January 20, 1976, be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
lore. Without obi3ction. it is so ordered.
Senate
OMMITTRF MEt. JANOS DURING
SENATE SESSION
MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unan ous consent that all committees
may ? authorized to meet during the
session the Senate today.
The A NG PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore. Wit t objection, it is so ordered.
JOINT R. RAL OP A BILL
Mr. MANS D. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous cons that S. 2845, a bill to
provide small b ess concerns with
energy research i rmation, which is
presently in the C ittee on Bank-
ing, Housing and Ur Affairs, be re-
ferred jointly to the Colkmittee on Bank-
ing, Housing and Urbatikkffairs and the
Committee on Interior% and Insular
Affairs.
The ACTING PRESIDE1 pro tern-
pore. Without abjection, it i ordered.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President ask
unanimous consent that the Sena go
into executive session to consider e
nomination of Mr. Bob Casey, Which
understand is at the desk, and it h
been cleared all around.
There being no objection. the Senate
proceeded to the consideration of execu-
tive business.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. The nomination will be stated.
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
'rhe legislative clerk read the nomina-
tion of Bob Casey, of Texas. to be a Fed-
eral Maritime Commissioner.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore. Without objection, the nomination
is considered and confirmed.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the President be
notified of the confirmation of the nom-
ination.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore, Without objection, it is so ordered.
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President. I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate re-
sume the consideration of legislative
business.
There being no objection, the Senate
resumed the consideration of legislative
business,
THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET
MESSAGE
Mr. HUGH SCOTT. Mr. President. the
President's budget is before us. It sets
some important limitations on the
amount of money which the Federal
Government will have to expend, and
it makes a number of suggestions as to
how the money should be expended.
I believe that the Committee on the
Budget of each House will work very
diligently to seek to bring expenditures
within the ceiling limitation. However.
I think it is equally important that they
work closely with the Presideno and the
President work closely with them, as the
President suggested to a tipartisan
leadership meeting of Congress yester-
day afternoon.
The holding of the line is going to be
extremely difficult. It is going to require
discipline. It is going to require a sense
of priorities. It is going to require that
we recognize that somebody has to pay
for everything Congress does, and that
somebody is the people; that sometimes:
in the, past we have given people things
hey did not ask for, or we have given
em more than they wanted and we
tainly have taxed them more than
th can stand.
I -e are to have any further tax re-
lief, will have to hold the tudgetary
one.-we are ,going to continue to cut
down haliation. which has heel:, reduced
by near *e will have to hew to
the budgelkry line and if we are going
to avoid neStitaxes, We certainly will have
to stay clostrSito the'hudgetary line.
So it Is mithope ''mat Conpress and
the President, kstead of confrontation,
instead of politica, instead of a grasping
for advantage, will-truly work closely to-
gether, in a spirit of genuine cooperation,
in an effort to hold that bilidgesary
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr, President will the
Senator from Pennsylvania yield, so that
I may add an observation or two?
Mr. HUGH SCOTT. I am glad to yield,
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, 14, agree
with the Senator from Pennsylvania.
and I wish to be associated with, his
remarks.
In the spirit of the President's state
of the Union message. which called for
S 185
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
January 21, mitpproved FocetplmapsanNe/PRECIARDRUINIM4Rooi 100210037-0 S 191
that come before the Council on a regular
basis do not have significant economic and
monetary implications.
That this President, or any President,
would subscribe to the narrow view that
national security is limited to only diplo-
matic and military problems?and would
not automatically include economic con-
siderations?is little short of astounding.
Are not increases in the price of oil, or
foreign sales of grain, vital economic as
well as diplomatic, and perhaps military.
matters?
Earlier this month, at Kingston,
Jamaica, the 128-nation International
Monetary Fund approved a new world
monetary system that represents a radi-
cal departure from the Bretton Woods
Conference of 1944. No member of the
National Security Council was present.
The Secretary of the Treasury was the
top U.S. representative at this confer-
ence.
It is almost inconceivable that in the
deliberations of the National Security
Council on the "integration of foreign,
domestic, and military policies," as pro-
vided by law, such fiscal and monetary
considerations as dealt with by the Sec-
retary of the Treasury would not be
included.
The Secretary of the Treasury, inci-
dentally, is the highest ranking Cabinet
official charged with looking after our
Nation's economic interests. In the Cab-
inet succession to the Presidency, he is
preceded only by the Secretary of State.
His absence from the National Se-
curity Council reflects as significant
weakness in t'ne organization of our Gov-
ernment?a weakness that was recog-
nized by the Hoover Commission back in
1949, the Murphy Commission last year,
and now by both Houses of Congress.
If a President truly cares about the
economic implications of national secu-
rity policy, why would he not welcome
his Secretary of the Treasury as a mem-
ber of his highest advisory body?
A bipartisan group of the Senate,
Including both the majority and minor-
ity leaders, cosponsored this bill when
it was introduced last September.
The Senate Armed Services Commit-
tee, to which the bill was referred
originally, voted 16 to 0 to report it
favorably. Its report stated, "The Com-
mittee strongly supports this legisla-
tion," and went on to say:
The addition of the Secretary of the
Treasury to the National Security Council
reflects the growing significance of inter-
national economics and domestic fiscal af-
fairs in the development of national secu-
rity policies.
The presence of the Secretary of the
Treasury on this Council would help to
ensure that fiscal and monetary issues are
considered in the discussion of problems
relating to our national security.
Later this bill was passed unanimously
by the Senate.
Subsequently the House Armed Serv-
ices Committee, after hearing adminis-
tration witnesses. oppose the bill on
grounds it was both "unnecessary and
undesirable," also acted favorably, rec-
ommending it be passed by the House;
and thereupon the House also approved
the bill unanimously.
As we now know, however, the Presi-
dent vetoed this bill over the Christmas
recess.
Last December 12, the Wall Street
Journal reported that the Secretary of
State had objected to placing the Secre-
tary of the Treasury on the National
Security Council.
The Secretary of State managed Coun-
cil affairs for the past years, first as
National Security Adviser to the Pres-
ident and head of the National Secu-
rity Council staff, then later as Secre-
tary of State in addition to being the
President's National Security Adviser.
Whatever the motivation, surely any-
one with experience in either govern-
ment or business will recognize the basic
need for consideration of our growing
economic problems before the President
makes decisio:ns on matters vital to the
security and prosperity of the. Nation.
Failure of Congress to recognize that
these economic problems are equally im-
portant would operate against that secu-
rity and prosperity; therefore I urge
the Congress to override the veto of
S. 2350.
I yield the floor, Mr. President.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore. Under the previous order, the Sen-
ator from Arizona is recognized for not
to exceed 15 minutes.
Mr. GOLDViTATER. I thank the Chair.
CONGRESSIONAL INTERFERENCE
WITH FOREIGN POLICY IS PER-
FORMING THE: WORK OF THE
ENEMY
Mr. GOLDWA TER. Mr. President, as
we enter upon the 200th year of Amer-
ica's independence, I believe the Ameri-
can people--and particularly their rep-
resentatives in the Congress?would be
well served by bringing back into public
consciousness the first principles which
guided the early leaders of America in
establishing our unique form of govern-
ment. The wisdom of our founders and
blood of our patriots were devoted to
their attainment. These principles should
remain the model of our political prac-
tice
It is strange and saddening for me that
I should have to invoke in this Chamber
the essential political creed that won our
independence and animated our first ef-
forts at self-government, but I believe
we our witnessing a counterrevolution
against these principles in the very Halls
of Congress that should be their first
line of defense.
What are these principles? They are
too numerous to detail here in full, but
among them is the faith held by the pa-
triots and founders that the American
people are unique in their character,
their opportunity, and their mission, and
that our experiment in freedom and self-
government will be an example for the
world. They also include the notion, as
expressed by Jefferson, that the will of
the majority "to be rightful must be rea-
sonable." And they certainly encompass
the purpose that government must be
strong enough to preserve our freedoms.
Mr. President, I make these comments
because I believe that for the first time
in the history of our country, we in Con-
gress are forcing a President to come
to this body for prior permission to do
what he is charged to do under the Con-
stitution?to manage foreign policy as
he determines necessary for preserving
the safety, the property, and the freedom
of Americans.
For what may be the second time in
our history, with the period of the 1920's
and the 1930's being the only other time,
we seem to be losing our faith in the
ability of our principles and the role of
international leadership which the suc-
cess of these principles has brought
about.
The immediate reason for my remarks
is the action taken by the Senate late
in December to block any flexibility for
the President in funding military as-
sistance to the majority of people in
Angola who are resisting Soviet-imposed
rule. The things said during debate on
ngola, both in closed and open sessions,
i/lake me shudder in concern about
,keeping up our national will to survive
in freedom as we now know it. But my
(in
apply equally as well to the
general phenomenon of congressional
adventurisrn in the field of foreign poli-
cymaking.
What the opponents of Presidential
direction of foreign policy do not rec-
ognize is that their persistent confron-
tations with the Executive is deroga-
tory to the best interests of the United
States. Repeated congressional inter-
ference with Presidential decisionmak-
ing at the outset of every foreign crisis,
before there is any reasonable time for
Members of Congress to make informed
judgments of their own, is performing
the work of the enemy who wish to neg-
ate the will of this country. Each time
Congress hinders the Executive from re-
sponding in a considered way to total-
itarian eXpansionism and compels the
abandonment of friendly foreign groups,
we create an impression in the world
among allies and enemies alike that we
have lost the will to defend freedom.
In the words of the Nobel Prize win-
ner, Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, who has
been in the "Archipelago" and knows
of what he writes:
A very dangerous state of mind can arise
as a result of this feeling of retreat: give in
as quickly as possible, give up as quickly
as possible, peace and quiet at any cost.
According to Solzhenitsyn?
The Communist leaders respect only firm-
ness and have contempt and laugh at persons
who continually give in to them. Our liberals
respond that a demonstration of power will
lead to a world conflict. Solzhenitsyn's reply
Is that power with continual subservience is
no power at all.
Thus, a continual policy of nonaction,
not even allowing the President flexibil-
ity in making a response at the onset of
a crisis, will only solidify an impression
among totalitarian leaders of our weak-
ness of will. By leaving the United States
no option but to retreat at every point
where the Soviets wish to expand, Con-
gress will not only cause us to appear all
the more weak in the eyes of totalitarian
leaders, but the failure of action reduces
the national will to deal with attacks on
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
S 12 Approved For FtettiMENMOM: aVERREPWRITORIO0110021002Mary 21, 1 V7 6
fr eednin by creating confusion in the
labile over whether resistance is ever
aeces.sary.
ifl. President, it is my contention that
the Founding Fathers did not vest for-
a policy initiative with Congress. The
;earners understood that a legislature
!:orisisting of two bodies with a numerous
membership would inherently be re-
!iietant or unable to act in some time of
,traye need. They saw the Presidency as
the office whcse unity and energy would
este it to take independent action
:viler necessary for the public well-being.
The framers had witnessed, the major-
ef them at firsthand, the incom-
petency of Congress meddling into mil-
itary policy during the War of Indepen-
knce, when the interference of the Con-
tinental Congress with the plans of Gen-
eral Washington nearly caused disaster
en several occasions. In contrast with
this inefficiency of Congress, the framers
td iresh memories of the prompt and
atm military steps taken by the Execu-
dtes or Massachusetts and New Hamp-
shire to end armed rebellions in 1786 and
I 187.
"ltie framers also recalled that the
re'entinental Congress had actually cir--
eitatled among the Thirteen States dur-
!lie a low ebb n the Revolution a written
ees!asking that the powers of the Ex-
sentiees be increased as a solution to the
frdiu.:.e of the States in meeting the war-
nine applications of Congress. Moreover,
the framers understood that the obses-
bee tears of royalty that had dominated
retteie opinion at the outbreak of the
Revolution had greatly diminished and
that a new concern with possibly tyran-
nical legislatures had developed in the
early 1789's.
This means of interpreting the Consti-
1, non. by expounding a power from the
IcIerts for wnich the Constitution was
:o provide a remedy. was used by George
Washington, after becoming President,
when he issued the well-known Neutral-
ity Proclamation of 1793. His action is al-
most universally viewed as establishing
late doctrine of Presidential responsibil-
ity ion determining upon the initial
!Pa In-e of fore ,gn policy.
ft is very important for us to under-
;rand today that Washington's policy
was at variance with the prejudices, the
Zettlings. and the passions of a large por-
tion of societo at the time he made it,
and lid not rest on any previous guid-
e( ,ee of the let islature. For these reasons,
!I, is an outstanding example of a Presi-
dent making foreign policy for the Na-
tion in conflict with the public passions
et the moment in order to uphold what
that President judged as required for the
AL, of the Nation.
his ability to rise above gusts of pas-
nen and temporary prejudices is one
'1;iali;:y of Prt sidential leadership which
distinguishes executive initiative in the
direction of foreign policy and canno be
matched by Congress.
One fact we must remember is thaain
the context of attitudes toward foreign
policy, we as Americans have never redly
become a nation of Americans. We are
still a nation of hyphenated origins, r ich
as Jewish-American. German-Am,'ri-
can, Italian-American, Polish-Ameni! an,
and so forth. So, when the prof... 1cm
comes upon the floor of the Senati or
House as to what we are going to d , in
the field of foreign policy involving thy
of the countries with whom substar nal
numbers of Americans have ances
Lies, you can lay a pretty good sized bet
that these ethnic relationships are gaing
to have a strong bearing on how that
foreign policy is going to be formuli r.ed
or implemented.
This is why I believe that, even if the
President were not vested with prin, iry
control over foreign policy, Cong ess
should not assert its distinct power, out
should realize that a single elected of-
ficial, who would not be disturbed by the
politics of the moment. would use tj.ese
powers far more wisely in tne long run
- of history than a Congress which is In-
stantly looking toward the political re-
sults. To put it another way, I would _eel
s'afer in this country with the deci ion
for foreign policy being in the hand . of
one man who had to live with it an( he
accountable for that decision to the
decision to the American people for the
rest of his life than in the hands of 335
people whose decisions would be btssed
mostly on the question, "Would it 1. elp
me get reelected?"
Another consideration we must re-
member is that Congress it not equip ted
to direct the day-by-day business of
foreign policy; nor is it what we can 'all
a continuing body for other than ro-
cedural purposes. Congress changes e! cry
2 years. Sometimes it changes eery
radically; so what might be a foreign
policy subscribed to by the Senate or
House this year, 2 years from now mcht
not represent that policy at all. But we
do have a President elected for 4 y, ars
in the only truly national election I ro-
vided in our system, whose fOreign pc _icy
is much more constant and whose csrps
of advisers is professionally equipped for
producing reasoned policies.
In conclusion, Mr. President, I be] .eve
Congress should not react instantt to
every foreign policy crisis as if it N ere
the State Department, intelligence ap
cn-
dies, National Security Council, ,nd
President collectively made into , tie,
Rather, it should conscientiously cm-
eider
and fully deliberate on foreign n ot-
ters and give fair opportunity for the
executive machinery of governmen, to
function before interposing itself in
judgments it is neither constitution, fly
structured, nor qualified, to initiate.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr GOLDWATER. Mr, President, how
much time do I have remaining?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern -
pore. The Senator has 5 minutes remain-
ing.
Mr GOLDWATER. Well, instead of
asking unanimous consent to insert this
statement. I will take advantage of the
opportunity that I have to address this
rather complete assemblage.
THE GOLDEN COVERUP AWARD
Mr GOLDWATER. Mr. President, in
late December our good friend, Senator
PROXMIRE of Wisconsin, made his annual
Golden Fleece Award. It was awarded to
the Air Force for its having carried Mem-
bers of Congress on various missions and.
of course, this included me. Senator
PROXMIRE'S award really arouses my in-
terest, so I have been doing some check-
ing since coming back to Washington,
and I think it is necessary that we estab-
lish another award, The Golden Cover-
Up Award. I have not made up my mind
as to who should receive it, but I tem-
porarily award it to the Senator from
Wisconsin. But it could go equally as well
to other Members but that will remain
for a later decision.
First. Mr. President, in 1973 the Con-
gress voted to increase the daily counter-
part funds from $50 to $75 to Congress-
men, staff, et cetera. Lo and behold. the
Senaeor from Wisconsin voted for it and
the Senator from Arizona voted against
it. Then the Congress voted that these
counterpart funds would not be pub-
lished. What that means is that the
nubile is denied the knowledge of vast
sums of money spent by Members of
Congress, staff, et cetera, traveling all
over the world. But those figures are
available and I have assembled them,
not only those but others, and from time
to time I will put them in the RECORD so
that the public can know lust what we
do on our so-called junkets.
Now I will admit that some of these
trips are necessary, but I will also admit
that some of them are not and maybe
the disclosure I will make, will reduce the
number of trips made by Members and
staff to any point on the globe they care
to go Now for disclosure No. 1. The Air
Force during October of 1974 and the
entire year of 1975 carried 162 congres-
sional staff members?this does not in-
clude Members of Congress?to 91 coun-
tries and these people had to be ace
irn-
panied by 106 officers of the Air Force,
and it cost $928,733.83. In ,order for the
people to have a better idea of just what
was spent, I ask unanimous consent that
a breakdown of these trips be printed at
this point in my remarks.
There being no objection, ?the break-
down was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
-7(41Z/oved For Release 2006/02/07,'? CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
q64t r
Fdruary? 19, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSh
deterrent to effective law enforcement
in rape cases. Availatile statistics indicate
that the majority of rapes committed are
never reported. The New York City Police
Department's Sex Crimes Analysis Unit
has estimated that only 1 out of 10 rapes
in New York City are reported. Informa-
tion received by the Task Force on Rape
of the National Organization for Women
indicates no more than a 50-percent re-
port rate.
The trend in recent court decisions
has been to limit and prevent cross-ex-
amination about a victim's prior sexual
experiences, because it is irrelevant to
the issue Of whether the defendant com-
mitted rape. Just last month, a District
of Columbia Superior Court ruled in a
rape case that questions could not be
asked about the victim's relations with
other men. Several States have recently
enacted legislation limiting cross-exam-
ination about the victim's prior sexual
history.
_ These court decisions and legislative
revisions recognize that questions about a
rape victim's prior sexual experience are
duly prejudicial since they suggest to the
jury that the issue is the victim's moral-
ity rather than the defendant's guilt.
My bill would prohibit cross-examin-
ing the victim about her relations with
anyone aside from the defendant. With
respect to the defendant, such examina-
tion is allowed only if the judge, in a
private hearing, determines the testi-
mony is relevant and is not unduly
prejudicial.
I recommend swift passage of this bill.
The text follows:
HR.?
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That this
Act may be cited as "Privacy Protection for
Rape Victims Act of 1976".
SEC. 2. (a) Article IV of the Federal Rules
Of Evidence is amended by adding at the end
thereof the following new rule:
"RULE 412
"Rape Cases; Relevance of Victim's Past
Conduct
"Evidence of an individual's prior sexual
conduct or reputation is not admissible in
any action or proceeding if an issue in such.
action or proceeding is whether such individ-
ual was raped or assaulted with intent to
commit rape. The preceding sentence shall
not apply to evidence of such individual's
prior sexual conduct with the individual w
in such action or proceeding is alleged
have committed rape or assault with inten
to commit rape. Hearings on the admissibil
ity of evidence under this rule shall in al
cases be conducted in chambers.".
(b) The table of contents for the Federal
Rules of Evidence is amended by inserting
after the item relating to rule 411 the follow
lug new item:
"Rule 412. Rape Cases; Relevance of Vic-
thn's Past Conduct".
LEGISLATION TO END USE OF EX-
CHANGE FUNDS TO ESCAPE IN-
COME TAXES ON REALIZED CAP-
ITAL GAINS
The SPEAKER. Under a previous or-
der of the House, the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. ULLMAN) is recognized for
11I minutes.
Mr. ULLMAN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday
I introduced a bill to put an end as of to-
day to the use of exchange funds as a
means of escaping income taxes on real-
ized capital gains on appreciated securi-
ties. This bill is identical with the bill in-
troduced by Mr. CORMAN on February 5
except for the effective date. Mr. COR-
MAN'S bill would have been applicable to
transfers made after the date of enact-
ment. However, in view of the concern of
the recent activity in the promotion and
advertising of these swap funds, my bill
which Mr. CORMAN and other Ways and
Means Committee members are cospon-
soring, including Messrs. SCHNEEBELI and
CONABLE, the ranking minority members
of the committee, is effective with respect
to transfers made after February 17,
1976.
In the 1960's, investment funds, known
as "swap funds," were organized to al-
low taxpayers to exchange appreciated
stock for shares in investment funds
without any tax consequences on the ap-
preciation, of the stocks transferred to
the fund. In 1966, Congress enacted an
amendment to eliminate tax-free ex-
changes of appreciated stock for shares
of an investment company.. The 1966
amendment applied only to corporate
funds, including real estate investment
trusts and regulated investment com-
panies. It did not apply to partnerships.
Recently, the promoters of syndicated
swap funds have been using limited part-
nerships as a vehicle for these tax-free
exchanges. This bill provides that the
gain realized on a transfer of stock to a
fund will be taxable. The bill also covers
two other swap-fund-type transfers:
first, it would make mergers of two in-
vestment companies taxable; and, sec-
ond, it would cover certain reorganiza-
tions, such as where mutual funds issue
their shares to acquire all of the stock or
assets of family held personal holding
companies. The bill, as I have .already
indicated, is effective for any transfer
made after February 17, 1976.
The SPEAKER. Under a previous
order of the House, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. GONZALEZ) is recognized for
5 minutes.
[Mr_ GONZALEZ addressed the House.
His remarks will appear hereafter in the
Extensions of Remarks.]
GUARANTEEING EFFECTIVE,
STABLE GOVERNMENT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a
previous order of the House, the gentle-
man from Virginia (Mr. HARRIS) is
recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, today I am
introducing a bill which, I believe, will
improve the quality of our Government.
The bill makes three changes in the
salary-setting policy of the Federal Gov-
ernment: First, it repeals the "pay
freeze" on those general schedule em-
ployees affected by it; second, it removes
executive, legislative, and judicial per-
sonnel from the annual comparability
process brought under it by Public Law
94-82; and third, it tightens up the
Quadrennial Commission process for ad-
justing the salaries of top executives so
that the Commission's recommended
1191
changes would go into effect early in
1977.
THE PAY FREEZE IS HARSH
My bill would phase out the 1969 pay
ceiling on career general schedule em-
ployees over a 5-year period in $2,000 in-
crements. It was imposed in 1969, freez-
ing salaries at $36,000 until October 1975
when it was adjusted slightly to $37,800.
Though a 5-percent increase was grant-
ed in October, the freeze is still in effect.
Under my bill, it would be totally re-
moved by 1980 for Federal employees.
The following table illustrates the
types of Federal employees affected by
the pay freeze:
General schedule employees affected by the
pay ceiling
Type of employee:
General schedule - 9, 020
Similar to general schedule
Foreign service 1, 758891*
VA-medical personnel 1,980
Scientific and technical personnel_ 2,125
Total 18,501
What has happened under the freeze?
It has now crept down as far as GS-15
employees. With the October 1975 com-
parability increase, almost half of the
Government's G8-15 employees are now
frozen. Added to this are all GS-16's,
GS-17's, and GS-18's. Thus, in many
cases, individuals at five levels are earn-
ing the same salary. I have heard testi-
mony from government officials and
have seen diagrams which show agency
chiefs and bureau heads all earning the
same salary.
The General Accounting Office has said
that a $36,000 salary set in 1969 was
eroded by inflation to $24,408 by May
1975. GAO says 1969 salary rates lost
almost a third of their purchasing power
by May 1975. By January 1977, GAO
says:
Assuming CPI increases at the same aver-
age rate and no legislation is enacted, the
purchasing power of Federal executive eat-
eries will decrease by about 39 percent.
A 1969 salary of $36,000 would be
$21,942 in purchasing power. While these
salaries have remained stagnant for 7
years, the cost of living has increased by
50 percent. Non-Federal executive sal-
aries have increased by 47 percent. Other
Federal white-collar salaries, unfrozen,
have increased by over 50 percent.
THE PAY FREEZE HURTS GOVERNMENT
What does this mean for Government?
It has seriously hampered the Govern-
ment's effort to recruit and retain high-
caliber Federal officials, particularly
scientific and medical personnel. What
motivation is there to work for the Gov-
ernment when there is little hope of re-
ceiving a salary competitive with private
enterprise? The Chairman of the Civil
Service Commission has noted that criti-
cal jobs go unfilled because the private
sector is more attractive. Executive re-
tirements and resignations have doubled
since 1969. Salary-frozen executives in
the 55 to 59 age range retire at three
times the normal rate than other em-
ployees in that age group.
A few--examples: HEW has difficulty
recruiting expert scientists and research-
ers. VA cannot attract top-flight physi-
cians. Six individuals declined the
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
II 1192 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? HoUSE rebruai-y /9, a
Library of Congress GS-17 position of
senior specialist in taxation and fiscal
policy because they were all earning
higher salaries in their present employ-
ment. Six of the Treasury Department's
too 12 officials departed in June 1975.
The Under Secretary of the Treasury for
Monetary Affaiis resigned his $40,000
position. Two candidates would not ac-
cent HEW's position of Director of the
National Institute on Aging because of
the nay limitation; four administrative
law judges at the Federal Trade Commis-
sion retired because of the salary ceiling.
DOD has reported that 20 executives re-
signed, retired, o r refused promotions be-
cause of the freeze. Another 22 declined
to come with the Defense Department.
Now we: learn the Chairman himself of
the Government s personnel agency, the
Civil Service Commission, is leaving
partly because o t the freeze.
L s. addition to retention and recruit-
ment difficulties the freeze has caused
serious problems of compression. Some
GS-15's through GS-18's are at the same
salary; thus, one can find in an office
Individuals earning the same salary as
their immediate supervisor. Since gen-
eral schedule salaries have increased an-
nually, with no similar increase in ex-
ecutive salaries, more and more general
schedule employees "bump up" against
the ceiling each year. Says GAO?
Salary compression seriously weakens two
statutory pay principles of internal equity?
equal pay for equal work and maintaining
pay distinctions ir keeping with work and
performance distinctions.
'nitre is no financial reward for tak-
ing on increased responsibilities, for ad-
vancing. To continue this acceleration of
the freeze downward, locking in more
and mere GS employees, will, says
GAO?
licatice morale within the work force and
have a negative impact upon the career in-
centives of emplo7ees entering the career
Acry ice.
The Chairman of the Civil Service
Commission has said:
Difficulties in recruiting and retraining
high-caliber executives is measurable, but
the effect of lost raanagerial talent on the
quality or government is more difficult to
quantify. . . . What we need is relief from
an arbitrary salary 2,e1ling on top executives,
which in and of itself establishes acompan-
ice ceiling on career managers. Not just a
one-time Band-Aid type of remedy, but an
enduring procedure which will insure that
the present condithms of salary compression
do not recur.
My bil1 lifts the freeze from the rank-
and-file general schedule employees over
a 5-year period in $2,000 increments. It
is my belief that i; is unfair to tie career
public employees' .salaries to an arbitrary
rate?totally unrelated to their merit or
Performance. An orderly equitable sal-
ary-setting process should be guaran-
teed. Salaries of rank-and-file Govern-
ment workers should be separated from
those of political appointees and free
from Presidential whims. The Govern-
ment must be stable: only a systematic
salary system wit, insure that stability.
EXfICUT EVE SALARIES
My bill does not "unfreeze" the 2,261
executive schedule employees in the ex-
ecutive branch or change the salary f
other top personnel in the legislative an. 1
judicial branches. The fact that the .r
salaries have been the same for 6 years
is also unfair and severe. However, their
salaries are set through a different pre -
cedure and should be treated diflerentl.,..
My bill makes two changes.
First, it removes these individuals from
the annual comparability process whit
was designed to provide general schedu.
Federal employees annual adjustments'
keep their salaries comparable \vita
private industry. Public Law 94-82 Unice 1
these executives to the comparabilii -
procedure. I voted for it at the time be -
cause I felt it was necessary to give cc' --
reer Federal employees same small relii -
after the 6-year freeze.
However, time has shown me that
was a mistake. Including top executive'
legislative, and judicial personnel in thl
process "politicized" the Federal salary
setting system because the salaries c
Members of Congress were part of th
package. Under the comparability proc -
ess the President can recommend a;
amount differing from that of his ad-
visers which then can be rejected by on
House of Congress, thus insuring th.
real comparability amount. The mos'
politically unpalatable vote an elected of -
ficial ever has to cast is a vote raisin'
One's salary. We saw Congress turn it -
back on Federal employees last Octobei
when the Preisdent's 5 percent compara -
bility adjustment was not overturned.
believe it is wrong to make rank -and-fil,
Federal workers the victim of the cow ,
ardice of Members of Congress.
Additionally, I believe that the salariei
of appointed and elected Government of-
ficials should be treated differently fron
those of Government employees. Thes
are not career employees in the sam(
sense. They take their job, in most cases
knowing it will be a political tenure
Their salaries should be handled under ic
different system. The American Compen-
sation Association agrees Their orga-
nization told the President's panel?
Executives, as a group, should be classi-
fied and compensated under a separate pay
structure. The pay structure should be such
as to motivate outstanding lower echelon
employees to achieve proMotion to the exec-
utive ranks and to attract competent, quali-
fied and experienced personnel from the pri-
vate sector.
We have the basics of such a system
now, the Quadrennial Commission pro-
cedure which makes recommendations to
the President for adjusting executive
salaries. The President then submits his
recommendations to Congress in the next
budget and they become effective. unless
one House of Congress rejects them. Un-
der my bill, the Presidnt would be re-
quired to appoint the members of the
Commission by July 1, 1976 and by that
date every 4 years thereafter.
The Commission would be required to
report its findings and recommendations
to the President by January 1 and the
President would then leave to include his
recommended adjustments in the fiscal
1978 budget, to be submitted to Congress
in January 1977. Reporting to Congress
in January 1977 is in line with the Presi-
dent's intentions as outlined in his 1977
budget. My bill slightly speeds up a
process scheduled tp take place next yeas.
It would be up to tile Commission to come
up with an amount and a scheme for
adjusting top executive salaries. The re-
cent report of the President's Panel on
Federal Compensation has recommended
that executive pay rates be increased and
points out?
The appropriate body to deVelop precise
pay rate recommendations is the Commission
on Executive, Legislative and Judicial Sal-
aries which is scheduled to be appointed in
fiscal year 1977.
A PLAN FOR TILE SALARY MESS
This bill rounds out my efforts to
straighten out what I call the Federal
salary mess. I have introduced several
bills which include major revisions in the
Federal salary-setting process that I be-
lieve are necessary: First, removing the
President's authority to propose an alter-
native comparability amount, thus insu-
lating rank-and-file Federal workers'
salaries from politics (H.R. .9905) ; sec-
ond, removing Members of Congress and
Federal and judicial executives from the
comparability process; third, removing
the pay ceiling from general schedule
employees: and, fourth, urging the Com-
mission on Executive Legislative. and
Judicial Salaries to make recommenda-
tions on adjusting the salaries of top ex-
ecutives. I am confident that this plan
will compensate all Federal employees_ in
a fair, nonpolitical, objective and sys-
tematic manner.
A SOUND, STABLE GOVERNMENT
With enactment of this bill , Congress
would be addressing a very basic problem
affecting our Government. A fair, sys-
tematic, apolitical pay system which
treats people with respect is vital to ef-
fective government. Our Federal Workers
have little incentive to aspire upward?
to perform better?if there is no reward
awaiting them. A strong motivation for
the public service is not enough with a
ravaging inflation Eating away at stag-
nating salaries. The Federal Govern-
ment, which touches the daily lives of
all our citizens, should be staffed by com-
petent and highly motivated career pro-
fessionals. We must obtain and retain the
best managers, scientists, and doctors to
make the decisions involving vast sums
of public money and to manage complex
programs affecting the Nation's economy,
welfare, and security. As long as we
ignore these very basic salary problems,
government and the American citizens
suffer.u ill
CONSUMER PROTECTION AGAINST
UNETHICAL DEBT COLLECTORS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a
previous order of the House, the gentle-
man from Illinois (Mr. ANNUNzIO) is rec-
ognized f or 5 minutes.
Mr. ANNUNZIO. Mr. Speaker, under
legislation I am reintroducing today, the
harassment, and intimidation currently
being suffered by consumers in the hands
of unethical debt collectors will be
strictly prohibited.
This new title VIII of the Consumer
Protection Act--the Debt Collection
Practices Act?was originally introduced
in October and would for the first time
coinprehenaively regulate the practices of
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
II 1328
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-- HOUSE February 26, 1976
vestigated for the same purpose by any other
committee of the House, and the chairman
of the Committee on Agriculture shall fur-
nish the Committee on House Administra-
tion information with respect to any study
or investigation intended to be financed from
such funds.
SEC. 3. Funds authorized by this resolution
shall be expended pursuant to regulations
established by the Committee on House Ad-
ministration under existing law.
Mr. THOMPSON (during the reading).
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the resolution be considered as read
and 'printed in the RECORD.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from New
Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Speaker, House
Resolution 974 would fund the Commit-
tee on Agriculture. The resolution was in-
troduced by the chairman of the com-
mittee, the distinguished gentleman from
Washington (Mr. FOLEY) , and by the
distinguished gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. WAMPLER), the ranking minority
member.
Mr. Speaker, in this instance this com-
mittee had an unexpended balance for
the first session of $422,939.23 which has
reverted to the contingent fund. This
resolution is fully supported by the ma-
jority and minority sides.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous ques-
tion on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
PROVIDING FUNDS FOR FURTHER
EXPENSES OF INVESTIGATIONS
AND STUDIES OF COMMITTEE ON
SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Speaker, by di-
rection of the Committee on House Ad-
ministration, I call up House Resolution
1039 and ask for its immediate consid-
eration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as,
follows:
Resolved, That for the further expenses of
the investigations and studies to be con-
ducted by the Committee on Small Business
acting as a whole or by subcommittee, not to
exceed $515,425 including expenditures for
the employment of investigators, attorneys,
and clerical, and other assistants, and for the
procurement of individual consultants or
organizations thereof pursuant to section
202(1) of the Legislative Reorganization Act
of 1946, as amended (2 U.S.C. 72a(1) ), shall
be paid out of the contingent fund of the
House on vouchers authorized by such com-
mittee, signed by the chairman of such
committee, and a?proved by the Committee
on House Administration. Not to exceed
$50,000 of the total amount provided by this
resolution may be used to procure the tem-
porary or intermittent services of individual
consultants or organizations thereof pursu-
ant to section 202 (1) of the Legislative Re-
organization Act of 1946, as amended (2
U.S.C. 72a(l) ); but this monetary limitation
on the procurement of such services shall
not prevent the use of such funds for any
other authorized purpose.
SEC. 2. No part of the funds authorized by
this resolution shall be available for expendi-
ture in connection with the study or investi-
gation of any subject which is being investi-
gated for the same purpose by any other
committee of the House, and the chairman
of the Committee on Small Business shall
furnish the Committee on House Adminis-
tration information with respect to any study
or investigation intended to be financed from
such funds.
SEC. 3. Funds authorized by this resolution
shall be expended pursuant to regulations
established by the Committee on House Ad-
ministration in accordance with existing law.
Mr. THOMPSON (during the reading) .
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the resolution be considered as read
and printed in the RECORD.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from New
Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Speaker, this
resolution, House Resolution 1039, was
originally introduced by the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Small
Business, the gentleman from Tennessee
(Mr. EVINS), and by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. CONTE), the ranking
minority member.
This is a clean resolution bearing my
name for the reason that we transferred
the unexpended balance of $210,140.45 to
the contingent fund. This resolution
would fund the Committee on Small
Business in the amount of $515,425.
Mr. Speaker, there is complete agree-
ment on the resolution. It was repeated
unanimously by the subcommittee and
the full committee.
Mr. Speaker. I move the previous ques-
tion on the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous ques-
tion on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Speaker, :E ask
unanimous consent that I may be per-
mitted to revise and extend my remarks
on all of the resolutions just agreed to
and, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous con-
sent also that all Members may have 5
legislative days within which to revise
and extend their remarks on all of the
resolutions just agreed to.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from New
Jersey?
There was no objection.
AUTHORIZING PRINTING OF ADDI-
TIONAL COPIES OF OPEN HEAR-
INGS AND FINAL REPORT OF SEN-
ATE SELECT COMMI .1.-1'EE ON IN-
TELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES
Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Speaker, by di-
rection of the Committee on House Ad-
ministration, I call up the Senate con-
current resolution (S. Con. Res. 88) and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk. read the Senate concurrent
resolution, as follows:
S. CON. RES. 88
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Rep-
resentatives concurring), That there be
printed for the use of the Senate Select
Committee To Study Governmental Opera-
tions With Respect to Intelligence Activities
five thousand additional copies of all parts
of its public hearings and of its final report
to the Senate.
(Mr. BRADEMAS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Speaker, Senate
Concurrent Resolution 88 provides for
the printing, for use of the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence Activities, of
5,000 additional copies of all parts of its
open hearings and final report.
The select committee has held 21 open
hearings which will result in an esti-
mated 3,500 pages to be arranged by sub-
ject matter in approximately 7 separate
volumes.
The length of the final report, how-
ever, cannot yet be estimated. Because
of the range of investigations mandated
by Senate Resolution 21 and the scope of
the studies undertaken, it is contem-
plated that the final report will be pre-
pared in 2 separate volumes of 500 pages
each with 20 appended volumes of ap-
proximately 200 pages each.
Because requests for this committee's
report and hearings have already ex-
ceeded the normal 1,000 copies allocated
to committees, the select committee Is
asking for an additional 5,000 copies to
meet this demand.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that this resolu-
tion is agreed to. I note that the resolu-
tion is supported by both the chairman
of the select committee, Ee r tor CHURCH,
of Ida o, aid'ie vice 1, ai, Se a-
tor To ER, as.
The e was
cone
he s laid on
he tabl
AMENDING RULES OF HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES TO PROVIDE
THAT HOUSE MAY NOT CONSIDER
ANY REPORT OF A COMMITTEE
BILL, RESOLUTION, OR A REPORT
OF A COMMITTEE OF CONFER-
ENCE UNLESS COPIES OR REPRO-
DUCTIONS HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE
TO MEMBERS ON THE FLOOR AT
LEAST 2 HOURS BEFORE SUCH
CONSIDERATION
Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Speaker, by direc-
tion of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 868 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-
lows:
II. RES. 868
Resolved, That Rule XI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives is amended by add-
ing at the end thereof the following new
clause:
"7. It shall not '3e in order to consider ary
report of a committee unless copies or re-
productions of such report have been avail-
able to the Members on the floor for at least
two hours before the beginning of such con-
sideration. The provisions of this clause shall
not be construed to supersede any other rule
of the House requiring a longer poriod of time
before such consideration is in order. The
provisions of this clause shall not apply to
any report of the Committee on Rules deal-
ing with the consideration of a bill.".
SEC. 2. Rule /DUI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives is amended by
adding at the end thereof the following new
clause:
"7. It shall not be in order to consider
any bill or resolution unless copies or re-
productions of such bill or resolution have
been available to Members on the floor for
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
Vefire.i'..,otry
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
(..UNCE, ESSION AL RECOtt D - - HO I
gen w email It ski 1.".etv ersi e.
M. i'll'OMP6017. Ir. Speaker. House
Nese:imam ois he midi/1g resolution
fim the Committee on -!ucation and La-
nor amount u$ 320,000_ for all
Iv the ease ite this tonim tee, v e have
1$iteit4e situatior,iii icatt e minority
?=5 perces.t 01 tele to 1 request,
Jnininittee majority elves 212';
cent of the tutu 1 rem test, an each of
siunning sub( omini, Lees has SePa-
,-e.he a.loratsort
I 11114 nice hie ii ler-
t, c,unmiltee and tin elI
? $4,o nr,jtoc i$ :ILLY unded.
zseeaker. UI IS rescrait ion una,
einet
r
5011
ea z ,IC iievious (juts-
ho
, q lestea, vas ortieeieel.
1.472. lOd ktneed to.
04 101 1 with 133:,
-U INt, LNDS zoOR EXPENsES
COMMir :EL im WAYS AND
'Ft ,witte SPeit/ter. h.s;
wee.; i 01 tine Comaintee Oil
tration. . Up House Resolu-
jt ash to, ile immediate Con-
A ad ti resoiti con_
lake seimgi
-? ?mei, -10u, do Co.-?gress, the expellees
sttadie,S be C011-
lee- oil 1'1s and
as a Wharie >r by sulseonamittce.
beeeesiso,. 161000. including expend's-
investigicuoie,
,0.fLId 1111 emtesul tants, or organ]-.
, - sias,sographie,
I be paid out of the
17411 I.:eon 31 Lhe House on vouchers
Qui need Cy soba ceimuittee, sighed by the
reebe, me a 01 ,itaCa committee, ami approved
ley fbe lomitutte on house AdmienstraJon,
ctrIt1.1,,it Lee. aim approved
e3ee- U $125,000 of the
e01...,111 prineicleci bv UAL-, resolution may ne
-,0 probe, e lie temporary or !Titan-nit-
t, inCtiV,ILLVIA oOIL,n tants or
c, se, StSa,taiii
fleorgaineation. Act
I 427o , Ithe:- inithet.try
? ;en pe,,e,_ -emetic 03 ,..1,11 Sez"0"-
. 7. Other a aonzeG purpose.
s ? ,,
Utt 7V1 Sialuty IL in-
-, ee.eloit sutjeci wiiieu 15 etniig
,.? ICC the 7. tilt purpose by arey
,-? ilie House. and the
Cononittee on Ways alio(
netsh the Coninitte0
-e eiiione; est ation information until re-
, SILL ay or el-vestige/Lieu iniendeo
0171. 511.112 LUIid,5.
: 7.!? by nits
Ilf22iciec pursuant to
? em,iblianee. by Lim Committee on House
42 11J1Still,Liori hider existing law.
'.ri-{OMPSON (during the reading).
? l'.tpeaker. I. ask unanimous consent
hat
he result tion ne considered as read
printed Li the RECORD.
SPEAKER. ki there oujection to
the rcce,i3i1e31 el tif c k,e.l.i., s ?,. ., .,e,..i, .1.i31
There was no objection
The SPEAKER. The Chita ref-ognizes
the gentleman from New Jersey iMr.
THOMPSONl .
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr, Sneaker. House
Resolution 970 would fund the Commit-
tee on Ways and Means 11 the amount
of $2,115,000.
This resolution was introduied by the
gentleman from Oregon I Mr. ULLMAN)
for himself and by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. ScimEESELT), the
ranking member, Wil0 it- tiflee in W,
behalf.
It is mi;), understanding tuat the rank.-
ing member is ill today, Ott we are au-
Lhoired to state that he supports thie
resuiution.
rii2fr. Speaker, this corntr f ttee ilOW ha.
\tic
.. ? riding subcommittees. has Laken c
in nber of months to ge..ir up, in th
re. ?quial sense, and had En unexpendei
halt!. co 2l2 $812,81.7.03, v hien has re
verie -
to the Treasur.
7 ?E 1:-5. - 1 titaj.:! .11.1,..li in , :, . k, i, ,j;0.2.
resoluti .
Mr. S ker, I move the orevit.itti ques
inviii on U rolution.
I ne pie us qUesiteni ,aL: ordered.
The, resol on was agreed to.
A motion t econsider was laid on th
table.
FU 1)S FOR EXPENSE,
eJF,' INVESTIGA oNer AND STUD
TES TO BE CO 'CTED BY COM
/sal 'TEE oN BAIN cURRENC
AND 'HOUSING ,
Mr. T.901VMSON. Milliipeaker. by d
section of the Committeitn House Ac
ministration, I call up He e Pesolutic
101.6 and asit for its limn 'ate consie
eri!tion.
The Clerif lead 11:, re4
H. Res. 100
fLesolved, That for the fu ether ix ises
ineestlgations and studies to be to oict, ^1.
by the Committee on Banking, Curren
Housing, acting as a whole br by subcoi , ?
tee, not to exceed $2,079,113 including e
dii,uree, for the emplOymetv of itreestigat:
a'ii,urneys, and clerical, axle other assists/ ?
and for tile procurement of services of 1 ?
die :dual consultants or oig. -ins then
p,,e--iant to .-ection 20211. 1 Lhe Legislat
ii,,,igan.zate.n Act or 114 IL amended
C. 711.1;1., ). shall tie naid out of 1 e
teetingeet. feroet of the It -u4 0_1 vOuCh
'-tl-xorived by such committee. signed by I.e
+"'i- 7.11-man of such commit; cc.. and approi
hy the Committee On House Administrati
N,-)s, to exceed $150,000 ci the total arum
,00-eided by this resolutem may be useci
'-es-lire the temporary or ,iteinottent se ? --
ler,s of individual consult:a-its or organi
tams thereof pursuant to. section 202ii) il
the Legislative Reorganize-Aon Act, 01 11 31
as- amended (2 U.S.C. 72a.1 ; but, this mo .e-
t.-ry limitation on the pris.oremeni oi .,
,--iwiees shall 110t preeetn oie use ol s
funds for any other auto
SRC. 2 No part of the 12 los authorized ..,,
ti's resolutmn shall he avallame lor expel ..-
cure in connection win ine stony or in,
ul any subje,t C,lIsllis being b-
yestigated for the same purpose by any of er
committee of the liouse, and the chain :An.
of the committee On Bardeing, currency ,ac.
Housing shall !Orman tee Counnitice ;et
nouse .1.17,11-1.1..w.c. with ,-
1.;;;27
CA" investigation intereied
finaneed from such funcis.
S. Funds authorized by tins resre u-
tion shall be expended pursuant to
established? by the Committee or,
House Administration in accordance with
existing law,
Mr. THOMPSON (during the reading) ..
Mr. Speaker, I -ask unanimous consent
that the resolution be considered as read
and printed in the Rkoorio.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Nev
Jersey?
There was no oleiection.
The SPEAKER. The Chair x
gentleman from New Jersey 7V1r.
Tirompsorr
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Speaker, Reuse
Resolution 1015 is the funding resolu-
tion for die Committee on Bankng
Currency and Housing in the amount;
$2,079,113.
In this instance, Mr. Speaker, the or-.o
mittee had an unexpended amount for
the first session of $467,176.47. Again,
that amount was returned to the
Iron
Mr. Speaker, this was fulis suppociku
by the chairman of the committee, the
distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin
Rruss) and by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. JOHNSON), the rank-
Mg member.
Mr, Speaker, I move the previous pile- -
-t,:).rx on the resolution.
The -Prevaius question was erom
The resoluticm was agreed to.
A marten to reconsider was laid cit. t.:
11.111e.
PROVIDING FUNDS FOR EXPENSI...23
OF INVESTIGATIONS AND STITI'l-
IES TO BE CONDUCTED BY COT.e2-
MITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
Mt. THOMPSON. Mr. Speaker. lee ,;j-
rection of the Committee on House Ad-
ministration, I calf up House Resolution
974 and ask for its immediate consider,..-
tion.
The C ierit i-cad the resiluticr,
lollows.
H. ass. 974
Resoled, That ef7ective from the ,,nice 01
the first session to the end of tile second ties-
ion of the Ninety-fourth congress. the ex-
sea of the investigations and studies to
? condueted by the Committee on At rieni-
acting as a whole or by subcomentiee,
no flreeed 3707,561.35, including expelidi-
.
Lured or the employment of invesV ?-Atixe.
attar individual consultants m
? thereof., and clerical, stenobtapS41c,
and 0th ' assistants, shall be paid 4103 of :,1-1e
ceintinggios fund of the House on so icier'
authorize ?by such committee, ;iigined by he
chairman such committee, and approved
oy the cor --ittee on House Administ,,,'aten.
However, nee to exceed $166,361.35 If the
zeinout3:; pro* by this resolution cutf,.- be
-,isedto pr the temporai-y or irtery.iin -
I ent services individual consultou.b.,, or
iii-ganhAtions I -riot pursuant to section
202(i) of the Le31 ative Reorganizattion. Act
of 194e (2 U.S.C.. :ail)); but this meneiary
:imitation on the oeurement of soca serv-
!'ces shall not rrevr t the use of scion ti,oils
for any other authilk,zed purpose.
Sac. 2, No part or tlie funds authoeezeti by
this resoi ution shall be Available for expendi-
ture in eonnection with the study or inves-
tigation of any scbject whiels is be up in-
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
February 26, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?HOUSE
at least two hours before the beginning of
such consideration. The provisions of this
clause shall not be Construed to supersede
any other rules of the House requiring a
longer period of time before such consider-
ation is in order. The provisions of this clause
shall not apply to any resolution reported by
the Committee on Rules dealing with the
consideration of a bill".
SEC. 3. Rule XXVIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives is amended by add-
ing at the end thereof the following new
clause:
"7. It shall not be in order to consider
any report of a committee of conference
unless copies or reproductions of such re-
port have been available to Members on the
floor for at least two hours before the be-
ginning of such consideration. The provisions
of this clause shall not be construed to sup-
ersede any other rules of the House requir-
ing a longer -period of time before such
consideration is In order. The provisions of
this clause shall not apply to any resolution
or report of the Committee on Rules relating
to any report of a committee of conference.".
With the following committee amend-
ment:
Strike all after the resolving clause and
insert in lieu thereof:
That rule XI, clause 2(1) (6) of the Rules
of the House of Representatives is amended
by inserting after the first sentence the fol-
lowing: "Nor shall it be in order to consider
any measure or matter reported by any com-
mittee (except the Committee on Rules in
the case of a resolution making in order the
consideration of a bill, resolution, or other
order of business, or any other committee
in the case of a privileged resolution), un-
less copies of such report and the reported
measure or matter have been available to
the Members for at least two hours before
the beginning of such consideration; pro-
vided, however, that it shall always be in
order to call up for consideration, notwith-
standing the provisions of clause 4(b), rule
XI, a report from the Committee on Rules
specifically providing for the consideration
of a reported measure or matter notwith-
standing this restriction."
SEC. 2. The second sentence of rule XXVIII,
clause 2(a) of the House of Representatives
is amended by striking all after the word
"statement" and inserting in lieu thereof the
following: "have been available to Members
for at least two hours before the beginning
of such consideration; provided, however,
that it shall always be in order to call up
for consideration, notwithstanding the pro-
visions of clause 4(b). Rule XI, a report from
the Committee on Rules only making in or-
der the consideration of a conference report
notwithstanding this restriction."
SEC. 3. The second sentence of rule
XXVIII, clause 2(b) of the Rules of the
House of Representatives is amended by
striking all after the second comma and in-
serting in lieu thereof the following: "have
been available to Members for at least two
hours before the beginning of such consid-
eration; provided, however, that it shall al-
ways be in order to call up for consideration,
notwithstanding the provisions of clause
4(b), rule XI, a report from the Committee
on Rules only making in order the consider-
ation of such an amendment, notwithstand-
ing this restriction."
PARLIAIVIF NTMLY INQ1711LY
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER., The gentleman will
state it.
Mr. BAUMAN, Mr. Speaker, this reso-
lution is to be considered in the House
which would preclude an amendment
from being offered by any Member.
The SPEAKER. It is a rule that conies
from the Committee on Rules. It is under
the charge of the gentleman handling
the resolution.
Mr. BAUM.AN. So unless the gentle-
man yields for the purpose of an amend-
ment, none would be in order?
The SPEAKER. The gentleman is cor-
rect.
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, what
unanimous-consent request might be
entertained in order to allow amend-
ments to be offered generally? Would it
be a request to consider it in the House
as in the Committee of the Whole?
The SPEAKER. No. The gentleman
from Florida controls the floor under the
1-hour rule in the House because this
is a change in the rules brought to the
floor by the Committee on Rules as priv-
ileged. Rules changes can be considered
in the House.
Mr. BAUMAN. I thank the Speaker.
The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. PEP-
PER)
(Mr. PEPPER asked and was given
permission to revise and ex tend.his re-
marks.)
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, would the
gentleman from Florida yield for a ques-
tion at the outset?
Mr. PEPPER. I yield to the gentleman
, from Maryland.
Mr. BAUMAN. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Does the gentleman intend to yield to
anyone for the purposes of amendment?
Mr. PEPPER. No, I do not have au-
thority from the Committee on Rules to
yield to anyone for anything except de-
bate in the consideration of this resolu-
tion.
Mr. BAUMAN. If the gentleman would
yield further, I would say that when we
amended the rules the last time I seem
to recall the resolution was considered
in the House as in the Committee of the
Whole and all the Members had the
right to offer amendments. What was the
reason for precluding individuals from
offering amendments today? -
Mr. PEPPER. This resolution comes
out from the Rules Committee in the
exercise of its jurisdiction relative to the
rules of the House and it comes out as a
closed rule and therefore I have no au-
thority in handling the rule to yield to
Members except for the purposes of de-
bate.
Mr. BAUMAN. I thank the gentleman
from Florida.
Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30
minutes to the able gentleman from Illi-
nois (Mr. Asomisosi) , pending which I
yield myself such time as I may con-
sume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 868, as
amended by the Committee on Rules,
proposes to amend two rules of the
House in order to insure that Members
have an adequate opportunity, no less
than 2 hours, to review reported meass
ures, conference reports, and Senate
amendments in disagreement.
House Resolution 868 as re or ,
woMd amend rusee c ause 6). tile3=drir 9-77yover ae, toprovide that no
measure or matter re or e I d.
M1121M1 l Ee on Ressa.
H 1329
vaith resect to order of business resolu-
tions, and other cc - ? ? t
o privi ege reso u ons?may te consid-
ered unless cc-. ? easure have
een avai at e or a eas ours prior
To consideration. The ieq-urrements oi
rule XI, clause 7(l) (6) do not apply to
measures for the declaration of war, the
declaration of a national emergency by
Congress, or to congressional actions
with respect to executive decisions or de-
terminations which would become or
continue to be effective unless disap-
proved or otherwise invalidated by one
or both Rouse of Congress. The proposed
2-hour availability requirement would
likewise not .be aoplicable to the con-
.ideration of such Measures.
liptise Resolution 868 also amends rule
x '
X/II, clause 2 (a) and h),
conference reportar.--rn-rsiMIbiConsider-
ation both of conference re pts and of
ITT=MEalment of the Senate to any
measure reported in disagreement, un-
fess copies of the report and state ent
of
I. - I- -a:: Is- I
at least 2 hours _Prior to consideration.
"The amendments to these rules con-
tain a proviso which states that the 2-
hour requirement may be waived by the
rfo-17?unitre7771 a o-eso u iones
th-rt--617ff"-r-n a'WEZMM!7M-1`'Pre
same day reported notwithstandinz fure
XeL, cleagse_4(h) jaratn?Ituarr ennsirliz., ion
6T-17-esolution from rules on the same
d y eloo e'r?f?TZinffirir=e7?=b?arm
two-thirds late. The requirement eogii
arsZrbe dispensed with by unanimous
consent or under suspension of the rules.
The Committee on Rules held 4 days
of hearings on this and similar resolu-
tions. The committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute was based on care-
ful consideration of this issue. By its
adoption the Members of this House will
be assured of an opportunity to review
measures on which they must vote. Mr.
Speaker, I urge the adoption of House
Resolution 868.
Mr. Speaker, may I just add that, hav-
ing been a Member of the other body,
I noticed here with some regret amend-
ments are not available to Members in
the House when they are considered by
the House.
In the other body when a bill is being
considered, all amendments are in
printed form, available on the desks of
the Senators, so that while the amend-
ment is being considered, a Senator has
the advantage of looking at the print.
of the amendment which is before him,
unless in some special case an amend-
ment of extraordinary order would be
offered from the floor. So this measure
today, I feel, is very important in fur-
therance of the desire of this House for
Members to have the fullest opportunity
to have the knowledge of what is being
considered in the House.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, believing it-
to be a very meritorious resolution, I
urge adoption of House Resolution 868.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from Illi-
nois (Mr. ANDERSON) .
(Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr.
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
1:330 LONuREIONAL htLAJT,L)-1
.ar, I rise in :reluctant oataisition to
Resolution 868, the so-called 2-
availability rule tor bilis, reports
onference reports. I say reluctant
' lionw the intentions of the
mail ;from California (Mr. JoHN
tcte) were most sincere, genuine, and
table in prorsising these rules
he wanted to protect Members
aegislating blindly and precipi-
a Ordinarily, we on the minority
the aisle would welcome such ei-
since we so of ten seem to be the
of D.s-:.; minute surprises sprung
C majority; it seems the minority,
:me rem on, is always the last to
athai, i4 gong on. Such as the
atratiyes of the .inajority. But I have
ie to the conclusion, after giving this
Areal deal of thought and study,
, t, withstandi ng the honorable M ten-
oreat. of the author of this resolution,
eitual actually do more harm than
al in terms of protecting the interests
Members. and moreover, that the resos
I, ion is simply not necessary to ineuee
filotection. Let me explain.
ss taw gentleman from Florida ;Mr.
?- has already explained, the main
;. .roose (il these rules changes is to in-
sfo-e that Members will have advance
seuess to written copies of bills, reports,
Jed CoMeren3e reports at least 2 hours
taaiate they are called up for consiciera-
? .i Members are well aware that our
:4e rules XI and xxvm now require
3-lay layover of bills and conference
a' sans respestively before they may be
;?,:es idered in the House. Both those rides
trite that :the reports must be available
1., Members 3 days prior to their con-
e: ation in the Rouse. The only excep-
sos, in the rase of bills, are if they are:
le-ofight up ii der tliaanimous consent, to
any Member may object; under
? a:tension oi the rules, which requires a
statiiirds vote; through a waiver of the
rule -by the Committee on Rules,
ust first be adopted by a major-
or ihroafta a blanket waiver of
ee 3 -nay rule applying to all bills
its it up luring a certain period of
--, again which must first be adopted
majority vote. Moreover, the House
illy protected by clause 3 of rule
reads. and I quote:
ttriso 1,,y motion or proposition is ufiide.
the House now consider
unless demanded by a
lanatory footnote which to!-
clause .n section 718 01 our
??tiles Manual reads as follows:
ai tans be, which the HUtiSt? pro-
I- ins winch it does not
.. It may be raised against
woirii has been made a special order,
saver provides for immediate con-
On a motion to go Into Com-
- ? Whoie to consider a bill the
es its 'Nish as to comidee-goo.i
tion,
vords, Mr. Speaker, eeen it
use should adopt a special rule
aliteb, waives the 3-day rule against a
or conference report, any Member
still raise the question of consider-
in on the, motion to resolve into the
nem:ft:tie:3 of the Whole to consider the
bile aim a takes a amenity vote of
House to proceed with taassideration.
The same situation applies with e-
sheet to the consideration of conferatce
reports when the 3-day rule has loam
waived. Even thougn conference repc
are highly privileged, tae precedents re
quite clear, and I quote
The Question of censidr ration may be ...cs-
manded are a nfio.t-r of the Mg.; ?s-.
privilege.
The only apparent exceptions lof :og
seto messages and reports and order ;of
business out of the Committee on Rt res.
So again, any Member who is not satis-
fied that the conference report has Leen
available for a sufficient amount of trine
orior to consideration, whether 2 ht urs
or 1 day, may force a vote on the qi
tion of consideration. and that con
once report cannot be considered unit a
majority of the House votes to pro( eed
with consideration.
Mr. Speaker, let me explain a sham 0ik
has become common in the wan-
ing days: of a session with respec to
conference reports. Clause 2 at role
XXVIII now states that the 3-day a:
ability requirement on conference re-
ports does not apply during the Ian 1-3
days of a session. Now then, unless the
House has already adopted a resolution
setting the date for adjournment, a is
impossible to determine which are the
last 6 days of the session, nor would:fah
guesswork be permitted under a a -net
construction of that rule. So what art
been done instead has been a reques F. by
the leadership that the Rules Corn: lit-
toe retort- a resolution waiving the 3 allay
rule on conference reports for the re-
mainder of the session. Such a recoest
C.UTIO to Its in the last ,;ession on De( em-
ber 17. 1975. and the r( solution reque, ied
read as follows: ?
That diaing the ren...,.,gier of' the firs
;ion of the 94th Congress it shall be in -/rder
to consider conference reports on the ?Ilane
day reported or any day thereafter, not ,.;ith?-
standine the provisions of clause :2, athe
XXVIii ; that it shall also be in order d :rum
the remaincier of tile first SefiSiJil of the ?'.2/4ili
Congress ior the Speaker at any time t
certain motious to stu;pend tie rules? to-
withst...hciin,_7 the p'--v- ?ms of clause
xxvii
Nos. nateesalisis Q,lUU5j. bs itS
all of clause 2 of rule .XXV.11.1, that res-
olution would also have waived an ?Suer
- silence abler' rents
ais sato it be 1.1
report ttlp.e
A.Itt tetotpatlyttle i_ -It are then
??:?10 .? Ile floor.
In other words. our existing et; a
that second sentence of clause 2, says
that even when the 3--nay rule is wf,,ved.
copies of the conference report and
statement must still be available on the
floor at the time of consideration. Rec-
ognizing this fact, and being aware ( the
concern of the gentleman from Cali-
fornia as well as the interests o the
minority. I offered the following an,end-
ment to that resolution, which was
adopted:
Provided that copies of any meas ire or
matter to be considered under the pro' 'stone
of this resolution have been made at'-- table
t
mUch C maitre /)r matter. Notwlths'ar LLD:A
this p a r availability requirement, it ?-hW.1.
:nevert:ie..ess. be in order for the Hag, r--c,
procee?I with consideration of any 'tea.-mre
or nuotter under the provisions of this re.-.,-
olution. .f tile House, by Unafli ent
:equea: ;.-r majority vote, agrees to po....ege.1
rort-;ration
This rule, with my ametadmeht, was
adoptec by the Rules Cormnittee and the
House. a effectively protected the inter-
ests ci lembers in this blanket waiver
of the l-day rule on conference :reports
by ret-ring prior availability of the son-
ferenee reports before consideration:
moreoter, it required the prior availabil-
ity of ,inples of bills brought up under
suspeasion on any day for the remainder
of the session, something which is not
curreatly handled in the Burton rule My.
amendment also stated a right which
already exists in the House, and that is
that ;.1 inajority may still vote to pre seed
with c?tnsideration of the matter,. over:
thoush a copy of the matter is not a:tell-
able. Under the Burton rule, this would
have to be rerouted through the Rule,
Committee in order to waive the 2-hour
rule. Under my amendment, the HOUSe
could save itself the time and trouble of
waiting ,for the Rules Committee to re-
port back by voting to proceed with con-
sideration at that point.
Mr. Speaker, H appreciate that all Chi,
may seem terribly complex and confus-
ing to Members; it is a very technics:
subject. The ms-in point I have tried te
make is that this rule is unnecessars
giver, the double protection Member:
now have against being forced to vote or:
matters not itt writing before them
First, adequate protection can be pro-
vided in any special order which waive
the :selay rule on either bills or re-ports
and I have already proved that peahi.
with my amendment to House Resoluta):
938 last December 17. And it would b-
ray intention that any time a committe
asks us for a waiver of the 3-day rule Or
either a bill or conference report, to in
sist that the prior availability require
=Lent be placed in such a speciol in-des
And based on the overwhelming suapor
for my amendment last December. 1 at
sure the rest of the Rules Committe -
wooed adopt such a safeguard. But who
if yc is do not trust the Rules Coalman
to paaect your interests la such a way
Well, %-ou first have the option (Of reject
ina ascii a .i-da s waiver Ir the eeport
not allabie at the time you vote ea a, -
rule You can insist during the 1 shot,
debate on the 3-day waiver rule that th
rule 1E.? defeated or chansed to roquirs
prioc availability- of the matter ;to l "
considered. But, second, even
waiver rule is adopted it Ihe pre r
availability safeguard, any Member ea
then force a vote on the question is
whether to proceed with consideration t.
the bill or conference report. It therefor
makes little sense to me to write yet .1
third ;safeguard, and one which can onler
be waived by unanimous consent or bir
going back through the Rules Committee
Ax a point of order is sustained, when yo .i
are already doubly protected under our
existing rules.
Mr. Speaker, it might be asked, wher
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
February 26, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
should I go to all this trouble to object
to yet another form of protection; why
should I oppose what on its face would
seem to be a relatively simple and non-
controversial addition to our House
Rides? The answer is this: I fear that
if we write this 2-hour prior availability
requirement into our rules, it will be
abused to the detriment of our best
interests.
Let me explain how this can happen.
If you happen to be sitting on a rela-
tively controversial conference report
and you are in an emergency situation
or the session is drawing to a close, it
may be to your advantage to hold off
releasing the text of that report until
just before its consideration in the
House. So, what you do first, under the
terms of this rule, is wait until the emer-
gency deadline is almost on you before
you finaly vote the bill out of conference.
Then, you go to the Rules Committee and
ask for a waiver of the 3-day availability
rule. Now, under present circumstances,
you might not get that waiver if the re-
port is not printed at the time you re-
quest the special rule. But, with the new
Burton rule, you can make the case that
Members will still be protected by the
2-hour availability rule. And even
though you could conceivably file a copy
of the report in the CONGRESSIONAL REC-
ORD of that clay, so it would be available
to all Members in the RECORD they re-
ceive the next morning, you do not do so.
Instead, all you have to do is to make
sure that, if the conference report is ex-
pected to come up at 2 p.m. the next
afternoon, copies are delivered to the
documents room by noon on the day it
is to be considered. In other words, what
I am saying is that, while the 2-hour
rule may be designed to protect the in-
terests of Members, it could actually be
used to insure that Members will not
have adequate time to study the report
in advance, even though it could have
been made available in the pages of the
RECORD on the previous day. This rule,
in short, is a clear invitation to commit-
tees to ask for more waivers of the 3-
day rule on bills and conference reports,
using the fallback justification that
Members would still be protected by the
2-hour rule. That fallback justification
does not now exist in our House rules,
and I do not think We should give our
committees that potential for abuse of
our interests through the adoption of
this rule. As I have said, we are already
doubly protected by the option of reject-
ing any rule waiving the 3-day rule on
a bill or report not yet available at the
time that rule is considered; and, more-
over, we are protected by the majority
vote which may be demanded by any
Member on the question of proceeding to
consideration of that bill or report.
Mr. JOHN L. BURTON. Mr. Speaker,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ANDERSON of rilinois. I yield to
the gentleman from California.
Mr. JOHN L. BURTON. Mr. Speaker,
I have great respect for the gentleman
from Illinois. That is why I am a little
upset with the gentleman's reluctant
opposition; but I thought matters from
conference were considered in the House
and not in the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Perhaps I
can explain, if the gentleman will permit
me to continue and complete my ex-
planation of that particular rule.
The same situation, I would say in
4 answer to the gentleman from California,
does apply with respect to the considera-
tion of conference reports when the
3-day rule has been waived. That is true
ordinarily. That is true for what the
gentleman just stated, what the gentle-
man just asked about in the question.
Mr. STEIGER of Wisconsin. Mr.
Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. I yield to
the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. STEIGER of Wisconsin. Mr.
Speaker, I very much appreciate the
gentleman's yielding to me.
-I am impressed by the analysis the
gentleman has made, and I agree with
him.
I thought at first, as I looked at this
rule, that it made some sense, and that
it gave us yet another safeguard. The
more I have looked at it, however, the
less I am impressed that-it, in fact, makes
sense. I think it is open. I think there is
some chance of mischief on the part of
the committees to take away the rights
we now enjoy that now insure that there
is some priority availability of reports
and bills.
Mr. Speaker, let me ask one question of
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
ANDERSON). There is a provision on page
3 of the resolution which says this:
Provided, however, That it shall always
be in order to call up for consideration, not-
withstanding the provisions of clause 4(b),
rule XI, a report from the Committee on
Rules specifically providing for the con-
sideration of a reported measure or matter
notwithstuding this restriction,
Does that mean to say, if read it
correctly, that the two-thirds rule is
then abolished insofar as the resolution
reported by the Committee on Rules is
concerned, so that it takes only a simple
majority vote to adopt the rule, waiving
this 2-hour rule on the same day?
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr. Speak-
er, frankly, I am in some doubt. I think
one could well and properly put that con-
struction on this language. I had not con-
sidered that particular point.
It May be that the gentleman from
Wisconsin has pointed to yet another
reason why we should be a little bit slow
about adopting the precise language of
the proposed rules change. I may be
wrong, but I think one could draw the
inference or make that interpretation.
Mr. BAUMAN. Mi. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. I yield to
the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, I also want
to concur with the excellent statement
the gentleman has made, but the point
raised by the gentleman from Wiscon-
sin (Mr. STEIGER) is what has concerned
me most about this resolution.
I am in total sympathy with the 2-
hour requirement the gentleman from
California (Mr. Jona L. BURTON) em-
bodies in his original resolution, bat the
amendment by the Committee on Rules,
specifically the language cited by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
111331
STEIGER), gives rise to my concern. Al-
though this waiver is limited just to the
rules change now before us, we are for
the first time, at least as far as the prec-
edents I can find show, waiving the two-
thirds requirement for same-day consid-
eration. The gentleman will recall, in
many instances during his long service
here and in many instances in the brief
time ?I have been here we have seen situ-
ations where this two-thirds requirement
to bring up a resolution from the Com-
mittee on Rules on the same day on
which it is reported has thwarted very,
bad pieces of legislation, forcing bills to
lay over at least a day, and then more
adequate consideration was subsequently
given to the legislation.
However, we are breaking precedent
here in allowing same-day consideration
by a majority vote even though it is
limited to just this new proposed rule.
I would suspect that for the convenience
of the majority, we might see other rules
changes suggested, reducing the two-
thirds requirement for same-day consid-
eration and thereby damaging, possibly,
In the future, in many instances, the
rights of the minority.
As the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
ANDERSON) well knows, a minority Con-
sists of over 200 Members on a natural
gas bill. It can be a racial minority or it
can be a political minority; and all of
our rights might well be jeopardized.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr.
Speaker, there are no more careful and
conscientious students of the rules than
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
BAUMAN), who has just spoken, and also
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
STEIGER), who preceded him.
I think they have made some excellent
points in their contribution to the de-
bate on why we should not adopt the
resolution now before us.
Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from Cali-
fornia, (Mr. JOEIN L. BURTON).
(Mr. JOHN L. BURTON asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. JOHN L. BURTON. Mr. Speaker, I
thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
PEPPER) for yielding.
First of all, I would, really like every-
one to understand what this does. The
Measure has been in the Committee on
Rules since March, and I would have
been delighted if some of the problems
that somebody seems to think he finds
now would have been raised during that
time.
Second, yes, it does provide that the
Committee on Rules can waive this rule
on the same day. The gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. BOLLING) felt that the
House must be able to work its will in a
majority vote, but at least a majority of
the House would have to vote. They do
not care whether they see the bill in
print or not before they vote on it.
I was elected to this body in June 01
1974.
In December, on one night?and those
Members who were here may remember
this?we voted on the trade bill which
was this thick. That was in for 2 years,
and there was not a copy in print. It was
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
H.
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? I R February 13, I !);
ve he rules, every rule that the gen-
an from Illinois (Mr. ANDERSON)
talked about. It was within the rules.
We yeted on f. social services bill this
thick, and there was not a copy in print.
We voted on a needles-and-pins tariff
tMU that was only this thick and that had
a eoodie in it for Members of the House
and Members ol the Senate. We in the
douse did not even know that when we
voted on it, and then we had to face our
sotistituents wln were asking why we
tae a tax break to people who con-
e Meted to some newsletter fund. That
ti)taaF not in lrint either.
Ar Speaker, this bill does not super-
Pe any of the longer time periods.
it Is a safeguard. It says that before
we ea tc on some thing, it ought to be in
- is wrong with that. Mr. Speaker?
is going to stand up when the ma-
y leader ha e a privileged resolution
$ waive a longer period of time to ex-
pedite business? We do not need a 7-day
layover, We do want- to expedite at the
end of a 'sessio :1; but when we waive
that, we waive it all. We do not consider
:conference reverts, which are where
most of this hat pens, in the Committee
of the Whole, ahen there is a motion.
I think it is don in the "House House,"
and if conferen;e reports are in order
at arty time, the are in order when the
Speaker recog.niees the chairman who is
going to present the conference report.
That is kind of a nebulous vote.
Mr. Speaker, what are we voting on?
We are voting on whether or not to take
up the conferenee report. We say, "Aye,
take it up."
-What are we toting on? We are voting
os whether or not we want to see the
bilt in print. That is an issue that is
really an issue. rind it is something that
people 'an understanci when they come
th and there it a meeting with con-
stituents..
di?Z we want to r,ake uo a conference re-
wait went is w!ong with that? "Ave."
wC eat.
'drkipeaker, this brings us down to
;.(tstiething that he Committee on Rules
lima suggested or that the gentleman
tEosse Missouri (Mr. BOLLING/ has sug-
easted should be. able to be waived in 1
(:iaiy by at least a conscientious vote by
a (majority of the Members of the House
on tate issue. ard they want to see the
blit ni anat. WE want to see the bill in
I) Gt. at
s. take Lite trade bill. It was in the
Congt:e:s for 2 years: and when we
.oteES: on it, we cid not have a copy of it.
year, when we tried to take up
the tashreduction bill, there was almost
i'ebellion_ on tine floor of the House. By
ii mous consent, the gentleman from
Panosytyania (Mr. SCIINEEBEL I ) and the
? gentleman from Oregon (Mr. ULLMAN)
ilad 2 hours of tpedal orders to get the
eill th print.
not thin:: that is the w ay to do
thing does one thing and one
e only and I do not understand how
rybody can he so upset. I do agree
somewhat with say friend the gentleman
i? ,Gt-rt Maryland (Mr. Bannves). I would
like to see a two-thirds vote before tb.
Congress of the United States votes o.
an issue that they cannot even read.
I was persuaded by the logic of the
argument and the votes in the Commit -
tee on Rules that maybe the majority c'f
the House should vote. I do not care e-
somebody wants to say, "I will vote on e
whether I have read it or not," or if the
majority wants to do it that way. becaue
I know howl am going to vote.
Personally I have the utmost respe(
for the distinguished gentleman from r
linois (Mr. ANDERSON) and really why -
he says seems relevant, the only aro.;
meat one could make is maybe that a
should have a two-thirds vote, but ti
other way of that is that maybe the mae
ority of the House should be able te
work its will. If the majority of the Holm e
wants to catch an airplane and not rea
the bill, then they can vote on it. By
when the major provisions are waived
just to expedite the business of 3 day
or 7 days. and to wipe out all of the other
holding patterns does not make miler.
sense. It is very simple, the thing of :a
Is we ought to have the bill before us le,
print, not merely in the document roon
but available to the Members on the
floor.
The SPEAKER. The time of the ger.-
tleman has expired.
Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Speaker. I yield
additional minutes to the gentlema
from California (Mr. BURTON ) .
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker will tit e
gentleman yield?
Mr. JOHN L. BURTON Mr. Speaker. 7
yield to the gentleman from Maryland
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to
compliment the gentleman from Califor
nia for the effort that the gentleman hi
made in this matter. I think that it is e
matter of parliamentary importance.
However, Mr. Speaker, the gentlema.
from Maryland would like to ask, havire
read the committee amendment, doe:.
not the gentleman from California feie
that if the committee amendment is de -
feated, which we have the right to do in
the full House, that then the gentleman
original language would be far prefei
able. It would still preserve the twc
thirds vote requirement. In order to hay s
the original position of the gentleman
before us we could simply vote the con,
mittee amendment down.
Mr. JOHN L. BURTON, I would te.
the gentleman from Maryland that
would not have a chance to vote on tie
measure again. The measure has been 1..
the committee since March. I spent a k -
of time on it, and I did what I thougl
best. I attempted to address rIl of the
problems and also the problem that tit
-
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. BOLLING
raised, that had a lot of merit to it be
cause it seemed to have a lot of votes fr
It in the committee. It is tomething the-
maybe we should do, and that is that t
majority in the House should be able te
work its will. There again, if we think .
Is the best way we do it. then we cat
vote for is. We can vote to say that a e
do not care if the bill is in print.
As I say, I would have liked to hat e
seen it done in a better way, but I thin-
this is a safeguard that we do not hate
now. Uader every rule we have had,
where it says that we have got to have
something in print, or we can say that we
waive the 3-day rule and the 7-day rule,
if that is the only way that the Men the:'
can get to it.
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, if the ge,-
tieman will yield further, I would ob-
serve that the matter is now before us
tn the House, and can be subject to is
rollcall vote on the committee amend-
ment. The committee amendment could
be defeated and then the bill could pass
al the gentleman from California orig-
inally suggested.
Mr. JOHN L. BURTON. Mr. Speaker.
I say Uses. I say that this is a good
measure.
If the majority had really wanted to
run over the minority, they would be
able to pass a rule to allow the majority
to do anything. They could do that but
they have not done so.
Further, I did not know that the world
was going to come to an end, and there
would be a bill and, my God, the Xero.a
machine broke down, my God, what are
we going to do?
As I say, the majority ought to be
able to work its will, although originally
I did think the majority of the Members
of the House could vote to say, "We do
not want to see what we are voting on
next."
So I think that this is a pretty good
protection.
I agree with the gentleman from Mary-
land that there are some things that
I would like to see done better. but I
really think this is basic to our legisla-
tive process if a bill is pending, it is in
the works. And further it is not as com-
plicated as the distinguished gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. ANDERSON) said, under
the present rules, without question, a
conference committee could hold on to
a bill until the last minute, then bripg
it out, and say, "This is the social secu-
rity bill, and you had all better vote on
it before all the widows and orphans lose
their money and who are holding their
breath waiting for its passage."
Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Speaker, I would
just add this. The Committee on Rules
had 4 days of hearings on this matter
and concluded that, after fair considera-
tam of the measure by the House, si
mould be adopted.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous quets
non on toe committee amendment and
tie resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The -st'PEAKER. The question is 0,0i1
ie emr m it tee amendment.
The c manittee amendment E,as agreed
The ,SPEAKER. The gate ion i ii
le fe6bitttion.
'the question was taken; and rn
Speaker ,i.nsiounced that the ayes ap-
peared to have it.
Mr. STEIGER of Wisconsin. Mr.
Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground d.-!.at a quorum is not present and
make the point of order that a quorum
ie not present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is
n7t: p'eme:tt
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
February ,26, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
The Sergeant at Arms will notify
absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic de-
vice, and there were?yeas 258, nays 107,
not voting 67, as follows:
[Roll No. 711
YEAS-258
Abzug Gonzales
Adams Goodling
Addabbo Green
Alexander Gude
Allen Guyer
Anderson, Haley
Hall
Andrews, N.C. Hamilton
Andrews, Hanley
N. Dein Hannaford
Annunzio Harkin
Ashley Harris
Bachllo Hawkins
Baldus Hayes, Ind.
BELUCUS Heckler, Maas.
Heard, RI. Hefner
Bedell Helstoski
Bennett Henderson
Bergland Hicks
Bevil Hightower
Biaggi Holland
Biester Holtzman
Bingham Howard
Blanchard Howe
Blouin Hubbard
Boggs Hughes
Honker Hungate
Bowen
Brademas
Breaux
Breckinridge Johnson, Calif.
Brinkley Jones, Ala.
Brodhead Jones, N.C.
Brooks Jones, Okla.
BrownsCalif. Jones, Tenn.
Burke, Mass. Jordan
Burleson, Tex. Kastenmeier
Burlison, Mo. Kazen
Burton, John Ketchum
Burton, Phillip Keys
Byron Koch
Carr Krebs
Chappell Krueger
Chisholm LaFalce
Cleveland Lehman
Collins, 111. Levitas
Corman
Cornell
D'Amours
Daniels, N.J. Long, La.
Danielson Long, Md,
Davis McCloskey
Delaney McCormack
Dellums McFall
Derrick McHugh
Dingell McKay
' Dodd McKinney
Downey, N.Y. Madden
Downing, Va. Madigan
Drinan Maguire
Duncan, Oreg. Mahon
Early Mann
Edgar Martin
Edwards, Calif. Mathis
Eilberg Matstmaga
Emery Mazzoli
English Meeds
Evans, Colo. Melcher
Evans, Ind. Meyner
Evins, Tenn, Mezvinsky
Fars, Mikva
Fascell
Fisher
Fithian
Flood
Florio
Flowers
Foley
Ford, Mich.
Fountain
Fraser
Frenzel
Fuqua
Gaydos
Gialmo
Gibbons
Ginn
Myers, Pa.
Hatcher
Neal
Necizi
Nichols
Nowak
Oberstar
Obey
O'Hara
Ottinger
Passman
Patten, N.J.
Patterson,
Calif.
Pattisen, NY.
Pepper
Peyser
Pickle
Pike
Poage
Preyer
Price
Randall
Rangel
Rees
ReusS
Richmond
Rinaldo
Jarman Roberts
Jenrette Roe
Rogers
Ronealio
Rooney
Rosenthal
Roush
Roybal
Runnels
Russo
Ryan
St Germain
Santini
-Samba
Sarbanes
Scheuer
Schroeder
Seiberling
Litton Sharp
Lloyd, Calif. Shipley
Lloyd, Tenn, Shuster
Simon
Sisk
Slack
Solara
Spellman
Staggers
Stark
Steed
Stokes
Stratton
Studds
Sullivan
Symington
Taylor, N.C.
'Thompson
Thornton
Tsongas
Ullman
Van Deerlin
Vander Veen
Vanik
Waggonner
Milford Waxman
Miller, Calif. Weaver
Mills Whalen
Meta Whitten
Minish Wilson, C. H.
Mitchell, Md. Wilson, Tex.
Moffett Wirth
Mollohan Wright
Montgomery Yates
Moorhead, Pa. Yatron
Morgan Young, Alaska
Moss - Young, Fla,
Mottl Young, Ga.
Murphy, ILL Young, Tex.
Murphy, N.Y. Zablocki
Murtha Zeferetti
Aladnor
Anderson, UI.
Archer
Armstrong
Ashbrook
NAYS?I07
Befalls Brown, Ohio
Bauman Broyhill
Beard, 'Tenn. Buchanan
Broomfield Burke, Fla,
Brown, Mich. Butler
Carter
Cederberg
Clancy
Clausen.
Don H.
Cochran
Cohen
Collins, Tex.
Conabl
conl an.
Conte
Coughlin
'Daniel, Dan
Daniel, R. W.
Derwinski
Devine
Dickinson
du Pont
Edwards. Ala.
Fenwick
Findley
toish
Forsythe
Frey
Goldwater
Gradison
Grassley
Hagedorn
Hammer-
schmicit
Hansen
ibirsha
Heel-lien W. Va.
Ambro
Aspin
AuCoin
Barrett
Bell
Boland
Bolling
Burgener
Burke, Calif.
Carney
Clawson, Del
Clay
Conyers
Cotter
Crane
de la Garea
Heinz
Hillis
Holt
Horton
Hutchinson
Hyde
JetTords
Johnson, Cob.
Johnson. Pa,
Kasten
Kelly
Kemp
Kindness
Latta
Lent
Lott
MeClory
McCollister
McDade
McDonald
McEwen
Michel
Miller, Ohio
Mitchell, N.Y.
Moore
Moorhead,
Calif.
Mosher
Myers, lad.
Pressler
Pritchard
Qu ie
Quillen
NOT
Railsback
Regula
Rhodes
Robinson
Ruppe
Satterfield
Schulze
Sebelius
Shriver
Sikes
Skubitz
Smith, Nebr.
Spence
Stanton,
J. William
Steelman
Steiger, Ariz.
Steiger, Wis
Symms
Taylor, Mo.
Thone
Treen
Vander Jagt
Walsh
Wampler
Whitehurst
Wiggins
Wilson, Bob
Wydler
Wylie
VOTING-67
Flynt
Ford, Tenn.
Gilman
Harrington
Hays, Ohio
Hebert
Hinshaw
Jacobs
Karth
Lagomersino
Landrum
Leggett
LuJsn
Macdonald
Metcalfe
Mink
Dent Moakley
Diggs Nix
Duncan, '15110. Nolan
Eckhardt O'Brien
Erlenborn O'Neill
Esch Pat man, Ten
Eshleman Perkins
Pettis
Riegle
Risenhoover
Rodin?
Rose
Rostenkowski
Rousselot
Schneebeli
Smith, Iowa
Snyder
Stanton,
James V.
Stephens
Stuckey
Talcott
Teague
Traxler
Udall
Vigorito
White
Winn
Wolff.
The Clerk announced the following
pail's:
- Mr. Hebert with Mr. Bell,
Mr. Ambro with Mr. AuCoin.
Mr. Cotter with Mr. Gilfrian.
Mr. Hays of Ohio with Mr. Harrington,
Mr. Macdonald of Massachusetts with Mr.
Aspin.
Mr. Nix with Mr. Burgener.
Mr. O'Neill. with Mr. Stuckey.
Mr. Patman with Mr. Winn.
Mr. Rodino with Mr. Snyder.
Mr. Rostenkowski with Mr. Stephens.
Mr. James V. Stanton with Mr. Taloott.
Mr. Teague with Mr. Lagomarsino.
Mr. White with Mr. Traxler.
Mr. Vigorito with Mr. Udall,
Mr. Wolff with Mr. Landrum.
Mr. Karth with Mr. Del Clawson.
Mr. Diggs with Mf. Duncan of Tennessee.
Mrs. Burke of California with Mr. Eckhardt.
Mr. Barrett with Mr. Perkins,
Mr. Boland. with Mr. Crane.
Mr. Carney with Mr. O'Brien.
Mr. Clay with Mr. Erlenborn.
Mr. Dent with Mr. Lujart.
Mr. de la Garza with Mr. Leggett.
Mr. Conyers with Mr. Each.
Mr. Flynt with Mr. Smith of Iowa.
Mr. Ford of Tennessee with Mr. 'Eshleman.
Mr. Nolan with Mr. Schneebell.
Mr. Moakley with Mr. Rousselot,
Mrs. Mink with Mr. Rose.
Mr. Metcalfe with Mr. Risenhoover.
Mr. Riegle with Mrs. Pettis.
Mr. KRUEGER changed his vote from
"nay" to "yea."
H 1333
Mr. ASHBROOK changed his vote
from "yea" to "nay."
So the resolution was agreed to..
The result of the vote was =Jounced
as above recorded.
The title was amended so as to read:
"Resolution to amend the Rules of the
House of Representatives to provide that
the House may not consider any report
of a committee, bill, resolution, or a re-
port of a committee of conference un-
less copies or reproductions have been
available to Members at least 2 hours
before such consideration."
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan-
imous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise
and extend their remarks on the legis-
lation just agreed to.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
PERMISSION FOR COMMITTEE ON
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COM-
MERCE TO HAVE UNTIL MID-
NIGHT, SUNDAY, rEBRUARY 29,
1976, TO FILE A REPORT ON H.R.
11124
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the Committee
on Interstate and Foreign Commerce
may have until midnight, Sunday, Feb-
ruary 29, 1976, to file the committee re-
port on H.R. 11124, the Medical Device
Amendments of 1976.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection,
PROVIDING FOR CONTINUANCE OF
CIVIL GOVERNMENT FOR TRUST
TERRITORY OF THE PACIFIC
/ ISLANDS
Mr. PHrLLIP BURTON. Mr. Speaker,
I ask unanimous consent that the Com-
mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs be
discharged from further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 12122) to amend section 2
of the Act of June 30, 1954, providing for
the continuance of civil government for
the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands,
and for other purposes and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Cali-
fornia?
Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. Mr. Speaker,
reserving the right to object, and it is not
my intention to object, I just want to
advise the House the chairman of the
committee, the gentleman from Cali-
fornia (Mr. PHILLIP BURTON) , has cleared
this with the minority, and we are' in
concurrence with this measure.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reserva-
tion of objection.
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
Approved For Release 2006/02/07: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
11 1334 ? CONGRESSIONAL
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Cali-
fornia?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read he bill, as follows:
nu. 12122
A bill to amend Section 2 of the Act of
June 30..1954, providing for the continuance
of civil government for the Trust Territory
or the Pacific Island;, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Berresentatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled,
Sserfola 1. That section 2 of the Act of
June 30, 7.954 (68 Stat. 330), is amended by
deleting 4plus s-uch sums as are necessary,
but not to exceed $10,000,000, for each of
e.uch fiscal years, to offset reductions in, or
the termination cf, Federal grant-in-aid
programs or other funds made available to
the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands by
other Federal agencies". and inserting in lieu
hereof the following: "for fiscal year 1976,
VI0,000,000; for the period beginning July 1,
1976. and ending September 30, 1976, $15,-
100,000; for fiscal year 1977, $80,000,000; and
:each amounts as were authorized but not ap-
propriated for fiscal year 1975, and up to but
not to exceed $8,000,000 for the construction
of such buildings a.; are required for a four-
year college to seree the Micronesian com-
munity, plus such sums as are necessary, but
not to exceed $10,000,000. for each of such
ilacal years, or per ods, to offset reductions
in, or the termination of. Federal grant-in-
aid programs or otier funds made available
to the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
'by other Federal agencies, which amounts for
each such fiscal year or other period shall
be adjusted upward or downward and pre-
eanted to the Congress to the budget docu-
ment for the next succeeding fiscal year as
A supplemental budget request for the cur-
eent fiscal year, to offset changes in the
ihiechasing power of the United States dollar
by multiplying such amounts by the Gross
National Product Implicit Price Deflator for
elle third quarter of .he calendar year
numerically preced .ng the fiscal year or other
period for which such supplemental ap-
propriations are made, said dividing the re-
auiting product by the Gross National Prod-
uct implicit Price Deflator for the third quar-
aer of die calendar year 1974."
8sc .. 2 the laws of die United States
which are made a9plicable to the Northern
Mariana Islands by the provisions of Sec.
i502(a) (i) of H.J. Res 5.19, as approved by
The Rouse of Representatives and the Sen-
ate, except tor the Micronesia Claims Act
IS it. applies to the Trust Territory of the
ileachie lelands, shall be made applicable to
Guam on the same terms and conditions
as sucki laws are applied to the Northern
Mariana islands.
:SEC. 3. there is hereby authorived to be
loproprl Med such amounts as may be nec-
,tiatV (Lii edditicn to amounts previously
uJarrii, ed to be appropriated) for the put-
of making ull payments of awards
aader title li of die Micronesian Claims Act
.0`?.' I. Fuolic La' 92-39
eace 4. e. lin President is hereby au-
shard to extend to Puerto Rico, the Virgin
islands, (huam, American Samoa, the Mari-
ana taiaads Distriat and the other Districts
113i, Trust Terri;ory or the Pacific Islands,
,iI.1 Fecie.fal programs previding grants, loan,
tnil ball guarantee or other assistance to
41e 6tates maiess he determines that such
eel:me:atm is inconsistent with the purposes
-ice statutory cuttionzation under which
eacn assistance provided or unless such
,!.,.1,e,L1011 Is .disapproved by resolution of
eeaier House of Congress as provided in sub-
eee Li011 I h .
le; aen. .eresident shall transmit to tile
coaeresa notice of any ex teitsion action Laken
...Ade: a:lase:a:ion (a) and any seen action
RECORD 1101 'SE February ') 1
,
shall take effect at the end of the first period
of sixty calendar days of continuous ses-
sion of Congress after the date of which
the notice is transmitted to it unless, be-
tween the date of transmittal and the end
of the sixty-day period, either House passes
a resolution stating in substance that that
House does not favor stt,ch extension. For
purposes of this subsection, passage of such
resolution shall be subject to the same pro-
cedures as apply in the caae of resolutions
disapproving government reorganization
plans under Chapter 9 of Title 5 United
States Code.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, was read the third
time, and passed, and a motion to re-
consider was laid on the table.
MAKING IN ORDER ON TUESDAY.
JUNE 15, 1976, AUTHORITY FOR
SPEAKER TO DECLARE A RECESS
FOR COMMEMORATION OF FLAG
DAY
eVIr. McFALL asked ancl was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. McFALL. Mr. Speaker, Monday
June 14, 1976, will mark the 199th an-
niversary of Flag Day. For many yean.
the House has commemorated Flag Da3-
here in the House Chamber by appropri-
ate ceremonies.
June 14 falls on Monday this year, bu:
inasmtich as the U.S. Navy Band whicl
is scheduled to perform at this Flat
Day's observance has a commitment or
that day which cannot be canceled, I
ask unanimous consent that it may Ix
in order on Tuesday, June 15, 1976, fol
the Speaker to declare a recess for the
purpose of observing and commemorat-
ing Flag Day in such manner as tht
Speaker may deem appropriate.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection ti
the request of the gentlerrem from Cali
fornia?
There was no objection.
APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE Or
ARRANGEMENTS FOrt FLAG DAO
CEREMONIES
The SPEAKER. The Cnaer will state
for the information of the House that
after consultation with the distinguishen
minority leader, the Chair has informal-
ly designated the following Members
constitute a committee to make th
necessary arrangements for appropriat
ceremonies in connection with the unan
imuus consent agreement just adopted
The gentleman from Alabama, M:
NanoLs: the gentleman from Oklahoma
Mr. BISENHOOVER; the gentleman frac-.
Teemessee. Mr. BEARD; and the gentle -
man from Maine, Mr. Evi ERN
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAIV1
Mr. RHODES asked and was give.
permission to address the House for
minute and to revise and extend his
re-
marks.)?
Mr. RHODES. Mr. Speaker, I take th.
, me to inquire of the distinguished act -
jug majority leader as to whether le
IS in a position to infonal the Howe a.;
to the program for the balance of Ger
week and for next week.
Mr. McFALL. Mr. Speaker, 111 the dis-
tinguished minority leader will yield, I
will be happy to respond to his inquiry,
Mr. RHODES. I yield to the distin-
guished acting majority leader,
Mr. McFALL. Mr. Speaker, there is ne
further legislative business for today
Upon announcement of the program for
next week, I will ask unanimous con-
sent to go over until Monday.
Mr. Speaker, the program for the
House for next week is as follows:
On Monday we will call the Consent
Calendar, and we will consider billy
under suspension of the rules as follows'
H.R. 8991, Community Services Act
technical amendments;
H.J. Res. 296, International Petroleum
Exposition: and
H.R. 11700, New York pun:: employ-
nie:nt retirement systems.
The votes-on suspensions will be Post-
poned until the end of all suspensions.
On Tuesday, we will call the Private
Calendar and the Suspension Calendar,
At this time we have no bills for the
Suspension Calendar.
The House will consider H.R. 10760,
black lung benefits reform, under an.
open rule with 2 hours of debate. ?
On Wednesday the House will consider
H.R. 11963, international security assist-
ance, subject to a rule being granted.
On Thursday the House will consider
H.R. ?, foreign assistance appro-
priations, fiscal year 1976, subject to .1
rule being granted; and
H.R. 11124, medical device amend-
ments, subject to a rule being granted
Mr. Speaker, I am able to advise the
House that there will be no session on
Friday.
Conference reports, of course, may be
brought up at any time, and any further
program will be announced later.
Mr. RHODES. Mr. Speaker? as far a e
the International Security Assistance Act
is concerned, the program states that it
is subje,ctto a rule being granted. There-
fore, I understand it will also be netee-
sary to obtain a rule for-the considera-
tion of that appropriation b111, and? 1f
so, will the gentieman inform us as to
why that will be required?
Mr. McFALL. Yes, that will be necee-
airy. Mr. Speaker, that will be required
for the reason that the authorization bill
will not yet have been signed; it would.
have just been passed presumably the
House the day before, and for that tech-
nical reason it will be necessary to haze
a rule granted for the consideration or
the appropriation bill.
Mr. RHODES. Mr, Speaker. I ':1st it
the gentleman.
ADJOURNMENT TO MONDAY.
MARCH 1, 1976
Mr. .1.1(1cPALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unaii-
imous consent that when the House ad-
journs today it adjourn to meet on Mon-
day next.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Cali-
fornia?
There was no objection.
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :.CIA-RDP77M00J44R01100210037-0
S 2764 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? March 4, 1976
tion issuing from the Banking Commit-
tee is the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act
of 1975. It requires that banks provide
the public with information about the
dispersal of mortgage credit in commu-
nities. Class action groups demanded this
tool as a means of encouraging financial
institutions to lend where social interest
dictates, regardless of the risk factor.
Again, the appealing justification for this
demand?the need to save deteriorating
neighborhoods?was accepted by Con-
gress. But ironically enough, Congress is
also deeply concerned about the prob-
lem of bank failures.
When asked whether bank failures
could be totally eliminated through regu-
lation, the Comptroller of the Currency
replied in a recent hearing that if it were
possible, it would be at a cost beyond
conception. He added further that risky
loans of all types would have to be pro-
hibited. And in considering the value of
a failure-free banking system as guaran-
teed by the strictest possible regulation,
we have to consider as well the effect of
a no-risk loan policy on the striving small
businessman.
I have given examples of legislation to
protect the consumer from business. Now
let me proceed with an example of
equally questionable legislation to pro-
tect small business itself.
Before Christmas, Congress acted to
repeal the statutory bases for the fair
trade laws. To summarize briefly, the
fair trade laws allow a manufacturer to
set a minimum price at which his product
may be sold. It is legalized price fixing.
Enthusiasm for this concept developed
during the Great Depression. Retailers
mistook falling prices for the source of
the economic depression rather than the
result. They lobbied vigorously for legis-
lation designed to give the States the
right to protect them from predatory
pricing and cutthroat competition.
The experience of the intervening
years has refuted the two main proposi-
tions on which the fair trade laws were
based. First, the proponents believed that
additional revenues obtained as a result
of higher fixed prices would be captured
by the retailers themselves. To the con-
trary, anticipated profits were swiftly
eaten away by an expensive competition
in services. Second, proponents believed
that consumers are insensitive to the re-
tail price and would not reduce the vol-
ume of their purchases. Instead, a 1969
study by the Department of Justice es-
tablished the fact that stores in fair trade
States almost universally have a signifi-
cantly lower volume of retail sales than
stores in free trade States. Finally, a
1975 Federal Trade Commission analysis
found that?
There 18 simply no evidence to support the
contention that the survival of small busi-
ness in America depends on fair trade.
The same study found that the rate of
growth of small retail stores was 35
percent higher in free trade States. And
during the years in which this experi-
ment in price regulation was being con-
ducted, the consumer had to pay any-
where from 19 to 37 percent more on
purchase items.
In all cases, the effort to legislate a
perfect society and to stabilize it through
regulation is expensive for both business
and the consumer. However, the true
tragedy of the situation is, as DeTocque-
ville predicted, an overwhelming preoc-
cupation with trivia that enervates and
stupefies the people. The smallest act,
whether private or commercial, becomes
mired in endless official requirements, so
that the quality of life itself deteriorates.
We are oppressed with multiple anxieties.
We believe less in the will of the people
to conduct themselves in fair, decent, and
responsible fashion unless forced to do
so.
The circumstances of life are simply
not perfectable by regulatory efforts or
otherwise, and we have all discovered to
our own detriment how much damage
bureaueratic optimism in this regard can
do. We are all in the soup, but small busi-
ness has the greatest difficulty in keeping
its head above the floating roughage. It
Was for him that the 50-percent increase
in the Federal reporting burden from
December 1967 to June 1974 was most
onerous. It is for him that occupational
safety and health requirements, medicare
and medicaid programs, environmental
protection regulations, and equal employ-
ment opportunity compliance are most
burdensome. The FTC, SEC, FPC, ICC,
FCC, Departments of Agriculture ? ?
merce, HEW, 'Interior, Justice,
Transportation, and Treasury
controls that affect him dail .
spirit of innovation that is most
be stifled by the fact that it t,
million and 7 years to get a new p
on the market.
Federal regulation does affect the qua -
ity of our lives and the vitality of our
economy. However, the substantial case
against Federal regulation does not merit
the conclusion that all of it is bad. AA
Dr. Murray L. Weidenbaum explained in
Government-Mandated Price Increases:
As a general proposition, a society?acting
through its government?can and should take
steps to protect consumers against rapacious
sellers, individual workers against unscrupu-
lous employers, and future generations
against those who would waste the nation's
basic resources. But, as in most things in life,
sensible solutions are not matters of either/
or, but rather of more or less. Thus, we may
enthusiastically advocate stringent and cost-
ly government controls over industry to avoid
infant crib deaths without simultaneously
supporting a plethora of detailed federal
rules and regulations which,., deal with the
size of toilet partitions, the color of exit
lights, and the maintenance of cuspidors.
It is not necessarily the caie that if a
little regulation is good, more is even bet-
ter. When regulation has destroyed the
Individual's ability to exercise his own
judgment and when it has eliminated all
the decisionmaking prerogatives of busi-
ness, then more has gone far beyond too
much.
Perhaps we should go back to the wis-
dom of Socrates himself, who said that
"By far the most useful rule in life is
nothing to excess."
In conclusion, let me refer to an edi-
torial in Monday's Washington Post that
caught my eye. The article was con-
cerned with unsatisfactory performances
of high school graduates on basic profi-
ciency tests. The author asked:
What, at a minimum, ought a child be able
to do after 12 years in the public schools?
It is a national dilemma. According to
a general consensus, there are certain
basic skills which a student must acquire
in order to have a minimal chance of sur-
vival in our society. As pointed out in the
article, one of those basic skills is the
ability to fill out an application form.
How ironic that in a nation of such
wealth and opportunity, such achieve-
ments in science and technology, such
ready accessibility to an extraordinary
heritage of literature and history and
philosophy, that the ability to fill out a
simple form should become a standard
of achievement and a prerequisite for
survival. Ours shall not be known as the
golden age, the ice age, the dark ages, the
age of enlightenment, or the age of rea-
son. Ours shall be known as the age that
nearly smothered under the bounty of
what must surely have become in recent
years the most profitable industry in the
history of mankind. Ours will be known
as the paper age.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under
the previous order, the Senator from
Wyoming is recognized for not to exceed
15 minutes
SEN. Mr. President, I yield
distinguished colleague from
a (Mr. Norm) .
he PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
from Georgia is recognized.
S. 3076?PAPERWORK REVIEW AND
LIMITATION ACT OF 1976
Mr. NUNN. I thank my colleague from
Wyoming, and I shall take a very brief
amount of time.
I congratulate those who are partic-
ipating in this colloquy. I particularly
congratulate the final statement by thO
Senator from Texas that this will be
known as the paper age, That leads me
into my comments regarding the paper-
work bill that Senator ROTH from Dela-
ware and I are now introducing which,
I hope, will begin to reverse the tide.
Mr. President. on behalf of the distin-
guished Senator from Delaware (Mr.
Rom) and myself and others, I am in-
troducing today the Paperwork Review
and Limitation Act of 1976, a bill which
is designed to improve congressional
oversight of the paperwork requirements
of Federal agencies.
The Senator from Delaware (Mr.
Rom) and I have worked on this legis-
lation for some time?and we have also ?
been joined by Senator MCINTYRE of New
Hampshire as a prime author. We are
joined in sponsoring this legislation by
the distinguished Senators from Ken-
tucky (Mr. HUDDLESTON), Florida (Mr.
CHILES), Arizona (Mr. FANNIN), and Ohio
(Mr. TAFT), all of whom have shown
great. interest and leadership in reducing
the burden of Federal paperwork on pri-
vate individuals and enterprises.
This bill is aimed at correcting one of
the chief causes of the Federal paper-
work burden?the Congress itself.
Each year we pass new legislation
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
March 4, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENN-LE S 276S
Under the previous order, the Senator
from Texas is recognized for not to ex-
ceed 15 minutes.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield to me?
Mr. TOWER. I yield.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
how many orders remain for today?
The PRESIDING OleisiCER. Three
more 15-rnin. ute ler& rs, and the Senator
from Idaho has en-minute order.
Mr. ROBERT CeleYRD. Do I have an
order, also? e.
The PRESIDING fliFFICER. That in-
cludes the Senator freen West Virginia.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous conseitt that the 15
minutes allotted to me new be utilized
by any Senator who wisheetto utilize all
or part of it. It
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered. 'ts
Pets
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. , ident,
1. ask unanimous consent that at con-
clusion of the orders, if such con ion
occurs prior to 2:30 elm. today, theVen-
ate stand in recess until 2:30 p.m. to .
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With
objection. it is so ordered.
Mr. TOWER. Mr President, I ask
unanimous consent that the time con-
sinned by the Senator from West Vir-
ginia not be charged against me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
SMALL BUSINESS AND esEDERAL
REGULATION
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, we must
remember with nostalgia that there once
was a time when the small businessman
had a bright future in our country. Early
in our history, his horizons were unlim-
ited. His services to a populace cut off
from the luxuries it had enjoyed in an-
other country were appreciated. Hie edu-
cation of a citizenry versed in only the
most minimal consumption was-reward-
ed. In this-climate of respect and encour-
agement, he flourished beyond his wildest
dreams.
However, even then there was a for-
eign observer who foresaw the fate now
unfolding f or the small businessman. The
e'rench historian- Alexis de Tocqueville
knew that a certain kind of despotism Is
possible even in a democracy. He de-
scribed it as follows:
Above this race of man stands an Immense
And tutelary power, which takes upon Itself
filone to secure their kratifications and to
watch over their fate. TI-at power is absolute,
minute, provident and mild. . . Por their
happiness such a government willingly la-
.ors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and
only arbiter of that happiness; it provides
,or their security, forese re. and supplies their
oecessities, facilitates their pleasures, man-
Ages their principal concerns, directs their
Industry, regulates the descent of property
:old subdivides their Inheritances .
After having thus successively taken each
member of the community in its powerful
!rasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme
power then extends its arm over the whole
community. It covers the surface of society
with a network of mai:, complicated rules,
minute and uniform, through which the
most original minds and the most energetic
haracters cannot penetrate to rise above the
Towd, The will of man 1s not shattered, but
softened, bent and guided; men are seldom
forced by it to act but they are constantly
restrained from acting. Such a power does
not destroy, but it prevents existence: it does
not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates,
extinguishes and stupefies a people, till each
nation is reduced to nothing better than a
Rock of timid and industrious animals, of
which the governtnent is the shepherd.
Perhaps the most disturbing part of
this prophecy is the reference to the in-
ability of "the most original minds and
the most energetic characters" to pene-
trate the network of rules "to rise above
the crowd." How many small businesses
have been founded or operated with the
determination to remain forever small?
During fitful economic crises, certainly,
the primary instinct has been merely to
survive. However, during stable periods,
the overwhelming urge is to provide ever
better products and services?in short, to
grow and prosper, "to rise above the
crowd."
Rising above the crowd is difficult in
a lead balloon, and any modern small
businessman can describe the sensation.
The respect and encouragement he once
enjoyed have been replaced by ambiva-
lence and hostility. On the one hand, the
usinessman has become a scapegoat for
any of our social ills. We suspect that
will cheat and deceive us, destroy our
r urces, pollute our environment, pan-
de ) our vulgar tastes, and murder us
in flammable beds. On the other
han e have not forgotten that he has
made ? enormous contribution to the
develop nt of this country and is ab-
solutely ential to its survival. And so
we respo ith laws to protect him and
to protect from him. The result is a
chaos of re tion.
As one of oat controversial issues
of the day, th bject of Federal regu-
lation and its d itating effect on small
business has alre been the subject of
much comment. I 11 proceed to heave
a few more statisti into the rumbling
maw. Let me say in a event digression
that we are a nation e ored with stat-
istics. The larger the es, the more
impressed we are. It is a ough figures
were a good in themselv d had some
mystical power to right gs and to
effect desired ends. To the c ary, vol-
umes of information can ha stuper-
lying effect. Like children in to vio-
lence on the television, we mu ex-
posed to greater and greater n ical
atrociaies before their significance e-
trates to the shock layer of conscio s.
And so if I say that there are are)
mately 63,500 Federal regulators in
country, I am not sure whether
seems a truly outrageous number. If I say
that the cost of this regulation is about
$2,000 per family per year, is that appal-
ling? Will there be more gasps of indig-
nation if the result of such regulation is
totaled up to a national cost of $130 bil-
lion a year?
We are living in an age when the value
of the dollar itself cannot be presently
or predictively quantified; $130 billion
is beyond conception to most of us; $2,000
can swiftly be frittered away on the in-
numerable and virtually valueless items
with which we indulge ourselves daily. If
the figures were bigger, perhaps they
would be more effective. And in that very
void of nonresponse, they continue to
grow.
When those figures begin to have
meaning in delay and inconvenience and
frustration and absurdity, as they do to
the small businessman, then they leap
to life.
He knows the significance of applica-
tions and forms measured in pounds, not
In pages.
He knows what it means not to be
snowed to use his own judgment in mak-
g business decisions.
He knows how frustrating it is to have
to pay someone else to interpret volumes
es punitive legal requirements.
He knows what it is to be bled white
ty the ministrations of a well-meaning
khysician, in whose absence he would be
Lifinitely healthier.
In one way, the small businessman is
a victim of a virtue of the American sys-
tem. Max Ways explained the paradox
in an article in Fortune magazine last
s oring:
The very dispersal of power into millions of
hoods?one of the greatest achievements of
t ic System?has the perverse result of mak-
ing each citizen think that others hold huge
a secret concentrations of influence. In
ft.t, politicians have never been so sensitive
to the power of voters, nor corporate mans-
gorS to the power of employees and consum-
e-o. But where none admits he wields power
or shares in leadership, each feels iree to
..ximize his demands on the System and
- complaints about it.
The demand for protection against the
p )wer of someone else is a demand for
p ower itself. Congress must constantly
arbitrate such conflicting demands. The
result is a mass of laws juxtaposing se-
vere restrictions and penalties on the one
hand with special concessions and abso-
te exemptions on the other. The by-
product is paperwork, paperwork, and
ir ore paperwork. Let me give an example
from the activities of the Senate Bank-
ir g Committee on which I serve.
Recent business in the committee has
strongly reflected the assumption that
ti-c consumer must be protected from
tI-c power of commerce simply to ignore
him. The result has been a profusion of
disclosure legislation regarding lending
and credit billing and real estate settle-
ment procedures and the process of
credit denial. The demand for informa-
tion is not unreasonable in itself. and
Congress has responded accordingly. Un-
fortunately, the result has been a jungle
of disclosure regulations implementing
the Truth in Lending Act, the Pair Credit
ejteporting Act. the Pair Credit Billing
t, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act,
d the Real Estate Settlement Proce-
es Act. The regulations are highly
tedbipical and involve detailed compli-
ane rocedures. A formidable task for
any business, compliance can become
a mat of life and death for a small
busines n poignant testimony before
the Cons er Affairs Subcommittee, one
small reta said that he simply could
not handle regulations. He said that
he did not h e the legal staff. He did
not, have the fifties. He did not have
the know-how. the prospect of a
lawsuit was the It traw.
Another example disclosure legisla-
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
March 4, 197U CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-- SENATE S 2765
creating new programs and new require-
ments. Unfortunately, we seldom con-
sider the paperwork implications of these
measures, and they end up adding to the
already staggering burden.
The bill remedies this situation by re-
quiring the committees of Congress to
do two things:
First, they must include a Paperwork
Impact Statement in the report of each
bill or joint resolution of a public na-
ture, except for appropriations bills, that
is, sent to the floor of the Senate or the
House of Representatives.
Second, they must review the reporting
requirements of the departments and
agencies within their jurisdictions and
report their findings jt least once every
calendar year.
In addition, the bill places a time lim-
itation of 1 year on the approval of forms
by the Office of Management and Budget
under the Federal Reports Act. Each
form in use by an agency subject to that
act will be required to carry a notice to
the respondent that it has been ap-
proved, the date on which it has been
approved, and the date ?on which the
approval expires.
The bill also provides that no agency
may require a form to be submitted by
a private individual or enterprise if the
OMB approval has expired. Each form
must carry a notice to this effect.
Mr. President, with the exception of
the provisions regarding OMB approval,
this bill is designed to clean up our own
house here in Congress before we at-
tempt the more complicated and impor-
tant task of cleaning up the executive de-
partments and agencies. We can accom-
plish this Job in the immediate future,
while the Commission on Federal Paper-
work is completing its work and formu-
lating its recommendations on how to
reduce the overall paperwork burden.
Frankly, there is no reason why Con-
gress should wait on the Federal Paper-
work Commission before improving its
own procedures and performance in eval-
uating the paperwork impact of the leg-
islation it passes. Nor should we refrain
from reviewing the reporting require-
ments of the agencies within the legis-
lative jurisdiction of the various com-
mittees. These are very practical re-
quirements that can be complied with
right now.
Mr. President, the Federal paperwork
burden has grown year by year, requir-
ing ever-increasing time and money of
the people of this country?particularly
small businessmen. It contributes to in-
flation and stifles productivity.
In 1965, the House Post Office Sub-
committee issued a report that concluded
that if one Government record were
burned every second, it would take 2,000
years to destroy all of them.
Since then the problem has grown
worse. Between 1965 and 1968 alone,
Congress passed enough lawS to cause
Federal paperwork to mushroom by 30
percent,
Over the years, in fact, Government
forms have grown immortal. Since 1955,
for example, both the Internal Revenue
Service and the Social Security Admin-
istration have agreed that form 941, the
quarterly report of wages earned, could
be replaced by a single annual report. For
the last two decades every congressional
committee studying the paperwork prob-
lem recommended that form 941 be
changed from a quarterly to an annual
report.
Yet, 20 years later, form 941 was still
with us. Moreover, the cost of compliance
rose from an estimated $22 million a
year in 1955 to an estimated $235 million
a year for small business alone.
Finally, last October the new Federal
Paperwork Commission again recom-
mended that form 941 be replaced by an
annual report. This recommendation was
incorporated into legislation that has
now been signed by the President and
the change will go into effect in 2 years.
I am pleased that the 22-year battle
against form 941 will be won shortly, but
the struggle involved in eliminating one
little form that everyone agreed was un-
necessary does not auger well for the
future under the present circumstances.
The Federal Reports Act, which has
been law for 30 years, requires the Office
of Management and Budget to reduce the
amount and duplication of paperwork.
This clearly has not happened.
It is time Congress took forceful and
positive action to reduce the avalanche
of forms that daily inundate the people
of this country.
The bill that we introduce today is
similar to legislation sponsored in the
past by our distinguished colleagues,
Senator BENTSEN, of Texas, and Senator
Moss, of Utah. Many of its provisions
were put forward during hearings on the
Federal paperwork burden which were
conducted jointly in October by the Sub-
committee on Oversight Procedures and
the Subcommittee on Reports, Account-
ing and Management, which is chaired
by Senator METCALF. I wish to express my
appreciation for the excellent sugges-
tions offered by my cosponsor, Senator
ROTH, of Delaware, during those hear-
ings, and for the contributions of the
distinguished Senator from Wisconsin
(Mr. PR ORMIRE) .
As I said, our bill is intended to re-
duce the amount of paperwork required
by new legislation and to enable the
Congress to gain control over existing
forms and reports.
First, it requires a paperwork impact
statement to be included in the commit-
tee report of each bill or joint resolu-
tion of a public nature, with the excep-
tion of appropriations bills. The laws en-
acted by Congress are primarily respon-
sible for the Federal paperwork burden,
and these impact statements will force us
to evaluate the paperwork implications
of a bill before it is enacted.
The paperwork impact statements
would estimate or assess:
The amount and tl7pe of information
that would be required to comply with
the provisions of the bill and the cost and
time to private enterprises to supply
such information;
The current availability of such infor-
mation within Federal departments and
agencies;
The types and number of forms, re-
ports and records that would be required
by the bill; and
The cost or time that would be re-
quired of business enterprises in com-
pleting the forms required by the legis-
lation.
Second, it requires each House and
Senate committee to conduct a review of
the reporting requirements of the de-
partments and agencies within its juris-
diction and report its findings at least
once every calendar year.
Finally, it requires the approval of
farms by the Office of Management and
Budget to be limited to a single calendar
Year. Each form in use by an agency
would be required to carry a notice to
the respondent that it has been approved,
the date on which the approval expires,
and the fact that no form whose OMB
approvarhas expired need be submitted.
The bill specifically provides that no
agency may require a form to be sub-
mitted by a private individual or enter-
prise if the OMB approval has expired.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to
join with us in this effort to untangle
the redtape which is threatening to
strangle both private enterprise and the
Federal Government.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the text of the Paperwork Re-
view and Limitation Act of 1976 be
printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the bill was
ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as
follows:
S. 3076
A bill to improve congressional oversight of
the reporting and paperwork requirements
of Federal departments and agencies
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That this
Act may be cited as "The Paperwork Review
and Limitation Act of 1976".
SEC. 2. Part 5 of the Legislative Reorga-
nization Act of 1970 is amended by adding at
the end thereof the following new section:
"PAPERWORK IMPACT STATEMENTS
"SEC. 254. (a) The report accompanying
each bill or Joint resolution of a public char-
acter reported by any committee of the Sen-
ate or the House of Representatives (other
than the Committee on Appropriations of
either House) shall contain a "Paperwork
Impact Statement" which shall estimate or
assess?
"(1) the amount and character of the in-
formation that will be required of private in-
dividuals and business in order to carry out
the provisions of the bill or Joint resolution,
"(2) whether such information already is
being gathered by and is available from other
departments or agencies of the Government,
"(3) the number and nature of the forms
that will be required for the purpose of
gathering the information, and the number
of reports which would be required to be
made, and the records which would be re-
quired to be kept, by private business enter-
prises as a result of enactment of the bill or
joint resolution, and
"(4) the cost or time which would be re-
quired of private business enterprises, especi-
ally small business enterprises, in making
such reports and keeping such records.
"(b) It shall not be in order in either the
Senate or the House of Representatives to
consider any such bill or joint resolution
if such bill or joint resolution was reported
In the Senate or the House, as the case may
be, after the effective date of this section
and the report of that committee of the Sen-
ate or House which reported such bill or Joint
resolution does not comply with the provi-
sions of subsection (a) of this section.
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
S 2766'
Approved For Release 2006/02/07: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENA FE March 4. 1.9 6
"(c) For the purp3ses of this section, the
members ol the Joint Committee on Atomic
Energy who are Members of the Senate shall
be deemed to be a committee of the senate,
and the members of such committee who are
Members of the House of Representatives
shall be deemed to be a committee of the
li nose.
otTTEE SEW OF PAPERWORK
-SEC. 255. At least once every calendar year
each committee of the Senate and the House
of Representatives shall conduct a thorough
review of, and repor; to its respective House
Of Congress on, the roporting requirements of
the departments and agencies within its
legislative jurisdicticn, including the number
and character of reporting forms issued and
withdrawn by such departments and agencies
during the year. The reports required by this
section shall be filed not later than February
IS of each year."
Sc. 3. The table f contents of the Leg-
islative Reorganization Act of 1970 is arnend-
ed by adding at the end of part 6 of title II
thereof the following new item:
-Sec. 254. Paperworl. Impact Statements.
"Sec. 255. Committee Review of Paperwork."
SEC. 4. Election 5 of the Federal Reports
Act, as amended (44 U.S.C. 3509), is amended
to read as :follows:
"SEc. 5. (a) A F:deral agency may not
conduct or sponsor the collection of infor-
mation upon idenVcal items from ten or
more persons, other than Federal employees,
unless, in advance o adoption or revision of
any plans or forms 10 be used in the collec-
tion--
"(1) the agency has submitted to the
Director oi the 011ie of Management and
Budget the plans cr forms, together with
copies of pertinent regulations and of other
related materials as the Director has spec--
lied; and
"(2) the Director of the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget has approved the proposed
collection of information and the plans or
forms to be used therein.
"(b) No approval by the Director for the
collection of information shall extend be-
yond the period of one calendar year.
"(c) No agency s Abject to the provisions
of this section shall require the submission
of any reporting form by a private individual,
group, organization or business enterprise
if the approval by the Director has expired.
"(d) Each reportng form used pursuant
1,o this section sha 1 have printed thereon
in clearly legible and conspicuous type the
following informati(m:
"?) the fact the:, the form has been ap-
proved by the Direc :or of ; he Office of Man-
agement and HudgeL,
"(2) the date on which such approval ex-
pires. and
"(3) the fact that the 7orm need not be
submitted by the respondent if the period
of approval has expired at the time of its
receipt by the respondent
''(e) Not later Than tne end of every
calendar year each Federal agency subject
o the provisions of this section shall sub-
mit to the Director and to the Senate and
the HOUSE, of Representatives, a list of all
forms which are approved and in use by such
agency, all forms waich have been approved
tor use by such agency during the calendar
'tear, and all forms which have been with-
drawn by such age icy during the calendar
year,''
SEc. 5. The Direci or of the Office of Man-
agement and Budgt shall, in consultation
with the Comptroller General, undertake a
ody of the feasibility of requiring a single
titandard form for the collection of infor-
mation by all Federal agencies. The Director
,thall report the results of the study, along
with any recommer.dations that may result
therefrom, to the i'enate and the House Of
Representatives not later than ,roe ye tr alter
the date of enactment of this Act
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President. if the Sena-
tor from Wyoming will yield additional
time to the Senator from Delaware, who
is a major cosponsor of the bill. I am
certain we could both express our intent
on this legislation.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President. I yield
such time to my distinguished colleague
from Delaware as he may require.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Delaware is recognized.
Mr. ROTH. I thank the Senatcfrr from
Wyoming for yielding to me.
I am happy to join with Senator NUNN
in introducing the Paperwork Review
and Limitation Act of 1976. which Is of-
fered to improve executive and congres-
sional oversight of the reporting and
paperwork requirements of Federal de-
partments and agencies.
I particularly appreciate the interest,
innovations, and hard work of the chair-
man of the subcommittee in developing
this legislation, which I think can be one
of the most important reforms that will
come before the Senate this year.
I ask unanimous consent to add the
name of Senator HRUSKA as one of the
principal sponsors to our legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President. this legisla-
tion will permit Congress to mandate a
stricter review of Federal paperwork
requirements.
The Government Operations Subcom-
mittees on Oversight Procedures, and
Reports, Accounting, and Management
held joint hearings in October which
strikingly cast the dimensions of the
paperwork problem. The Government
spent in excess of $18 billion in 1975 to
produce, handle and store its official pa-
pers. This does not even include the cost
to the public of filling out and filing
Federal forms. The total cost to the
economy for this paperwork is estimated
at as much as $40 billion each year.
PAPERWORK BURDEN.
As has been brought out so eloquently.
the number of forms required by Gov-
ernment of individuals and businesses
is staggering and each year new forms
are added. In 1972 alone 7 million cubic
feet of records were produced by the Fed-
eral Government. As of February 1975
the official OMB count of separate forms
required by Federal Government agen-
cies to collect information from the pub-
lic tallied 5,695 forms.
It is estimated that every man. woman,
and child in America completes an
average of 10 Federal forms each year.
The paperwork burden however is not
evenly distributed and many small busi-
nesses share a load three times this
amount.
In a recent survey of Delaware busi-
nesses I found that many businessmen
must spend hundreds of man-hours and
thousands of dollars merely to keep up
with paperwork requirements. The pa-
perwork burden, the survey indicated, is
particularly onerous at the Internal Rev-
enue Service, the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration. the Census
Bureau, and under the Employee Het] ..e-
ment Investment Security Act.
INADEQUATE REVIEW
Review of Federal forms and report-
ing requirements to date has been inade-
quate. The General Accounting Otlice
has conducted a review and investigatton
of the performance of the Office of Man-
agement and Budget and the Labor De-
partment under the Federal Reports Act.
The study concluded that weaknesses in
the procedures for clearance of a form
and in OMB's enforcement of the provi-
sions of the law have frustrated the goal
of reducing paperwork requirements.
OMB has not vigorously carried out the
intent of this law to reduce unnecessary
paperwork and the enormous burden on
citizens and small businessmen.
GAO found that OMB has assigned in-
definite expiration dates for many forms
and has simply waived the clearance
process for some forms. Also, OMB 17.az
been lax in evaluating whether the in-
formation sought by agencies is really
needed.
The subcommittees received testimony
that present procedures for review and
clearance of forms is inadequate and
should be strengthened.
PAPERWORK LIMITATION
The legislation which is being offered
today would strengthen the review of
forms and provide for an annual expira-
tion for all forms.
The Office of Management and Budget
would be directed to improve its efforts
to reduce burdensome and duplicative
information and reporting requirements
In order for the effort to reduce paper-
work to be successful, OMB would review
the need for reports each year and ap-
prove the use of existing forms. Unless
each form is specifically reapproved, the
public would not be required to submit
information sought by the agency.
Each form used by an agency would
carry the date on which approval expires
This would provide CPMB with an annual
responsibility to review Federal forms
It would also aid OMB in managing and
clearing forms and reducing the Federal
reporting burden. The tendency at OMB
has been to avoid assigning definite dates
for expiration, or to waive certain forms
from the clearance requirements. With-
out meaningful review procedures OMB
cannot carry out its responsibilities to
reduce the paperwork burden.
Congress, for its part, can help irirh
growth in the number of new forint, by
strengthening its assessment of the
paperwork impact of proposed legisla-
tion. Each congressional committee would
be responsible for 'minding in its repori
a statement of the new paperwork re-
quirements on proposed legislation. The
statement on the paperwork impact
would include an estimate as to the
amount of additional information re-
quired to comply with each new law, the
cost in dollars and man-honrs to busi-
nesses or local governments which must
comply with the new law, the current
availability of similar information in
other agencies or departments, and the
number and types of forms, reports and
records required under the bill.
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
March 4, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE S 2767
This bill also requires each House and
Senate committee to conduct a review of
the reporting requirements of the depart-
ments and agencies within its jurisdic-
tion and report its findings and recom-
mendations.
Many in Congress have become alarmed
by the magnitude of the paperwork bur-
den on our citizens. Certainly as part of
our approach to reduce this burden the
Congress can take steps to review care-
fully the reporting requirements which
are contained in new legislation. The
full impact of these reporting require-
ments ought to be fully assessed. It is
unfortunate indeed when public con-
fidence in worthwhile legislation is un-
dermined by paperwork requirements.
I have been actively seeking to minii
mize 'duplication in Government in order
to reduce waste and to improve efficiency.
Today there is far too much duplication
In the paper mountain of Federal forms.
Information is required first by one agen-
cy or department, then another, then by
a State or local government. The indi-
vidual or firm facing the Federal and
State government leviathan must submit
the same basic information many times
over.
Therefore, this bill directs a review of
the feasibility of developing a standard-
ized font, containing 'basic data for any
State, city, town, county, or other unit
of government. A consolidated form
would reduce needless duplication in the
requirements for reports, applications,
and forms. This would enable a local
government to use one standard form to
satisfy several agency information re-
quests without wasting hundreds of
man-hours in duplicative paperwork. I
believe a standardized form would be a
significant improvement over present
procedures.
I can say that from my personal ex-
perience that the city of Wilmington
and State of Delaware, as well as other
governmental units, tell me that time
and again each year they are required
to submit the same information. This is
a waste of effort on the part of both the
local agency and the Federal Govern-
ment.
Of course, another key way to reduce
the duplication in forms is to reduce the
number of overlapping programs. Fre-
quently a local government seeking Fed-
eral funds for a project mitt apply to
several agencies under different assist-
ance grant programs.
The GAO completed a study last July
which showed that there are over 975
programs of assistance to State and local
governments. The overlap is very strik-
ing. For example there are some 186 pro-
grams with funds for community devel-
opment. Forty-seven of these are for
planning, research, and training, and 23
are for construction and renewal oper-
ations.
The proliferation of forms cannot
realistically be cured unless there is a
reduction in the proliferation of domes-
tic assistance programs. The Congress
should take steps to provide regular re-
view of assistance programs and to pro-
mote consolidation or elimination of
duplicative programs.
This legislation will give OMB added
responsibility to review all forms and
lessen the paperwork burden. However,
agencies and departments also should be
encouraged to assume a responsibility.
One wonders how 'much of the infor-
mation collected is really necessary to
the agencies. Each department director
should inquire as to whether the infor-
mation is meaningful for the stated pur-
pose. Also, it should be examined whether
the information is really used. I suspect
that much of the waste from needless
paper shuffling can be corrected at its
source?within the agencies themselves.
Departments and agencies can cut
down much of the redtape by reexamin-
ing their own forms. In many cases agen-
cies do not adequately review the forms
which they use. How often does a gov-
ernment agency recommend elimination
of one of its own forms?
Unless the agencies themselves take
the initiative in this area, it will be dif-
ficult to make significant progress in re-
ducing the total of 5,700 Federal forms.
Perhaps a target could be set to eliminate
a percentage of all forms by a date cer-
tain.
True relief of the paper burden will
only be achieved by an actual reduction
in the number of forms being sent out.
The Commission on Federal Paperwork
Is presently reviewing forms and examin-
ing record-keeping requirements in the
agencies and some progress is being
made. Already the Commission has suc-
ceeded in changing employee wage re-
porting requirements from quarterly re-
ports to annual reports. This change
alone is expected to save the Government
$24 million in processing costs. However,
even this simple change has taken over
20 years to implement despite repeated
recommendations by congressional com-
mittees to make the change.
We need to take the recommendations
of the Commission on Paperwork serious-
ly and work toward implementation of
proposed improvements. It seems to me
that unless you have a task force with
real clout to eliminate unnecessary
paperwork and forms, the agencies are
going to resist change. ?
The legislation submitted today man-
dates the tough review of Federal paper-
work that the public is demanding.
Mr. President, in closing X would just
like to make one comment.
I think the subcommittee, the chair-
man and others who have worked on this
bill, have come up with a meaningful
answer to the paperwork problem,,hut I
would just like to say that in my judg-
ment if this does not work, I think there
is another approach we might use. Con-
gress has been very quick to establish
goals, objectives, for the private sector
to reach whether or not it was scien?
tifically possible at the time of the en-
actment of the legislation. Very candidly,
I have been supportive of many of these
efforts, because I think it is desirable to
place goals, for example, in the case of
the automobiles with their emissions.
But I say that if this legislation does
not work, I, for one, will be ready to in-
troduce and support legislation to re?
quire the executive branch, the agencies,
to be required to reduce their paperwork
by 50 percent.
They tell me it cannot be done, but X
do not believe that.
Mr. President, I yield back the remain-
der of my time.
Mr. NUNN. Will the Senator yield for
1 minute?
Mr. HANSEN. I will be happy to.
Mr. NUNN. I thank the Senator from
Delaware for his efforts and hard work
on this legislation. We have had many
hearings on the subject. We have had
several staff meetings and we have had
a number of personal meetings. This
legislation is a joint effort, a bipartisan
effort. It has been arrived at by the close
consultation between the Senator from
Georgia, the Senator from Delaware, the
Senator from New Hampshire, and oth-
ers. I thank the Senator from Delaware
for the very meaningful role he has
played in this legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Wyoming.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, I want to
say that I was greatly impressed by the
remarks of my colleagues on the effects
of Government regulation on business
and on jobs in America. I was impressed
by the remarks of the distinguished
junior Senator from Georgia and the
senior Senator from Delaware in spell-
ing out, as they have, the cost to busi-
ness and the burden that paperwork
places upon the economy.
Mr. President, burdensome and ex-
cessive Federal regulation is threatening
the financial existence of American
small business.
Mr. President, of the 10 million busi-
nesses in the country today, 9 million are
small. These 9 million small businesses
account for one-third of the gross na-
tional product; 48 percent of the gross
business product; and employ approxi-
mately 55 percent of the business labor
force.
Bankruptcies for small business in the
year ending June 30, 1975, increased an
astonishing 45 percent to 30,130.
In 19:70, small businesses had total li-
abilities of $1.9 billion. The total liabil-
ities for 1975 is estimated to be $4.25 bil-
lion. Mr. President, total liabilities in-
creased from 1974 by $1.25 billion.
Small business is confronted with
double digit inflation and rising costs;
tight credit and depressed markets. Fed-
eral regulations add to these conditions
under which small business must oper-
ate. Today, we are concerned with this
last factor, Federal regulation, which
adds to the cost under which small busi-
ness must function.
In prior colloquies we have discussed.
-the infringement by Federal regulatory
agencies on the civil liberties of the
American citizenry and the cost that
consumers pay for Government regula-
tion.
It is estiniated that the direct and in-
direct cost of Federal regulation is $130
billion annually. The cost of regulation
to the American family is $2,000 per year.
How does unnecessary Federal regula-
tion affect the small businessman? It
increases the cost of doing usiness to a
sector of our economy which is finan-
cially strapped.
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
S 2768
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-.0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE Aiareir 4, 1976
Mr. Presider t, there are 12 Federal
departments, 75 agencies, 1,000 boards,
commissions, and advisory panels. These
Federal regulators employ 64,000 people.
There are 5,146 different Federal forms
required by the Internal Revenue Service
and regulatory agencies.
It is appalling to find out that individ-
uals and businesses spend 130.5 million
man-hours annually filling out 2 billion
forms annually which are sent to various
agencies of the Federal Government.
'1Ihe Federal shuffling-, reviewing and
filing of much of this paperwork is un-
necessary and is adding to the costs of
operation which small business cannot
a third.
Mr. President, the cost of unnecessary
paperwork is adversely affecting small
business. Let me give you an example:
The Federal Government requires so
much paperwork of companies with pri-
vate employee pension programs that
hundreds of small retirement plans are
being canceled
By approving comprehensive pension
reform legislation last year. Congress
sought to encourage more and better pri-
vate retirement; plans which would cover
many more workers. Instead, the-paper-
work requirements that have followed
this legislation are so expensive and
burdensome that hundreds of small
pension plans have been canceled.
Mr. President, more than 5,000 retire-
ment plans have been terminated since
passage of the pension reform bill, and
more than 1,200 notices of intent to can-
cel have been received by the govern-
ment in December, alone.
Recently, the Senate Finance Subcom-
mittee on Private Pension Plans was
bolding public hearings to explore ways
of reducing and simplifying government
paperwork requirements, particularly for
small employers.
An official of the National Commission
on Federal Paaerwork told the subcom-
mittee an example of Federal "overkill"
was a complex Labor Department form
sent to companies with employee retire-
ment plans which "demanded informa-
tion the Department of Labor could not
use or absorb."
Mr. President, Mr. Bruce Fielding, a
member of the Commission, said govern-
ment forms for reporting on private pen-
sion plans were so complex that employ-
ers had to seek professional legal atd
actuarial assistance. He said the cost of
providing information exceeded employer
contributions to the pension plans, in
some cases.
At least 90 percent of the existing pri-
ante retirement plans are small, with
only 10 percent having more than 100
covered employees.
The enforcement provisions of the
law?the Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974?were aimed at large em-
ployers and large unions, with no con-
sideration given to their effect on small
employers. As a result, we have done a
disservice to tie millions of citizens par-
ticipating in small private retirement
clans.
At the last colloquy, I cited specific ex-
amples of absurd regulation by OSHA
4Ind Mc's% in Wyoming.
Relating to OSHA, I agree that an em-
ployee should work free from recognised
hazards that are likely to cause serieus
physical harm or death. However, OSHA
has gone beyond this purpose and en-
acted rules and regulations many of
which are absurd and do not approach
the slightest notion of common sense.
The net effect of the unnecessary regu-
lations is increased costs of operation to
the small businessman and sometimes fls-
iiancial ruin.
We in the Congress must do something
about this unnecessary Federal paper-
work which affects individuals and busi-
nesses, both small and large We m ist
do more than create a Federal Commis-
sion on Paperwork. In his book, "Go E.ist
Young Man," in Chapter 19, "The Ear-
seaucracy," Mr. Justice Douglas said:
The great creative work of a federal age-icy
roust be done in the first decade of its exIst-
ence if it is to be done at all. After that
it is likely to become a prisoner of bureatc-
racy and of the inertia demanded by the
establishment of any respected agency.
We must, in the interest of our con-
stituencies, take a long hard look at
Federal regulatory agencies. Possibly, 1.rie
answer lies in the streamlining of Federal
agencies which would protect the public
interest both rural and urban, encourage
more competition, and eliminate many
of the unnecessary costs to businesses
and consumers alike. The answer could
be found in the abolishment of some
Federal agencies or periodic revew
which would require congressional re-
authorization of these regulatory agen-
cies.
In sum, Federal regulation which
results in unnecessary paperwork cnd
costs for small business must be elim-
inated. Federal regulation must be e'en
a long hard review by the Congress. The
adverse effect on individuals, businesses,
be they small or large, is unconscionable.
I yield the remainder of my time to the
distinguished Senator from Nebraska
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I thank
my distinguished friend from Wyoming
very much.
Mr. President, when medicare atas
enacted, the people of the United Str, tes
were promised that it would not be a
Program to direct the practice of medi-
cine; that it was a program merely to
help people financially and would not
interfere with the doctor-patient rela-
tionship. Of course, Mr. President, we
have come to find out that those prom:ses
were hollow, that they have not been
kept at all.
Today, the Department of HEW has
teams of inspectors running around the
country interfering with the practice of
medicine. What they are doing is they
are driving doctors out of the practice.
I mentioned before in this Chamber
that one of our county seats in Nebraska
had hada doctor for 20 years. Whet he
started, he had one clerk do all his of-
fice work. Today he has four in order to
keep up with the Government regula-
tions, so he is quitting.
Mr. President, I hold in my hand a
letter from a distinguished doctor in my
State. He happens to be a diplomate on
the American Board of Family Practice,
a fellow of the American Society el' Ab-
dominal Surgeons, and a fellow of the
American College of Chest Physicians.
In this particular case, this is a small
city. I should judge not more than 1,000
or 1,200 people live there. They only
have one doctor. HEW is doing their best
to drive him out of business. They de-
scended upon him with a couple of in-
spectors and left their report for him to
spend his time answering, rather than
spend his time curing the sick. I want
to read from it. Here is one complaint:
Registered nurse:; are dispersing medica-
tion which are not in conformity with the
State and local laws.
Here is the doctor's answer:
My nurses will be giving medication upon
my specific order, the same as they would be
if they were giving out medication for my
office where I accept the total responsibility
because all of these people employed here
In the hospital are, of course, responsible to
me and they would not be doing anything
that I have not given them specific orders
to do. I expect my orders to be carried out.
Who is going to practice medicine, the
bureaucrats or the doctors?
Another objection:
There were no procedures for vernication
of current license for registered personnel
other than registered nurses.
We are talking about a town with one
doctor. Here is his answer:
This might be of some value in a large
institution, but for a small hospital such as
ours, I don't think it is of any particular
value. My license as well as those of my
consultants and others are in plain view
in my office.
I shall just read a few of these,
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The tune
of the Senator from Wyoming has ex-
pired.
Mr. CURTIS. I ask unanimous con-
sent that I may have 5 minutes of the
time surrendered by the distinguished
Senator from West Virginia (Mr Roa-
EAT C. BYRD) .
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CURTIS. Here is another com-
plaint:
Janitors's closets did not have sufficient
shelving resulting in cleaning supplies stored
on the floor.
Here is the doctor's answer:
Ridiculous!. No bearing whatsoever on pa-
tient care. No reason whatsoever they can't
be stored on the floor and I feel that my
opinion as a physician is far superior to that
of any janitorial expert and if the janitorial
expert cares to argue with me. I suggest
he go to medical school first!
Mr. President, thank heaven we have
citizens who still have the courage to
fight back against the bureaucracy. Too
many of them are submissive, and they
let the bureaucracy come in, destroy
their profession, and destroy their op-
portunity to serve their fellow man by
healing the sick.
Here is one of the other complaints:
Clean linens, restraints, and bandages
were stored in used cardboard boxes that are
not cleanable.
Here is what the doctor said about
it:
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
March 4, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
Matters not whether or not the boxes are
cleanable since these are clean linens?not
sterile.
Here is another complaint by these
bureaucrats that we are not only pay-
ing, we are providing them with retire-
ment;
There were no written hand scrubbing
procedures available in surgery or OB.
They are talking about a town that
has one doctor; and he should put up a
sign, "I am supposed to wash my hands"
so he can see it.
Here is his answer:
This is unnecessary since no one is al-
lowed in the operating room who is not
thoroughly familiar with sterile technique
and operating room procedures.
Here is another one:
The autopsy rate of this facility is 6.7
percent. It is recommended that 20 percent
of all in-hospital deaths be autopsied.
Here is the doctor's reply:
I would be extremely interested to see the
autopsy rate in one of the hospitals in the
western two-thirds of Nebraska. Our per-
centage was much higher; however, during
the past two years about the only people
we have had expire have been people well
above 70 years of age?whose clinical cause
of death was extremely apparent and would
have revealed nothing except just to make
the paperwork look good. I am certain that
this 20 percent recommendation should not
be complied with just on the basis of making
the paperwork look good.
Here is another complaint:
Medical records reviewed did not indicate
that consultation was recorded or dictated
prior to surgery.
This good doctor says:
Whether or not medical records indicate
the consultation prior to surgery, obviously
if it was otherwise, the consultant would not
have been here in -the first place. We discussed
the case thoroughly on the telephone first;
then when he arrives he sees the patient,
then we again discuss the case. I do not feel
it is necessary 1;o record all of our discussions
and I will not dictate it or record it. So
there!
Again I say, thank heaven we have in-
dividualS with enough spine to fight back
this crushing power of the bureaucracy.
He goes on to say:
And if you don't like it, take my license
and find someone else to fill my position in
this hospital In this community.
The sad part of it is, they cannot get
another doctor. Here is a man who has
risen in his profession, and recognized
by other doctors.
Here is one more complaint:
There is no documentation that the func-
tions of the medical records committee are
carried out. There is no evidence that medical
records are being evaluated for quality of
patient care from the documentation on the
chart by the committee.
They are talking about a community
that has one doctor and only one small
hospital.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator's 5 minutes have expired.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the letter in
support of the doctor's position, the en-
tire complaint, and the doctor's answers
thereto be printed in the RECORD, to-
gether with a statement by me.
There being no objection, the material
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
FEBRUARY 23, 1976.
HOD. CARL T. CURT CS,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR CARL: First of all I want you to know
that I will be willing and anxious to help as
much as possible and do whatever I can as
far as obtaining funds, as well as votes, for
your upcoming election and if there are any
specific tasks that you think I might be able
S 2769
to accomplish on your behalf, please do not
hesitate to let me know. You are a valued
friend as well as legislator and I am sure you
are aware of how I, as well as most of the
people in this area, feel about you and want
to keep you in office.
I hate to bother you with things such as
this and I know you probably are not going
to have time to read this but I hope your
Administrative Assistant will bring some of
this to your attention so far as the so-called
"deficiencies" as a result of our recent in-
spection by the Medicare people. Not a single
one of these so-called deficiencies are related
to taking care of patients and seeing to it
that people are treated kindly as well as
efficiently. All of this amounts to nothing
other than 'a great deal of bureaucratic
bull____, as I am sure you are well aware,
and it bothers me to know and to think
that our government is spending the money
for these people's two salaries, which I am
sure are substantial, and not only that, are
adding two more "inspection teams", costing
even more money, and yet the press throws
the blame for the increasing cast of medical
care upon physicians and hospitals. Of course
as you and I know, the truth lies in precisely
such expenditures as this; that is, creating
more government bureaucrary and jobs (if
the government wants to create jobs, then let
them go back to the old CCC and WPA where
at least we can get some trees planted and
maybe a little work done and not have these
people running around the hospital interfer-
ing with my help and the function of my.
hospital when it is totally unnecessary.)
Now for an answer to each of these so-
called deficiencies?and your Administrative
Assistant may call these to your attention
since I do Indeed hate to take your valuable
time in reading these individually, but if you
have the opportunity, I do think it would
be a great revealing for you. The list is at=
tached, with my answers.
Again, thank you for your attention and
please let me know if there is anything at
all I can do to help you in your reelection
campaign.
Very sincerely,
STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES AND FLAN OF CORRECTION
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES NOTED BY SURVEYING PROVIDER'S PLAN OF CORRECTION
STATE AGENCY WITH REFERENCE CITATION
A6, 405.1020.
A9, 405.1020(c), Registered nurses are dispensing medication
which are not in conformity with state and local laws.
AS, .405.1020(b) . There were no procedures for the verification of
current license for registered personnel other than registered nurses.
AS, 405.1020 (c) .
A258, 4053.025(b) (5). Employees are not given annual TB skin
tests.
*Any deficiency statement ending with an asterisk(*) denotes a
condition which the institution may be excused from correcting
provided it is determined that other safeguards provide sufficient
protection to the patients. The asterisk means that the surveying
State Agency has recommended that the deficiency be waived for
this reason. If the State Agency recommendation has been accepted,
this will be noted in the right hand column opposite the deficiency
statement.
A70, 405.1022 (a) (2 ) . a. Janitor's closets did not have sufficient
shelving resulting in cleaning supplies stored on the floor.
b. The basement storage rooms had boxes of new Supplies on the
floor; e.g., bandages, gauze, chux, boxes of intravenous solutions and
other supplies; thereby not lending space for proper cleaning
methods.
wrrn TIME TABLE
My nurses will be giving medication upon my specific order, the
same as they would be if they were given out medlitation for my
office where I accept the total responsibility, because all of these
people employed here in the hospital are, of course, responsibile to
me and they would not be, doing anything that I have not given
them specific orders to do and I expect my orders to be carried out.
This might be of some value in a large institution but for a small
hospital such as ours, I don't think it is of any particular value.
My license, as well as those of my consultants and others, are in
plain view in my office.
I have a return postcard with description and tactile card for
measurement of induration which is far superior to any other method
of interpreting Tine tests. I prefer Tine Tests?per my order.
NoTE.--This document contains a listing of the deficiencies cited
by the surveying State Agency RS requiring correction. This Sum-
mary Statement of Deficiencies is based on the surveyor's profes-
sional knowledge and interpretation of Medicare and/or Medicaid
requirements. In the column Provider's Plan of Correction, the state-
ments should reflect the facility's plan for corrective action and
anticipated time for correction. Copies of this form will be kept on
file at local Social Security and Public Assistance Offices, to be
made available to the public, upon request.
Ridiculous!! No bearing whatsoever on patient care. No reason
whatsoever they can't be stored on the floor and I feel that my
opinion as a physician is far superior to that of any janitorial expert
and if the janitorial expert cares to argue with me, I suggest he go to
medical school first!
The same thing applies as above. The current situation suits the
attending physician quite well. The attending physician is the one
who needs to be satisfied.
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037:01
S 2770 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SI NATE March 4, 1976
STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES AND
31MARY S CATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES NOTED ST SURVEYING
STATE AGENCY verilk REFERENCE CITATION-00I41/1110d
Clean liners, restraints, and bandages were stored in used card-
isrd the::: are not cleanable.
ii. chipped enamel wash basins and emesis pans were observed.
iese type items are not easily cleaned and sanitized.
?02, 405.1022(c) (2) . There were no written hand scrubbing pro-
, ,lures available in surgery or OB.
405.1023(b) (1). The autopsy rate of tins facill4 is 8.7%. It
).rnmendeci that 20% of all in hospital deaths be autopsied.
3. 405.1023(c) (3), Medical records reviewed did not Indicate
l-Iconsultation was recorded or dictated prior to surgery.
A170, 405.1023(n) (1).
A175, 405.1023(n) (5). There is-no documentation that the functions
of the medical records committee are carried out. There is no evidence
that medical records are being evaluated for quality of patient care
from the documentation on the chart by the committee.
eli13? 405.1023 (n) (4). There is no documentation that on-the-spot
scanning of current inpatient records is being done.
A232, 405.1024(h) (3). Nursing care plans did not include:
I allergy status, 2. dates when medications were initiated or renewed,
S. patient problems and needs. 4. goals and approaches to resolve
these problems
t.233, 405.1024(h) (4). Nursing notes do not include: 1. pertinent
Information regarding the admission of the patient to the hospital,
2 plans or actual patient teaching, 3. reason PRN medication Is given
find reaction to it, 4. reason medication is refused, 5. special instruc-
tions: ie. check pulse before giving Lanoxin.
1215, 405.1014 (11)16). 1. Registered nurses are giving medication
without physician's written order; ie. riazvon, PRN, RN stated it is
a "standing order", however, It is not written. 2. On four of six
current records reviewed, orders were not countersigned by the phy-
sician. 3. Senior medical students preceptee medical orders, progress
notes, and history and physical reports are not being countersigned
the physician.
.1.256, 405.1025 (b) (3). Some utensils in dietary area are stored in
1,,,-sd cardboard boxes which can not be cleaned.
A2,30, 405.1025 (b) (7). Potatoes and boxes of canned goods were
sicired on the floor; thereby preventing good cleaning methods.
A300, 405.1026 (g) (3). Provisional diagnosis is not being included
the clinical record when a patient is admitted to the hospital.
Pune or Comma 17--Contineed
PROVIDER'S PLA OF CORRECTION wrrii TIME TABLE-Continued
Matters not wh.i-ther or no' the boxes are cleanable since these
are clean linens-i-dt sterile.
This sounds lik ; a complaint of some young housewife's mother-
in-law !
This is unneces, try since no one is allowed in the Operating Room
who is not thorn' ;hly familiar with sterile technique and operating
procedures.
. would be extr mely interested to see the autopsy rate in one of
the hospitals in t. ie western two-thirds of Nebraska. Our percentage
was much higher; however, during the past two years about the only
ileeple we have hat expire have been people wellabove 70 years of age
e-iiose clinical can .e of death was extremely apparent and would have
o-,-=.aled nothing except Just to make the paper work look good. 1
.iin certain that is 20c.i? recommendation should not be complied
just on the 1 asis of making the paper work look good.
Whether or not medical records indicate the Consultation prior to
surgery, obviously if it was otherwise, the consultant would not have
he,.n here in the 3rst place. We discuss the case thoroughly on the
,,,,ephone first; then when he arrives he sees the patient, then we
again discuss the ase. I do not feel it is necessary to record all of our
oi.eussions and I zill not dictate it-or record it. So there! And if you
in oil like it, take 1,13, license and find someone else to fill my position
o this hospital in 'this community.
again, this app- ars to be more bureaucratic meddlieg. The quality
or patient care ie. obvious by our very low morbidity -and mortality
especially so far a our surgical patients are concerned since we have
had no deaths in ',he operating room in 10 years with some 2500 pro-
cedures and also so anesthetic deaths. Nothing speaks for itself as
does good results and that is all that matters, not the paper work
Ts sort of criticsm reminds me of when I was in the military and
iity Commanding Officer- told me at one time it didn't matter how
eica or bad thin i is were going in the Clinic, as far as patient care
concerned, frit, so we kept up with our paper work. I disagreed
,0 the point of a cnost striking him 3 of I and I still disagree that
ongly today.
Scanning all re .irds is done twice a day by the attending physiciar
wnen I make raw' as and I think that Is entirely adequate.
I disagree vitib this whole section completely. The allergic status
is known to the Ai,tending Physician and :stated as such, if there are
any, on the Histx.ry and Physical. If none are stated, then none are
present. This is the province of the Attending Physician. If I care tc
1eil the nurses, I will do so; otherwise it is not their responsibility
ihates when ni..clications were initiated or renewed-the dates
iien I order or ititiate a medication are on the order sheet and the
bte they are discontinued is also on the Order Sheet and they are
ciiiitinuously give -a in between those dates when they were initiated
acid discontinued
Patient- problenis and needs. I don't mind the nurses discussine
this with the patient. However. it is my responsibility to determine
;11:74 problems am: needs and what will be done about them and I
qi't like this Inv ision of my domain.
floats and app-taches to resolve these problems. The nurses have
oo business even creaming of a goal or approach to solve any problem
't-cese are up to ice and if a nurse attempts to solve a problem, then
.0 will get a sew re reprimand from me as the Attending Physician.
A 233. Again a bunch of bureaucratic meddling. I am extremel!,
satisfied with my nurses notes and think I have an excellent nursing
staff and I have no complaints whatsoever. My nurses notes are
complete and to the point, both written and verbal and I reseni
strongly any in-erence to the contrary by this notation. Mos:
iuredly under the example "check pulse before giving Lanoxin.'
fhla is asinine. is my job to determine when and how much cti
At.y drug is give: I see my patients twice a day and I know whai
dr status is ani any drug, whether it be Lanoxin or any other,
lie monitored by me and not by the nurses, so this whole paragraph
emirely invalic
Again, this sec ion deals with nitpicking and if that is all these
people have to di. I am glad they have some reason fo:r drawing their
salary although I would hate to go to bed at night realizing this was
my only accompl. hment in life
Again utensils .re not sterne, they are omen. I don't think it makei,
a great deal of di 'Creme whether they are stored in cardboard boxer
not. They will be replaced to satisfy the bureaucratic birds.
Comment won, be "ditto" to the above.
Provisional dia nosis is in -the clinical record within 24 hours ant.
It is in my head soon as the patient is admitted, Which is all tha
e required since I am the Attending Physician. It is not anybody
's business oti sr than mine anyway.
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
March 4, 1976 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE S 2771
STATEMENT or DEFICIENCIES AND
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES NOTED BY SURVEYING
STATE AGENCY WITH REFERENCE CITATION-Continued
A318.
A323, 405.1027 (a) (3).
A344, 405.1027 (f) (2). 1. Registered nurses are refilling scheduled
drug counter containers from bulk supplies. 2. Drugs in the emer-
gency room are not being checked for proper storage and outdate.
i.e. a.) 10 millileter multiple dose vial of infectable Valium sitting
on the counter, b.) Nine drugs outdated, c.) all medications not
properly secured and emergency room unattending. 3. Several drugs
in drug room had labels with only name and strength of medica-
tions. Two containers had tape labels with only name and strength
of drug.
A327, 405.1027 (b) (3). Neither refrigerator in drug room contains
a thermometer.
A329, 405.1027 (b) (5). The drawer and refrigerator where schedule
drugs are stored are single locked; the drug room containing all
drugs is not locked when unattended.
A341, 405.1027 (e) (1). There are no specific stop orders for anti-
coagulants, oxytocics, or cortisone products.
A342.
A343.
A340, 406.1027 (f) (1) (4). There is no documentation that a phar-
macy and therapeutic committee are meeting at least quarterly.
A344, 405.1027 (f) (2). There was no documentation that Pharmacy
policies and procedures have been revised since 1971.
A366, 405.1028 (a) (4). Hemoglobin controls were not currently
being used.
Policies and procedures have not been established for quality con-
trol in urinalysis.
Abnormal coagulation controls were not recorded.
A391, 405.1028(j) (1) . The blood storage temperature recording
thermometer is out ef order.
A394, 405.1028(j) (4). Policies and procedures in blood bank quality
control have not been established.
A439, 405.1031 ( a) ( 11 ) . Defibrillator and thoractomy set are not
available in the operating suite.
A442, 405.1031(a) (14). Rules and regulations and policies of the
operating room are not posted or available in the operating suite.
A508, 405.1033(d) (1) (vii). 1. TWO of nine emergency room records
reviewed did not contain disposition of the case. 2. One of nine rec-
ords showed no patient's signature and six of nine records showed no
nurse's signature, as required by the emergency room policies.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CURTIS
Our small business community is fast be-
coming an endangered kpecies because of
government regulation.
With all of the attention we have paid in
recent years to preserving our natural en-
vironment, I am amazed that we have not
also made strides to improve our economic
environment which is foundering because
of the massive restrictions and regulations of
the federal government.
We have far too many federal departments
and agencies, with far too many regulations,
restrictions and requirements which infringe
on the freedom and liberties of the citizens.
In terms of economics, the mass of govern-
ment regulations is infringing on our time
and ability for doing business.
Surely we can see the cost to small business
and the nation in the volumes of regulations
of such agencies as the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration, the Environ-
PLAN Or CoanzarioN-Continued
PROVIDER'S PLAN OF CORRECTION WITH TIME TABLE-Continued
This will be complied with-however, again, I think it is more
bureaucratic nitpicking as are all of these so-called deficiencies.
There are no specific stop orders on any drug unless I order them
stopped. Again, I don't like this intrusion into my domain.
I won't comment on this because the pharmacist is a professional
man himself and he can deal with this. However, again, I don't
feel it is of any consequence as far as patient care is concerned.
Ditto.
I am satisfied with the results of my lab and of course, in the
end I am the one who needs to be satisfied.
Ditto,
Ditto.
Defibrillator. It is sort of asinine to expect anyone to use an electric
defibrillator in the Operating Room with ether. I don't intend to blow
my head off nor that of my staff, nor explode the patient. There are
other methods of taking care of the situation if it should arise, and
I am thoroughly aware of how to take care of asytole and ven-
tricular fibrillation if it occurs, and I will continue to use ether since
it is still the safest of all anesthetics. There have been no reports of
deaths due to hepatitis as there have been a number of such reports
with Halothane and Penthrane and since we have no operative
deaths and no anesthetic deaths and no anesthetic complications for
ten years and 2500 surgical cases, I think the result of this speaks for
itself. I think it would be a good idea if some other institutions who
are running higher in these categories than do we would consider the
use of ether.
Again, more bureaucratic nitpicking.
Again, I don't think any of this paper work and pencilling would
have added to the care of patients about whom records are being
reviewed.
mental Protection. Agency, the Food and Drug
Administration, the Civil Aeronautics Board,
the Interstate Commerce Commission and
the Federal Power Commission.
Surely we can see the cost to small busi-
ness and the nation In the thousands of re-
quired forms of such departments as Health.
Education and Welfare, Labor, Commerce,
Transportation and Treasury.
Surely we can see the cost to small business
and the nation in the many reporting and
accounting requirements of the Social Se-
curity Administration, the Federal Trade
Commission, the Department of Housing and
Urban Development, the Federal Communi-
cations Commission and the Internal Rev-
enue Service.
Surely we can see the cost to small busi-
ness and the nation in the voluminous, time-
consuming study, investigation and report-
ing requirements of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, the General Services Admin-
istration, the Water Resources Council, and
the Departments of Transportation, Housing
and Urban Development, and Health, Educa-
tion and Welfare.
Mr. President, according to the Small Busi-
ness Administration, there are some six mil-
lion enterprises in this country. That figures
out to about one small business for every 38
people. Small businesses are the nation's
number one source of jobs. They generate
millions of dollars in revenue which is regen-
erated nit? the economy through wages, costs
Of operation and purchasing power.
The major contributions small businesses
make to the nation should be cause for con-
cern that the government not jeopardize
small business. Yet, the massive bureaucracy
Is tragically suffocating small business
through regulations, requirements, restric-
tions and endless amounts of paperwork and
red tape.
In fiscal 1975 there were more than a
quarter million bankruptcies in the 'United
States. That was up from a low of only
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
S 2772 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE March 4, 1976
about, 10,000 al the end of World War II. The
284,484 individual and business bankruptcies
ei Racal 1975 represented a 34 percent ln-
ereake in just one year. Business bank-
ruptcies have y articularly increased in recent
year:, with a 45 percent jump in fiscal 1975
ever the previous year.
eankruptcy represents a blow to-the econ-
emy when it occurs. In hearings held by the
semi% Judiciary Committee on Bankruptcy
tow reform last year it was pointed out that
eankruptcy courts cancel $2 billion in debts
dawn year. But, although debts may be can-
relied, I think we are fooling ourselves if we
tion't think they have to be paid. The losses
from bankruptcies are made up by higher
emits to consumers and the public, as well
as by those small businesses particularly that
le list absorb them.
t ta"ought up bankruptcy here because I
believe one of the major contributions to it
is the mass of federal regulations, restric-
tions and requirements that are time-
eonsuming aid costly for small busi-
nesses to handle. If by reducing or .eliminat-
leg much of tee required federal paperwork
we can save businesses, then I think we
should proceed post haste with regulatory
reform.
Mr; President, as an example of the effects
federal regulations have on business and la-
'eon I would like to cite from a June, 1975 re-
port of the administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency to the Secretary of
Labor. EPA and Labor had an inter-agency
agreement whereby EPA reported periodically
to Labor on job- losses attributed to environ-
mental regulations._ In that report, the EPA
said 108 plants claimed environmentally re-
lated actual or threatened job losses over the
four year period of January, 1971 to March,
1075. The report said that actual closings or
curtailments ct production in 71 plants have
resulted in the loss of approximately 12,560
jobs. Another 37 plants threatening to close
or curtail operations could potentially dislo-
cate an additional 33,850 workers, the report
said.
Now, this is but one example of a federal
agency keeping a record of its impact on busi-
nesste and jobs. What the EPA report didn't
say was how much those closings and job
losses cost the people and communities in-
volved in terms of incomes and livelihoods,
welfare roll iacreases, unemployment com-
pensation, and economic effect in the com-
munities. I'm not aware that any other agen-
cies do a similar study, but can imagine that
it the Occupational Safety and Health Ad-
ministration, the Interstate Commerce Com-
mission, the Federal Power Commission, the
Civil Aeronautics Board, and the Department
of Health, Education and Welfare and other
federal agencies kept such records, the figures
would be staggering.
The point I'm making is that the-tremend-
-aim amount of paperwork, red tape and gov-
ermnent regulation and restriction has a Very
meal adverse effect on our small businesses,
on sobs, and ultimately on the whole econ-
omy.
Small busir.esses themselves constitute 47
percent of all non-governmental, non-farm
jobs and more than one-half of all Ameri-
eam; depend directly on small businesses for
their livelihoods. Small businesses account
for about 70 percent of the nation's retail
and wholesale trade and more than 40 per-
eent, of the nation's production output.
I can cite numerous examples of specific
situations in which the regulatory function-
ing of the federal government has affected
small business.
The Interstate Commerce Commission has
aken months and even years to process vari-
ous motor carrier service applications of
small and independent trucking operations,
telays of this type are common in the bu-
reaucracy we have now and not only cost
the firms mcney, but also coat consumers.
The time has come for us to halt the ;oar-
ness of government and return its Whet ;my.
As a point in fact in one recent case in
Nebraska, it took the ICC more than two
years to process and issue a permit to a !nail
business.
The Securities and Exchange Commision
is pressuring small independent oil opera-
tors through a proposal which require, en-
terprises to be registered as broker-de tiers
and to belong to a national organizatie n In
order to sell only a small portion of interest
In a $2,000 well. I have received numerous
complaints over the past few months that
the costs of drilling and the securitie ; to-
gether is too much for the independei 7, oil
operators to remain in business.
Why should many of these small firs a' be
driven out of business by legal and ace( tint-
ing expenses when their initial purpose was
to drill for oil? It has reached a ridiculous
point when the very government the- people
support and which is supposed to reprssent
them places insurmountable restrictima on
them and forces them out of a livelieood.
If the present trend continues, whc will
there be to find 80 per cent of the oil ia the
United States in the future? With the de-
mise of the private, small operators. we will
surely have to federalize the oil drilling and
exploration operations in this country. I
hope- we can do it with greater- stuccesk and
economy than we have been able to ac sieve
in delivering the mails or running passenger
trains.
The Occupational Safety and Healtl Ad-
ministration, which has victimized ;mall
businesses over the past years, is an excel-
lent example of what can happen when bu-
reaucrats get entangled in their own un-
manageable red tape. Only recently diet the
federal agency issue any manageable form
of its regulations which could be understood
by the businessmen and others who wel e be-
ing cited and fined.
Even then, booklets summarizing thk reg-
ulations in lay language have had ..ea be
issued for general industry, the comstruc-
tion industry and the longshore ind estry.
The agency says others are forthcoming, but
how are people to know what they are to
be complying with if the agency itself can-
not even compile a list of its own regale tions
governing particular industries?
The amount of federal over-regulation is
so bad that businesses are often confronted
with conflicting regulations among several
agencies. Likewise, there have been flamer-
ous situations in Which federal agencies
have involved themselves in matters that
are clearly not within their authority but
are under the authority of other age =lea
In Nebraska at this time, the Federal
Power Commission has delayed the conk true-
tion of a 650 megawatt steam-electric plant
that is badly needed for the state to meet
Its electricity demands by 1977. The Ent iron-
mental Protection Agency, state ens iron-
mental agency and federal district courts all
upheld the construction plans of the plant
as meeting environmental needs. Yea the
FPC has stopped and delayed construction
for a year and a half at a cost of more than
$100 million to the consumers and buseiess-
men of Nebraska on the basis of ent ;regi-
mental claims.
There are presently some 20 agencies deal-
ing with the food industry, spending sev-
eral million dollars worth of federal taxpay-
ers' money each year and costing busiresses,
especially small ones, an estimated $4? mil-
lion to fill out and file .all the forms ree aired
by federal agencies.
To add insult to injury, the small bu; mess
rent guarantee program has been screpped
in the 1977 budget, only 18 months after
million-dollar losses were found in the pro-
gram. The losses were attributed to bad ad-
ministration and bungling in the bureauc-
racy, but have brought about the demise
of a program which was designed to nelp ob-
tain competitive locations for small busi less
men who did not have credit on their owl
to qualify for locational financing.
A family doctor in northeast Nebraska era..
forced to close his practice after 20 year
recently because of the increasing demands
being placed on private enterprise by the fed-
eral bureaucracy in the form of reporting
and filing requirements for Social Security
Medicare, Department of Health, Educatioe
and Welfare purposes and others.
The work load an rural physicians has in-
creased rapidly in many areas, both because
of an increasing patient load and because the
number of physicians serving these areas It
decreasing. Many small communities hay,
found it hard to attract additional doctors
even more so because of the paperwork re-
quirements placed on them by the federa
government.
Working initially with one assistant, tin
Nebraska physielan had a staff of four
persons battling constantly to keep up witl.
forms and information sheets when he closet
the office. The mountains of paperwork liter
ally crowded the doctor out of his office am;
contributed to skyrocketing medical costs
along with the erosion of quality medica
care in the community. Residents of the
small town now must travel a considerablt
distance to another community for medica
care.
Instances like that of the Nebraska physi
clan are occurring across the United State:
with increasing frequency. This is one mon
reason the runaway bureaucracy must b4
stopped from encroaching further into th,
Jives of the citizens.
Another example of government red tape
and paperwork which is hampering free ex
ercise of private enterprise can be seen in tie
case of grocers.
According to government figures, mon,
than 35 million man hours each year are re
quired by retail food stores alone to complea
various forms required for those businessa
There are some 2.100 different forms pertain
tug to food retailing.
Research and statistics show that more
than 72 per centig the small enterprises hay .44
fewer than 10 employees, whose time has te
be devoted in considerable part to filling cm .
the required forms. Large stores and chain:
might be able to hire additional personnet
to take care of the mountain of federal pa -
perwork, but the small ones face almost un-
recoverable costs in this situation.
I have had complaints from various ma.'
stores in Nebraska whose owners and opera-
tors claim their businesses are being in-
vaded by federal agencies which are requirins
them to fill out forms to help with "timel
information on the functioning of the ecor -
omy." One of the Federal Trade Commis-
sion forms requires the businesses to deta
financial statements and warns that the fir'
for non-compliance is between $1,000 mei
$5,000, and up to one year in prison for ire
dividuals. For corporations, the governmer
levies $100-per-day fines. This represents us -
necessary collection of proprietary data C44
businesses.
An eastern Nebraska manufacturing firm
was fined $1,115 by the Occupational Safet T
and Health Administration for one seriota
and four non-serious violations. The com-
pany appealed the citations, claiming the ire
provements would place the company
building outside other OSHA regulations alai
would result in further citations.
While the appeal was still underway, OSHA
inspectors cited the small firm again fc r
failure to abate and the fine climbed to
$10,500 for the serious violation and another
$5,670 for the non-serious ones. That made
the total fine $15,280, all while an appeal was
underway by the 11-employee firm. This type
of overbearing action by a federal agency
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
March 4, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE S 2773
is crimping small businesses and must be
stopped.
In another case involving OSHA, an awn-
ing manufacturing firm in Nebraska was fined
$3,250 for not having a specific type of guard
around its punch presses. The guards which
the firm had were in compliance with Ne-
braska regulations. If the firm had installed
those squired by OSHA, the guards would not
have totally met state requirements, and the
firm was faced with the predicament of hav-
ing to follow state or federal rules.
In a case involving the Internal Revenue
Service, a woman operating a small survey-
ing business found herself victimized when
the agency changed her tax status without
apparent basis. The IRS had ,ruled in 1965
that she did not have to pay employee taxes
since the people she employed were not in-
()face workers, but rather worked in the field
on a very part-time basis, sometimes on a
volunteer basis.
The IRS assessed the woman, without
warning, $81,000 in back withholding and
other taxes. Earlier IRS records showed that
the firm was in compliance with tax laws,
and lawyers for the firm established that
other similar operations which were perform-
ing the same service were not paying the
employee taxes.
This type of bureaucratic bungling ex-
emplifies the heavy-handed way many federal
agencies are dealing with small businesses
across the United States.
I have had numerous complaints from
Nebraska insurance men who are now re-
quired to disclose their commission figures
on Asles. No other industry is required to
make such disclosures. Most insurance agen-
cies are small concerns, and the unnecessary
regulation is hampering the exercise of free
enterprise.
The effects on small business are also being
felt through the actions of the Federal Trade
Commission, which recently effected new
regulations governing the sale of used cars.
According to the rules, dealers must make
all defects in the cars known, must have
available the previous owner's name and title,
must offer a warranty and certify the vehicle
Is in first-rate shape according to FTC guide-
lines.
The regulations place a new burden on the
small businesses, but do not cover individual
persons selling cars on their own. This regu-
lation is discriminatory. It seems doubtful
that any used car dealer could certify that
nothing is wrong with a vehicle. ;Used ears
are just that?used?and as such, the buyer
should understand that there may be flaws
in the vehicle.
The overriding point in this entire discus-
sion today is that the federal bureaucracy is
stifling small businesses across the country.
Small businesses are the basic strength of
the American economy and an integral part
of it. Small businesses and the people operat-
ing them have shown an excellent operational
record, both in financial and business terms,
through the years.
The very agencies, bureaus, departments
and commissions which are now over-regu-
lating and suffocating them in red tape and
voluminous regulations, have not been as
successful as small business themselves. The
bungling, uncontrollable bureaucracy must
be brought to manageable proportions be-
fore it destroys the basic business structure
from which it should take a lesson?one of a
common-sense operation on a manageable
level.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CUL-
VER). Under the previous order, the Sen-
ator from New York (Mr. JAVITS) is rec-
ognized for not to exceed 15 minutes.
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, a par-
liamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator will state it.
Mr. McCLURE. Was 10 minutes of the
time of the Senator from Maryland (Mr.
BEALL) assigned to the Senator from
Idaho?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Idaho has 10 minutes follow-
ing the order for the recognition of the
Senator from New York.
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. JAVITS. I yield.
Mr. McCLURE. Is the Senator speak-
ing on regulatory reform?
Mr. JAVITS. No, I am going to speak
on genocide.
Mr. McCLURE. I wonder if we could
keep the continuity. Is the Senator
pressed for time?
Mr. JAVITS. I am, unfortunately, but
I ask unanimous consent that my re-
marks follow all the stateme.nts on regu-
latory reform in the RECORD.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
REGULATORY REFOR
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, a small
business is by definition just that, small.
The success of such a business is related
to the specialized expertise of its modest
staff, the dedication of a single owner-
entrepreneur and the inherent flexi-
bility or freedom of action which such
organizations have historically displayed.
Federal regulations and the reporting
requirements associated with them di-
vert the attention and energies of these
small businesses away from the critical
variables of marketing, production, fi-
nance, and customer service. Employees
must be either spread more thinly or
augmented at high cost in response to
expanding regulatory demands. The nor-
mal result is that customers receive less
satisfactory service or pay a higher price
for the same level of service. To the ex-
tent that prices rise, the small business
begins to lose the competitive advan-
tages which pr:icing and service had for-
merly provided.
In much the same way, regulation
which forces national standards of com-
pliance reduces the historic flexibility
with Which small business has faded in
a changing environment. Policies and
procedures become increasingly rigid and
the scope of activities to be undertaken
by the entrepreneur becomes progres-
sively more limited.
What is so often overlooked is that
regulation hampers small business to the
benefit of big business. When someone
talks about the close relationship be-
tween business and regulators, they mean
big business. What I want to discuss is a
far more problematic series of subtleties
involved in the big business/small busi-
ness competition, or lack of it, under reg-
ulation. The cause is intrinsic in the na-
ture of regulation itself.
I would like to read a letter from one of
my constituents, a small businessman:
For some time now, we have been meaning
to write you about the growing burden at
work which regulations promulgated by fed-
eral agencies have imposed on small business-
men like ourselves. We are not talking about
the laws passed by Congress, but the outra-
geous volumes of regulations, imposing hor-
rendous requirements where the substantive
purpose of the enabling statute has been lost
sight of by the enforcing agency.
In the last few months, our company has
revised its warranties to comply with the
first round of regulation under the Magnu-
son-Moss Warranty Act, and has been revis-
ing its credit forms to comply with the
Truth-in Lending Act, the Fair Credit Bill-
ing Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act
and all of the regulations issued under those
Acts. In each case, the result of the revision
was to make the piece of paper the con-
sumer receives longer, more detailed and less
comprehensible than the form it replaced.
There is another aspect of excessive regula-
tion of business. We buy some tires from
Goodyear and also compete with Goodyear on
a retail level. Both Goodyear and our com-
pany have to hire attorneys to figure out how
to comply with federal regulations, to figure
out which disclosures must be in the form
the regulatory agencies require them to be
made and which may be varied by the indi-
vidual merchant, and to keep track of which
laws are applicable as of which date. But
Goodyear can spread this cost of doing busi-
ness over a much broader retail base.
Similarly, the cost of printing new forms
is largely in setting up the type. The in-
cremental cost for each of the last 990,000
copies of a new form required by a federal
regulation is much less than the average cost
of each of the first 10,000 copies which the
small businessman must buy. There are
enough economies of scale which give an eco-
nomic advantage to the large business over
the small business without the Federal Gov-
ernment's regulations giving this aid to the
creation of oligopolies.
In other words, the system works like
a regressive income tax. The smaller the
business the higher a proportion of its
resources will be consumed in complying
with Government requirements--and the
more likely it will fold, leaving that Gov-
ernment to wonder what it can do to in-
crease competition. While it wonders, the
regulatory machinery will turn like
prayer wheels, oblivious to the fact that
it is diminishing competition.
At the same time regulators are either
unaware or unconcerned about State
regulations violated by each new Federal
reeu: g lation. A Wary constituent has asked
m
Why should the burden fall on the small
businessman to sort out the inconsistencies
between these regulations? It is our public
servants who have created this mess of con-
flicting regulation; why should it not be their
responsibility to extricate us from it by pro-
viding forms which certifiably comply with
both sets of regulations?
Mr. President, it is interesting to note
how the satisfaction of the small busi-
ness is closely tied with the satisfaction
of the consumer. In our last colloquy I
spoke of the effect on the consumer when
an Idaho small business closed its con-
sumer credit accounts because of the
difficulty?and in some cases impossibil-
ity?due to the lack of adjudicated
eases?of complying with the law. But
we should also consider the bsuiness it-
self. In that instance, the company was
so small that the effect of the new regu-
lations was to force prices up about 2
Percent. They could not afford to stay in
business after a serious fine, yet the law-
yer from the Federal Reserve Board told
them that the law was uninterpretable
until there were court decisions. Now, a
small businessman may be adventurous
but not to the point of doing 3 to 5 years
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
S 2774 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? EN ATE March 4, 19 7
for a miswriAen form. The company had
no choice but to suspend consumer credit
operations. Future customers will obvi-
ously be more attracted by the retail out-
let which gIles credit along with all the
other services. Any business which can
afford the fi aes and prorate its expenses
over a broad base is the one which will
attract those customers. Big business
wins again. That is when it becomes a
consumer issue as well.
A citizen cf Gooding, Idaho, tells me of
an unsolicited communication he re-
, eived from his bank telling him that if
he desired information about his real
estate loan he should call the bank.
Thinking naturally that the bank must
ie commum eating about something he
called and asked what might have
changed. 01:, no, the bank assured him,
no problem, they were simply required
to send out the meaningless communica-
tion by HEW. Said my friend:
Now. Senator, is this an affront to my in-
telligence or is the post office just trying to
tell more of 3 ts high priced stamps? Do the
people in Washington realize that these
needless actions only add millions to con-
sumer costs?
From that you get some idea of the
-Arnall business climate in 20th century
America.
But the small businessmen in Idaho
would never forgive me if I were to dis-
cuss Government regulation and neglect
OSHA. There is probably no piece of leg-
islation responsible for more hardship,
more lost jobs, more unhappiness and
Frustration than this one act. It is the
prirne example of how the ingenious
mind of insm is increasingly stifled by
the mindlessness of the regulators.
There are still some who figure out
now to beat the rap. One blasting corn-
nany, having discovered that OSHA reg-
dlations regarding signs were directly
contradictory to those of another agency,
atationed a man with a radio at the en-
trance to t aeir establishment. Accord-
mgly. whoever the inspector was that
day, the signs were arranged to please
his agency. But another small business-
man curtailed his own operation because
IA a regulation which demanded that he
out a railing all around an elevator lift.
lie could put the railing on, but nothing
could then be moved either on or off the
lift.
Mr. Presi lent, I would advise anyone
un::amiliar with English to stay away
Trom OSHA's definitions. If such a man
1,3 indoors and a fire starts, and he sees
the word "e rit" over a door, he may have
trite to get to Webster's and discover
that an exit is a "passage or way out."
But if he tt,rns to OSHA regulations he
will find that an exit is:
That portlin of a means of egress which
s separated from all other spaces of the
eutiding or structure by construction or
equipment es required in this subpart to
pre tected wae of travel to the exit discharge.
The means of egress comprises the vertical
and horizontal ways of travel and shall in-
etude intervening room spaces, doorways,
liallways, co 7ridors, passageways, balconies,
'amps, stairs, enclosures, lobbies, escalators,
norizontal e;:its, courts, and yards.
Exit discharge Is that portion of a means
af egress between the termination of an exit
oret a public way.
I very much fear that by the Uric he
had discovered any meaning to tha* the
discovery would be academic.
Safety is obviously important. Th: real
question is how much of it is who e re-
sponsibility? Robert Stewart Smith has
written a thoughtful study of the hob-
lem in which he includes a story he calls
a safety fable. The fable examine, the
social and market effects of Government
regulation. The presentation is imagi-
native, but the principles valid. I recom-
mend it to my colleagues and ask unani-
mous consent that it be printed in the
RECORD at this point. But rememter in
reading it that some of the comparsons
are illustrative only and cannot be :,aken
literally. It should also be noted this t the
trade-off between economics and happi-
ness demands a very broad and some-
what strained definition of the term
"hapiness."
There being no objection, the stor was
ordered to be printed in the R1-'0RD.
as follows:
CHAPTER 11?THE SOCIAL GOALS OF AN ,CCO -
PATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH PROOF.
"I can't believe that!" said Alice.
"Can't you?" the Queen said in a se tying
lone. "Try again: draw a deep breatt and
shut your eyes."
Alice laughed. "There's no use tryino she
said: "One can't believe impossible tt,,ngs.''
"I daresay you haven't had much pm- floe,"
said the Queen.?Through the Looking-Glass
and What Alice Found There.
The safety and health mandate under the
Occupational Safety and Health Act hes been
shown to be virtually unqualified: only in
the event that almost an entire industry
would have to close down would the courts
rule that a technically possible hazard abate-
ment program is "unfeasible." Is the goal
of near-absolute safety socially defenst ale in
a society seeking to advance the general
welfare? Just how much safety is "enough"
in our society? Is it being provided? These
questions cannot be easily answerel. nor
should an answer be attempted without
reference to an explicit theory of sod, wel-
fare. The purpose of this chapter is to sketch
such a theory, which is then used to
suggest the conditions under which gc,vern-
mental safety and health programs w ild be
required to advance the general goes!. 12)
to consider the need for such prognens ire
the U.S. economy, and (3) to establish some
rules which can be used to guide a vern-
mental decisions in the safety and Lealth
area. We begin with a fable.
A SAFETY FABLE
Tn the oral tradition kept alive Yr some
economists there exists a fable about ei un-
known?perhaps lost?kingdom in which
there was no need for the government to
institute an occupational safety and health
program. The intriguing aspect of thi,: fable
is that, in this kingdom, selfish trolls owned
and operated all the businesses. These trolls
were thoroughly self-serving creatures who
cared not at all about the safety, pet se, of
the gnomes who worked for them. The only
thing the trolls did care about was oning
their pockets with as much gold anc-. silver
as possible.
The gnomes were frightened by ti mo-
tives of the trolls, and angered by tie- risks
they faced on their jobs. So they pete toned
the good king, who ruled the land ,visely,
crying, "Your Highness! The trolls cere not
for our safety at work. They care o ny for
themselves and the gold and silver they
have. Please help us dmprove the quisity of
our lives!" The king appointed a Royal Com-
mission on Work Safety to investigate these
charges, and six months later (remember,
this is a fable) the commission de,iverect s
report.
The report confirmed that trolls wee, eel -
ish profit maximizers who never even is:
sad when a gnome was injured or kill.
on the job. The report further seated tb.
trolls, though unfeeling, did pruvide son e
safety for their employees; however tee
only reduced hazards if it was profitable
do so. Injuries, it seems, were costly lo t e
trolls. Other gnomes stopped work to he. p
out the victim, so production was ic,st. A
replacsment had to be trained to fill in I. 7
the injured gnorne, and this the trolls four a
costly Often damage to the -roll's machine, s
accompanied a work injury. And, of riu,
importance, trolls with the most dangerce s
factones had to pay higher wages for t-
same gnomes employed by ethers. The re.-
sons these "risk premiums" existed wee,
listed by the commission as: (1) the gtione e
knew the risks they faced in each facto,-
(2) not all trolls found it profitable to offer
only dangerous work, and (3) gnomes had
wide choice of jobs. Therefore, in order S
a troll offering relatively dangerous work
attract enough gnomes, he had to pay a
wage rate high enough to compense
gnomes for the increased risks they faced e
his factory. Gnomes insufficiently compe. -
sated for the higher risk took jobs it) sales
factories.
The above costs provided incentives ler
the trolls to improve safety, but improve.
but improving safety itself consumer o --
sources, The trolls, in trying to produce at
minimum cost, provided enough safety -0
that the sum of injury costs and injury pis -
vention costs were as small as possible. Ties
kept prices down, but it did mean that injury
rates were different in every factory. depere -
ing on the costs of injuries and thee' pre -
vention.
The report strengthened the will of tee
gnomes to demand more safety. They pee -
tioneci the kind, saying, "The Royal Cos o
mission has Confirmed what we told ye I.
Trolls only provide safety when it is prof.. -
able. Economic needs cannot be allowed ei
prevail over gnome needs, and we heseee It
you to force the trolls to eiiminWe all he,
arch; no that no gnome need face danger it
the factory again!" The kindly king agre
and an order banning all conceivable occe-
pational hazards was issued. "Long live tee
king," shouted the gnomes. "Long live tee
gnomes," shouted the king in return
Trolls everywhere were alarmed. Tree.
building and repairing bridges (troll bridge-,
of course), for example, could not even I:.
ginto reduce hazards to zero. Bridge build-
ings and repairing therefore stopped. TITS Is
who built houses found it was possible 'o
reduce all hazards, but it was not profitaele
to do so at prevailing prices. (After all, if it
had been profitable to do so, it would airea.t
have been done.) Housing prices were
creased, and some trolls left the constre
tion business and invested their funds
royal bonds. Only industries where hazards
had already been eliminated before tile Cl
cree were unaffected by the phenomena -f
rising prices, business failures, and tine: ?,-
ployment. Trolls were not merely absorblog
the extra costs of safety in their profits. 1- -t
passing these costs on to consumers.
Gnomes were numb with surprise Tb r
greater safety was being bought at the ?
pence of fewer houses and bridges How w,
they to live? How were they to visit tin 1r
relatives if bridges could not be built or !?
paired? What bad happened was no: at I
what they had expected, and they were cc e-
fused. Although most unemployed goon
eventually found work in factories makl 1g
safety equipment, this equipment could r it
be consumed directly. There was m. re
"safety" being produced now, but fewer oti
thiags.
Lack of open bridges and the shortsee
and expense of housing particularly bother:4
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
Approved Far Release 2006/02/Q7 ? _CIA-RDPUMIV4R001100210037-0
March 31, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL .tacoitu ? HOU H 2643
The House of Representatives has an op-
portunity to put this fundamental reform
into effect with an amendment to provide
that each contribution of up to 8100 would
be matched with public funds derived from
the voluntary dollar checkoff on personal in-
come tax returns.
When public financing of Congressional
campaigns was voted upon two years
ago, it twice won approval in the Senate but
was defeated in the House, 228 to 187. The
composition of the House has changed mark-
edly since that vote was taken. Approxi-
mately 220 members from both parties are
on record as sponsors of various public
financing bills. If they make good on their
pledges, the nation's political life can yet
move out of the financial swamp in which
it has been mired for too long.
(Mr. MELCHER asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD and to include ex-
traneous matter.)
[Mr. MELCHER's remarks will appear
hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.]
(Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia asked
and was given permission to extend his
remarks at this point in the RECORD and
to include extraneous matter.)
[Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia's re-
marks will appear hereafter in the Ex-
tensions of Remarks.]
RULE TO BE REQUESTED FOR CON-
SIDERATION OF H.R. 12774
(ur. ULLMAN asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD and to include ex-
traneous matter.)
Mr. ULLMAN. Mr. Speaker, on March
30, 1976, the Committee on Ways and
Means ordered favorably reported H.R.
12774 with amendments. This bill would
amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1954 to provide an election under which
State and local governments may issue
taxable obligations and receive a Federal
subsidy of 35 percent of the interest yield
on such obligations.
I take this occasion to advise my Dem-
ocratic colleagues in the House as to the
type of rule which I will request for con-
sideration of H.R. 12774 on the floor of
the House.
The comm)tt structed me to re-
quest the on Rules to grant
a closed rul consideration of H.R.
12774 whi - '\uld provide for commit-
tee amendrnen ic which would not be sub-
ject to end e t and which would
provide f of g eral debate to
be equally d, ch would pro-
vide for sual ion to recommit.
We int d to file committee report
on H.R. 12774 by mid ht, Wednesday,
April 7, 1976.
INTRODUCTION OF BILL IMPLE-
MENTING CONVENTION TO PRE-
VENT AND PUNISH ACTS OF TER-
RORISM AND CONVENTION ON
PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT
OF CRIMES AGAINST INTERNA-
TIONALLY PROTECrED PERSONS
(Mr. WIGGINS asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD and to include ex-
traneous matter.)
Mr. WIGGINS. Mr. Speaker, today I
am introducing, at the request of the
Attorney General and the Secretary of
State a bill to amend title 18 of the
United States Code to implement the
"Convention to Prevent and Punish the
Acts of Terrorism Taking the Form of
Crimes Against Persons and Related Ex-
tortion that are of International Signif-
icance," and the "Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of Crimes
Against Internationally Protected Per-
sons, Including Diplomatic Agents." The
Senate advised and consented to rati-
fication of the first-named convention
(Senate Executive D, 92d Cong., 1st
Sess.) on June 12, 1972. The second of
the two conventions was transmitted to
the Senate on November 13, 1974 (Senate
Executive L, 93d. Cong., 2d Seas.).
The primary purpose of this bill is to
amend the Federal criminal law to give
the U.S. Government the authority to
prosecute those who commit, or attempt
or conspire to commit, a crime of vio-
lence against a representative of a for-
eign government. The prosecution of such
crimes is normally the responsibility of
the States. However, these persons, and
their well-being, are an important ele-
ment in carrying on our foreign affairs.
The Federal Government must assume
the responsibility of affording to foreign
offices certain consideration not afforded
to our -own citizens. This-bill will comple-
ment and supplement existing Federal
laws in this area.
However, I am constrained to say, that
several sections of this bill as presently
drafted are troubling to me. The bill goes'
beyond the proscription of violent
crimes, to make criminal, in the broadest
terms, "harassing" these foreign repre-
sentatives. It makes criminal what
amounts to the harassing of a building,
all or part of which is used by them.
The Constitution guarantees to all cit-
izens the right to speak and the right to
assemble. When this bill is considered in
committee, the spirit, the letter, and the
meaning of the first amendment must be
clearly and firmly held in mind. Any law
which, under certain circumstances,
makes the utterance of a word, the post-
ing of a handbill, or the carrying of a
sign a Federal criminal offense, must be
drafted with care, with caution, and with
the greatest circumspection.
Following is a section-by-section anal-
ysis of the bill:
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS?MURDER OR
MANSLAUGHTER OF FOREIGN OFFICIALS, OF-
FICIAL GUESTS, OR INTERNATIONALLY PRO
TECTED PERSONS
Section 2 revises section 1116 of title 18,
United States Code, to conform with the
United Nations Convention on the Preven-
tion and Punishment of Crimes against In-
ternationally Protected Persons, including
Diplomatic Agents and the Organization of
American States Convention to Prevent and
Punish the Actr. of Terrorism Taking the
Form of Crimes Against Persons and Related
Extortion that are of International Signifi-
cance.
Subsection (a) of section 1116 prohibits
the killing or attempted killing of foreign
officials, official guests, or internationally
protected persons. The penalty provisions of
sections 1111, 1112 and 1113 are made ap-
plicable except that the penalty for first
degree murder is imprisonment for life, thus
conforming with FurMan V. Georgia, 408 U.S.
238 (1972). The penalty for attempted mur-
der, not more than twenty years, parallels
that for assault with intent to commit mur-
der (18 U.S.C. 113) as being more appropriate
than the three years otherwise applicable
under 18 U.S.C. 1113.
Subsection (b) of section 1116 defines
, terms used in the section.
Paragraph (1) of subsection (b) defines
"family" in the same manner as the existing
18 U.S.C. 1116(c) (3) except that the term
internationally protected person is added.
The conventions do not define this term, but
the understanding of the United States of
Its convention obligations for family mem-
bers must be taken as reflective of the term
in existing law.
Paragraph (2) of subsection (b) defines
"foreign government" precisely as the exist-
ing 18 U.S.C. 1116(c) (1) defines the term.
Paragraph (3) of subsection (b) defines
the term "foreign official" the same way as
18 U.S.C. 1116(b) now defines the term. Note
that the definition includes chief executive
officers of an international organization as
well as persons who have previously served
in such capacity and any member of their
families. Since United States citizens can
serve in such capacities, both they and their
families can fall within the technical defini-
tion of "foreign official."
The issue has been raised in the appeal of
United States v. Spirn, No. 74-2490 (2d Cir.),
whether the foreign official must be per-
sonally present within the United States at
the time of damage to his personal prop-
erty, 18 U.S.C. 970 (incorporating the defini-
tion of "foreign official" by reference), or
attack on members of his family, 18 U.S.C.
ii 1116, 1201 and 112. We believe that the
Intent of Congress is clear in this respect;
that once the person has been duly notified
to the United States as an officer or em-
ployee of a foreign government or inter-
national organization, short sojourns in
other countries for vacations, conferences,
etc., do not vitiate the protection afforded
his family or property remaining in the
United States. Consequently, an amendment
is unnecessary.
Paragraph (4) of subsection (b) defines
"internationally protected person" as a Chief
of State or the political equivalent, a Head
of Government, or a Foreign Minister outside
of his own country, as well as any member of
his family accompanying him. The definition
also encompasses any other representative,
officer, employee, or agent of the United
States Government, a foreign government,
or international organization who is en-
titled pursuant to international law to spe-
cial protection as well as members of his
family then forming part of his household.
The difference in protection of family mem-
bers is a result of the difference in protection
under the United Nations Convention.
The definition is meant to parallel that
found in the United Nations Convention defi-
nition of "internationally protected person."
There the term was defined as:
(a) a Head of State, including any member
of a collegial body performing the functions
of a Head of State under the constitution of
the State concerned, a Head of Government
or a Minister for Foreign Affairs, whenever
any such person is in a foreign State, as well
as members of his family who accompany
him;
(b) any representative or official of a State
or any official or other agent of an interna-
tional organization of an intergovernmental
character who, at the time when and in the
place where a crime against him, his official
premises, his private accommodation or his
means of transport is committed, is entitled
pursuant to international law to special pro-
tection from any attack on his person, free-
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
11 2644
Approved For RelmengfINAFIMOMOOMMRRIp1100210037-561.(11' 31, 1976
atom or dignity, as well as members of his
family forming part of his household. .
The term "internationally protected per-
?or_." overlaps significantly with the term
foreign official." In essence, the former term
is needed only to define that class of persons
in whose favor operate the extra-territorial
jurisdiction provisions of this statute.
The offender's knowledge of the status of
the victim is not required, Cf. United States
Marcell?, 423 F2d 993 (5th Cir.), cert. de-
nied., 398 U.S. 959 (1870). Any uncertainty
whether a particular victim is afforded spe-
cial protectivs status under international law
.'elates to jurisdiction only; It does not raise
due process questions of notice or vagueness.
11/. United States v. Rick, 497 F.2d 1369 (5th
CU. 1974) . The substantive crimes are defined
a traditional terms which afford the re-
ouisite fair warning of the conduct prohib-
ited. Cf. sou :e v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S.
147, 350-51 (1964).
Paragraph (5) of subsection (b) defines
'International Organization" the same way
as ;he extant 18 U.S.C. 1116(c) (2).
Paragraph (6) of subsection (b) defines
'Oficial Guest" the same as the existing 18
U.S.C. 1116(c) (4).
Subsection (c) of section 1116 provides
that if the minder or attempted murder was
against an internationally protected person,
then the United States may exercise juris-
diction if the alleged offender is present
within the United States regardless of the
;dace where the offense was committed or
the nationali-,y of the victim or the alleged
offender. The subsection is intended to estab-
lish jurisdiction in the cases enumerated in
Article III of the United Nations Conven-
tion:
"EL. Each State Party shall take such mess-
itres as may be necessary to establish its jur-
isdiction . . in the following cases:
"(a) when the crime is cornmitted in the
territory of that State or on board a ship
oe aircraft registered in that State;
"(b) when the alleged offender is a na-
tional of that State;
" c) when *:he crime is committed against
an internationally protected person as de-
fined in article I who enjoys his status as
such by virtue of functions which he exer-
cises on behalf of that State.
"2, Each S;ate Party shall likewise take
.etch measures as may be necessary to estab-
lish its jurisdiction over these crimes in
eases where the alleged offender is present
in its territory and it does not extradite
turn . . to any of the States mentioned in
paragraph I of this article."
The United States for the purposes of sub-
secton IC) includes all areas under the ju-
risdiction of tae United States including the
places within 18 U.S.C. 5 and 7 as well as
49 U.S.C. 1301(34). Thus a person is present
within the United States if he is, for ex-
staple, on beard a ship belonging to the
eInited States, or present elsewhere in ter-
sttory under the jurisdiction of the United
States. The word "present" is used to cap-
re those cases in which an offender is dis-
eovered in a foreign jurisdiction and then
compelled to enter the jurisdiction of the
United States
As to jurisc.iction wherever the offense is
oommitted when the offender or victim is a
United States national, the question of its
application is, of course, one of construction,
tiot of legislative power. See Blackmer V.
United State, 284 U.S. 421, 437 (1932);
flatted States v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94, 96--
102 (1922) . Also see United States v. Erdos,
4.74 F. 2d 157 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 414
876 (197:1). Moreover, the assertion of
jurisdiction it this instance as well as when
the offender is present in the United States,
wherever he may have committed his of-
omss, is in broper discharge of duly adopted
international obligations of the United States
under the conventions and is further sup-
partible as an exercise of the power "[tip
define and punish . . . offenses agaihst the
law of nations." U.S. Const. Art. I, sec. 8, cl.
10. Precedent for exercise of suoh jhrisdic-
tion is 18 U.S.C. 1651 (piracy) and Pub. L.
93-366 (aircraft piracy).
Nothing in the subsection is meant to
prevent the orderly extradition of offenders.
Subsection (d) of section 1116 is a re-
sponse to the recognition that exigent cir-
cumstances involved in a terrorist takeover
of an embassy, for example, may require the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, through the
Attorney General or his designated Nssist-
ant, to request assistance from other Fed-
eral, State, or local agencies, as well as the
Departments of the Army, Navy or Air Force.
The potential consequences of an attack in
the United States upon a foreign official or
official guest are sufficiently grave to warrant
inclusion of this provision which parallels
similar provisions (18 U.S.C. 351(g) and 1751
(i) ) relating to attacks upon Members of
Congress, the President, or Vice President.
See also Pub. L. 90-331, June 6, 1968, 82 Stat.
170, ? 2.
Section 3 makes the necessary amendment
to the chapter analysis of Chapter 51 of
Title 18 to reflect the inclusion of the term
"internationally protected person" ha the
section.
KIDNAPING
Section 4 includes the class of imerna-
tionally protected persons within the pur-
view of section 1201 of title 18 and prDvides
the convention-required extension of juris-
diction over extra-territorial kidnappings
and attempted kidnappings.
Subsection (a) (4) of section 1201 is
amended by adding the term internatisnally
protected person. Neither the UN nor the
OAS Convention explicitly excludes ti's ab-
duction of a minor child by his paren- The
United States, however, understands the
generic term "kidnapping" to exclude such
an abduction. Consequently the usual ex-
ception is applicable when the victim is an
internationally protected person, foreign
official, or official guest.
Subsection (d) of section 1201 is 11.3w. It
makes attempted kidnapping a crime This
is necessary because, first, the United Na-
tions Convention requires that attempted
kidnappings of internationally pro-,ected
persons be made criminal. Second, and per-
haps more importantly, attempted hi map-
pings of any person should be made criminal
if the attempted act falls within the porview
of subsection (a). The penalty of not more
than twenty years for attempts is consistent
with the like provision for attempted
murder.
Subsection (e) of section 1201 provides
for jurisdiction over extra-territorial kid-
nappings or attempts. The subsection is the
equivalent of section 1116(c) and renaired
by the United Nations Convention.
Subsection (f) of section 1201 provide i that
In the course of enforcement of subsection
(a) (4) and any other sections prohibilsng a
conspiracy or attempt to violate that sub-
section, the Attorney General may request
assistance from any Federal, State or local
agency. The subsection is the equivalent of
section 1116(d).
PROTECT/ON OF FOREIGN OFFICIALS, OF.7 EC/AL
GTJESTS, AND INTERNATIONALLY PROTECTED
PERSONS
Section 5 amends section 112 of titie 18,
United States Code, to include internationally
protected persons within the purview af that
section.
Subsection (a) of section 112 adds liter-
nationally protected persons to the persons
covered by the subsection. Although probably
already included in the concept of as3ault,
section 5 adds to existing provisions the UN
Convention language relating to attempts
and violent attacks upon the premises, pri-
vate accommodation, or means of transport
of an internationally protected person for-
eign official, or official guest likely to endanger
his person or liberty, The inclusion of the
word "imprisons" in this subsection and the
word "confines" in section 1201(a) produces
a degree of overlap between sections 112 and
1201. This assures coverage of all forms of
unlawful interference with liberty while at
the same time affordingthe prosecutor a rea-
sonable amount of discretion to charge a
particular interference under the section
which best reflects the gravity of the inter-
ference.
Subsection (b) of section 112 remains un-
changed. Neither the UN nor the OAS Con-
vention requires criminal sanctions for in-
timidation, coercion, or harassment of inter-
nationally protected persons at least until
such activity rises to the level of an assault
(18 U.S.C. ? 112(a) ) or threat (18 U.S.C.
? 878(a)).
Subsection (c of section 112 IS unchanged
except for omission of the requirement that
the prohibited act be done publicly. On a
number of occasions demonstrators have oc-
cupied the office, of a foreign official and en-
gaged in various forms of obnoxious conduct.
In terms of 18 17.S.C. 112(c), this raised the
problem whether such actions had the requi-
site quality of being done "publicly."
The hundred foot zone is measured from
the outside perimeter of the building. Thu
if prohibited activities take place on the
grounds within one hundred feet of the
building, the proscriptions become active
even though the foreign official or his office
is more than one hundred feet from the
ground in the upper stories of the building.
Similarly, the proscriptions of the section are
meant to become active if the demonstra-
tion occurs within the building.
Subsection (d) of section 112 adopts the
appropriate definitions from section 1116(h i.
Subsection (e) of section 112 is an express
disclaimer of first amendment infringement.
There Is no change from the present law.
Subsection' (f) of section 112 provides for
jurisdiction of crimes committed extra-ter-
ritorially if the offender commits a crime
under subsection (a) and if he is rater pres-
ent within the United States. The provision
is the same as that found in sections 1116(c)
and 1201(e).
Subsection (g) provides that in the en-
forcement of subsection (a) and any other
sections prohibiting a conspiracy or attempt
to violate that subsection, the Attorney Gen-
eral may seek assistance from any Federal,
State, or local agency. The provision is the
same as that found in sections 1116(d) and
1201 (f ) .
Section 6 amends the analysis at the be-
ginning of chapter 51 of title 18, United States
Code, relating to section 112.to include in-
ternationally protected persons.
PROTECTION OF PROPERTY OF FOREIGN GOVERN -
MENTS AND INT ERNATIONAL ORGANIZ AT/ONG
Section 7 amends section 970 of title la,
United States Code, by inserting a new sue-
section protecting the integrity of buildings
used by foreign governments or international
organizations.
Subsection (c) of section 370 incorporates
the appropriate definitions found in section
1116(b).
Subsection (b) of section 970 is new. lt
prohibits forcibly thrusting an object or one
within or upon any building or premise;
occupied by a foreign government, an inter-
national organization, a foreign official, or so
official guest. The subsection is a logical ex-
tension of protection afforded property of
foreign persons, organizations, and govern-
ments.
Subsection (b) (2) of section 970 penalize;
the refusal to depart from any building or
premises described in subsection (b) (1) when
requested by an employee of the foreign
government, the international organization.'
or by the foreign official or a member of his
staff, or by any person present having law
enforcement powers.
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
March 31, 19 ?A p p rove d ForfONGENEMMURPODIPP-7-NULWRO01100210037-0 H 2645
THREATS AND EXTORTION AGAINST FOREIGN
OFFICIALS, OFFICIAL GUESTS, OR INTERNATION-
ALLY PROTECTED PERSONS
Section 8 amends chapter 41 of title 18,
United States Code, by adding a new section
878 prohibiting threats and extortion against
foreign officials, official guests, or interna-
tionally protected persons.
Subsection (a) of section 878 prohibits the
knowing and willful threat to kill, kidnap, or
assault a foreign official, official guest, or in-
ternationally protected person on pain of not
more than $5,000 fine or imprisonment for
not more than five years, or both, except that
imprisonment for threatened assault shall
not exceed three years. The three year limita-
tion is consistent with the punishment for
actual assault.
Subsection (b) of section 878 prohibits ex-
tortionate demands in connection with the
killing, kidnapping, or assaulting as well as
threats to kill, kidnap, or assault a foreign
official, official guest, or internationally pro-
tected person.
Subsection (c) of section 878 incorporates
the appropriate definitions of section
1116(b).
Subsection (d) of section 878 provides for
the exercise of United States jurisdiction
over a violation of subsection (a) commit-
ted extra-territorially against an internation-
ally protected person if the offender is pres-
ent within the United States. The subsec-
tion is the equivalent of sections 1116(c),
1201(e), and 112(f).
Section 9 amends the analysis of chapter
41 of title 18 to include the new section on
threats and extortion against foreign officials,
official guests, and internationally protected
persons.
Section 10 indicates that nothing in this
Act is intended to preempt the laws of any
State, Cpmmonwealth, territory, possession,
or the District of Columbia on the same sub-
ject matter.
Section 11 amends section 11 of title 18,
United States Code, to ensure that the
lithited definition of "foreign government"
in 18 U.S.C. ? 1116(2) is applied to sections
112, 878, 970, 1116 and 1201.
THE LATE HONORABLE WRIGHT
PATMAN
(Mr. ALBERT asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD and to include ex-
traneous matter.)
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, on March
7, 1976, the Nation lost one of the great-
est Americans in this century, our col-
league, Wright Patman. He was a cham-
pion of the people, dedicated to his coun-
try, the House of Representatives, and to
the State of Texas. There have been
many tributes paid to Wright Patman,
but few se impressive and moving as
those given by his colleagues and friends
at his funeral services at the First Baptist
Church in Texarkana, Tex., on March 10.
?I am pleased to insert these beautiful
tributes so that all may have the oppor-
tunity to read them.
TRANSCRIPT OF THE FUNERAL SERVICE FOR THE
HONORABLE WRIGHT PATMAN, REPRESENTA-
TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE FIRST DISTRICT
OF TEXAS FROM 1928 TO 1976
(First Baptist Church, Texarkana, Tex.,
March 19, 1976)
? DR, LORY HILDRETH (PASTOR, FIRST BAPTIST
CHURCH)
Reading from Psalm 93 and also a portion
of the 95th Psalm. The Lord reigns, He is
clothed with majesty. The Lord has clothed
and girded himself with strength. Indeed the
world is firmly established, It will not be
moved. Thy throne is established from old.
Thou art from everlasting. The floods have
lifted up, 0 Lord. The floods have lifted up
their voice. The floods lift, up their pounding
waves, Lord, of the sounds of many waters.
The Lord on high is mighty. The testimonies
are fully confirmed. Holiness befits Thy
house, 0 Lord, forevermore. 0 come let us
sing for joy to the Lord, let us shout joy-
fully to the rock of our salvation. Let us
come before His presence with thanksgiving.
Let us shout joyfully to Him with psalms for
the Lord is a great God and a great King
above all Gods in whose hands are the depths
of the Earth; the peaks of the mountains are
His also. The sea is His, for it was He who
made it and his hands formed the dry land.
Come, let us worship and bow down, let us
kneel before the Lord our Maker for He is
our God and we are the people of His pas-
ture and the sheep of His land. Today, if
you would hear His voice harden not your
heart. May we pray:
Our Father, Thou are a great God and
greatly to be praised. How excellent is Thy
name in all the Earth from everlasting unto
everlasting. Thou art God and beside Thee
there is no other. We in disposition of mind
and heart today would so commit ourselves
in this situation of grief to Thee. That in
relationship to the Loved ones, in relation-
ship to honored associates, in relationship
to thoughtful friends that we would know
Thy presence, we would hear Thy voice,
we would know the sustaining of Thy grace,
we would experience the undergirding of
everlasting arms.. And as this experience be-
comes a real experience of worship, may all
the high and holy motivations that would stir
us today be not forgotten in the moments
that shall be followed but in new commit-
ment in all we have .and are, we shall give
ourselves unsinningly to leading our nation
and the people within the realm of influence
of our lives to recognize that blessed is the
nation whose God is Jehovah. Through Jesus
Christ our living Lord and for His glory,
Amen.
.REPRESENTATIVE MAHON
There being no formal introduction, per-
haps I should first identify myself. I am
George Mahon Reltresentative in Congress,
from Lubbock, Texas, And I stand at this
lecturn in this holy place because I have
served longer in the Congress of the U.S.
with our departed friend than any Member
of the present Congress. And so I speak to
you in that capacity. And I am sad with
you over our loss and I rejoice with you over
Wright Patman's service to our nation. When
our plane landed from Washington I ob-
served the bright day and I thought to my-
self that today's shining sun must undoubt-
edly be a blessing and a benediction from
Heaven upon the services to humanity of one
Wright Patman.
So I rise to pay tribute to the memory of
this departed friend, who at the time of his
death in point of service in Congress had been
Dean of the Texas Delegation in Washington
for 15 years. He had been Dean of the House
of Representatives and Dean of the entire
Congress for nearly 4 years. He had served
this District Number One in Texas for 47
years, the length of his service having only
been exceeded by ?three other men in the
history of the House of Representatives: Carl
Vinson of Georgia, Emmanuel Cellar of New
York, and the great Speaker Sam Rayburn.
Wright Patman not only served long, more
importantly my friends, he served well. He
wrote a record of legislative achievement as
Chairman of the Banking and Currency
Committee of the House, as Chairman of the
Small Business Committee, as Chairman of
the Joint Economic Committee and in other
capacities which rivals the record of any
Member of the House in this century or in
any period of our history. He was the warm
and trusted friend of the little farmer, of
the small businessman, of the veteran, and
of all the little people of this land. Indeed,
I expand that statement, he was a friend
of man, rich and poor alike--a man of com-
passion who loved his family, who loved the
Congress, who loved this Country. The body
of this fearless man was flown last Sunday
night to his beloved Texarkana and the First
District of Texas. We, of the Congress, and
other friends, headed by Speaker Albert, have
come to Texarkana today on the wings of
the morning to join in honoring the memory
of a great legislator and a great personal
friend. So I have spoken to you for the
Texas Delegation, for the Speaker and for
the entire Congress, humbly in my new ca-
pacity as the Dean of the House of Repre-
sentatives. Speaking from the standpoint of
the House of Representatives on this oc-
casion, let me say to the friends of Wright
Patman in this Congressional District that
we revered your fearless hero?and he was
your hero?your effective and beloved Wright
Patman from Patman's Switch, as he often
was wont to say; and we join in mourning
the passing of this great man and in re-
joicing over his superb accomplishments
through a Yong, distinguished period of serv-
ice. A personal note if you please: I shall
sorely miss my warm friend of more than 40
years. Mrs. Patman, you and your family
have our love and sympathy.
May God extend His mercy, His blessings
and His benediction upon all of us today.
Thank you.
It is now my pleasure to present the elo-
quent and distinguished Representative Jim
Wright of Fort Worth, who will deliver a
eulogy in regard to the work and life of our
departed friend. Mr. Wright.
CONGRESSMAN JIM WRIGHT
We come not only to mourn Wright Pat-
man's death but in a larger sense to cele-
brate his life. The grief we feel at the loss of
our friend must be swallowed up in exalta-
tion when we ponder how perfectly Wright
Patman today could declare that apostolic
affirmation:
I am now ready to be offered,
And the time of my departure is at hand.
I have fought a good fight,
I have finished my course,
I have kept the faith.
Few if any of our time or of our memory
have followed their convictions so undevi-
atingly as Wright Patman.
Few so unflinchingly have fought their
fight and kept their faith.
Few if any have served the humblest of
their fellow creatures so untiringly.
Few have given of themselves so unspar-
ingly.
Few have dreamed the imposible dream
so determinedly, resisted invincible foes so
joyously, handled life's disappointments so
gracefully and preserved their basic ideals
so uncompromisingly throughout a lifetime.
Early in life Wright Patman determined to
be a People's Man?a servant of the public.
And thus began a lifelong love affair with the
plain and simple, unpretentious average men
and women of this land who sensed with
some unerring instinct that here was a man
whom they could trust.
And trust him they could. When he talked
with crowds, he kept his virtue. When he
walked with kings, he kept the common
touch. He often comforted the afflicted. And
sometimes he afflicted the comfortable.
Wright Patman pandered to neither the
avarice of the rich nor the prejudice of the
poor.
It took rare courage in the 1920's for a
first term congressman to assault the bas-
tions of the nation's economic power and to
file a resolution of impeachment against the
Secretary of the Treasury, Andrew Mellon.
And it took rare courage in 1920 for a young
man to oppose the Ku Klux Klan in the rural
south. Wright Patman did both.
A full half century later, in the 1970's, still
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
2646
Approved For RetweragyROIL: aettleiTypitittyr01100210031.0
march 31, 1976
unimpressed be wealth, still unawed by
power, unchanged by the tinselled trappings
of the Washintgon scene, his ideals untar-
nished and his vision of duty still =blurred,
Wright Patman still was waging the same
courageous?and sometimes lonely?battles.
If there' be those who seriously question
that individual integrity can survive in the
political environment, let them look at
Wright Patman 'a public years?and marvel
at, the incorruptibility of his dream.
Because of his life labors, the nation is
richer and literally millions of our fellow
Americans have found it easier to overcome
life's barriers?easier for thousands of war
veterans and their families to weather the
depression of the 1930's?easier for thou-
sands to borrow money for the crises of
life?easier for families of modest means to
own a home?easier for many small busi-
aesses to stay alive in the predatory eco-
nomic jungle?easier for millions to find
jobs.
Be ours the continuing legacy to think
of him when the cynic scoffs that one man
cannot make a difference.
And who can know the countless thou-
sands of unsung dramas, privy only to hint
and his humble petitioners, enacted here in
the Riney woods and red clay hills and lit-
tle towns of northeast Texas, for people who
for half a cent-try have come- to Wright Pat-
man as their intercessor and have not been
turned away empty.
lie was not always successful. He did not
always win the day. The foes that he chose
were Cormidable. The nation's largest banks
and the most pervasively powerful unelected
entity of government, the Federal Reserve,
combined against his plans. Too few would
join him in h.s persistent and frequently
frustrated endeavors to bring down inter-
est rates. But none ever doubted his sin-
cerity.
And he never let failure breed bitterness.
With courtly good manners, Wright Patman
assumed pure motives on the part of those
who disagreed with him. His spirit was too
sweet for rancor. Bombarded by sometimes
vicious criticism, he always had the dignity
to answer in a soft voice, and usually with
a smile. In the divisive and polarizing stri-
dency of our times, there is a quiet treasure
to hold to.
Do the values by which Wright Patman
lived have relevancy for our day?
It may seem quaint?when our very lan-
guage has been so jaded by excess that it
has lost its capacity to shock?that a man
would keep for 60 years a promise made to
his mother, never to utter the name of the
Lord in vain. Yes, quaint, perhaps.
And yet how empty are our lives?poor
clever, sophisticated creatures that we are?
if we have no comparable commitments by
which we live.
And so. Pauline and Bill, Connor, Harold
-and the grandchildren who will miss the
twinkling eyes ind cherubic smile and never
failing good humor, may it be some comfort
that there are many who will share your
sense of loss?and many too for whom
Wright's memory will be a lasting inspira-
tion.
This, then. is a time not only for sorrow
but also for thankfulness. We celebrate a
life t qumphanely lived.
So, Wright, old friend, your race is run;
your battle done; your victory won. And
from the eternal skies we know you hear the
worcl.., "Well done."
OR. NILLIAM E. SHIELDS
Si aging: "Battle Hymn of the Republic.")
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming
of the Lord.
He is trampling out a vintage where the
grapes oi wrath are stored,
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His
terrible swift sword,
His truth is marching on.
Glory, glory, hallelujah, Glory, glory, hal-
lelujah,
Glory, glory, hallelujah, His truth is ma,' %-
hag on.
I have seen Him in the watchfires of a hin-
dred circling camps.
They have builded Him an altar in the .0 'e-
fling dews and damps.
I can read His righteous sentence in the dim
and flaring lamps,
Hie day is marching on.
(Chorus,
In the beauty of the lillies. Christ was b?a*n
across the sea.
Where the glory in His bosom that trairrig-
ures you and me,
As He died to make men holy, let us di,: to
make men free,
While God is marching on
(Chorte.,
Amen, amen.
LOR Y 1TtIDRF,TH
direct your attention to an ancient 'et-
ting, where another tremendous leader of
the people of the nation had died. The is
recorded for us in the 6th chapter of the
ancient prophesy of Isaiah. In the yea; of
King Uzziah's death, I saw the Lord, sit ing
on a throne lofty and exalted with a train
of his robe filling the temple. The seraptins
stood above him each having six wings with
two He covered His face, with two He cow- red
His feet and with two He few. And one celled
out to another and said, "Holy, holy, holy,
is the Lord of Hosts. The whole Earth is 'AM
of His glory." And the Ioundations of the
thresholds trembled at the voice of Him
who called out, while the temple was fled
with smoke, then I said, "Woe is me for I am
ruined because I am a man of unclean lips
and I live among a people of unclean lips
for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord
of Hosts." Then one of the seraphim flew
to me with a burning coal in his hands ich
he had taken off of the altar with palms.
And he touched my mouth with it and said,
"Behold this has touched your s lips, :tour
inequity is taken away and your sin is ,:or-
given." Then I heard the voice of the lord
saying, "Whom shall I send and who
go for us?" Then I said. "Here am I, lord,
send me."
You and I are met here today to pay )ur
tribute of respect and affection for one -oho
has walked among us with dignity and in-
tegrity, for these many years. Well-deserved
and eloquent tribute has already been ;aid
to his public life, but I wish to recogeize
his faith and its meaning for his life as well
as for ours. Blessed by the fortune of good
ancestry, Mr. Patman gave to his inheritance,
the benefits of his own tremendous mind and
spirit. It were as if he had made a gentle-
men's agreement with life, because he worked
diligently to give back to it more than he
had received from it. Not only what he did,
but how he did it will always linger in our
memories. With a rare combination of true
maturity and clear purpose, he always m.,yed
toward well-defined objectives, yet there was
always with him an understanding of others,
and an appreciation for their differences that
represented for him a true capacity for the
acceptance of others, What does his life as
well as his death say to you and to me I To
find an answer to that question, I doect
your attention to this ancient setting fsr a
moment. The time is described in these
words: "In the year that the King Uzeiah
died."
That statement is more than a date of
description. It's more than a detail of
chronology, it is a designation of spire, ual
circumstance. Lord Byron, the rebel agrenst
convention, said, l'It's a fearful thing to see
the human soul take wings in any shape in
any mood." Yes, death is always impress;ve;
it becomes terribly impressive, however.
when its victim is a person of unusual
prominence, a person widely known, a person
greatly loved. Such a person was King
Uzziale but such a person was Mr. Wright
Patman.
The prophet Isaiah, as he confronted
death, this great roan writes, in essence. "In
the unforgettable year of the death of a
great ',eerier, I was in the icy grip of grief. My
mind was confused, my faith was reeling,
it. was a time of crisis and confusion and
change. But out of the darkness came light;
I saw the Lord."
He saw God towering above all else. The
true King to him. God reigns. He is in
control. He is the living Lord of nature,
but also the living Lard of history. In the
year that Mr. Patman died, our need is also
a fresh awareness that God reigns. For many
God is nothing but a lovely myth, an oblong
blur, 3 faded reality. But in Isaiah's expe-
rience, do you see what happened? The man
stopped thinking of himself, and he started
praising God. You see he has fastened on to
something other than himself. How unlike
our day, self-confidence, self-mastery is the
religion of the present. But a religion of
human will and a. religion of human effort
divorced from God keeps us from focusing
-our attention on God. A modern version of
this famous passage from Isaiah could read
like this: "In the year King Uzziah died, I
was resolved that I would only think positive
thoughts and so to come to believe in my-
self. Suddenly I saw myself sitting on a
throne, high and lifted up and I knew my
own strength and my own power and I said,
'I will stamp on my mind a mental image
of myself as succeeding; and when I said
who would help me, the Lord said, Here I am,
use me.' "
The more you and I analyze ourselves, the
more we think we're manufacturing our own
little gods to do something for us. But you
see, when we do that, we're starting back-
wards True religious faith puts God first, and
ourselves second. God must not ever be a new
gimmick by which we get a psychological
tune-op. God must ever remain Creator,
Lord, Judge. In the year that King Uzziali
died, or in the year John F. Kennedy died, or
in the year Mr. Wright Patman died, as
Isaiah, you and I go into a temple of wor-
ship, or we hide our face in our little padded
temples of our own hands and a voice will be
heard to say: "Whom shall I send into the
pain of the world, where people die?" Man's
life has heard all sorts of voices calling to
him in all sorts of directions. But the danger
is that there are so many voices and they all
In their way sound so promising. Everybody
knows this; we need no one to tell it to us.
Yet in another -way, we always need to be
told because there is always the temptation
to believe that we have all the time in the
world, whereas the truth is we do not. We
have only a life, -and the choice of how we're
going to live it must be our own choice, not
one that we will let the world make for us.
Every experience of God whether in life
or in death, demands something of us. When
God confronts a man, it is not to startle like
a ghost, it's for a purpose. No man, whatever
his capacities, can expect to have a sense of
call if he's using these for evil purposes. It
would be a mockery approaching blasphemy
to say that a burglar or a dope peddler could
have a sense of call. Given, however, a legiti-
mate work, serving the welfare of others,
there still remains for the man of Christian
faith the question of how in his environment
he can relate his skills or his knowledge to
the service of God. It's only when he is con-
sciously using his situation and its oppor-
tunities for the good of others, that he can
know the peace of answering God's call.
Mr. Patman, facing the opportunity for
honest labor in a great profession, was ready
to hear a divine summons both in ;ife and
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
II/larch 24, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? HOUSE H 2367
(6) provide information on economic and
social developments which effect minority
enterprises;
(7) maintain and disseminate information
on public and private. plans, programs and
activities which relate to minority enter-
prises;
(8) evaluate the efforts to assist of min-
ority enterprises of agencies of the United
States which have minority enterprise pro-
grams or which have established minority
enterprise program goals and objectives;
(9) evaluate the efforts of business and
industry to assist minority enterprises; and
(10) do such other things as may be ap-
propriate to assisting the development and
strengthening of minority enterprises.
MEMBERSHIP
SEC. 303. (a) (1) The Commission shall be
composed of 15 members to be appointed by
the President by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate from members of
minority groups and representatives of mi-
nority-dominated enterprises, trade associa-
tions, and community development corpora-
tions who are knowledgeable in the prob-
lems of minority participation in the econ-
omy. At the time of appointment, the Presi-
dent shall designate one of the members as
Chairman of the Commission.
(2) The Associate Administrator for Mi-
nority Small Business and Procurement As-
sistance of the Small Business Administra-
tion and the Administrator of the Office of
Minority Business Enterprise of the Depart-
ment of Commerce shall be ex officio voting
members of the Commission.
(3) Members of the Commission shall
serve for a term of office of two years, and
may be appointed for additional terms.
(4) A vacancy in the Commission shall
be filled in the manner in which the original
appointment was made. Any member ap-
pointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to
the expiration of the term for which his
predecessor was appointed shall be appointed
only for the remainder of such term.
(b) The Commission shall meet not less
than once during every two-month period
and at other times at the call of the Chair-
man.
(c) (1) Except as provided in paragraph
(2), members of the Commission shall be
entitled to receive $150 for each day (includ-
ing travel time) during which they are en-
gaged in the actual performance of duties
vested in the Commission.
(2) Members of the Commission who are
full-time officers or employees of the United
States shall receive no additional pay on
account of their service on the Commission.
(3) While away from their homes or regu-
lar places of business in the performance of
services for the Commission, members of
the Commission shall be allowed travel ex-
penses, including per diem in lieu of sub-
sistence, in the same manner as persons em-
ployed intermittently in the Government
service are allowed expenses under section
5703(b) of title 5, United States Code.
STAFF
SEC. 304. (a) The Commission shall have
an Executive Director who shall be appointed
by the Commission and who shall be paid at
a rate not to exceed the rate of basic pay
in effect for grade GS-18 of the General
Schedule (5 U.S.C. 6332).
(b) Subject to such rules as may be
adopted by the Commission, the Executive
Director may appoint and fix the pay of such
additional personnel as he deems desirabl
(c) The Executive Director and any addi-
tional personnel appointed by the Executive
Director may be appointed without regard
to the provisions of title 5, United States
Code, governing appointments in the corn-
petitive service, and may be paid without
regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and
subchapter II of chapter 53 of such title re-
lating to classification and General Schedule
pay rates, except that no individual ap-
pointed by the Executive Director may re-
ceive pay in excess of the annual rate of basic
pay in effect for grade 08-17 of the General
Schedule.
EXPERTS AND CONSULTANTS
SEC. 305. Subject to such rules as may be
adopted by the Commission, the Ritecutive
Director may procure temporary and inter-
mittent services to the same extent as is
authorized by section 3109(b) of title 5 of
the United States Code.
STAFF OF FEDERAL AGENCIES
SEC. 306. Upon request of the Commission,
the head of any agency of the United States
is authorized 1;o detail, on a reimbursable
basis, any of the personnel of such agency to
the Commission to assist it in carrying out
its duties under this title.
POWERS OF COMMISSION
SEC. 307. (a) The Commission may for the
purpose of carrying out this title hold such
hearings, sit and act at such times and places,
take such testimony, and receive such evi-
dence, as the Commission may deem ad-
visable.
(b) When so authorized by the Commis-
sion, any member or agent of the Commission
may take any action which the Commission
is authorized to take by this section.
(c) The Commission may secure directly
from any agency of the United States infor-
mation necessary to enable it to carry out
this title. ,Upon request of the Chairman of
the Commission, the head of such depart-
ment or agency shall furnish such informa-
tion to the Commission.
DEFINITION OF MINORITY ENTERPRISE
Suc. 308. As used in this title, the term
"minority enterprise" means a business that
Is owned or controlled by minority group
members or by socially or economically dis-
advantaged individuals. For purposes of this
definition.?
(1) such disadvantage may arise from cul-
tural, racial, chronic economic circumstance
or background, or Other similar circumstance
or background, and
(2) a minority group member is a Negro,
Puerto Rican, Spanish-speaking American,
American-Oriental, American-Indian, Amer-
ican-Eskimo, or an American-Aleut.
REPORTS TO CONGRESS
SEC. 309. Within seven months after the
effective date of this title, and at six-month
intervals thereafter, the Commission shall
submit to each House of Congress a report
concerning its activities.
APPROPRIATIONS AUTHORIZED
SEC. 309. There is authorized to be appro-
priated to carry out this title $748,000 for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1977.
EFFECTIVE DATE
SEC, 310. This title shall take effect begin-
ning on October 1, 1976.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
(Mr. MIKVX asked and was
permission ex his remar
point in th d to inclu
neous matt
Mr. . Mr. yeste
was not p cut fo le v e on
Resolution 093, t a make order con-
sideraiton of H.R. 10799. Had I been
I would have voted "yea."
en
a-
ay I
ouse
PROVIDING FOR PRINTING AS A
HOUSE DOCUMENT OF REPORT OF
SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTEL-
LIGENCE
(Mr. MILFORD asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD and to include extra-
neous matter.)
Mr. MILFORD. Mr. Speaker, on Mon-
day, March 22, 1976, I introduced House
Resolution 1100, a resolution providing
for the printing, as a House document, of
a report of the Select Committee on
Intelligence.
As clearly stated in my introductory
speech, my motivation for introducing
this resolution was three-fold:
First, the previously "secret" commit-
tee report was no longer secret, it had
been printed?verbatim--in a New York
newspaper.
Second, the previous concern for
making certain sensitive foreign relations
matters "official" by means of a formal
House document was moot?those mat-
ters already had been made official
through statements of the President or
the Secretary of State.
Third, the only remaining parts of the
report which have not been leaked, or
otherwise released, are the "dissenting
views", "minority views", and "additional
views"?none of which contained either
classified or sensitive information.
The introduction of this resolution has
caused some unexpected events to occur
and has precipitated speculation among
press reporters and self-styled "political
pundits" within the House.
Since the introduction of this resolu-
tion involved my own work, my own
thoughts and my own actions, I feel that
I can speak with authority concerning
my own intentions.
First, let me briefly discuss the back-
ground leading up to this matter. The
week of January 26, 1976, the Select
Committee on Intelligence finished its
work and finalized its report. From my
own knowledge and from the public
testimony of the chairman of the Select
Committee on Intelligence?before the
Rules Comfnittee on January 28, 1976?
the report undisputedly contained classi-
fied data and other information that
many considered to be damaging to our
foreign relations with certain nations.
I lead an effort in the Rules Committee
and on the floor to cause the report to be
printed as a classified document. The
majority of the House concurred.
There were good reasons at that time
to restrict public distribution of the com-
mittee report. It did contain certain
technical details that would compromise
on-going and important intelligence ef-
forts. It did contain information that
would seriously complicate foreign rela-
tions with certain foreign nations.
Second, as a result of the argument
that I offered in the Rules Committee
and on the floor, many members told me
that they had voted to restrict the report
because they believed what I had said to
be valid: I was not only grateful for their
faith and confidence, but I also felt that
I must keep that faith by playing the
game straight. The general membership
of the Congress did not have an opportu-
nity to read the report, much less have
access to the many technical briefings
that were necessary to understand the
4111 implications and contents of the
committee report.
If?indeed?I did persuade any Mem-
bers to cast their vote to restrict the re-
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
11-2368
Approved For Release 2006/02/07: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? H( ,USE March 24, 1976
port. this would also compel a responsi-
bility, on my part, of being sure that their
particular poini of view was protected.
Ar everyone knows, the vote was backed
by a eonglorrerate of Republicans,
Democrats, liberals, and conservatives.
Party was not an issue and philosophy
was not an issue. The majority of Mem-
bers simply were seriously concerned
about what the release of the report
would be to the welfare of this Nation.
Third, surely everyone will recognize
that the situaton changed from those
conditions present on January 29th?
when the res licting resolution was
passed.
Prior to January 29, there had been
numerous leakt that had appeared in
newspapers and on television. But the
vital technical c.etails had not been pub-
lished. Furthermore, while there had
been various press accounts of the sensi-
tive foreign relations matters, there had
been no official lcknowledgment of these
events.
In February, Mr. Daniel Schorr uni-
laterally decided that he was the best
judge of this Nation's welfare and clan-
destinely caused to be published a ver-
batim copy of the committee report.
Mr. Schorr snould not solely be cred-
ited with this feat. Bearing equal respon-
sibility, some Vfember of Congress or
wine congressicnal staff member or some
official in the administration must share
the guilt. If one of the above had not
illegally given Mr. Schorr a copy of the
report, it would not have been published.
Mr. Speaker this brings me to the
point in this speech. As stated in the be-
ginning, my introduction of House Reso-
lution 1100, to declassify the committee
report, has caused some unexpected
events to occur and has precipitated a
massive amount of speculation about my
intentions.
one speculation would have me intro-
ducing the resolution to: "Gut the Ethics
Committee's efforts to find out who
leaked' the reeort." This is ridiculous.
strongly support the Ethics Commit-
tee's effort. Inc t only endOrse their effort
to receive the full funding request of
$350,000, but will back them for $3,500,-
000. if that amount is necessary to find
out the full details of the committee,
a117, .ar administration leaks.
Another speculative argument con-
tends that: "It the committee report is
publicly released, it will make their effort
moat because official House release of the
report will nullify the question." -Balder-
The unauthorized release of national
security information is a violation of law
and the House rules. Law violators and
rule violators must be brought to justice.
For one to say that "the public release
of the report? hat has already been pub-
licly released?makes the situation moot"
Is like saying "we will not punish the
efarderer because the victim is dead."
1.a the same way that murder is_against
e law, unauthorized release of security
information continues to also be a viola-
tion of law. Zfongressmen, staffers, or
administrative agency officials are not
beyond the law.
The fact remains, vital national secu-
rity details hane been handed over to ad-
versary nations, to the detriment of th
country. Those responsible, whether they
be newsmen or Members of Congree
should be called for a full accotmtire
The Ethics Committee is the only vehicle,
within the House of Representatives, 7,3
obtain this accounting. I support this
effort to the maximum extent possibee
My introduction of House Resolutic a
1100 has spawned other unexpected
nonauthoritative speculation. I noted e
a Washington newspaper one press a --
count that suggested my resolution mig
be a "coordinated effort to diminish the
controversy that has surrounded the r
port and its unauthorized publicatior
The same newspaper account infers
that I am among "a growing number C
House Members (that) may want to to: ,e
down the affair?the Ethics Committee
investigation?if not wash their hands -f
it altogether". The fact that the Co ?;-
GRESSIONAL RECORD is a public docume t
prevents me from appropriately respon, -
Mg to this speculation. I would have to
use "cuss" words to put this one in pf -
spective.
Mr. Speaker, I really do not know hi ei
to make my case any plainer than I have
already expressed it. I did not want tee
Select Committee on Intelligence Repc rt
made public, simply because it contained
Information that was damaging to o :r
national security and on-going intel -
gence and foreign relations efforts.
In spite of anything that I could ce),
that very information was made pubec
and hence available to our adversaries ty
means of the combined efforts of in-e-
sponsible Government officials and o
so-called journalist.
Pragmatically recognizing the fact that
the information was readily available to
everyone, except the American public I
saw no reason not to let them in else --
particularly since one vital part of the
report has neither been -leaked" or pub-
lished.
Mr. Speaker, many people contend tiat
the makeup of the House Select Com-
mittee on Intelligence was not really rep-
resentative, in philosophical makeup, of
the House as a whole. Therefore, the
committee report was not truly represce-
tative of the House views. This suspici
was given credence when the House it-
self voted down the committee's desire to
publish its report as a public documeet
Had the committee truly represented the
general House view, we would not be
facing the decisions that. are now bet re
us.
For these reasons, I nibinit that
one final part of the House Select Co n -
mittee on Intelligence Report, that Lis
never been leaked or publicly releas:d,
should now be made public. I 111/1 ref tr-
ring to the dissenting views, the min,J c-
ity views, and the additional views.
Since the majority on the House Sel ntt
Committee on Intelligence did not
fleet the majority views in the House, -he
various views may be time only real re-
flection of majority House opinicns.
Therefore their significance may be of
major importance.
As long as the committee report LS
legally restricted, these views cannot be
released. Since there is now no valid rea-
son to keep the committee report in a
classified mode, there is no reason why
the American public should not also have
access to the differing views. These views
provide a totally different insight to the
entire committee investigation.
Mr. Speaker, let me sum it up in my
best fashion as we would do it in the east
Texas village a Bug Tussle. The "secret"
report is no longer secret. Those respon-
sible for the situation should be called
on the carpet for an accounting. Our
Ethics Committeels our only vehicle for
producing such an accounting. The
Ethics Committee should spend whatever
energy or money that is necessary to ob-
tain such an accounting.
Whether it involves Members of Con-
gress, congressional staff members, or ad-
ministrative officials, let the chips fall
where they may.
FOOD STAMP REFORM--AN AN-
SWER TO SYLVIA PORTER
I Mr. MICHEL asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD and to include ex-
traneous matter.)
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, in a col-
umn in the Washington Star on March
22, economic writer Sylvia Porter takes
out after President Ford's recently an-
nounced reforms of the food stamp pro-
gram.
Mincing no words, she says his action
will "wreck the program," and accuses
the President of having "literally taken
the law into his own hands."
Her analysis of the particulars of the
Ford proposals, and indeed of the food
stamp program in general, betray a seri-
ous lack of knowledge and understand-
ing of the program, and a thorough lack
of objectivity in reporting the true situa-
tion.
Combined with her virulent language,
these failings add up to an article that
Is a real disservice to those who have
worked hard to bring some sense to the
scandalous food stamp program.
The President has complete statutory
authority to undertake the reforms he
has announced, and, in fact, the House
Appropriations Committee strongly
urged him to do it, setting aside $100,000
for the task. For Ms. Porter, that
amounts to "sidestepping Congress." To
me, it seems like considerably more con-
gressional-executive cooperation than we
have been- used to in recent years.
The regulations themselves are the
product of interaction between Congress
and the White House which has been
going on for over a year, ever sinee the
Dole resolution of February 1975, call-
ing for a detailed reform study.
Ms. Porter further alleges that the
President, by acting now, is going to
precipitate "two major upheavals" in the
program, the second coming when Con-
gress passes a reform bill. But will such
a bill necessarily be very different from
the new regulations? And if it is, would
it not be vetoed? If it is, and the veto
Is sustained?as it probably would, giv-
en the strong support for the kind of
reform the regulations represents?then
the regulations stand, and there is no
second upheaval at all.
Moreover, what if the congressional
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : C1A-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
NEW YORK 14200Sied For Releatt420316/01/44 difk-RIS7M00141eFt6Of1 00210_0;' 74-0
CONFEREES BACK
SCIENCE ADVISER
Agree on a Bill to Estahlish
Post in White House
Ity HAROLD M. SCHNECK
Special to The New Yotic Tines
WASHINGTON, April 13 ?
Senate and House confetees
have agreed on a bill to give
the President a science adviser
in the White House, a goal of
leaders in American science
since 1973.
Final Congressional action on
th bill is expected soon after
the Easter recess. Senator Ed-
ward M. Kennedy, Democrat of
Massachusetts, who is a prin-
cipal sponsor of the Senate bill,
said today that the White
House had given assurances
that the version worked out in
conference would be accepted.
The chief sponsors of till
House version of the bill wen
Representatives Olin E. Teague
Democrat of Texas, and Charle
A. Mosher, Republican of Ohio
The measure agreed to it
conference establishes an Of
fice of Science and Technolor
Pqlicy in the White House witl
a director, who will be tht
President's science adi adviser
and as many as four associat;
directors.
A comparable office was aboe
lished by President Nixon in
early 1973. Since then spokes.
men for the scientific commum.
ty have often expressed con
cern over the lack of such
an office to give direct advice
to the President on major
issues involving science and
technology.
For Full-Thlte Post
Dr. Guyford Stever, director
of the NationarScience Founda
tion, has served as science ad-
viser to the White House since
early 1973, Critics of this ar-
rangement have argued, howev
Cr, that the President needs
an adviser who is physically
in the White House and who
does not also have responsibili
ty for managing a major
Government agency.
The conference measure
makes the science adviser a
member of the Domestic Coun-
cil and a statutory adviser to
the National Security Council,
thus giving him a role in de-
fense science policy that has
been lacking since 1973.
The adviser will be required
lo make an annual report on
science and technology to the
President and' to prepare an-
nually a five-year forecast of
science capabilities and - -their
possible impact an national
problems. He will also pay
a larger role than in the past
in advising the Office of Man-
agement and Budget an Science
and technology financing.
The conference bill also es-
tablishes a President's Commit-
tee on Science and Technology
that will do a two-year survey
of Federal programs in these
fields. The President will have
the option of continuing the
committee after the survey or
letting it fo out of existence.
In November, President Ford
appointed two advisory groups
on scientific and technological
matters to serve until the White
}louse advisory apparatus was
reestablished. The panels are
hearled by Dr. Simon Ramo,
vice chairman of the Board and
one of the founders of TRW
Inc., and Dr. William 0. Baker,
president of Bell Telephone
Laboratories.
Either one of these scientists
Is considered likely to be Presi-
dent Ford's choice to be head of
the new White House office.
Approved For Release 2006/02/07: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R0
ti 4030 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
tion of facilities for the naval Trident
submarine and $112.3 million to improve
security in order to protect against ter-
rorist or other unauthorized acquisition
of nuclear weapons at installations which
store, maintain, and issue weapons of this
nature. This particular authorization
earmarks $65.1 million for Such facilities
outside the United States and $47.2 mil-
lion for intercontinental sites.
While the administration generally
supports the passage of H.R. 12384, con-
cern has been raised regarding .the com-
mittee's reduction of the Presidential
request. In addition, the committee has
sanctioned the expenditure of $93.5 mil-
lion for items outside the administration
request.
Mr. Speaker, although there may be
same controversy surrounding H.R.
12384, I propose we adopt the rule and
allow the House to work its will in regard
to this bill.
I have no requests for time and I re-
serve the balance of my. time.
Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the
Speaker announced that the ayes appear
to have it.
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I ob-
ject to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the
point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is
not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify ab-
sent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic de-
vice, and there were?yeas 385, nays 0,
not voting 47, as follows: -
Moll No. 242]
YEAS-385
Abdnor Brooks Daniels, N.J.
Abzug Broomfield Danielson
Adams Brown, Calif. Davis
Addabbo Brown, Mich. de la Garza
Alexander Broyhill Delaney
Allen , Burgener Dellums
Ambro Burke, Calif. Dent,
Anderson, Burke, Fla, Derrick
Calif. Burke, Mass. Derwinski
Anderson, Ill. Burleson, Tex. Devine
Andrews, N.C. Burlison, Mo. Dickinson
Andrews, Burton, John Dingell
N. flak. Burton, Phillip Dodd
Anntinzio Butler Downey, N.Y.
Archer Byron Downing, Va.
Armstrong Carney Drinan
Ashbrook Carr Duncan, Oreg.
13adillo Carter Duncan, Tenn.
Befalls Cederberg du Pont
flaldus Chappell Early
Baucus Chisholm Eckhardt
Bauman Clausen, Edgar
Beard, RI. Don H. Edwards, Ala.
Beard, Tenn. Clawson, Del Edwards, Calif.
Bedell Clay Eilberg
Bennett Cleveland Emery
Bergland Cochran English
Bevill Cohen Erlenborn
Biaggi Collins, Ill. Each
Blaster Collins, Tex. Evans, 0010.
Bingham Callable Evans, Dad.
Blanchard Conlon Fary
Blouin Conte Fascell
Bola,nd Conyers Fenwick
Bolling Clorman Findley
Honker Cornell Fish
Bowen Cotter Fisher
Brademas Coughlin Fithian
Breaux Crane Flood
Breckinridge D'Amours Florio
Brinkley Daniel, Dan Flynt
Brodhead Daniel, R. W. Foley
Ford, Tenn. Dui an Rogers
Forsythe Lund ine Roncalio
Fountain McClory Rooney
Fraser McCollister Rose
Frenzel McCormack - Rosenthal
Frey McDade Roush
Fuqua McBwen Rousselot
Gaydos 'McFall Roybal
Gibbons McHugh Runnels
,McKay
Gilman Ruppe
Ginn McKinney Russo
Goldwater Madigan Ryan
Gonzalez Maguire St Germain
Good Mahon ling Santini
Graclison Mann. Saramin
Grassley Martin Satterfield
Green.. Matsunaga Scheuer
Gude Mazzoli Schneebeli
Guyer Meeds
Schroeder
Hagedorn Melcher Schulze
Haley Metcalfe ' Sebelius
Hall Meyner
Mezvin sky Seiberling
Hamilton Sharp
Hammer- Michel
Shipley
Mikva
schmidt Shriver
Hanley Milford Shuster
Hannaford Miller, Calif. Sikes
Hansen Miller, Ohio Simon
Harkin Mills Sisk
Harrington Mineta
Slack
Minish
Harris Smith, Iowa
Harsha Mink Smith, Nebr,
Hawkins Mitchell, Md. Snyder
Hays, Ohio Moakley Solarz
Heckler, Mass. Moffett Spellman
Hefner Mollohan Spence
Heinz Montgomery Staggers
Helstoski Moore v- Stanton,
HendersonMoorhead,
J. William
Hicks Calif.
Stark
Hightower Moorhead, Pa. Steed
Hills Morgan Steelman
Moss
sher Steiger, Wis.
Holt
Holland
Stokes
Holtzman Mottl Stratton
Horton Murphy, Ill. Studds
Howard Murphy, NY. Sullivan
Howe Murtha Symms
Hubbard Myers, Ind. Taleott
Hughes Myers, Pa. Taylor, Mo.
Hungate Natcher- Taylor, N.C.
Hu Lchinson Neal Teague
Hyde Nichols Thompson
Ichord Nolan
Nowak Thone
Jacobs
Oberst& TrEuder
Thornton
_Jarman _
Jeff ords Obey Treen
Jenrette O'Brien Tsongas
Johnson, Calif. O'Hara Van Deerlin
Johnson, Pa. O'Neill Vander Jagt
Jones, Ala. Ottinger Vander Veen
Jones, N.C. Passman Vanik
Jones, Okla. Patten, N.J. Vigorito
Jones, Tenn. Patterson, Walshteors. n. Waggonner
Jordan
Kasten Pattison, N.Y. Wampler
Kastenmeier PerkinslWaxman
Kazen Whalen
Kelly
Pettis
White
Kemp Pike Whitehurst
Pickle
Ketchum Whitten
Keys Wiggins
Kindness Pressler
Preyer Wilson, Bob
Koch Wilson, Tex,
Krebs Price Winn
Pritchard
Krueger
Falce Wirth
La
Quillen Wolff
Lagomarsino Railsback Wright
Latta Rangel
Wydler
LeggettWylie
Lehman Rees Yates
Lent Regula Yatron
LevitasReuss Young, Alaska
Litton Richmond Young, Fla,
Lloyd, Calif. Rinaldo Young, Ga.-
Lloyd, Tenn. Roberts Young, Tex.
Long, La: Robinson Zablooki.
Long, Md.
Lott Rodin? Zeferetti
Roe
NAYS-0
NOT VOTING-47
Ashley Flowers McDonald
Aspin Ford, Mich. Macdonald
AuCoin Glaimo Madden
Bell Hayes, Ind, Mathis
Boggs Hebert Mitchell, N.Y.
Brown, Ohio Koehler, W. Va. Nedzi
Buchanan Hinshaw Nix
Clancy Johnson, Colo. Pepper
Diggs Mirth Peyser
Eshleman Landrum Quie
Evins, Tenn. MeCloske, Rhodes
Riegle
Risenhoover
Rostenkowsk
Sarbanes
Skubitz
2V7
Stanton,
James V.
Steiger, Ariz,
Stephens
Stuckey
The Clerk announced
pairs: ?
Mrs. Boggs with Mr. Symin
Mr. Rostenkowski with Mr.
Mr. Risenhoover with Mr.
gan.
Mr. Nix with Mr. Diggs.
Mr. Pepper with Mr. Hechler of West
ginia.
Mr. Giaimo with Mr. Evins of Tennessee
Mr. Hebert with Mr. Landrum
Mr. AuCoin with Mr. Bell.
Mr. Ashley with Mr. Flowers.
Mr. Karth with Mr. Eshleman.
Mr. Macdonald of Massachusetts with Mr.
Buchanan.
Mr. Nedzi with Mr. Mathis.
Mr. Sarbanes with Mr. Hayes of Indiana.
Mr. Riegle with Mr. Mitchell of New York.
Mr. James V. Stanton with Mr. McCloskey.
Mr. Stuckey with Mr. Peyser.
Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California with
Mr. Quie.
Mr. Udall with Mr. McDonald of Georgia
Mi. Ullman with Mr. Rhodes.
Mr. Stephens with Mr. Steiger of Arizona.
Mr. ST GERMAIN changed his vote
from "nay" to "yea."
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
?ay 6, 1976
Symington
Udall
Ullman
Weaver
Wilson, C. H.
the following
gton.
Weaver.
Ford of Michi-
PERMISSION TO HAVE UNTIL MID-
NIGHT FRIDAY, MAY 7, 1976, TO
FILE CONFERENCE REPORT ON*
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLU-
TION 109
Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani-
mous consent that the managers may
have until midnight Friday, May 7, 1976,
to file a conference report on Senate
Concurrent Resolution 109, first con-
current resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 1977, and for the transition
period.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to '
the request of the gentleman from
Washington?
There was no objection.
EXPERIMENTS TO TEST FLEXIBLE
AND COMPRESSED WORK SCHED-
ULES FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
maN13Eltsurrq. Mr. Speaker, I
move that the House resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union for t e considera-
tion of the bill h.t._9U4JtO authorize
employees and kSBies of the Govern-
ment of the United States to experiment
wlth flexible and compressed work sched-
ules as alternatives to present work
schedules.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from/
North Carolina (Mr. HENDERSON) .
The motion was agreed to.
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ,
Accordingly the House resolved itskif
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the con-
sideration of the bill (H.R. 9043), with
ME. STRATTON in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
May 6, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?11()LTSE H. 4029,
meat in the nature of a substitute recom-
mended by the Committee on Post Office and
Civil aervice now printed in the bill as an
original' hill for tae purpose of amendment
tinder the,ftve-minute rule, and said amend-
ment shaII?lbe, read by titles instead of by
nectiona At the, conclusion of the considera-
tion of the bfilVor amendment, the Corn-
liouse with such a, endments as may have
wii;tee shall rlse?Anht4,:i report the bill to the
been adopted, and anMember may demand
a separate vote in the ouse on any amend-
ment adopted in Vie Co ittee of the Whole
;(-) the hill or to the co' ittee amendment
in cite nature of a substft The previous
question shall be conside as ordered on
the bill and amendments t eto to final
passage without ntervening on except
one motion to mem-unit with or ithout In-.
Nbr !actions.
The 3PEAKE Et. The gentlema from
California (Mr. Sisk) is recogniz for
'
1 hour.
Mr, SISK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 rdin-
utes to the gentleman from Californla
TMr. DuE. CLAwsON), and pending that
yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. SISK asked and was given Per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. SISK. Mc. Speaker, the reading
of the resolution makes it very clear that
this rule provides for 1 hour of general
debate. It is an open rule, meaning that
any and all germane amendments would
be in order. It would make in order the
consideration of H.R. 9043 recommended
by the Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service on a matter concerning flexible
time and compressed work schedules as
alternatives to present work schedules.
Mr. Speaker, without getting into the
merits of H.R. )043, I would hope that
the House will accept this rule providing
for 1 hour of general debate and permit
the Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service to explain the provisions of this
particular legislation.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge the
adoption of the resolution, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. DEL CLAWSON. Mr. Speaker, I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. DEL CLAWSON asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr, DEL CLAWSON. Mr. Speaker, the
gentleman from California has ex-
online& that Hcuse Resolution 1166 is a
1-delr open rule providing for the con-
iideration of HR. 9043, a bill allowing
experiments to test flexible and corn-
presseo work schedules for Federal em-
ployees. Under the rule it will be in order
bo consider the amendment in the na-
ture of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Post Office and Civil Serv-
ifo now printed in the bill as an original
rot- purpos es of amendment. This
A men t ma-i be read by titles instead
sections.
--ry briefly, the purposes of H.R. 9043
e us follows:
'ce.st. To req lire each agency of the
cx ,a-o.t; ve branco, unless exempted by the
0-?,1.1 Service Commission, to establish a
0e.'7able work schedule experiment for
.:lornioyees to be conducted during the 3-
ycur following enactment of the
oeconci. To suspend the applicability
of ertain existing laws relating to hours
of work, overtime pay, compensator
time off, premium pay for night wor-:
and work on holidays to employees uncle -
experimental programs where applies
tion of such laws would be inconsister
with the experimental programs.
Third. To provide alternative meat
for determining entitlement to suc
rights which are consistent with exper
mental programs.
Fourth. To provide that where en-,
ployees are in a unit for which an ere -
ployee organization holds exclusive. rec
ognition, the introduction of any fles
ible work schedule experiment will t-e
subject to collective bargaining.
- No costs are reported to be associate
with the passage of this legislation.
While I support the rule 'as requestet:.
I have great reservations concerning the
mandatory effect of the bill itself. When
the measure was considered originally
by the Post Office and Civil Service Com -
mittee, it was designed to permit volur
tary participation by the agencies in the
exible and compressed work schedu
e eriment,s. Now, that voluntary partk -
Ipation has been transformed into a
compulsory. Govepment-wide exerci:
which,demands that each agency lust: -
tute it,a own experimental program,
doubt veer much that a Congress under-
going seriaus consideration of terminal -
Ing the fun6tions of several Federal ager -
cies would want to initiate a new mantle -
tory plan to include them for at lea. t
another 3 years:
Since it is ni understanding flu
amendments will b Offered to restore tl e
voluntary participation provisions in th '13
legislation, I would urge the adoption of
this open rule so that we may consider
these amendments to the' bill. ?
Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for
time.
Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, 1, move tie
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to. \
A motion to reconsider was laid 6n ti
table.
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION
OF H.R. 12384, MILITARY CM-
STRUCTION AUTHORIZATION
FOR FISCAL YEAR 1977
Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, by directic
of the Committee on Rules, I call ti
House Resolution 1167 and ask for n s
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as fo. -
lows:
H. RES. lie?
Resolved, That upon the adoption of tt
resolution it shall be in order to move til
the Home resolve itself into the Committ
ut the Whole House on the State of W. s
Union for the consideration of the bill H.
12284) to authorize certain construction ;
military installations and for other purpost
After general debate, which shall be confine I
to the bill and shall continue not to excel,* i
two hours, to be equally divided and cm- -
trolled by the chairman and rankirg minori
member of the Committee on Armed Ser -
ices, the bill shall be read for amendme,
under the five-minute rule by titles intead
by sections. At the conclusion of the cm -
sideration of the bill for amendment, tale
Committee shall rise and report the bill .3
the House with such amendments as m.7
have been adopted, and the previous ques-
lion shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one mo-
tion to recommit.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from
California (Mr. SISK) is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 min-
utes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. DEL CLAWSON), pending which I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. SISK asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, House Reso-
lution 1167 provides for consideration of
H.R. 12384, the military construction
authorization for fiscal year 1977.
The resolution allows 2 hours of gen-
eral debate which is to be equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and the
ranking minority member of the Com-
mittee on Armed Services. This is an
open rule with the bill to be read by titles
rather than sections for amendment.
H.R. 12384 provides a total authoriza-
tion of $3,328,735,000 for military con-
struction and family housing for fiscal
year 1977. This amount is $39,480,000
below the request of the Department of
Defense. The committee reduced the re-
quests for the Army, Navy, and Defense
agencies categories, but increased the
amounts allocated for the Air Force and
the Guard/Reserve forces. The amount
for military family housing was granted
as requested.
Major items in the bill include $437
million for the Air Force's aeropropul-
sion system test facility, $288.3 million
for construction of facilities for the
Navy's Trident submarine, and $112.3
million to improve security facilities for
nuclear weapons both in the United
States and abroad.
Mr. Speaker, this is an open rule and
any amendment germane to the subject
matter of the bill is, of course, in order.
Therefore, I would urge my colleagues
to adopt House Resolution 1167 so that
we might consider H.R. 12384.
Mr. DEL CLAWSON. Mr. Speaker. I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. DEL CLAWSON asked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
^ arks.)
. DEL CLAWSON. Mr. Speaker.
IlouSe Resolution 1167 provides for 2
houra\of equally divided debate on H.R.
12384, to authorize certain construction
at military installations and for other
purpOses. It further stipulates that the
bill be read or amendment by titles in-
stead of by sections. There are no waivers
of points of order.
Specifically, 11\Ft. 12384, as approved
by the Committee"on Armed Services by
a vote of 35 to 1, fikpvides construction
authorization in sup rt of the Active
Forces, Reserve Forces, efense agencies,
and military housing.
The cost which will b?accrued by
virtue of this construction atithorization
totals $3,328,735,000. This arhount re-
flects a reduction of $39.5 millichk below
the amounts requested.
Major authorizations incorporated
within the measure include $437 million
for the Air Force's aeropropulsion system
test facility, $128.3 million for construc-,,
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
Approved For laglacutigME It?
Nay 6, 1976 yeas T_TimmtRo 0 0 0 210037-0
H4031'
By unanimous consent, the first read-
ing of the bill was dispensed with.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
HENDERSON) will be recognized for 30
minutes, and the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Dzswirtsxr) will be recognized for
30 minuteS. .
The Chair now recognizes the gentle-
man from North Carolina (Mr. HENDER-
SON) .
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think the most im-
portant statement that I could make to
the Members as we begin consideration
of H.R. 9043, which provides for a 3-year
experimental study of flexible and com-
pressed work schedules in the executive
agencies of the Government, is that this
proposal might, upon first glance, appear
to be very complicated. The Members
could ask questions which would require
several hours to answer, but if the Mem-
bers will look at the committee report
and listen to the debate I think they will
discover that all of us who first looked
at this idea were rather amazed to find
that it was a good idea, and we unani-
mously came to the conclusion that the
intent of the legislation is worthy of our
consideration.
There is one amendment that we know
of, which will not go to the intent or
thrust of the legislation, but is a very im-
portant amendment to be considered by
the Committee of the Whole. I feel con-
fident that with the understanding of the
legislation, that the bill, whether
amended or not in the one instance, will
finally pass.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 9043 provides for a
3-year experimental study of flexible and
compressed work schedules in executive
agencies of the Government.
The concept of alternatives to tradi-
tional work schedules and normal work
day patterns is relatively new but cer-
tainly not untested. There is an increas-
ing number of organizations in Germany
and other countries in Western Europe,
in Canada and England and, to a lesser
extent in the private sector in the United
States, which have introduced flexible
methods of scheduling work. To a very,
limited degree and within the constraints
of current hours of work and overtime
laws, some Federal Government orga-
nizations have instituted limited flexible
work hours programs.
The reasons for this upsurge in alter-
ing normal work day patterns and fixed-
hour schedules have been varied but for
the most part they have been economic.
Economic in the sense of reducing es-
sential costs to the employer with no
reduction of economic benefit to employ-
ees. For example, organizations with
flexible work schedules have found that
-. short-time usage of sick leave by em-
ployees is greatly decreased, overall pro-
di ctivity is increased, there is to some
d gree greater efficiency of operations,
4
an.0. for many Government organizations
th6re is increased- service to the public
with no increased cost.
On a broader basis, flexible work
schedules have a favorable impact on
use of mass transit facilities, commuter
patterns and energy consumption. Flex-
ible hours also provide greater employ-
ment opportunities for those unable to
work fixed-hour schedules in the normal
work day patterns such as students,
women with child-care responsibilities
and others who are unable to work stand-
ard hours.
Because of reported benefits, the need
to consider alternative work schedules
and variations of normal work day pat-
terns is evident. It is just as evident
that alternative work schedules, whether
they be flexible work schedules common-
ly called flexitime or compressed work
schedules, be clearly defined.
The concept of a flexible work sched-
ule is a simple one. Basically it means
that fixed time of arrival and departure
are replaced by a wdrking day which is
composed of two different types of time:
core time and flexible time. Core time is
the designated number of hours in a day
during which all employees must be pres-
ent. Flexible time is all the time desig-
nated as part of the schedule of work
hours within which employees may
choose their time of arrival and depart-
ure within limits consistent with the
duties and requirements of their posi-
tions. Such flexible time does not relieve
the employee from fulfilling a basic work
requirement which generally would be
80 hours of work during a 2-week
period. It does mean, however, that in
fulfilling that basic work requirement
the employee will have a limited degree
of choice of when to complete that work
requirement.
Within the limits of the flexible time
allowed, which might be the first hour or
2 at the start of the day and the last
hour at the end of the clay, the employee
would have the choice of working more
than 8 hours in 1 day in order to vary
the length of that workweek or subse-
quent workdays.
Two critical points should be empha-
sized regarding the flexible time. First,
the employee's choice with respect to the
arrival or departure from work is sub-
ject to limitations to insure that the
duties and requirements of the position
are fulfilled and there IS an overall limit
of a maximum of 10 hours which may
be accumulated in order to vary the
workday or workweek. Second, H.R. 9043
does not change the requirement to pay
overtime for all hours in excess of 8 hours
in a day or 40 hours in a week which
are officially ordered in advance. In other
words, if an employee is required to work
more than 8 hours a day or 40 hours a
week, current overtime laws apply.
The essential point of this legislation
is that due to the permissive nature of a
flexible work schedule which allows an
employee to voluntarily extend his work
hours within the flexible schedule for
the purpose of accumulating credit
hours, an accomodation with existing
statutory provisions relating to overtime
compensation is necessary.
Compressed work schedules addressed
in title II of the bill relate to experiments
where the 80-hour biweekly basic work
requirement is scheduled for less than
10 work days. While the 10-hour day, 4-
day week has been highlighted for some
time, there are other variations to a com-
pressed schedule such as an approximate
9-hour day, 5 days one week and 4 days
a second week. The compressed work
schedule has the practical effect of ex-
tending the length of each work day to
soirle level beyond eight hours, while re-
ducing the total number of days or por-
tions of days during which work is per-
formed by an individual employee.
Enactment of this legislation will not
immediately mandate flexible work
scheduling programs for the 2.9 million
employees currently working for the
Federal Government. The whole concept
of the bill is to authorize for a 3-year
period, a program of controlled experi-
mentation under the guidance and assist-
ance of the Civil Service Commission, to
evaluate and assess the potential of al-
ternative work schedules for the Federal
Government. It is recognized that alter-
native work schedules will not always be
suitable under all circumstances. In
every case, the introduction of any of
these schedules must be a carefully con-
sidered Judgment.
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I
yield myself 5 minutes.
(Mr. DERWINSKI asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, act-
ing on the misguided theory of "the big-
ger, the better," the committee has taken
the administration's requested experi-
mental proposal and transformed it into
a mandatory, cumbersome, and unwork-
able project.
The Civil Service Commission origi-
nally sought authorization for a set of
controlled experiments with the use of
flexible and altered work schedules in a
few agencies in order to determine if
other than 5-day, 8-hours per day work-
weeks might be applied to the Federal
service.
At the appropriate time, I will offer an
amendment to restore this proposal to
its original intent.
Such legislation will permit the Com-
mission to set up a program for a se-
lected sample of agencies to test the im-
pact of alternative work schedules on
Government operations. Under the test-
model approach originally envisioned,
alternative work schedules would not be
imposed on any agency, but would be
voluntary in a limited number of
agencies.
The committee's reported bill, how-
ever, has transformed this idea of volun-
tary, controlled experiments into a com-
pulsory, Government-wide exercise that
will require some 240 agencies to estab-
lish programs of flexible and compressed
work sehedules.
The reported bill requires all Federal
agencies to institute their own flexible
work schedules, unless they are granted
an exemption by the Commission. This
sort of mandatory requirement is totally
contrary to efficient management poli-
cies, because it will force agencies to seek
exemptions rather than simply allow the
Commission to select willing agencies for
the experiments.
The mandatory requirement is also
directly contrary to the whole philosophy
of flexible work schedules in the first
place. They should be an Optional, alter-
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
11 4032 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?HOUSE Mcry
native :moans 01 allowing an agency to
accomplish its work, not an arbitrary
Jvtilacernent of tsaditional work patterns.
There Is no disagreement that the Fed-
eied eloverr,ment should begin some tape
o esoeriments to test the flexible hours
4;oncept, Recent studies by the General
accounting Office conclude that altered
work schedulescan be applied to selected
agencies and result in benefits to the
etovernnaent, its employees, and the
oublic.
In its report, GAO recommended that
es a 4neans of determining the applica-
bility of altered work schedules to the
reederal service, the Commission should
seek legislation to permit testing of flex-
ible and compressed work schedules; that
Use Commission should help implement
and closely monitor such tests to obtain
data on the results; that the Commission
Amend maintain data to identify those
work schedules which contribute most to
efficient agency operations. At the con-
elusion of the test period, the Commission
ehould determine whether altered work
schedules have a wider or more general
application and then seek the necessary
additional legislative action.
The committee's reported bill does not
come close to the GAO recommendations.
it compels all agencies to impose this
wide application of altered work sched-
ules before we actually have experiments
from which to learn.
There are two questions to consider:
One, should we require - all agencies to
participate in experiments immediately;
and two, will the experiments the agen-
eies conduct on their own give us the
kind of information we will need to make
a proper decision?
The value of alternative work sched-
ules to the Government can only be de-
termined through a system of voluntary,
contaulled experimentation'. Following
basic criteria set up by the Commission,
experiments that are centrally planned
and coordinated will give us the results
aecassary to decide in the future whether
to adopt a Government-wide program.
tinder the committee's reported bill,
the Commission's role is left unclear and
is subject to conflicting interpretation.
Although the conunittee report states its
intent for the Civil Service Commission
to take the lead role in coordinating the
orograms of the various agencies to de-
termine the desirability of maintaining
,aitsh programs, the bill does not clearly
address the Commission's role in these
ieriest
The reported bill does require that the
--riantiatory experiments agencies will
conduct be designed to provide an ade-
quate basis for determining how desir-
able a permanent program would be in
an individual agency, however, there is
no requirement that the Commission
evaluate the effectiveness or desirability
of a permanent program on either an
ageneywide basis or a governmentwide
basis,
ls possible taat under its regulatory
authority, the Commission may take an
active role to assure - that these agencies
conduct adequate experiments, but it
appears that even with the committee's
report language the Commission is only
given half the job, and that can only re-
suit in a mish-mash of costly exper.
ments by a host of agencies.
The Government cannot afford to
underwrite the heavy administratit e
burden that will result from require -
ments of this legislation.
If we were to enact the proposal as re -
ported by the committee we would to
forcing the Government to engage in a
program no one really wants, a prograi
that is probably doomed to failure from
the start. It cannot be expected to pre -
duce results which would allow an ir
telligent determination of whethe
flexible work schedules will be beneficial
to the Government, its employees, or tl e
Public.
My amendments, on the other hand
will allow a 3-year experimental period
in which agencies may voluntarily ?es -
periment with alternative work whet -
ules; have the data from those exper
ments carefully evaluated by the Civti
Service Commission .to see if sufficier t
reason exists to institute some type of
program on a Government-wide basii
and then have the Commission conic
back to us for authorization.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. DERWINSKL I yield to that vers
distinguished, capable, and scholarly
Member, the gentleman from California,
(Mr. ROUSSELOT asked and we e
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr, Chairman, 1
appreciate my colleague's yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of ti -c
position of the gentleman from Minos
(Mr. DERWINSKI) and the amendmenls
he will offer.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 9043. as introduced
by Mr. HENDERSON on July 30, 1975, at the
request of the Civil Service Commission,
proposed legislation to authorize a car-.
fully designed experiment with the we
of flexitime and altered work schedule s
in a selected group of agencies.
It would have permitted the Commit
sion to establish a master program ur -
der which a carefully selected sample ct
agencies would serve as demonstratio e
projects to test the impact of alternate
work schedules on Government opera-
tions.
Under the test-model approach, al-
ternative work schedules would not he
imposed on every agency but would be
voluntary on the agency's part, and the
number of agencies participating nec-
essarily would be limited.
This was a well-planned program
which would enable the Commission to
carefully monitor the activities of the
participating agencies.
Only through the development of care -
ful experimental designs and the cooper -
ation of those agencies with expertise le
each of the potentially impacted ares
can the potential of these programs h
the Federal Government be assessed.
A major responsibility of the Commit -
slots during the experimental phase will
be to assist agencies in designing and ir -
stalling and terminating if necessar,
the experimental program authorized.
Upon completion of the experimen
the Commission would then evaluate
their findings and prepare a report on
the results with appropriate recommen-
dations,
However, the committee amendment to
this bill. which was ordered reported by a
voice vote of the Committee on Post Of-
fice and Civil Service on February 19.
1976, and which is now before us, si,ruck
out all of the enacting clause and in-
serted an entirely new text, whica has
transformed this Idea of voluntary. con-
trolled experiments into a mandatory
Government-wide exercise that will re-
quire some 240 agencies to establish pro-
grams of flexible and compressed work
schedules, unless they are granted air es-
ception by the Commission.
To change what was originally in-
tended as a voluntary, controlled exer-
cise into a mandatory program would be
counter productive, costly and chaotic,
and could not be expected to produce re-
sults which would allow an intelligent de-
termination of whether flexible work
schedules will be beneficial to the Gov-
ernment, its employees, or the public,
Mr. Chairman, an amendment will be
offered to restore this bill to its original
intent, and I trust that this amendment
will receive the overwhelming approval
of my colleagues.
Mr. ASHBROOF:. Mr. Chairman will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. DERWINSKI. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Ohio.
Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr, Chairman, after
listening to the explanation given by the
gentleman, I wondered if there might be
any possible way under this proposed leg-
islation that the time could be juggled
so that certain employees could get over-
time in a 40-hciur week. Could some em-
ployees, for instance, bunch their time
and work 10 hours one day and still only
work 40 hours and yet get overtime for
that week?
That is one thing that struck me as I
listened to the explanation that was
given.
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, that
is a possibility, and that would be cor-
rected by one of my amendments. In
other words, without my amendment
which will be offered for that purpose, or
if my amendment is not accepted, then
we would have a situation where some-
one else would be working 40 hours and
would receive no overtime. That would
create more of a discrepancy, and it
would be an unfair situation that night
develop.
Mr. ASHBROOK, Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman. In that event I
certainly support his amendment.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chairman, will the eei
tleman yield?
Mr. DERWINSKI. I yield to the sete-
tleman from Mississippi.
(Mr. LOTT asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his ,
i'elnarkk .1
Mr. Low. Mr. Chairman, H.R. l4041.,
as introduced by Mr. HErnmasou Gin
July 30, 1975, at the request of the avil
6ervice Commission, proposed legisla-
tion to authorize a carefully designed ex-
periment with the use of flexitime anti al-
tered work schedules in a selected group
of agencies.
It would have permitted the Commis-
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
1^1000 100210037-0
May 6, 1976 Approved For CODIMIMRACIT iaaREN77111193013AE H 4033
sion to establish a master program under
which a carefully selected sample of
agencies would serve as demonstration
projects to test the impact of alternate
work schedules on Government opera-
tions.
Under the test-model approach, al-
ternative work schedules would not be
imposed on every agency but would be
voluntary on the agency's part, and the
number of agencies participating neces-
sarily would be limited.
This was a well-planned program
which would enable the Commission to
carefully monitor the activities of the
participating agencies.
Only through the development of care-
ful experimental designs and the co-
operation of those agencies with exper-
tise in each of the potentially impacted
areas can the potential of these programs
for the Federal Government be asseesed.
A major responsibility of the Commis-
sion during the experimental phase will
be to assist agencies in designing and in-
stalling and terminating, if necessary,
the experimental programs authorized.
Upon completion of the experiment,
the Commission would then evaluate
their findings and prepare a report on
the results with appropriate recommen-
dations.
However, the committee amendment to
this bill, which was ordered reported by
a voice vote of the Committee on Post
Office and CiVil Service on February 19,
1976, and which is now before us, struck
out all of the enacting clause and in-
serted an entirely new text, which has
transformed this idea of voluntary, con-
trolled experiments into a mandatory
Government-wide exercise that will re-
quire some 240 agencies to establish pro-
grams of flexible and compressed work
schedules, unless they are granted an ex-
ception by the Commission.
To change what was originally in-
tended as a voluntary, controlled exer-
cise into a mandatory program would be
counter productive, costly and chaotic,
and could not be expected to produce re-
sults which would allow an intelligent
determination of whether flexible work
schedules will be beneficial to the Gov-
ernment, its employees, or the public.
Mr. Chairman, an amendment will be
offered to restore this bill to its original
intent, and I trust that this amendment
will receive the overwhelming approval
of my colleagues.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. DERWINSKI. I yield to the gen-
tleman from New York.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re -
marks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, this leg-
islation, as originally introduced at the
request of the administration, sought to
kermit controlled experiments with flex-
'e and compressed work schedules in
leral agencies.
'he administration's proposal provided
a 3-year test period in order to deter-
.e if alternatives to the regular, 8
rs per day, 5 days a week, work soiled-
would be beneficial to the Federal
ernment, its employees, and the pub-
Since it is unknown what impact such
alternative work schedules would have
on service to the public, mass transit
facilities, energy usage, and employee
morale, this was a reasonable approach.
The committee, however, departed sub-
stantially from this original idea and has
transformed the bill into a mandatory,
cumbersome, and impractical project.
If we were to enact the proposal as re-
ported by the committee, we would be
forcing the Federal Government to en-
gage in a broad, extensive program which
will not produce the results necessary to
intelligently analyze and determine if
flexible work schedules will be beneficial
to Government employees and agencies.
The amendments that will be offered
en bloc to this legislation will restore this
measure to its original purpose, giving
the Civil Service Commission only lim-
ited. authority to conduct voluntary, con-
trolled experiments.
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. SOLARZ).
(Mr. SOLARZ asked and Was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Chairman, X have
great respect for the Republican mem-
bers of the Committee on Post Office and
Civil Service who have already spoken
with respect to this legislation. However,
I must say that I am absolutely amazed
at the position which they have taken
this afternoon.
I am a new member of this committee,
but I have been struck by the fact that
over the course of the last year and a
half, every time our committee has held
a hearing or every time our committee
has had a markup session, these Repub-
lican members under the leadership of
my very good friend, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. DERWINSKI) , are the most
active champions of the cause of econ-
omy in Government of all of the members
of our committee. They yield to no one in
their determination to increase the pro-
ductivity of the civil service. They yield
to no one in their determination to save
the maximum amount of money possible
in the administration of Federal pro-
grams.
Mr. Chairman, the- reason I am so
amazed by the position they have taken
this afternoon is that on the basis of the
experience With flexitime programs, not
only in most of the countries of Western
Europe, but on the part of well over 100
private corporations and public agencies
here in our own country, which was
amply indicated in the hearing record
compiled with respect to this legislation,
it is abundantly clear that flexitime
serves the cause of improving employee
productivity; it reduces employee over-
time; and it substantially enhances em-
ployee morale because, when workers
have an opportunity to structure their
own workweek and to determine their
own hours within the framework of a 40-
hour workweek obligation, it becomes
quite clear that their desire and their
need for overtime is diminished, their
morale improves tremendously, and their
productivity goes all the way up.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I see this
program as a wee of saving the taxpay-
ers' money, increasing the efficiency of
the civil service, and at the same time
improving the morale of the 2.7 million
civilian employees who work for the U.S.
Government.
Of course, this bill provides only for
_ an experimental program because we
have to see, in reality, how it would work
In the Federal civil service, what its ac-
tual impact would be on the lives of the
men and women who work for the U.S.
Government, and what its impact would,
be on traffic patterns, on congestion in
major urban centers, and with respect to
a wide variety of other considerations.
Mr. Chairman, the gentlemen on the
other side of the aisle who have con-
tended that we have turned what was
essentially a voluntary experiment into
a mandatory operation fundamentally
misunderstand the provisions of this leg-
islation because, as those members who
read the bill and those members who also
read the committee report can see, there
is in very explicit language a provision
which says that the head of any Federal
agency who believes that the establish-
ment of an experimental flexitime pro-
gram in his or her agency would sub-
stantially impair the operations of that
agency can apply for a waiver from the
from the Civil Service Commis-
sion. If the Civil Service Commis-
sion then finds that the establishment-
of a flextime program in any Particular
Federal agency would not be in the in-
terest of the agency or of its employees
or of the public at large, it can remove
the obligation on the part of the agency
to establish such a program.
So I would respectfully submit to my
colleagues on the committee that if, in
fact, the establishment of a flexitime ex-
perimental program will create serious
problems for the functioning of a Par-
ticular agency, or create serious prob-
lems for those who work for the agency,
or in any way inconvenience the public
which the agency serves, then that agen-
cy will be relieved of the obligation to
establish such a program.
On the other hand, if the establish-
ment of an experimental flexitime pro-
gram will not substantially impair the
operations of the agency, then there is
every reason why such a program should
be established, because the more agen-
cies that participate in the experimen-
tal program, the better our ability will be
to evaluate their effectiveness.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman has expired.
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 3 additional minutes to the gentle-
man from New York,
Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Chairman, I ap-
preciate the generosity of the chairman,
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr,
HENDERSON) in yielding me this thrie.
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Chairman, I will be
happy to yield to the gentleman from
Illinois in just one moment.
Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude by
saying that the more agencies that par-
ticipate in the program, the broader the
base of the experiment, and, the bettei!
our capacity to evaluate its effectiveness,
So I think, as, the hearing record has
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
R-4034
Approved For immtmfain j_s_Lem 77MjjOO1 100210037-9110
demonstrated, that there is every reason
to believe the f exitinie program expexi-
merit will be successful, and that it
iinould, therefore, have the maximum
participation of as many agencies as
passible.
I eelieve that the amendments that
are proposed by the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. DERWINSKI) will reduce the
cie tiireness of the experiment and will
fact comproreise our capacity to come
with a comprehensive evaluation of
iL merits when the experimental period
a dyer
Now I will te happy to yield to my
d the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I
t2.,:ank the gentleman from New York for
-welding to me. I am of course shocked
that the gentleman from New York will
-not be able to support my amendments.
ir the openir g remarks of the gentle-
an from New York there was a refer-
ence I believe to the economy side of
the argument. I was wondering if the
gentlenaan from New York proposes to
11.,,,e this bill to become the champion of
einnoray measures in government, and
will he allow the Conservative Party in
New York to confer their endorsement
? Isis district?
Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Chairman, I would
nes to the gentleman from Illinois that
light of the fact that I have unfor-
turrets Or demonstrated to the distin-
enished gentleman from Illinois that I
do not follow the conservative viewpoint
on most of the inesaures we consider and
which, come before this House, that I fear
that my unstirting efforts on behalf of
economy in government with respect to
this bill are unlikely to result in the en-
earseraent of the Conservative Party and
t;a, in any case, my chances of return-
ing fa:: a second term would obviously be
iniin ished, if is did,
Mr. DERWINTSKI. If the gentleman
'e ill yield still further, the gentleman
a New York would certainly be wel-
cairie for a second, third, and fourth term
:-.1s long as he was interested in con-
tinuing his prc sent economy in govern-
Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Chairman, one final
te and that is that there is evidence
adca ting tha I; this will result in tin-
t-roved employee morale, by enabling
lobe wino work for the Federal Govern-
;et to take care of their personal needs
eithin the framework of a 40-hour week,
which will help the public served by
I we agencies, by permitting the agen-
ei_es to be open for longer periods of time
Laing the day. They will begin earlier
le nee morning and will finish later in
I ie eening, and those who work from
a to 5 eho cannot go to the various agen-
fees curing that period of time, would
nably then have an opportunity to
them af ier 5 in the afternoon or
ci ore Sin the morning.
is conclusion, Mr. Chairman, this is
no of those rare bills where everybody
-benefits and nobody suffers. And I urge
the Members of the Committee to sup-
t it,.
Mr. rtneent ER. Mr. Chairman, will
he gentleman yield?
Mr SOLAR. I am happy to yield to
my distinguished friend, the gentlemen
irom Michigan (Mr. TRAXLER ) ?
4Mr. TRAXLER asked and was giv
permission to revise xis: extend hie
remarks. )
Mr. iTtAXLER. Mr. Chairman, I weie
to associate myself with the remarks sr
the gentleman from New York.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to take ti ,s
opportunity to speak in support of line
9e43, flexible work schedules for Feder it
employees. 'This legislation allows t
Federal Government to establish flexilie
work schedules, a Concept that prive
industry has been exploring for a nurse
ber of years. I feel that the Federal Gel -
ernment has an obligation to take a pas
tion of leadership in determining t
possible benefits that may result.
Private industry's experience wit h
flexible work schedules has demonstraof d
an increase in workers' productivity asid
efficiency--which is certainly somethi -g
the Federal Government could use. Fee-
thermore, private industry has realized a
decline in absenteeism and tardinces,
and workers have perceived an impose. se
Talent in working conditions.
The program as outlined in this lege-
lotion will allow the Federal Government
to draw on talented and skilled persomiel
who are unable to work standard
hours?such as mothers and studer ts.
Additionally, we would be taking another
step forward in reducing air pollutien
and conserving energy by reducing t he
number of rush-hour traffic jams and
therefore decrettasing commuting time
I think it is important that we remem-
ber that this program is one that is Icrig
overdue. We have nothing to loose in
determining exactly what the benefits
or for that matter, liabilities?are in tip-
erating under flexible work schedules.
But certainly, if "flexitime" is successful
in increasing productivity while at the
same time improving the morale of Fad-
eral workers, we have everything to gain.
I urge my fellow colleagues to vote in
favor of this legislation.
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman I
yield such time as he may consume to
nie gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
xtENZEL)
(Mr. FRENZEL asked and was gis en
permission to revise and extend_his 7e-
marks.)
Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to H.R. 9043, the Federal
-Employees Flexible and Compresied
Work Schedules Act of 1975.
I have long been intrigued by the p
ribifity of increased levels of efficiensy
and improved employee morale wilesh
flexible work schedules seemed to be
yielding for our European friends and
Canadian neighbors. It is certainly im
!flea that we ought to try.
Therefore, I was pleased when the l-
nitnistration's bill to -provide for a 3-
:neer coordinated experimental progr3m
?-:ts introduced last yes r. Its provisiens
for a Master plan, with selected agency
models being used for exemination ri-
teria and proper evaluation, seemed well
designed for use in building a success iul
bvernmentwide program. Removing e a-
tiquated prohibitions on flexible wirk
schedules was just the first of meny
goOd provisions in the bill.
However, the committee bill before us
today has gutted the strengths and re-
inforced the weaknesses of the adminis-
tration's proposal. Instead of merely re-
moving prohibitions and permitting flex-
ible schedules to be integrated into the
total system, it mandates that the more
than 100 Federal agencies participate.
It removes the CSC as a central plan-
ning and coordinating body and thus
knocks out the careful organization
and evaivation to make this system
work. For an organization with over 2.8
million civilian employees, no system
Can were without planning, testing, and
coordination. The bill also lacks finer
consideration in the inequity of its pro-
vision granting premium pay levels to
certain employees over others.
I am reluctantly opposing the bill. I
would like to see it amended to follow
more closely the carefully designed pro-
gram which we first saw. I would also
be interested in permitting the legisla-
tive and judicial branches to participate
in the grand experiment. In short, if we
are going to begin a project of this mag-
nitude we ought to do it right. In HR.
9043 we are doing the congressionsl way
rather than the right way.
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gen-
tlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. SPELL-
MAN).
(Mrs. SPELLIVIAN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend her re-
marks)
Mrs. SPELLMAN. Mr. Chairman. I
would like to speak of flexitime as one
who has been involved in setting up such
a program, and I hope that the gentle-
men who are concerned about the fact
that this is to be a mandatory program
will be listening.
In Prince Georges County, my county,
we have such a program underway. We
put it into effect several years ago in the
library system. When I first talked about
setting up such a program, I contacted
the county executive who said, "Oh, no;
it will not work." I contacted the execu-
tive calker and he said, "Oh, no; it will
not work." I talked with a number of
people throughout the county govern-
ment who were all convinced it would
not work. So then I went to the most
imaginative person in administration in
the county?and really the very best ad-
ministrator we had?Betty Hoge, the di-
rector of the library system. Because she
could not turn tee down since we had
worked together for a long time, she
agreed to set up an experiment.
She went to one of the library
branches, talked with the employees
there, and they were horrified at the
thought. They wanted to turn it down,
but she asked them as a special favor
to try the program. In a sense, the obli-
gation that she felt she had to me,
caused her to make it mandator, upor
that particular branch of the librar
system.
It a an put into effect, and the :es
were very much what I had expei
they would be. During the trial tine
was found that fewer individuals T'
taking sick leave Prior to the incep
of the program, it appeared that v
an employee was delayed at home
, Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
no
'
May 6, 1976 Approved For adstungsitRAF attlffilymtiR001109210037-0 114035
personal problem which would make him
or her late, the employee opted for sick
leave to cover the resultant tardiness.
Now there is no tardiness, since the late-
ness in the morning can be made up at
the end of the work day, as long as the
"core time" is not violated. Most impor-
tantly, and something which should in-
terest us all, is the fact that the em-
ployees' morale has risen considerably,
and almost all participants truly enjoy
the opportunity of choice.
The supervisors found that there was
greater communication and coordination
between the supervisors and employees,
as well as between the employees them-
selves. With the flexibility of schedules,
employees coordinate carpools, dis-
cussed their workload schedules, and, of
course, worked out with the supervisors
the fiexitimes.
Employees within the flexitime system
found that pressures and stresses were
diminished since they had the flexibility
to attend to personal and family matters.
And, of course, the old problem, traffic
jams, were often avoided since the work-
ers did not necessarily travel during peak
times, thus avoiding the frustrations of
longrdela,ys in traffic.
In every way the situation was far
better. As a result of the successes that
these people were experiencing, and as
a result of the fact that the program
had been tried in the first place, other
branches of the library service were be-
ginning to ask to be permitted to go on
flexitime. And they did. The public is
better served under such a system since
the number of hours that it can be
served is easily expanded.
So you see the experiences of Prince
George's County are very positive and
rewarding. The best endorsement of the
system came to my attention just this
morning. I was talking to the aide of the
head librarian who worked with me in
instigating the system. She told me that
as a working mother, she was delighted
with flexitime. Just this morning, her
son missed the school bus, and she knew
that she, could easily handle the 'crisis
without jeopardizing her fine employ-
ment record.
I tell the Members this long story, be-
cause had the director of libraries felt
obligated to try it, that system would
never have been put into effect. It works
beautifully.
I also want to point out that the pro-
vision requiring the agencies all to par-
ticipate in the experiment does not mean
that all employees will have to partici-
pate. The agency head has the authority
under the bill to restrict the choice of ar-
rival and departure time, to restrict the
use of the credit hours, to exclude from
the experiment any employee or group
of employees if the carrying out of the
agency function is impaired or additional
ssts are incurred; so we are giving
ough flexibility within each agency to
up the size of the experiment and to
ze the determination as to when and
it can be implemented.
vould hope that any thought of tak-
nit this mandatory provision would
Mt. ASHI3ROOK. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs, SPELLMAN. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Ohio.
Mr. ASHBROOK. I thank the gentle-
woman for yielding.
I listened with interest to the gentle-
woman's statement. There was one thing
I have to admit I did not follow. Maybe
she could explain it to me or be a little
more specific. In pointing out that the
morale improved, the gentlewoman made
the statement that the number of hours
that they worked was expanded. How
would that be? Does she mean more
hours were worked?
Mr. SPELLMAN. Yes. The number of
hours that employees are working is
greater because some come in earlier and
some come in later.
Mr. ASHBROOK. The gentlewoman
means the hours the library can be open;
she does not mean the total hours
worked?
Mrs. SPELLMAN. No. The hours the
the public is being served. But no single
employee works any longer during the
workweek than previously.
Mr. ASHBROOK. But the total hours
it took the library to operate in a given
week were not increased; they would be
the same?
Mrs. SPELLMAN. The total hours
would be the same?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentlewoman has expired,
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I
have no further request for time.
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Anne).
(Ms. ABZUG asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend her re-
marks.)
Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, I want to
compliment the chairman of the commit-
tee for the excellent work done in re-
porting out this bill. Both the gentle-
woman from California (Mrs. BURKE)
and I have been very interested in this
subject for quite some time. We intro-
duced original bills on this matter in the
House several years ago.
I think it is an important step forward.
Flexible hours have been in use since
1967 in both the public' and private sec-
tors in our country as well as abroad.
I think the gentleman from New York
(Mr. SOLARE) and the gentlewoman
from Maryland (Mrs. SPELLMAN) , my
very dear friend, have very ably added to
the fine description of this bill made by
the chairman:
It is a very important program. The
reason the Civil Service Commission it-
self, by the way, requested the chairman
to introduce the bill, which the commit-
tee worked on, was because the Civil
Service Commission felt it was important
to undertake a 3-year study that would
be a widespread study to gage the impact
of flexible and compressed scheduling on
Federal civil service employees. The bill
I believe attempts to provide a proper
experiment on which a judgment can
be made as to whether this should be-
come a permanent program.
That is all the bill does in section 4. In
order to judge the impact of flexible hours
and the feasibility of making it a perma-
nent component of the Federal Govern-
ment it is desirable to have the maximum
level of agency participation because only
in that way can we obtain enough infor-
mation to make a decision.
.It has been stated that the use of flexi-
time, throughout the Federal Govern-
rneht will provide data, as to its impact
on mass transit, on highway utilization,
on employee attitudes, on Government
services, and on interagency operations.
At this point in the history of flexible
hours we do not need another study
which is based on a limited experiment.
The General Accounting Office has re-
ported that in this country 3,000 or-
ganizations employing over 1 million
workers have implemented a 4-day,
40-hour work week. The Civil Serv -
ice Commission statistics show that
the Federal Government already has
28,000 employees in some 30 different
organizations engaged in limited flexi-
ble work hours programs. In hearings
various Federal employee organizations
testified in support of the provision
which would allow each agency to make
flexitime available to its employees.
I think the bill carries out exactly what
the flexitime and compressed schedule
history in this country requires. In any
case one need only read the bill to find
that it is not quite as described by the
other side of the aisle. The Civil Service
Commission has the authority, as has
been stated, to exempt from the opera-
tion of this act agencies that might pos-
sibly be adversely affected by it.
Also, the Commission may terminate
any existing flexible hours program or
compressed schedule program at any
time if it determines that it is not in the,
best interests of the public or if the head
of an agency determines that any de-
partment within an agency which is par-
ticipating in the experiment is being
handicapped in carrying out its func-
tions or is incurring additional cost, or
is adversely affecting its employees.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentlewoman from New York has ex-
pired.
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I
yield the gentlewoman from New York
2 additional minutes.
Ms. ABZUG. Since this is a flexible
hours bill and a compressed schedule bill,
the bill itself shows enormous flexibility
in terms of how the program for the 3-
year experiment should be conducted.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is
anything mandatory about it. What it
does is have certain requirements which
make it possible to obtain data on which
a meaningful determination as to whe-
ther this program is viable or whether
it is not a viable program can be made.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to again com-
mend the committee for bringing this
bill out. I urge everyone to support this
bill and to defeat any amendments
which seek to weaken it, because we
really do not want to waste the time
and the energy of the Congress and the
time and the energy of Government by
having yet another limited experiment
from which we have enough data al-
ready. We need to go to the next steo
and decide whether this is a meaningful
idea. We may decide after 3 years that
it is not; but let us have the proper data
to make the decision.
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
11 4036 Approved For Itstqflaggidgja:fttodyilpf)71.1444131AR001100210037-Qldray 6, 1976
Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentlewoman y,eld?
Ms. ABZUG. I yield to the gentleman
orn New York.
SOIARZ. Mr. Chairman, as a
ir ember of the committee, I appreciate
I re comments of the gentlewoman with
r, spect to the committee's work on the
eeeslatione but it should be noted that
there things do not happen just by acci-
dent around heee. To a large extent what
e were able to do in our committee was
e direct result of the very important
eee of (ective work that the gentlewoman
eeee riew York and the gentlewoman
oalifornia did in bringing this to
attention and staying on top of the
eee and working with us as we sought
snape the original legislation into a
form that wotld be acceptable to the
eommittee and to the Congress as a
whole: so I simely want to pay tribute to
Ole very effective work the gentlewoman
tee on this legislation.
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman. I
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Miens).
Mr. MYERS of Pennsylvania asked
anu was given permission to revise and
eetencl his remarks.)
Mr. MYERS of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman. I take this time to direct a
couple questions to the chairman.
I have some ,eencern about the impact
of this legislation on the levels employees
In supervisory categories, particularly at
the lower levels of management in regard
to situations where department hours are
flexible and extends the normal work
thy'.
IA it the chairman's opinion that the
bill adequately protects these persons
from having to work longer hours as a
result of this legislation. As an example,
what happens if the department must
provide for surervisory hours over a 10-
hour period rather than an 8-hour
period? What protection is in the bill for
these classification of employees?
Mr. 'HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. MYERS of Pennsylvania. I yield
to the gentleman.
Mr. HENDERSON. The bill clearly pro-
% ides that any employee that is required
to work beyond the hours in excess of
the prescribed flexi-time or compressed
rs would be compensated by overtime.
It eertainly would be our intent, at least
during the time of the experimentation,
!1st the agencies take into account the
problem that the gentleman does talk
and insure that there is no require-
richt for their management personnel
1,:eze to stay on, even by virtue of the
e airement of paying overtime, simply
1,, Aecommaclar,e the flexible time for the
levees that that official may be super-
bare testimony that there are
instances within the agencies
the employees can work without
-let required supervision to at least per-
the performance as directed by the
elation.
.ir MYERS_ of Pennsylvania. In other
1,,:oeds, disregarding special work rules or
5,-,7) normal situation where supervisory
people are reqtired to be on hand, a flexi-
ble hour type of situation cannot plere
upon a supervisor the demand that
spend more than 8 hours On the Job xt
any particular day, but he can do so az- d
would be compensated if he did so: is
that the intention?
Mr. HENDERSON. There is no opti
on any employee to work more than the
prescribed time and get overtime. That
option is only at the direction of the
management officials. I should also point
out that the program envisions that it ie
a cooperative arrangement, and tie
scheduling of the duties and responsibe-
itie?s; so that there would be no problem
such as the gentleman describes.
Mr. MYERS of Pennsylvania. I tha
the gentleman.
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I
yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, if I may have the
tention of the gentlewoman from N,w
York (Ms. Asreq), of course I hate to
engage in a debate with a future Memb,,r
or the other body, but sometimes one is
required to take those risks. But I wcrt,
like to direct the gentlewoman's atten-
tion to the report of the hearings, speci-
fically page 53, the letter from the Comp-
troller General. If I recall correctly, the
gentlewoman from New York introduced
a bill, H.R. 5451, and the ComptroLer
General's letter to Chairman HENDERE, re
stated:
We have maintained an informal work. igg
relationship with Civil Service Commissien
officials throughout the drafting of the bill
and have reviewed several drafts of the pm-
posals. We believe the present bill is reap ii-
sive to the recommendations contained in
our report. Further, we believe that H.R. CP 43
will provide sufficient latitude to permi- a
fair test of the various work schedules g
visioned in our report. Accordingly we prefer
this bill to H.R. 5451 which also provides for
experimentation with flexible work schedui es.
So. the Comptroller General is reany,
in effect, supporting the amendments
that I shall offer and he is not supporting
the bill, the position taken by the gentle-
woman from New York.
Ms. ABZUG. Well, I could understand
them preferring their own bill. I do not
know what point that proves. I can 'a 11
understand it.
Mr. DKRWINSKI. All I am proving is
that, the Comptroller General has 1,p-
proached this quite objectively and ee-
cognizes that the flexible time needed in
the 3-year testing period is preferable to
the mandatory provisions supported irs7
the gentlewoman and her colleague fie m
New York.
Ms. ABZUG. The gentleman has des 4.-
nated it "mandatory." but it really is,
If he will read the provisions carefully it
really sets out. the basis for conducthe
an overall program. It establishes a p 3-
gram which provides for the conduct of
cm or more experiments in each of ne
agencies. It provides, as I indicated e?f-
lier?and that does not change by 'Tat m
of the gentelman reading the Compti ,1-
ler General's letter--it provides for . ,c-
ceptions to it on page 17 and on page _9.
I think that gives us the flexibility re
need. The gentleman is suggesting oth, r-
v., Lee.
Mr. DeatWINSKI. The key provis on
of the bill labeled "Experimental Pen-
gram" reads: "Each agency shall estab-
lish a program."
In other words, "shall" is certainly
not flexible. "Shall" is mandatory.
Ms. ABZUG. I grant that it should not
say "shall not."
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman. I
have no further requests for time.
Mr. DERWLNSKI. Mr. Chairman I,
have no further requests for time.
The CHAIRMAN. There being no fur-
ther requests for time, pursuant to the
rule, the Clerk will now read by titles the
committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Commit-
tee on Post Office and Civil Service now
printed in the reported bill as an original
bill for the purpose of amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and Heys, of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled,
SHORT TITLE
SECTION I. This Act may be cited as the
"Federal Employees Flexible and Compressed
Work Schedules Act of 1976".
CONGRESSIONAL EINEGNGS
SEC. 2. The Congress finds that new trends
In the rgosge of 4-day workweeks flexible
work hours, and other variations in workday
and workweek schedules in the private sector
appear to show sufficient promise to warrant
carefully designed, controlled, and evaluated
experimentation by Federal agencies over a
3-year period to determine whether and in
what situations such varied work schedules
can be successfully used by Federal agencies
on a permanent basis.
DEFIN/TIONS
SEC. 3. POT purposes of this Act--
(1 y the term "agency" means an Executive
agency and a military department (as such
terms are defined in sections 105 and 102, re-
spectively, of title 6,, United States Code);
(2) the term "employee" has the meaning
given it by section 2105 of title 5, United
States Code;
(3) the term "Commission' means the
Civil Service Commission; and
(4) the term "baste work requirement"
means the number of hours, excluding over-
time hours, which an employee is required to
work or is required to account for by leave or
otherwise.
EXPER)MENTAL PROGRAMS
SEC. 4. (a) Within 180 days after the
effective date of this section, and subject
to the requirements of section 302 and the
terms of any written agreement referred to
in section 302(a), each agency shall estab-
lish a program which provides for the con-
ducting of one or more experiments under
title I or II (or both) of this Act. Such
experimental program shall cover a sufficient
number of positions throughout the agency,
and a sufficient range of worktime alterna-
tives. as to provide an adquate basis on
which to evaluate the effectiveness and de-
sirability of permanently maintaining flexi-
ble or compressed work scoedules within the
agency
(b) The Commission shall provide edu-
cationel material, and technical sins and
aasistance, for use by an agency before and
during the period such agency is conduci inc
experiments under this Act.
(c) If the head of an agency deter= r
that the implementation of an experime?
program referred to in subsection (a) wc
substantially disrupt the agenty in can
out its functions, he shall request the C
mission to exempt such agency from
requirements of subsection (a). Such rec
shall be accompanied by a report detaal,
the reasons for suc.b. determinatior,gzi-4
? z
T
AA or
P:T:o
?
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
:;?)
H 4046 Approved For Rele09/41M?MIZ3Naek-Ka3E60_9jfilyegi100210037-0
May 0, 1976
ago this week. His early employment was
in the 'construction industry, in incon-
spicuous bank Jobs, and in farming. He
joined the National Guard in 1905. For
the next 6 years he worked to acquire
military skills and knowledge that would
serve him well in later years and enable
him at the outbreak of World War I to
organize the 2d Regiment of the Mis-
souri Field Artillery. Later designated as
the 129th Field Artillery, this unit saw
service in three major campaigns on the
battlefields of France. During his active
military career, Harry S. Truman became
a captain. As a Reserve officer he rose
through the ranks of major and lieu-
tenant colonel to full colonel, at which
rank he was retired to the honorary
Reserve.
The high moral principles that marked
his later service to his community, State,
and Nation were first demonstrated
when, after the failure of his haber-
dashery business in the depression of
1921, he stubbornly refused to petition
for bankruptcy but, instead, labored for
15 years to pay off his debts.
Mr. Truman served with distinction as
eastern Judge of the Jackson County
Court, an administrative rather than
judicial body, to which he was elected in
1922. It is with a sense of humility that
I mention it was my honor and privilege
to occupy that particular seat on the
county court of Jackson County, Missouri
for 7 terms after Mr. Truman's tenure
and before coming to Congress.
Two years after his first political vic-
tory Mr. Truman suffered his first polit-
ical adversity?which was to be the only
defeat in his lifetime as he lost his bid
for reelection to the court in 1924. But
with his special talent for refusing to
accept defeat, he came back in 1926 to
be elected presiding judge, serving until
running for and whining election to the
U.S. Senate in 1934.
His service in the Senate was with a
distinction that belied his natural hu-
mility. He was chairman of the subcom-
mittee that wrote the Civil Aeronautics
Act He was cosponsor of the legislation
that spelled out a comprehensive na-
tional transportation policy. In 1941 he
suggested formation of the Senate Spe-
cial Committee To Investigate the Na-
tional Defense Program. As its first
chairman, Senator Truman revealed
waste and extravagance in the war effort
that ultimately saved taxpayers many
millions of dollars. Among opportunistic
war contractors the so-called Truman
Committee came to be feared as an in-
stitution that commanded unrelenting
honesty in dealing with the Federal
Government.
In 1944 he was nominated and elected
to the Vice Presidency of the United
States. Only one other Vice President,
John Tyler, who served only 30 days,
occupied that office for a shorter Period
. than did Mr. Truman. Eighty-three days
after he was sworn in as Vice President,
Mr. Truman succeeded to the highest
office in the land after the death of one
of the most popular men ever to hold it
and in perhaps the most difficult period
in American history.
On Saturday of this week?the anni-
versary of the 92d birthday of the man
who considered himself the 32d .Presi-
dent?another monument will be un-
veiled to his memory. _
But no stone and no metal can be
more enduring than the character of
the man the monument will honor.
Not only did he, a man relatively" un-
known outside of his own home State,
accede to the highest office in the land
after one of its most famous occupants,
but for the ensuing 93 months was Chief
of State in a time of unprecedented na-
tional and international turbulence.
The man from Independence was im-
mediately confronted with problems
enormous in scope. There was the _Pots-
dam Conference just days after he took
office. There was the terrible decision just
a few months later to drop the atomic
bomb. The Nation and the world were
an emotionally unsettled people in the
months following the end of World War
IL But through the cold war and the
difficult days of reconversion Harry Tru-
man, having armed himself with all
available facts as was his custom, and
fortifying himself by prayer, which was
also his custom, had the coolest head
around. That coolness and confidence,
qualities desperately needed for those
times, prevailed through the cold war,
formulation of the GreekTTurkish aid
program, and implementation of the
Marshall plan. It carried him through
the political climate of the Philadelphia -
convention where some leaders of his
own party endeavored to drop him from
Presidential contention in 1948.
After the greatest political upset in
history, Truman, now President in his
own right, brought the United States into
the United Nations, moved to formation
and establishment of NATO, and ordered
U.S. intervention in Korea as a matter of
what he felt was responsibility to our
allies. Unafraid of the adverse public re-
action that was certain to come, he dealt
firmly with a very popular Army general
when General MacArthur demonstrated
Insubordinate traits.
Our Nation has repeatedly been blessed
in times of adversity by the emergence
of a George Washington, an Abraham
Lincoln, a John J. Pershing and other
great Americans when they were des-
perately needed. /3ut at no time has our
national need been better satisfied than
when Harry S Truman, with his iron
will, innate intelligence, dogged deter-
mination and endless fortitude, by an
act of God, became available to lead a
war-torn and troubled country.
With the passing of time the certainty
grows that Mr. Truman will be recorded,
as many historians have already pre-
dicted, as one of this Nation's five great-
est Presidents.
We could use a Harry Truman today.
His character and his traits ?could very
well be emulated by the half dozen
Presidential candidates who crisscross
our Nation today in search of enough
votes to become an occupant of the White
House.
Statues and monuments are for re-
minding the world of great people and
great events. As I observed at the begin-
ning of these remarks no metal or stone
can be more enduring than the examples
that were set and the record written by
the man from Independence.
PRODUCT LIABILITY LEGISLATION
TO AID BUSINESS AND LABOR
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a
previous- order of the House, the gentle-
man from Connecticut (Mr. SARASIN) is
recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. SARASIN. Mr. Speaker, today, my
colleagues, Representatives ROSTENKOW-
SKI, GRADISON, ANDERSON, Quiz, RAILS-
BACK, MCKINNEY, MADIGAN, GUYER, VAN-
DER VEEN, and I are introducing legisla-
tion to correct a problem that is reaching
critical proportions?product liability.
Machine toed builders and other man-
ufacturers of capital equipment through-
out the country have been beleaguered by
suits based on product liability. Workers
who are injured in industrial accidents
collect their workers' compensation
benefits and then frequently bring ac-
tions against the manufacturers of the
machines upon which they were injured.
None of us here today would dispute the
right of an injured worker to pursue
action against any third party whose act
of commission or omission may have
caused his or her injury. However, it
should be of great concern to us that
many of these accidents for which the
manufacturer must pay are not as a re-
sult of faulty equipment, but because of
the failure of an employer to maintain a
safe workplace. The problem facing man-
ufacturers is compounded by the fact
that the equipment on which the workers
are injured is often at least 20 to 60 years
old. During this tine, modifications, ad-
justments, or reflttings have occurred
over which the original manufacturer
had no control and no knowledge. Too,
ownership of the machines often changes
hands a number of times.
Under the law which presently exists,
a manufacturer may not defend himself
In court by bringing a negligent or un-
safe employer into the action nor, in
many instances, may he even introduce
evidence as to the employer's unsafe
practices. Compounding this inequitable
situation is the fact that the employer,
even the most negligent, has at his dis-
posal a subrogation action whereby he,
In the name of his injured employee, can
bring suit against the machinery manu-
facturer for the amount of his "loss"
suffered through hospitalization, reha-
bilitation, and wage replacement benefits
paid to the injured employee. Again, the
manufacturer cannot even introduce
evidence of unsafe practices as a defense
during this subrogation action.
This situation has led to an intolerable
financial burden for many manufactur
ers, to an increase in product liability ir
surance premiums to the point whe
many smaller companies cannot aff
It; or to the cancellation of product
bility insurance altogether. This s
tion is not unlike that facing the m
community with its uncontrolled
practice premiums, a catastroph,
is threatening the quality of our
care delivery system.
Beyond the economics Of the Ix
however, is a concern that gok
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
May, 6, 1976
et on We committee amendment in the
oature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the na-
eire ot a substitute as amended, was
.ey,reed to.
The CHAIRMAN, Under the rule, the
eerninittee rises.
Accorcungiy the Committee rose; and
,ele Speaker having resumed the chair,
el?reerroer, Chairman of the Commit-
of the Whole House on the State of
the Union. reported that that Commit-
cc navine had under consideration the
iiil (HR. 9043) to E,uthorize employees
:,,no agencies of the Government of the
united States to experiment with flexible
sitd compressed work schedules as al-
earnatives To present work schedules,
eta:mane to House Resolution 1166, he
eeported the bill bac k to the House with
amendment adopted by the Commit-
;ee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER. Under the rule the
erevious question is ordered.
re a separate vote demanded on any
oendment to the committee amend-
ment in the nature of the substitute
edepted by the Committee of the Whole?
not, the question is on the amend-
ment.
'The amendment was agreed to.
the SPE.Metele. Tae question is on the
.!iigriessittent and third reading of the
1?
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
-,eld read a third time, and was read the
irliird time.
'elle SPEAKER. Tlie question is on the
eaesage of the bill.
The bill was passed.
The title was amended so as to read:
.'A bill to authorize Federal agencies to
experiment with flexible and compressed
employee work schedules."
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
Approved E5&INggiaNte2ipgdabEgrapp9144R001100210037-0 114045
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr, HEleDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask
a oanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative clays in which to re-
vise and extend then' remarks, and to in-
elude extraneous matter, on H.R. 9043,
the bill just passed.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gmtleman from North
introlina.?
There vrc?S no objection
PERMISSION FOR COMMITTEE ON
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TO
SIT DURING 5-MINUTE RULE
TOMORROW
Mr, :McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask
ananimous consent that the Committee
ei Science and Technology be permitted
meet tomorrow morning while the
eise N in session during the 5-minute
:WEAKER. Ls there objection to
'UteSt of the gen.tleman from Wash.
t. as no ote ection.
It IVIEETI )IG ON TOMORROW
ZAMRT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan-
ur eent then when the House ad-
journs today it adjourn to meet at 10
o'clock tomorrow.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
VANIK I Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
ORPHANS OF THE EXODUS
(Mr. BR,ODHEAD asked ane was given
Permission to address the House for 1
minute. to revise and extend his remarks
and include extraneous matter.)
Mr. BRODHEAD. Mr. Speaker, all of
the nations which signed the Helsinki
Final Act, including the Soviet Union,
pledged to do everything possible to re-
unite families separated by political
boundaries.
Because the Soviet Union is not living
up to that promise, Members of Congress
are conducting a vigil on behalf of the
families which remain separated.
I would like to bring to my colleagues'
attention the case of Mikhail Mager,
whose wife, I understand, is in the House
Gallery today. While his whole family
was granted exist visas, Mikhail Mager
was arbitrarily refused a visa for "se-
curity reasons," even though his job and
army service were unrelated to security
matters.
In an effort to help this man, I have
written repeatedly to Soviet authorities,
in both English and Russian. I have not
even received the courtesy of a response.
In the meantime, Mikhail Mager remains
in the Soviet Union, separated from his
A compilation of case histories entitled
"Orphans of the Exodus" dramatically
details the tragic situation of the Mikhail
Mager family, and I commend it to the
Members' attention;
MUCHALL MACER
Mikhail Mager is a factory worker. la Jan-
"tary 19'72 his Whole family applied for exit
visas. Not only were they refused (three
times). but at Mikhail's factory, the KGB
staged a general staff meeting to condemn
him. This meeting turned into an anti-
Semitic orgy: Shouts from the audience in-
cluded: "He ought to be killed." Denounced
in the local paper, the Magers were accused
of being traitors to the motherland,
In January 1973, the whole family was
granted exit visas with the exception of
Mikhail who was refused again on security
reasons, even though there was no secrecy
factor in either his job or his past army serv-
ice. Assured by OVIR officials that Mikhail
stouid soon join them, the family decided to
leave for Israel. In a recent letter, the Parents
indict the Soviet government for refusing to
honor this promise. They write:
"These assurances proved to be a fraud.
Mikhail is still forcibly detained in Russia
and zus situation is getting menacing. He
works AS a simple worker (he is an electronic
engineer). He has no friends or relatives in
Russia; he has no home of his 0V-11. His tele-
phone was cut off. . .
"He is called to the KGB 'repeatedly for
questioning and was recently told that his
parents must stop writing letters of protest
to the Soviet authorities.
And now. after Stern'S trial. the situation
'tininitsa is very strained. We are very
worried that Mikhail might be marked as the
next victim by the KGB. particularly since
lie waived his Soviet citizenship and has
been araated Israeli citizenship. . . .
"We hope you will add the name of Mager
to the list of those who need vour help."
Octoper 1?,?to, dire years atter his army
dt,tcharge, Mager was again denied a visa to
s.igrate.
.....-?????????ml??=??
CORRECI'ION OF THE RECORD
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. Speaker, I ask
earumous consent that my remarks be
cerrected. During the debate on II.R
1:704 on Tuesday, May 4, 1976, at page
Ii3883 in the RECORD, my statement in the
-cond column was incorrectly tran-
s. ribed. It reads as follows:
E appreciate the comments by the chair-
x an because it did appear to me that the
cenunittee views coincided with the amend-
ant and the adoption of section 5 which
e'..pressly spells out who Is to be the co-
dinator and that is the Administrator .P..f
ta Euvironme.ntal Protection Agency.
It should reead as fellows,
appreciate the comments by the chair
an because it did not appear to me that
Le committee views coincided with the
c...nenciment and the adoption of section 5,
filch expressly spells out who is to be the
' )rodinator and that Is not the Adnainistra-
*,,-r of the Environmental Protection Agency,
I ask unarhnous consent that the penile.
ant RECORD be r.vo corrected..
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
-tie request of the gentleman from Cali-
_ .maia..?
There was no objection,
(Mr. SKUBITZ asked and was given
ermission to address the House for
niinute, to'reviie and extend his re-
-.larks and include extraneous matter.)
[Mr. SKUBITZ addressed the House.
e[is remarks will appear hereafter in the
Extensions of Remarks.3
TRIBUTE TO PRESIDENT TRUMAN
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
Verenc). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from Missouri, Mr.
Remene is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. RANDALL. Mr. Speaker, on Sat-
urday, May 8, President Ford will unveil
et Independence, Mo., a monument to
he memory of our 32d President. former
?resident Harry S. Truman. May 8, 1978,
you'd, had he lived, have been Mr. Tru-
man's 92d birthday. It will be a statute
,through which there is recreated the
tharacteristic stance of Mr. Truman as
lee took his well-publicized morning
,trolls. But no metal and no stone can
ie more enduring than. the history made
ay that man during one our Nation's
most difficult periods.
More than 30 years have now elapsed
;ince Mr. Trurnan's emergence as a na-
nonal figure; unfortunately, the younger
eenerEttion of our national leadership has
little if any personal recollection of the
Truman years. It is sad that others tend
to submerge important historical events
m the course of present day concerns. For
these foregoing reasons, I want to talk
for a few moments to recall a few of the
highlights in the illustrious career of one
of our most illustrious leaders.
Like many other great Americans,
Harry S. Truman's early life was Spent
amid humble surroundings and in hum-
ole pursuits. He was born in the farm
7;ountry of Barton County, Mo? 92 years
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
114044 Approved For RelemAgriggfigNRATERPM00109U100210037-0
unit. In other words, this'bill does permit
a procedure by which the otherwise legit-
imate requirements of the Fair Labor
Standards Act on maximum hours can
be waived.
This would limit the ability a people
to Waive their rights under the act to
those situations covered by written con-
tract.
The bill, in another way, takes care of
the problem with respect to the individ-
ual who is not a member of a collective
bargaining unit. Section 203(e) of the
bill provides that the premium pay pro-
visions shall not be waived for employees
who are not in a recognized bargaining
unit unless the employee himself or her-
self waives it in a signed, written agree-
ment Then, later in the bill, in section
303, we prohibit any suPervisor or other
employee from intimidating, coercing, or
otherwise threatening any employee for
the purpose of waiving his or her rights
under the provisions of the act. I think
the combination of these provisions, plus
this amendment, will meet the objections
that have been raised by employees and
their organizations.
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. FORD of Michigan. I yield to the
gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
We have had an opportunity to look at
the amendment on this side. I am pleased
to accept the amendment.
Mr. FORD of Michigan. I thank the
gentleman.
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I
rise to oppose the amendment.
I would hope to expedite this, but let
me point out that this is not a simple,
Innocuous amendment. Let me explain
what this amendment does.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment pro-
vides that, where employees are covered
by the unit that has recognition, and a
negotiated collective bargaining agree-
ment with the Federal Government, they
may waive in that bargaining the pro-
visions of this bill.
This would mean that in such a con-
dition they could negotiate, that if they
work the 4-day, 10-hour-a-day schedule,
that period of the day in excess of 8 hours
they could be paid at an overtime rate.
This would mean that if a unit of Gov-
ernment would so negotiate this in a
contractual agreement, that we would
have a situation where in many depart-
ments and agencies people would be
putting in under this program their. 4-
day, 10-hour-a-day schedule, with no
overtime. But in a specific case, where
this could be extracted by negotiation,
certain employees would be paid over-
time after 8 hours.
This would obviously create inconsist-
encies, it would create difficulties in
comparing the workload of the two
groups. It would result, really, in short-
cutting the 4-day, 10-hour-a-day ex-
periment.
Mr. Chairman, I grant that the argu-
ment that may come from the propo-
nents is that who in his right mind in
management would negotiate such a pro-
vision.
But the point is that this amendment
would make that a basis for negotiation.
And if at some point that became part
of th.e agreement, we would have a situa-
tion where sere Federal employees
would be working this new flexitime 4-
day, 10-hour day at straight time; others
by agreement would be paid overtime
after 8 hours a days.
So this, far from being a simple amend-
ment, really is one that has tremendous
complieatiens. I would suggest that upon
careful review this amendment be re-
jected.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. FORD) .
The question was taken; and the
Chairman announced that the noes ap-
peared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chair-
man, I demand a recorded vote..
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic de-
vice, and there were---ayes 76, noes 268,
not voting 88, as follows:
[Roll No. 244],
AYES-76
Adams Evans, Colo. Mineta
timbre Fury Mink
Aspin Fascell Mitchell, Md.
Badillo Flood Morgan
Beani, R.I. Florio Murphy, N.Y.
Bingham Ford, Mich. Nolan
Blanchard Ford, Tenn. Oberstar
Blouin Gaycios O'Hara
Brodhead Gonzalez Price
Brown, Calif. Hanley Rangel
Burke, Calif. Ffarrington Richmond
Burke, Mass. Harris Roe
Burton, John Henderson Rooney
Burton, Phillip Howard St Germain
Carney ' Johnson, Calif. Seiberling
Jordan Simon
Koch Solarz
Lehin an Stokes
McFall Thompson
IVIatsunaga Vander Veen
:N./feeds Vanik
Melcher Waxman
Metcalfe Wolff
Meyner Young. Ga,
Mezvinsky
Miller, Calif.
Carr
Chisholm
Clay
Collins, Ill.
Conyers
Dellum s
Diggs
Dingell
Drinan
Early
Milberg
Abdnor
Addabbo
Allen
Anderson,
Calif.
Andrews, ICC.
Andrews,
N. Dais.
Annunzio
Archer
Armstionc
Ashbrook
Ashley
Befalls
Baldus
Baucus
Baumar
Beard, Tenn.
Bedell
Bennett
Bergland
Bevel
Blester
Boland
Braciernas
Breaux
Breckinrid3e
Brinkley
Brooks
Broomfield
Brown, Mich,
Broyhill
Burgener
Burke, Pie.
Burleson, Tex.
NOKS-268
Burlison, Mo. Edgar
Butler Edwards, Ala.
Carter Edwards, Calif.
Cederberg " Emery
Chappell English
Clausen, Erlenbom
Don H. Evans, Ind.
Clawson, Del Fenwick
Cleveland Findley
Cochran Fish
Cohen Fisher
Collins, Tex, Fithian
Conable Flynt
Conlan
Conte
Foley
Forsythe
Cornell Fountain
Cotter Fraser
Crane Frenzel
D'Amours Frey
Daniel, Dan Gibbons
Daniel, R. W. Gilin.an
Daniels, N.J. Ginn
Danielson Goldwater
Davis Goodling
de la Garza Gradlson
Grassley
Guyer
Hagedorn
Haley
Dent
Derrick
Derwin skl
Devine
Dickinson
Dodd Hamilton
Downing, Va. Hammer-
Duncan, Oreg. schmidt
Duncan, Tenn. Hannaford
du Pont Hansen
Harkin McKinney
Harsha Madigan
Hawkins ? Mahon
Heckler, Mass, Mann
Hefner Martin
Heinz Mazzoll
Hicks
Hightower
Hillis
}Tolland
Holt
Holtzman
Horton
Howe
Hubbard
Hughes
Hungate
Hutchinson
Hyde
Ichord
Jarman
Jeff ords
Jenrette
Johnson, Colo.
Johnson, Pa,
Jones, Ala,
Jones, N.C.
Jones, Okla.
Jones, Tenn.
Kasten
Kastenmeier
Kazen
Kelly
Kemp
Kindness
Krebs
Krueger
La,Falce
Lagomarsino
Latta
Leggett
Lent
Levitas
Lloyd, Calif.
Lloyd, Tenn.
Long, La.
Long, Md.
Lott
Lulea
Luncline
McClory
McCollister
MeCormack
McDade
McEwen
McHugh
McKay-
May 6, 197d
Michel
Milford
Miller, Ohio
Mills
Minish
Moakley
Moffett
Mollonan.
Montgomery
Moore
Moorhead,
Calif.
Moorhead, Pa.
Mosher
Moss
Mottl
Murphy, ni.
Murtha
Myers, Ind.
Myers, Pa.
Hatcher
Neal
Nichols
Nowak
Obey
O'Brien
Ottinger
Passman
Patten, N.J.
Patterson,
Calif.
Pattison, N.Y.
Paul
Perkins
Pettis
Pickle
Poage
Pressler
Preyer
Pritchard
Quie
Rees
Reuss
Rinaldo
Roberts
Robinson
Rodin?
Rogers
R,oncalio
Rose
Roush
Rousselot
Runnels
Ruppe
Russo
Santini
Sarasin
Satterfield
Scheuer
Sc,hneebeli
Schroeder
Schulze
Sebelius
Sharp
Shipley
Shriver
Shuster
Skubitz
Slack
Smith, Iowa
Smith, Nebr.
Snyder
Spence
Staggers
Stanton,
J. William
Steiger, Wis.
Stephens
Stratton
Sullivan
Talcott
Taylor, Mo.
Taylor, N.C.
Thone
Thornton
Treen
Teongas
Van Deerlin
Vander Jagt
Vigorito
Waggonner
Walsh
Warapler
Whalen
Whitehurst
Whitten
Wiggins
Wilson, Bob
Winn
Wirth
Wycller
Yates
Young, Alaska
Young, Fla.
Young, Tex.
Zablocki
NOT VOTING-88
Abzug Heckler, Vit% Va. Rostenkowski
Alexander Helstoski Roybal
Anderson, Di. Hinshaw- Ryan
ABuelCo
Bell
in Jacobs S srk
Boggs b Sikesarl e s
Biaggi
Keys
Ketchum'
Spellman
Boiling Lan
Honker James V.
Landrum Stanton,
Bowen Litton
McCloskey Stark
Brown, Ohio McDonald s
Buchanan Macdonald Steelman
Clancy meagduclen ire Steiger, Ariz.
Byron M
Stuckey
Gorman
2Mlaikt vg his Studds
Coughlin Symington
Delaney Mitchell, N.Y. Symms
Downey, N.Y. Nedzi Teague
Each NixPepper Traxler
Eckhardt
Udll
Eshlemanu Peyser timaen
Eying, Tenn. Pike Weaver
Rauilnslbenack Wilson,
C H.
nn: Te. xH
Fuqua White
Flowers Q
Malmo Randall
Green - Regula
Wright
rioen
Gude Rhodes
Hayes, Ind. Riegle
Hays, Ohio Risenhoover Zeferetti
al
Hebert Rosenth
Ms. HOLTZMAN and Messrs. YATE.
MeHUGH and KREBS changed th,
vote from "aye" to "no."
Mr. ADAMS changed his vote
"no" to "aye."
So the amendment was rejecteC
The result of the vote was armt
as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there at
ther amendments? If not, the rf
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
Hay -6, 1976
Approved For Release 2006/02/07: CIA-RDR7Z11/1.06144R001100210037-0 114043
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? tivuot
the point or order tnat a quorum is not
Iresent.
The CHAIRMAN. Evidently a quorum
n not present.
The Chair annour.ces that pursuant to
.'intse 2. rule 30C11.1, he will vacate pro-
:aedingS under the call when a quorum of
Committee appears.
Members will record their presence by
nt-etronic clevice.
Lhe call as taken by electronic device.
,atroiscas otra VACATED
GHAIRMAN. One hundred Mem-
;els have appeared. A quorum of the
'ocninittee of the Whole is present. Pur-
etant to rule XXIII, clause 2, further
,ruceedings under the call shall be con-
inered as vacated.
The Committee 'will resume its bust-
uVICORDED VOTE
rlle pending business is the demand by
a fie gentleman from New York (Mr. So-
l' sa2) for :a recorded vote.
recortied vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic de-
ice, and there were?ayes 240, noes 112,
t, voting 80, as follows:
I Roll No. 2431
AYES-240
chi Pont Kastenineier
adwat ds, Ala- Kazen
amen Kelly
English Kemp
Erlenhorn Kindness
ligvans, Colo. Krebs
?Wvans, Ind. Krueger
ieenwick LaFalce
tsindley Lagomarsi no
tsish Latta
easher Leggett
Pithis n Lent
cslorio Levitas
Flynt Lloyd, Tenn.
Foley Long, Md.
Forsy,,he Lott
Founiain Lujan
eireneel Lundin,
Frey McClory
Gaydos McCollister
Gibbons McCormaok
Gilman McDade
Ginn McEwen
Goldwater McKay
Goodting McKinney
Grad ism Madigan
Grassley Mahon
Guyer Mann
Hagedorn Martin
Haley - Memoir,
Hall Melchor
Hamiton Michel
viamaier- Milford
set midt Miller, Ohio
atannaford Minis&
Hansen Mink
Hareem Mollohan
Heckler, Mass. Montgomery
Bellew Moore
Heinz Moorhead,
Hicks Calif.
Ulla tower Moorhead, Pa,
?uhi Mosher
tioatnd Mottl
aolt Murphy, Ili.
or on Murtha
ilioward Myers, Ind,
Howe Myers, Pa.
Huboard Matcher
Hustle& Neal
Hun gate Nichols
gut Minson Nowak
Cycle O'Brien
ichord Passman
art Dui Patten, NJ
Jeffercla Paul
Job oson, Colo. Pettis
) oh neon, k'a. Pickle
,a) , Jones, Ala. Poage
Jones, N.C. Pressler
a; Va. Jones, Okla. Preyer
a, Oreg. Jones, Tenn. Pritchard
Penn. Kasten Qule
Amor
Adams
Alien
Anabro
Andrews
Dak,
Archer
anstrong
Ashbrook
Ashley
Aspin.
Safalis
NaillrO an
Beam. Ten a.
Heiden
Bennett
Bevil!.
Blaster
Boland
iSonker
Breaux
Brecknarid
Ttrinkley
, trooka
ciroosalleitt
.4rovni, Mi th.
i-nargener
Pirke, Fla
urke. a.
Airleson, 'Cox.
gutler
rlarter
Oederberis
,;hanPell
Aim Sen.
km Ft.
",tes,WS0/1, Oat
ileveland
.laialaran
T
wanlan
'otter
r v cow:
,nkel,
.1e1 it 'W.
Rinaldo Shriver DreeD
ROberte Shuster Van Deerlin
Robinso Sikes Vander Tagt
n
Rose ' SSklfrebkiL?4 WW"algsgh?nner
Vigorito
Rogers Sisk
Roe
Roush Smith, Nebr. Wumpler
Rousselot Snyder Whalen
Runnels Spence Whitehurst
Ruppe Stanton, Wiggins
Russo J. William Wilson, Bbb
Santini Steiger, Wis. Winn
Sarasin Stephens Wirth
Satterfield Stratton Wydler
Schneebelt Taloott Yat1011
Schulze Taylor, Mo. Young, Alaska
taebelius Taylor, N.C. Young, Fla.
Young, Tex.
Shipley Thornton
Thone
Sharp
NOES-112
Abzug Fary Murphy, N.Y.
. Nolan
Anderson Flood
Oberatar
Addabbo Feacell
Calif. Ford, Mich. Obey
Andrews, N.C. Ford, Tenn. O'Hara
Annunzio0"Neill
Fraser
Badillo Gonzalez Ottinger
Baldus Green Patterson,
Baucus Hardey
Calif.
Beard, R.I. Harkin Pattison, N.Y.
Bergland Harrington Perkins
Bingham Harris Price
Blanchard Hawkins Rangel
Blouin Henderson Rees
Brademas Holtzman Reuss
Brodhead Jacobs Richmond
Brown, Calif. Jenrette Rodino
Burke, Calif. Johnzon, Calif. Roncalio
Burton, John Keys St Germain
Rooney
Burlison, Mo. Jordan
Burton, PhiUtp Koch Scheuer
Carney Lebnian Schroeder
Seiberling
a
Smone
Smith, Iowa
Slm
S :a gEr o
Stokes
Sullivan
Thompson
Tsongas
Vander Veen
%%nits
Waxman
Wolff
'Yates
Young, Ga.
7ablocki
Carr
Chisholm.
Clay
Collins, Ill.
Conyers
Cornell
Daniels, N.J.
Dellums
Diggs
Dodd
Downey, N.Y.
Drinan
Early
Edgar Moffett
Edwards, Catif, Morgan
Ellberg Moss
Lloyd, Calif.
Long, La.
McFall
Matsunaga
Meeds
Metcalfe
bleyner
Mezvinsky
Miller, Calif.
Mills
Mineta
Mitchell, Md.
Moakley
Alexander
Anderson, Ill.
AuCoin
Bell
Biaggi
Boggs
Bolling
Bowen
Brown, Ohio
Buchanan
Clancy
Corman
Coughlin
Delaney
Eckhardt
Esch
Eshleman
Evirts, Tenn.
Flowers
Fuqua
Chaim?
Gude
Hayes, Ind,
Bay. Oleo
Hebert Riegle
Hechler, W Va. Risenhoover
Heistoski uasentaai
NOT VOTING?so
Hinshaw
Karth
Ketchum
Landrum
Litton
McCloskey
McDonald
McHugh
Macdonald
Madden
Maguire
Mathis Stuckey
Mlkva Studds
ItcheU.N Y. Symington
Nedzi Symms
NX Teague
Pepper Treader
Peyser Udall
Pike Ullman
Quillen Weaver
R.allsback White
Randall Whitten
Magni& Wilson, C. H.
R,hodes Wilson, Tex.
Wright
Wylie
zeferetti
Rostenkowski
Roybal
Ryan
Sarbanes
Spellman
3tanton,
James V.
Stark
Steed
Steelman
Steiger, Arta
So the amendments were agreed to
The result of the vote a as announced
as above recorded.
AMENDIAENT OFFERED BY aa FORD OF
MICHIGAN
Mr. FORD a Michigan. Mr. Chair
man, I offer an amendment,
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Foes) af Micht
gan: Page 24, line 12, strike out "An agency
may except frona eat experiment" end inner%
I,. lieu tlaerec f 'An agency hall except from
v.t experiment"
(Mr. FORD of Michigan asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
-,and his remarks.)
Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chair-
man, this amendment simply makes it
.tear that an agency must except from
any experiment?that is, 4-day work
week or other compressed scheduled-
4,ny employee for whom the experiment
would impose a personal hardship.
The bill as reported by committee
does not make this clear enough. My
amendment simpiSt says that the agency
shall except rather than may except.
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman.
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FORD of Michigan I yield to the
gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, we
nave had an opportunity to look at the
gentleman's amendment. There is no
opposition on this side of the aisle, and
I am pleased to accept the amendment.
Mr. DERWINSEa. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. FORD of Michigan. I yield to the
gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, this
is a fine amendment. We have no objec-
tion to it on this side of the aisle.
Mr. FORD of Michigan. I thank the
gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Michigan (Mr. Form).
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY M. FORD OF MICHIGAN
Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chairman,
I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendinent offered tly Mr. FORD a Michi-
gan. Page 25, line 2, steam out "(a) The pro
visions of" and hasten in lieu thereof "(a) (1)
Except as provided in paragraph (2). the
provisions of".
Page 26, after line 7, insert the following
new paragraph:
"(2) In the case of employees within. a
Unit with respect to which an organization
of Government employees has been accorded
exclusive recognition, the provisions of leaa
referred to in paragraph. (1) shall apply to
hours which conatitnte a compressed sched-
ule unless; there is an express provision in a
written agreement between the agency and
the organization which states such provie
atone should not apply with regard to em-
ployees within that unfit."
(Mr. FORD of Michigan asked and
was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chair-
man, the committee language in the bill
already says that an employee who be-
longs to a collective bargaining unit
which has been accorded exclusive rec-
ognition may not be included in an ex-
periment unless the experiment is ex-
pressly agreed to in a written agreement
between the agency and the collective
bargaining unit.
MY amendment would provide that
section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards
Act?that is, the maximum hours pro-
vision?and overtime provisions of title ST
would not be waived for these employee:,
unless this waiver was also expressly
agreed to in a written agreement between
the agency and, the collective bargaining
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
114042
Approved For ReleenNURRN8T4RAMFMOONS1100210037-0
May 6 ,
Mr. ?BARD of Tennessee. Yes, cer-
tainly.
/air. HENDERSON. That is correct, ex-
cept by virtue of the language which
does permit them to request from the
Civil Service Commission an exemption
from the mandatory language in which
he would justify that exemption by
showing that it is not possible and feasi-
ble. It is for that reason that the lan-
guage that the gentleman referred to
in the committee report is reflected in
the provisions of the bill itself on page
19, which says that if the head of an
agency determines that any organization
within the agency which is participating
in an experiment under subsection (a)
is being handicapped, and so on, it may
be exempted and the experiment may
be bona fide; but generally speaking, the
gentleman is correct, the language of the
bill as presented we expeet every agency
head to look within his agency to see
If he can carry on an experimental pro-
gram during this 3-year period to carry
out the purposes of the act.
Mr. BEARD of Tennessee. Mr. Chair-
man, I thank the gentleman for those
remarks.
We have close to 200 Federal agencies
trying to carry out their normal func-
tions and then all of 'a sudden trying to
decide what the ramifications would be
es to the implementation of flexible
work schedules, as to interagency con-
tacts, looking for different timetables and
responsibilities throughout the coun-
try. It seems to me that the most legiti-
mate approach, and I do not understand
the great controversy against the amend-
ment of my colleague, the gentleman
from Illinois, as to saying let us try it
on a trial basis. Let us bring it together
In one central area and go from there;
but if we have almost 200 agencies going
In different directions with different
studies, it will be an absolute nightmare.
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, if
the gentleman will yield further, it is my
hope that as the bill, whether mandatory
or permissive, is fully utilized, there is
a great possibility that these programs
can bring about efficiency, better serv-
ice to the people and savings of the tax-
payers' money, that can be done very
efficiently. I intend to argue for the
mandatory provision.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from Tennessee has expired.
(By unanimous consent Mr. BEARD of
Tennessee was allowed to proceed for an
additional 2 minutes.)
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield further?
Mr. BEARD of Tennessee. I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. HENDERSON. I do h'ave one ques-
tion about the mandatory provision, to
make my own position very clear. The
administration was in support of the leg-
islation as introduced when it was volun-
tary and did not have a mandatory re-
quirement in it. If we could be absolutely
assured that that support of the legisla-
tion would mean that the experiment
would be vigorously carried on every-
where in the country, then I would tend
to support the administration's position;
but the proponents of the mandatory
language have made a case that the man-
datory language will insure experiments
being carried on with the objective of
greater efficiency; better employee mo-
rale, increased productivity, less sick
leave. If the experiments prove that, then
it should become law. If the experiments
do not prove that, then clearly the Con-
gress as it later considers this whole sys-
tem would not go that route.
Mr. BEARD of Tennessee. I appreciate
my chairman's input.
I would like to just close by saying I
cannot understand the controversy or the
adverse remarks regarding the fact that
we would just like this amendment to
bring it back to the original language,
which would mean, as stated on page 37
of the report:
Only a limited number of experiments will
be permitted. The Commission *ill seek the
cooperation of other appropriate agencies to
assist in the evaluation of specific airas of
potential impact. The Commission will be re-
sponsible for the overall development of the
master program plan, for coordination among
all agencies involved in the development of
the criteria to be used for evauation, and for
the preparation of appropriate interim and
final reports.
Mr. F.RENZEL. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the last word, and I rise to speak
in support of the amendment.
(Mr. iri-tE'NZEL asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Chairman, I am
delighted to see how far this Congress
has come from the time in the past when
I asked another committee's support to
amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to
provide for flexible work weeks in the
private Sector. The committee refused
even to hold hearings on it. I think the
new congressional enlightenment is just
marvelous.
I do, however, think that by making
the program mandatory, this House will
really spoil what might be an excellent
test. The use of the word "experimental"
to which the committee members refer
regularly really does not apply here. It
is not experimental because we are tell-
ing every agency to do it whether it
wants to or not.
Therefore, it seems to me that those
agency heads will look for ways to justify
nonuse of the program.
So, I think the committee, in trying to
put this program in full scale use before
any responsible test, is really acting in a
way that is counterproductive to its own
intent.
I think the Derwinski amendment
should certainly be agreed to. Then we
could perform a responsible test, and
subsequent evaluation, of this program
to find out whether or not it works.
Since the gentleman from New York
(Mr. SoaaRz) is unable to define what
"substantially disrupting an agency" is, I
wonder if I might ask the distinguished
chairman of the committee, the gentle-
man from North Carolina (Mr. HENDER-
SON) what "substantial disruption"
means.
Does this mean that if there are extra
costs laid upon the taxpayer, that is good
grounds for not adopting the experimen-
tal?the gentleman's word?programs?
Mr. HENDERSON. If the gentleman
will yield?
Mr. FRENZEL. I yield to the da..tin-
guished chairman.
Mr. HENDERSON. It is nay under-
standing that costs to the agency would
certainly be one of the factors, but I
would think that if there were no other
factors that would limit the ability of the
agency to put in effect the experimental
program, that this standing alone would
not be sufficient or substantial interfer-
ence with the agency's mission.
Mr. FRENZEL. So the chairman's
opinion is that, if 150 agencies ask for
exemption on the basis that it is going to
cast the taxpayers a little bit more in
each agency; each agency would not be
exempted by the commission and they
would have to go forward with the pro-
gram notwithstanding the additional
cost?
Mr. HENDERSON. If the gentleman
will yield further, my answer is that if
cost alone was the criteria?but let me
again make it clear that what we are
talking about is the cost of carrying on
an experimental program that will save
money. Now if, in the study by the
agency, it finds that it is going to cost
more money than it saves, and beyond
that interferes with the mission, then I
think it would be very easy for any or all
of the agencies to get their exemptions
from the Civil Service Commission.
Mr. FRENZEL. I like the gentleman's
second answer much better than the
first, because it seems to me that we are
really trying to save money, to serve the
people better, to satisfy our employees
and encourage greater productivity. I be-
lieve that was the intent.
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRENZEL. I yield to the gentleman
from Illinois.
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I
think ft should also be reemphasized that
the issue involved in the amendments is,
shall we not have a legitimate 3-year test
to determine the best way to handle this
flexitime use of personnel, rather than
immediately imposing a program on
every agency before there is a test, be-
fore we determine the best means of
doing it?
That is really the issue that guides us,
whether it is a test or an imposition.
Mr. FRENZEL. I thank the gentleman.
I did not mean to lose sight of that. The
Point I was making was, in an honest ex-
perimental program such as the gentle-
man from Illinois has proposed, agencies
will have some incentive and enthusiasm
to participate. In a mandatory program
which is laid upon ? them by force by a
Congress that does not understand the
program very well, they are going to have
an inverse incentive to look for ways to
get out of the program. Therefore, the
mandatory program will not realize tilt
greatest benefits of flexible scheduling.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of t
Derwinski amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question
the amendment offered by the gentl,
from Illinois (Mr. DeawnsIsmt).
The question was taken; and on
vision (demanded by Mr. Sonaitz)
were?ayes 18, noes 10.
Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Chairman, I
a recorded vote and, pending that, nobs.
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
.11(ty 6, 1976
Approved For Release 2006/02/07: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?HOUSE 114041
after this 3-year experiment we will have
the proper data to decide whether or not
it is a meaningful program.
That, I think, is what is being missed
in the debate on the amendments that
are being proposed. These amendments
are unnecessary.
Interestingly enough, as I recall the
hearings on this issue, having read the
accounts of the hearings, the National
Federation of Federal Employees and
the president of :Federally Employed
Women testified in support of a provision
requiring each ages icy to make flexible
hours or a compressed schedule available
to their employees. en it seems to me that
we are responding to real problems with
a program that hat shown some enor-
mously effective rest Its in the private and
public sectors, one which the employees
want, one which tate public wants, one
that the private sector wants; and I
would think that the gentleman would
withdraw his amendment so that we can
go on and put into effect the operation
of the program.
urge my colleagues to defeat the
amendment.
Mr. DERWINSKl. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentlewoman yield for an observa-
tion?
Ms. ABZUG. I yield to the gentleman
from illinbis.
Mr. DERWINSKl. I thank the gentle-
woman for yielding.
The testimony beeere us from the Fed-
eral Employee Organization is that they
support the Civil service Commission's
3-year experimental approach. That is
the only indication we have from an em-
ployee group. We had an individual wit-
ness who was a Federal employee who
supported the original bill. The issue is
this: We agree on oae thing; we want the
employees to be- better served; but I be-
lieve that the employees could be better
served if we have a meaningful experi-
ment that will permit a proper applica-
tion of a program, not a premature
mandatory applicaeion.
The CHAIRMAN The time of the gen-
tlewoman has expired.
Mr, KRUEGER. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words.
(Mr. KRUEGER asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. KRUEGER. VIr. Chairman, I have
studied this bill, aid one of the striking
things about it is that like many items
of legislation whicie we consider in this
Congress, we are imposing through this
bill a set of restrietions on others that
we do not choose to impose upon our-
selves. i em told ay my colleague, the
gentleman, from gew York, that we
should consider theory to be superior to
feet, as he quotes Mr. Hegel. But I should
e as w31 to quote Immanuel Kant,
says in his Ca ;egorical Imperatives:
t the maxim on which you act
me a universal law of nature. '
is his philosophical interpreta-
e: the Golder. Rule. and I think it
appropri ate, and in the spirit
:feden Rule?and Perhaps I re-
' et more than Hegel?to con-
we impos e upon ourselves what
to impose -mon others.
If it is appropriate for the executive
branch to have flexible working hours,
because according to the gentlewoman
from New York it "would not serve the
common good if it were restricted and
limited," then perhaps we should not re-
strict and limit the good only to the ex-
ecutive branch but should make it avail-
able to the legislative branch. Yet, if I
read the bill correctly, I do not find that
this bill extends these rights to the Con-
gress. I wonder, would the gentleman
from New York care to comment on
that?
Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. KRUEGER. I yield to the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr. SOLARZ. I appreciate the gentle-
man's yielding on this point.
I did not come here this afternoon to
carry the cudgels of Hegel and Kant.
They both sound like philosophical men,
and I have no objection to applying his
categorical imperatives to this particu-
larlegislation.
I do not know about the office of the
gentleman in the well, but I know in my
office we already have in effect a flexi-
time program that exists because people
come in early in the morning and they
leave late at night.
When they have to do their own thing,
they do it.
If the gentleman really believes that
this legislation would be enhanced by
establishing the law requiring a formal
establishment of a flexitime program for
Congress, I would be delighted to support
if, but my impression is that virtually
every congressional office to a certain ex-
tent already functions on that basis be-
cause the lights are burning late at night
and people are coming in earlier or later
in the morning as necessary.
Mr. KRUEGER. But that could be
worked out without specific legislation
on the part of the Congress requiring it.
It has come about already because of the
needs of the people in the different offices
and the realization that the people could
work in a reasonable, flexible pattern. I
would find it difficult if my. employees
would wish to work only 4-days a week to
wart only in that, way. It would make
more sense to me to realize that other
people in other agencies might be able to
define for themselves such flexibility
without our passing a law for it.
That is the point and intent of this
amendment and I think it would be a
"statesmanlike" thing to do, if I might
borrow a term ref eared to earlier by the
gentleman from Illinois, if we would al-
low them to do that.
Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield further?
Mr. KRUEGER. I yield to the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr, SOLARZ. Mr. Chairman, I simply
wanted to observe if in feet there are
various Federal agencies that would
want to establish such programs on a
sufficiently mass basis, we would not need
the legislation. We felt the program
would certainly make sense and there
was in the legislation a way to do it and
we felt we would build into the legisla-
tion a series of protections in order to
make sure that not a single employee
e ouid be required to participate in such
program against his will.
Mr. KRUEGER. I feel that programs
of this kind should not be mandatory;
but if the Congress imposes mandatory
restrictions on the executive branch, it
ehould treat itself as an equal branch
and impose the some restrictions on it-
self. U Congress did that more often, we
might get better legislation, and we
-night proceed more cautiously if we
aced the same restrictions we would im -
'ease on others. If we are not to do that,
we should then not make the test man-
datory. And since the bill does not assert
this equality between the executive and
legislative branch. I urge adoption of the
amendment of the gentleman from Illi-
nois.
Mr. BEARD of Tennessee. Mr. Chair-
man, I move to strike the requisite num-
ber of words.
(Mr. BEARD of Tennessee asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. BEARD of Tennessee. Mr. Chair-
man, I am not that familiar because I
was not able to spend any time in the
real hearings on this particular piece of
legislation but in trying to prepare my-
self for it I have read the report. On
page 16 in the "Background" segment I
was somewhat confused, and this is pre-
sented by the committee itself for the
bill, as to several of the paragraphs. They
really seemed to speak in support of the
amendments offered by my colleague, the
gentleman from Illinois. Let me just
briefly cover this. This is committee lan-
guage in the report:
While a rumber of advantages have been
reported as a result of the introduction of
tlexible and compressed work schedules, a
number of negative factors for agency man-
agers as well as for employees may occur in
a change from normal work day patterns.
Moreover, it must be recognized that these
types of schedules will not be suitable under
all circumstances. In every case, the intro-
duction of any of these schedules must be a
carefully considered judgment. For example,
under a flexible work schedule, the greater
the degree of flexibility, the greater will be
tie need for sonie form of objective record-
kleeping on hours Worked.
There could be undesirable effects on inter-
agency contacts, availability of key person-
nel, and the timeliness of responses. Ex-
ended hours of operation may also impose
additional burdens on supervtsory personnel.
7'.oitended hours may increase overhead costs,
i.e.. heating/cooling, lighting and security,
Accordingly, only through the development
)f careful experimental designs and the co-
)peration of those agencies with expertise in
each of the potentially impacted areas can
- he potential of these programs for the Fed-
m-al Government be assessed.
I would like to ask me chairman how
many governmental agencies are there
Ln the Federal Government?
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, if
the gentleman will yield, about 150. I
Mr. BEARD of Tennessee. There are
agencies. The way I understand this
bill, not the original way the bill was
but the way it is now, each agency head
Is responsible for coming up with some
type of flexible work schedule.
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield further?
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
May 6, 19,76
II 4040 Approved For ReleeksydeR6/0612/87HLNACILAftliM9_014a0X100210037-0
Mrs. BURKE of California. Mr. Chair-
man, I rise in opposition to the amend-
ment offered by the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Deewnesia) which would
seriously limit the requirement that each
agency participate in a program to ex-
periment with flexible work hours and
compressed work weeks.
Limiting the flexible work scheduling
experiment to a minimum number of
Federal agencies is unsatisfactory and
the findings could prove to be inconclu-
sive. There have already been numerous
sporadic efforts at flexible scheduling ex-
periments within the public and private
sector which have shown some positive
results. However, up until now, these
experiments have been piecemeal with
little comprehensive analysis of the ad-
vantages and disadvantages to manage-
ment and employees. By requiring all
Federal agencies to participate in the ex-
periment, this legislation offers us the
opportunity to examine the impact of
flexible and compressed work schedules
on a wide variety of Federal agencies
which have a broad spectrum of tasks
and functions. I do not believe that a
more limited use of flexible hours will
be as valuable, nor will the finding allow
us to draw, substantive conclusions.
The bill does provide for voluntary
Participation in flexible scheduling by
employees, so that while all agencies will
be required to take part in the experi-
ment, the involvement of individual em-
ployees is on a voluntary basis.
If my many discussions with various
people about alternative work schedul-
ing are any indication, th& agencies will
find little difficulty in getting employees
willing and eager to participate in the
experimental program.
I would have preferred that the com-
mittee report out, with this flexibithours
bill, a bill I have introduced which pro-
vides for part-time employment oppor-
tunitie,s in the Federal Government.
These are complementary, not compet-
ing, concepts and we would do well to
offer opportunities foe agencies to ex-
periment with several alternative sched-
uling patterns.
My study of alternative work patterns
over the past 3 years has convinced me
that alternative work scheduling will
significantly benefit both the employer
and th employee. Reports by GAO, the
Department of Labor, Business and Pro-
fessional Women's Foundation, and vari-
ous private companies have shown that
flexible hours work schedules can in-
crease employee productivity and effi-
ciency, improve employee morale and at-
tendance, provide better services to the
public, reduce overtime expenses, elimi-
nate considerable traffic congestion, and
open up job opportunities for people who
are unable to work standard hours.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to
Join me in defeating the Derwinski
amendments and passing the committee
bill. _
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman,
would the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. BURKE of California. I yield to
the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentlewoman for yielding to
? me.
Mr. Chairman, just to keep the record
clear, I am looking at the transcript of
the full committee meeting of Thursday,
February 19, and that was when the
committee approved the bill. Our dear
colleague, the gentlewoman from Mary-
land (Mrs. SPELLMAN) supported the
amendment, and I read from her re-
marks:
I think in the beginning it's important
for coercion in the beginning of such a
program.
That is exactly the argument for the
amendment, the language I am trying to
remove by my amendment. So really this
does show In the record that coercion is
expected.
Mrs. BURKE of California. 'We will
have to ask the gentlewoman from
Maryland, (Mrs. Seemeaaw)' to explain
her remark in the committee. We have a
proposed piece of legislation before us
and we should be guided by what that
legislation provides?I happen to believe
that we are going to have so many peo-
ple who would just love to have some
flexibility that we will not have to have
coercion. There are so many employees
who would say, "If I could just work 4
days a week, and work 10 hours those
days, it Just would change my whole life
style and would give me the opportunity
to do things that I am not able to do now
when I am tied down with the present
hours."
So, Mr. Chairman, I urge that we go
along with the legislation that is before
us rather than the statements being
made by any number of people. Because
again I say I do not believe we will have
to coerce anybody, we will find People
standing in line wanting to do this.
Mrs. SPELLMAN. Mr. Chairman,
would the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. BURKE of California. I yield to
the gentlewoman from Maryland.'
Mrs. SPELLMAN, Mr. Chairman, what
the bill now provides is exactly what I
was asking for, and that is making this
mandatory on the agencies, covering
each agency, unless it has good reason
not to do so, each agency being required
to provide an experiment like this.
I am sure the Members know that our
Federal Government and the Civil Serv-
ice Commission often have to be carried
kicking and screaming into the next cen-
tury. In this case we are saying that
every agency shall experiment, except if
it creates a problem, except if the em-
ployees do not want it, but that every
agency should give the employees the
opportunity to try this flexitime pro-
gram.
So that is what I meant by coercion,
coercing the Civil Service Commission,
which needs a little coercion, not the
exriployees, who will be very anxious to
take on this new dimension.
The CHAIRMAN. The ,time of the
gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words.
(Ms. ABZUG asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend her ye-
marks.)
Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, I have al-
ready addressed myself to the issue and
the substance of this amendment. I
would like to call the attention of the
gentleman from Illinois to the actual
statute, as the gentlewoman from Cali-
fornia (Mrs. Blame) has suggested. On
Page 28 of the bill?and this is legislation
that the gentleman from Illinois par-
ticipated in drafing and reporting out.
It is entitled "Prohibition of Coercion."
This whole section of the statute deals
with the question the gentleman from
Illinois seems to be concerned with. I
think it is very important that the
gentleman from Illinois and all of the
Members be aware of this provision. It
reads:
PROMB/TION OF COERCION
SEC. 303. (a) In the case of an employee
within a unit with respect to which an or-
ganization of Government employees has not
been accorded exclusive recognition and who
Is in an experiment under title I or re any
other employee shall not intimidate, threat-
en, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate,
threaten, or coerce, such employee for the
purpose of interfering with--
(1) such employee's rights under title I to
elect the time of his arrival or departure, to
work or not to work credit hours, or to re-
quest or not to request compensatory time
off in lieu of payment for overtime hours; or
(2) such employee's right to execute or
not to execute a waiver under section 203(e).
It also provides penalties for violators
which range from suspension without
pay to termination of employment
So, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that
this is, again, a false notion. We are all
very much interested in individual lib-
erties and at the same time we are inter-
ested in the rights of employees, both
those who are subject to collective bar-
gaining and those who are not. We
would not do anything to interfere with
that, or to hurt that. I would concur with
the gentleman from Illinois that We
want to make sure that there is an in-
dividual option subject to provisions of
law and subject to collective bargaining
agreements. So I feel that this argu-
ment attempts to divert us from what
the purpose of this legislation is. The
Purpose of this legislation is benign, and
not malevolent. We are taking into con-
sideration a reenter. What is this reality?
The reality is that we have a rigid way
of working from 9 am. to 5 p.m. But life
Is not quite that way. There are some
people who would work better from 7
to 3. There are some people who like to
be at home with their children at 3
o'clock, and yet they have to work. Here
Is an opportunity for the Government to
provide an opportunity for them to be
able to work and fashion their personal
lives as they choose. There- are other
people who feel that after their workday
has ended they should be able to apply to
a Government agency for information or
for relief. Because our workweek goes
from Monday to Friday, and our work-
day goes from 9 until 5 o'clock, the peo-
Pie are deprived of the opportunity
approach the Government and obta'
the information or assistance they no'
This program is for the common gc
It will not be able to serve the coma
good as an experiment if it is constri-
and limited. It would be a waste o:
Members' time and a waste of the'
ernment's time. We have already
the results of limited eXperirleft,?
This legislation as written, insure teal"
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
May 6, 1976
Approved For Release 2006/02/_07 ? ,CJAzRDP7M/Iq0144R001100210037-0 11 4039
CONGRESSIONAL itEColtu? tiuu.
vide, and urge tae adoption of the
amendments.
I must admit, Mr. Chairman, that I
am a bit frustrated at the lack of attend-
ance at the moment, which means I shall
have to wrestle with people at the door
when they come rushing in for the vote.
I am also frustrated, though, with the
developments in this measure: Let me
just sum it up this wey:
ask the Memben to take a look at the
original bill H.R. 9043. The title of the
bill was "to authcrize employees and
agencies of the Government of the
United States to experiment with flexible
and compressed woik schedules as alter-
natives to present work schedules."
As a result of amendments adopted in
committee, the new title of the bill is
an act to be cited is the "Federal Em-
ployees Fexible and Compressed Work
Schedules Act of 196."
' And then in the committee section of
the bill, subsection (4) , it reads as
follows:
. each agency snail establish . .
That takes out all the testing. That
takes out all of the flexibility. I wish to
refer at this point to a letter from the
Civil Service Commission, the pertinent
parts of which read as follows:
We are hrinly convinced that to make ex-
periments mandatory in all of the 100-plus
agencies of the Examitive 13ranch would
prove counterproductive ....A mandatory
program would be directly contrary to the
philosophy of flexible work schedules. They
should be optional, alternative means of
accomplishing the work of an agency, not
an arbitrary replacement of traditional work
patterns. 'fbe valit3 of such alternative
work schedules to the Government can be
determined only through a system of volun-
tary, controlled experimentation. A meaning-
ful experiment must be centrally planned
and coordinated, lie 3essarily limited in ap-
plication . . .
That is the posieion of the Civil Serv-
ice Commission.
Mr. Chairman, these three amend-
ments I have before the House would
merely do this:
The one inserting a new section 4 would
remove from the bill the requirement
that each agency must establish one or
more of the experimental programs. The
amendment basically takes us back to
the bill as originally introduced. Mee
amendment provides for the development
of this matter plan within 90 days after
enactment of this bill, as originally pro-
eosed by the Civil Service Commission.
The following two amendments are
eonforming amendments under the flex-
ible time title, and, therefore, I have of-
fered them en bloc.
Te'eanklY. Mr. Chairman, if we are to
enter into this flexitime procedure on
personnel, we wil. have to do it under a
test period plan. To charge into it lin-
eectiately as a mandatory item just de-
all the practical rules of adminis-
Uon. When Wo.) think of the Federal
eernment. we must remember we
:lose to 3 million civilian Federal
eeyees, and we are talking about a
:emus admiristrative responsibility.
e -year experiment, which would, as
by the Civil Service Commission,
t _irefully controlled and carefully
mom bred, would give us the evidence on
which we could base a permanent pro-
gram established on the practical re-
sults as they have been observed. That
Is the spirit of the amendments.
I suggest that the statesmanlike thing
to do would be to support my amend-
ments and keep this bill as it was orig-
inally intended, an authorization for a
proper procedure of testing this program.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to that great
statesman, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Boulez).
Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Chairmen, I appre-
ciate the gentleman's yielding, but I wish
to speak on my own time.
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I
had hoped that the gentleman from New
York had become convinced and that he
was suddenly supporting my amend-
ments. One can always hope.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the bal-
ance of my time.
Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the amendments.
(Mr. SOLARZ asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Chairman, I have
been, as a colleague of the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. DERWINSKI) on two
committees of this House, continually
impressed by the lucidity and occasion-
ally the loquaciousness of his views, as
he has expressed them on the various
bills that both of us have been called
upon to consider.
However, I must say that the gentle-
man's comments a few minutes ago re-
minded me of a statement ,that was once
made by the German philosopher, Hegel.
to the effect that "if theory and fact dis-
agree, so much the worse for the facts."
To be sure, as the gentleman pointed
out in his remarks, it does say on page
16 of the bill that each Federal agency
shall submit a flexitime program and
establish such a program. But it also
says on page 17 of the bill that if the
head of any Federal agency determines-
that the implementation of such a pro-
gram would in any way substantially
impair the operations of his agency, the
Civil Service Commission can then-con-
clude that, if such a program would in
any way be adverse to the public in-
terest, the interests of the agency, or the
interests of its employees, the agency is
then relieved of the obligation of estab-
lishing such a program..
So it seems to me that while in theory
one might argue this is a mandatory
program, in point of fact it is nothing of
the sort.
Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLARZ. I yield te the gentle-
man from Minnesota.
Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Chairman, the bill
does not in any way say what the gentle-
man says it does. It says, if it "would
substantially disrupt the agency."
I hope that the gentleman will correct
his statement.
Mr. SOLARZ. Mr: Chairman, that, I',
I might say, is precisely the point I want
to make, because if, as the bill says, the
establishment of a flexitime program
would not?and I quote exactly from
the language of the legislation?"sub-
stantially disrupt the agency in carrying
out its functions." then I see no reason
shy the agency should be relieved of
tae obligation for establishing such a
program.
Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Chairman, will the
entleman define what "substantial dis-
ruption" is?
Suppose we just disrupt the agency a
fettle bit and cost the taxpayers Just a
Little bit of extra money; then do they
Save to-go ahead with the program any-
way?
Mr. SOLARZ. I think that the defuri-
ion of "substantial" is something which
ehould be decided on a case-by-case basis.
L have every confidence in the ability of
the Civil Service Commission to make a
responsible judgment on these matters,
Out I would submit to my Colleagues on
..he committee that if, in fact, the estab-
lishment of a flexitime prograni in a par-
ticular Federal agency would not sub-
stantially impair the operations of the
agency, then there is no reason- why they
should not be required to establish an
experimental program along these lines.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Il-
linois (Mr. Drawnesia) also said that it
would be a mistake to establish arbitrary
flexitime experimental programs, but-
there are plenty of provisions in this
legislation which make it crystal-clear
that any programs that are established
would not be arbitrary.
First of all, the agencies concerned
would, in effect, have to conclude that
the establishment of such programs
would not substantially impair their op-
erations.
Those uniOns which represent units
within these agencies with respect to
which flexitime programs might be
established wouldhave to give their con-
sent to those programs and to those ex-
periments. For those units with respect
to which there are no collective-bargain-
ing agents that have already been desig-
nated to represent the employees who
work for the particular unit in question,
those employees, according to the terms
of this legislation, would be required to
voluntarily waive any of the protections
which they otherwise might have under
existing legislation.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it seems to
me that there are ample protections
here. The agencies have to agree; the
unions have to agree, and the employees
have to agree. There is nothing arbi-
trary about this. It is a carefully planned
and constructed program.
Mr. Chairman, I might say in conclu-
sion that I think this is one of the most
constructive and creative initiatives to
come out of our committee in some time.
I think it holds great promise for im-
proving the productivity of the Federal
civil service, for enchancing the morale
of our employees, and rather than limit-
ing this experiment to a handful of
agencies, it seems to me that we ought
to make it available on ' a broad basis
throughout the Federal Government
Mrs. BURKE of California. Mr. Chair-
man, I move to strike the requisite naun-
ber of words, and I rise in opposition to
the amendment.
(Mrs. BURKE of California asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend her remarks.)
Approved For Release 2006/02/07: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
11 4038
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-- HOUSE May 6, 1076
a rate equal to the rate of his basic pay, for
such work which is not in excess of his basic
work requirement for such day. For hours
worked on such a holiday in excess of his
basic) work requirement for such day, he is
entitled to premium pay in accordance with
the provisions of section 5542(a) or 5544(a)
of title 5, United States Code, as applicable,
or the provisions of section 7 of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, as amended, whichever
provisions are more beneficial to the em-
ployee.
(e) In the case of any employee in a unit
with respect to which an organization of
Government employees has not been accorded
exclusive recognition, the foregoing subsec-
tions of this section shall not apply unless
the employee waives, in a signed writing,
any rights to premium pay under the provi-
sions of law referred to in such subsections
with respect to work performed while par-
ticipating in an experiment under this title.
TITLE III?ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
ADMINISTRATION OF LEAVE AND RETIREMENT
PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. For purposes of administering
sections 6303(a), 6304, 6307 (a) and (c),
6323, 6326, and 8339(m) of title 5, United
States Code, in the case of an employee who
Is in any experiment under title I or II, ref-
erences to a day or workday (or to multiples
or parts thereof) contained in such sections
shall be considered to be references to 8
hours (or to the respective multiples or por-
tions thereof).
APPLICATION OF EXPERIMENTS IN THE CASE OF
NEGOTIATED CONTRACTS
SEO. 302. (a) Employees within a unit with
respect to which an organization of Govern-
ment employees has been accorded exclusive
recognition shall not be included within any
experiment under title I or II of this Act ex-
cept to the extent expressly provided under
a written agreement between the agency and
such organization.
(b) An agency may not participate in a
flexible or compressed_ schedule experiment
under a negotiated contract which contains
premium pay provisions which are inconsist-
ent with the provisions of section 103 or 203
of this Act, as applicable.
PROHIBITION OF COERCION
SEC. 303. (a) In the case of an employee
within, a unit with respect to which an or-
ganization of Government employees has not
been accorded exclusive recognition and who
is in an experiment under title I or II, any
other employee shall not intimidate, threat-
en, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate,
threaten, or coerce, such employee for the
purpose of interfering with?
(1) such employee's rights under title I to
elect the time of his arrival or departure, to
Work or not to work credit hours, or to re-
quest or not to request compensatory time
off in lieu of payment for overtime hours; or
- (2) such employee's right to execute or
not to execute a waiver under section 203(e).
For the purpose of the preceding sentence,
the term "intimidate, threaten, or coerce"
Includes, but is not limited to, promising
to confer or conferring any benefit (such as
appointment, promotion, or compensation),
or effecting or threatening to effect any re-
prisal (such as deprivation of appointment,
promotion, or compensation).
(b) Any employee who violates the provi-
sions of subsection (a) shall be removed
from his position and funds appropriated for
the position from which removed thereafter
may not be used to pay for the employee.
However, if the Commission finds by unani-
mous vote that the violation does not war-
rant removal, a penalty of not less than 30
days' suspension without pay shall be im-
posed by direction of the Commission. The
Commission shall prescribe procedures to
carry out this subsection under which an
employee subject to removal or suspension
shall have rights comparable to the rights
afforded an employee subject to removal or
suspension under subchapter III of chapter
73 of title 5, United States Code, relating to
certain prohibited political activities.
REPORTS
Sac. 304. Not later than 21/2 Years after the
effective date of titles I and II of this Act,
the Commission shall--
(1) prepare an interim report containing
recommendations as to what, if any, legisla-
tive or administrative action should be taken
based upon the results of experiments con-
ducted under this Act, and
(2) submit copies of such report to the
President, the Speaker of the House, and
the President pro tempore of the Senate.
The Commission shall prepare a final report
with regard to experiments conducted under
this Act and shall submit copies of such re-
port to the President, the Speaker of the
House, and the President pro tempore of the
Senate not later than 3 years after such ef-
fective date.
REGULATIONS
SEC. 305. The Commission shall prescribe
regulations necessary for the administration
of this Act.
EFFECTIVE DATE
SEC. 306. The provisions of section 4 and
titles I and H of this Act shall take effect on
the 90th day after?
(1) the date of the enactment of this Act,
Or
(2) October 1, 1976,
whichever date is later.
Mr. HENDERSON (during the read-
Ing). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute be consid-
ered as read, printed in the RECORD, and
open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
North Carolina?
There was no objection.
AMENDMENTS 01,1,.t.RED BY MR. DERWINSKI
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I
offer three amendments, and I ask unan-
imous consent that they may be con-
sidered en Woe.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendments offered by Mr. DERWINSKI:
Page 16, strike out line 16 and all that fol-
lows down through line 22 on page 17 and
insert in lieu thereof the following: -
"Sec. 4. The Commission shall, not later
than 90 days after the effective date of this
Act, establish a master plan which shall
contain guidelines and criteria by which the
Commission will approve and evaluate experi-
ments to be conducted by agencies under
titles I and II Of this Act. Such master plan
shall provide for approval of experiments
vskthin a sample of organizations of different
size, geographic location, and functions and
activities, sufficient to insure that adequate
testing occurs of the impact of varied work
schedules on.?
"(1) the efficiency of Government opera-
tions;
"(2) mass transit facilities and traffic;
"(3) levels of energy consumption;
"(4) service. to the public; and
"-(5) increased opportunities for full-time
and part-time employment"
Page 18, strike out lines 15 through. 17 and
insert in lieu thereof the following:
"Snc. 102.. (a) Notwithstanding section 6101
of title 5,, United States. Code, and consistent
with the master plan established under sec-
tion 4 of this Act, the Commission may ap-
prove any proposal submitted by an agency
for an experiment, to test flexible schedules
that include--".
Page 24, strike out linea 8 through 11 and
insert in lieu thereof the following:
"SEC. 202. (a) Notwithstanding section
6101 of title 5, United States Code, and con-
sistent with the master plan established
under section 4 of this Act, the Commission
may approve any proposal submitted by an
agency for an experiment to test a 4-day
workweek or other compressed schedule."
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objeCtion to
the request of the gentleman from U-
M-lois?
There was no objection.
(Mr. DERWINSKI asked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, the
series of amendments I have offered en
bloc have a single purpose: to restore to
this legislation its original purpose and
intent.
As the Jbill comes from committee, it
contains language which would require
a compulsory program of flexible -ivork
hours and compressed workweeks for all
agencies in the executive branch of the
Federal Government. Such a require-
ment is unworkable and impractical.
The legislation which the Civil Serv-
ice Commission sent to Congress in July
of last year would have authorized the
Commission to establish a master pro-
gram plan to carefully evaluate new
work schedule arrangements.
These experimental work schedules
would be limited to a minimum number
of agencies, but sufficient to show
whether these alternative work sched-
ules may have applicability to Govern-
ment operations. The new schedules
would not be imposed upon any agency,
nor would they replace current sched-
ules. They simply would become experi-
mental alternatives to traditional work
schedules.
This is what the language of my
amendments would accomplish.
Flexible and compressed work sched-
Ules are a relatively new concept, and
general acceptance by management
would only be impeded if agencies are
forced to adopt such scheduled, as the
reported bill requires.
Mr. Chairman, a mandatory program
would be directly contrary to the phi-
losophy of flexible work schedules. They
should be optional, alternative means of
accomplishing the work of an agency,
and they should not be an arbitrary re-
placement for traditional work patterns.
The value of such alternatives can be
determined only through a system of
voluntary, controlled experimentation.
Mr. Chairman, there is a good deal of
current debate about heavy-handed Fed-
eral bnreaucracies. If we are listening to
the American public, we know they do
not want more arbitrary and capricious
Federal authority. If this legislation ir
not amended as I have proposed, tin
that is exactly what will result from V
bill. The legislation as reported by
committee would be disruptive and
otic to the operation of the Federal
eminent,
The Civil Service Commission Is
trig only for limited authority to co
Voluntary. tightly controlled e-
ments in rearranging work schc
That is what my amendments wbult64,,,
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
y 197i; CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
Commistion shall exempt an agency from
such retruiremente only if it finds that the
conducting of such a program by the agency
would not be in the best interest of the
?ebbe. the Clover :anent, or the employees.
The filing of such a request with the Com-
mission shall stair the requirement under
subsection (a) to implement an experimental
program until the Commission has made its
eletermination, or until 180 days after the
late of filing of ti e request, whichever first
,TCCUTS
reatetal/MBLF, SCHEDULING OF
WORK HOURS
enema, NS
.ror purposes of this title?
the term "credit hours" means any
tours, within a fie tible schedule established
tender this title, which are in excess of an
.e.mpioyeels basic work requirement which
the employee elects to work so as to vary
'the length of a workweek or a workday; and
(2) the term "cetertime hours" means all
hours iii excess of 8 hours in a day or 40
HOW'S in a week, which are officially ordered
in :wryer ce. but toes not include credit
Mane
ss tees WIRE OUTING EXPERIMENTS
;Wei t02. (a) Notwithstanding section 6101
itf tene 5, United Ststes Code, an agency may
conduct one or more experiments to test
flexible schedules which include?
(1) designated eours and days during
which an employee on such a schedule must
ie present for work; and
(2) designated hours during which an
,senployee on such a schedule May elect the
lame of his arrival at and departure from
work, solely for such purpose or. if and to
the extent permitted, for the purpose of
accumulating credit hours to reduce the
length of the workweek or another workday.
An election by an employee referred to in
paragraph (2) shall be subject to limitations
generally prescribed to ensure that the duties
and requirements of the employee's position
are fulfilled.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision
of this Act, but subject to the terms of any
written agreement under section 302(a)?
(1) any agency experiment under subsec-
tion (a) of this section may be terminated
by the Commission, or the agency, if it deter-
mines that the experiment is not in the best
interest of the pub,ic. the Government, or
the employees; or
(2) i' the head of an agency determines
that any organizat on within the agency
which is participating in an experiment un-
der subsection (a) is being handicapped in
carrying out its functions or is incurring ad-
ditional costs became of such participation,
he may?
(A) restrict the employees' choice of Ar-
clival and departure time.
(B) restrict the use of credit hours, or
(C) exclude from such experiment any
employee cc group of employees.
(eel Experiments under subsection (a)
shall terminate not later than the end of
the 2-year period which begins on the effec-
tive date of this title.
ICH/PUTATION 01" PRESIDIA/ PAY
?3EC. 103. (a) For purposes of determin-
leg compensation for overtime hours in the
ease of an employee participating in an ex-
teriment under section 102?
(1) the head of an agency may, on request
the employee, grant the employee compen-
ery time off in lieu of payment for such
-time hours, whether or not irregular or
signal in nature and notwithstanding the
termiteof sectiors 5512(a). 5543(a) (1),
;a), and 5550 of title 5, United States
eetion 4107(e) (5) of title 38. United
n erode, section 7 of the Fair Labor
isede Act, as amended, or any other pro-
ta axle: or
(2) the employee shall be compensated
for such overtime hours in accordance wit...
Such provisions, as applicable_
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of la r
refereed to in paragraph ( I ) of subsectic,
(a), an employee shall not Tie entitled to ta
compensated for credit hours worked excell
to the extent authorized under section 101
or to the extent he is allowed to have suite
hours taken into account with respect ts
hie basic work requirement.,
(e) (1) Notwithstanding section eeeeaFt
of title 5, United States Code, premium pa /
for nightwork will not be mild to an ern .
ployee otherwise subject to such section sole-
ly because he elects to work credit hours, ot
elects a time of arrival or departure, at
time of day from which such premium pa
is otherwise authorized; except that?
(A) if an employee is on a tlexible schedul -
under which--
(i) the number of hours during which he
must be present for work. plus
(ii) the number of hours during whica
he may elect to work credit hours or elect
the time of his arrival and departure,
which occur outside of the night work hour
designated In or under such section 5545(a)
total less than 8 hours, sucn premium pay
shall be paid for those hours which, whet
combined with such total, do not exceed ti
hours, and
(B) if an employee is on a flexible schedule
under which the hours that he must be pres-
ent for work include any hours designated
in or under such section 5545(a), such prem-
ium pay shall be paid for such hours so desig-
nated.
(2) Notwithstanding sect:on 5343(1) of
title 5, United States Code, and 4107(e) (2) of
title 38, United States Code, night differential
will not be paid to any employee otherwise
subject to either of such sections solely be-
cause he elects to work credit hours, or elects
a time of arrival or departure, at a time of
day for which night differential is otherwise
authorized; except that such differential
shall be paid to an employee on a flexible
schedule?
(A) in the case of an employee subject to
such section 5343(f), for which all or te ma-
jority of the hours of such schedule for any
day fall between the hours specified in such
section, or
(B) in the case of an employee subject to
such section 4107(e) (2), for which 4 hours
of such schedule fall between the hours spec-
ified in such section.
HOLIDAYS
SEC. 104. Notwithstanding sections 6103
and 6104 of title 5, United Stares Code, if an
employee on a flexible schedule Under this
title is relieved or prevented from working
on a day designated as mholiday by Federal
statute or Executive order, he is entitled to
pay with respect to that day for 8 hours (or,
In the case of a part-time employee, one-
tenth of his biweekly basic work require-
ment)
TUVIE-RECORDING DEVICES
SEM 105. Notwithstanding section 6106 of
title 5, United States Code, an agency may
use recording clocks as part of its experi-
ments under this title.
CREDIT HOURS; ACCUSIULATfON AND
COMPENSATION
SEC. 106. (a) Subject to any limiation pre-
scribed by the agency, a full-time employee
on a flexible schedule can accumulate not
more than 10 credit hours, and a part-time
employee can accumulate not more than one-
eighth of the hours in his biweekly basic
work requirement, for carryover from a bi-
weekly pay period to a succeeding biweekly
pay period for credit to the basic work re-
quirement for such period.
(b) If an employee who was on a flexible
H 4037
schedule experiment is no longer subject to
such an experiment, he shall be paid at his
then current rate of basic pay for not more
than 10 credit hours which he has ac-
cumulated if he is a full-time employee, or
for not more than the number of credit
hours which he has accumulated which is
not in excess of one-eighth of the hours in
his biweeker basic work requirement if he is
a part-time employee,
TITLE --4-DAY WEEK AND 0 rnE.la
COSAReESSED WORK SCHEDULES
DEFINITIONS
SEC. 201. For purposes of this title?
(1) tile term "compressed schedule
means?
(A) in the ease of a full-time employee, an
80-hour biweekly basic work requirement
which is scheduled for less than 10 work-
days, and
(B) In the case of a part-time employee.
a biweekly basic work requirement of lees
than 80 :lours which a scheduled for less
than 10 workdays; and
' (2) the term "overtime hours" means an
hours in excess of those specified hours welch
constitute the compressed schedule.
COMPRESSED SCHEDULE EXPERIMENTS
SEC. 202. (a) Notwithstanding section 010 1
of title 5, United States Code, an agency may
conduct one or more experiments to test a 4
day workweek or other compressed schedules.
(b) An agency may except from an ex-
periment conducted under subsection (a)
any emplc?yee for whom a compressed sched-
ule would impose a personal hardship.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision
of this Act, but subject to the terms of any
written agreement under section 302(a), any
agency experiment under subsectiton (a)
may be terminated by' the Commission, or
the agency, if it determines that the experi-
ment is not in the best interest of the pub-
lic, the Government, or the employees.
(d) Experiments under subsection (a)
shall terminate not later than the end of
the 3-year period which begins on the ef-
fective date of this title.
COMPUTATION OF PREMIUM PAY
SEC. 203. (a) The provisions of sections
5542(a), 5544(a), and. 5550(2) of title 5,
United States Code, election 4107(e) (5) of
title 38, United States Code, section 7 of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, or
any other law, which relate to premium pay
for overtime work shall not apply to the
hours which constitute a compressed sched-
ule.
(b) In the case of any full-time employee,
hours worked in excess of the compressed
schedule shall be overtime hours and shall
be paid for as provided by whichever statu-
tory provisions referred to in subsection (a)
are applicable to the employee. in the case
of any part-time employee on a compressed
schedule, overtime pay shall be paid after
the same number of hours of work for which
a full-time employee on a similar schedule
would receive overtime pay.
(c) Notwithstanding section 5544(a), 5546
(a), or 5550(1) of title b, United States Code.
iir any other applicable provision of law, in
the case of any employee on a compressed
schedule who performs work (other than
evertime work) on a tour of duty for any
workday a part of which is performed on a
eunday, such employee is entitled to pay
"or work performed during the entire tour
duty at the rate of his basic pay, plies
.premiura pay at a rate equal to 25 percent
his rate of basic pay.
( d ) Notwithstanding section 5546 (b ) of
..itle 5, United States Cade, an employee on
e compressed schedule who performs work
en a holiday designated by Federal statute
e Executive order is entitled to pay at the
at, of his Miele pay, plus premium pay et
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0