EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS - GovInfo

March 18, 1976

ENERGY CONSERVATION IN Bun.DINGS ACT OF 1975

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, on behalf of Mr. PROXMIRE, I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on H.R. 8650, an act to assist low-income persons in insulating their homes, to facilitate State and local adoption of energy conservation standards for new buildings, and to direct the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to un .. dertake research and to develop energy conservation performance standards.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SPARKMAN) laid before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives announcing its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 8650) to assist low-income persons in insulating their homes, to facilitate State and local adoption of energy conservation standards for new buildings, and to direct the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to undertake research and to develop energy conservation performance standards, and requesting a conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I move that the Senate insist upon its amendment and agree to the request of the House for a conference, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint the conferees on the part of the Senate.

The motion was agreed to; and the Presiding Officer (Mr. SPARKMAN) appointed Mr. PROXMIRE, Mr. SPARKMAN, Mr. WILLIAMS, Mr. MciNTYRE, Mr. CRANSTON, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. TOWER, Mr. BROOKE, Mr. PACKWOOD, and Mr. GARN conferees on the part of the Senate.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, there will be no more rollcall votes tonight.

PROGRAM Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,

the Senate will convene on Monday at

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

-12 o'clock noon. Mter the two leaders have been recognized under the standing order, Mr. GoLDWATER and Mr. MANsFIELD will be recognized, each for not to exceed 15 minutes, and in that order.

There will then be a period for the transaction of routine morning business of not to exceed 30 minutes, with statements therein limited to 5 minutes each, at the conclusion of which the Senate will proceed to the consideration of Senate Resolution 406, a resolution entitled "The importance of sound relations with the Soviet Union." There is a time limitation on that resolution, and a rollcall vote on its disposition has already been ordered.

At some point during the afternoon of Monday, the Senate will resume the consideration of S. 3065, a bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, and rollcall votes will likely occur on amendments, motions, and so forth, in relation to that measure.

And may I say that other matters cleared for action may also be taken up on Monday.

ADJOURNMENT UNTIL MONDAY, MARCH, 22, 1976

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, if there be no further business to come before the Senate, I move, in accordance with the previous order, that the Senate stand in adjournment until the hour of 12 o'clock noon on Monday.

The motion was agreed to; and at 7:16 p.m. the Senate adjourned until Monday, March 22, 1976, at 12 meridian.

NOMINATIONS Executive nominations received by the

Senate March 18, 1976: DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Jerry Thomas, of Florida, to be Under Secretary of the Treasury, vice Edward C. Schmults, resigned.

7239 DEPARTMENT OF STATE

William A. Anders, of Virginia, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Norway.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

David s. Smith, of the District of Columbia, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Sweden.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Fred 0. Pinkham, of Connecticut, to be an Assistant Administrator of the Agency for International Development, vice Jarold A. Kieffer, resigned.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Maurice J. Williams, of West Virginia. chairman of the Development Assistance Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development at Paris, France, for the rank of Minister, while so serving.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Eldon L. Webb, of Kentucky, to be U.S. attorney for the eastern district of Kentucky for the term of 4 years vice Eugene E. Siler, Jr., resigned.

IN THE MARINE CORPS

Lt. Gen. Samuel Jaskllka, U.S. Marine Corps, for appoln·tment to the grade of general while serving as Assistant Comm.andant of the Marine Corps in accordance with the provisions of title 10, United States Code. section 5202.

CONFIRMATIONS Ex·~cutive nominations confirmed by

the Senate March 18, 1976: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

William K. Brehm, of Michigan, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense.

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION

Betty Jo Christian, of the District of Columbia, to be an Interstate Commerce Commissioner for the remainder of the term expiring December 31, 1979.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Calvin Joseph Collier, of Virginia, to be a Federal Trade Commissioner for the term of 7 years from September 26, 1975.

The above nominations were approved subject to the nominees' commitment to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS THE 1975-76 VFW VOICE OF DEMOC

RACY SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM

HON. CLIFFORD ALLEN OF TENNESSEE

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 18, 1976

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, each year the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and its ladies auxiliary conduct a contest for secondary school students. From the Nashville area, I want to extend my appreciation for the :fine job done by Mr. John Furgess, chairman of the Voice of Democracy Contest, and Post 1970 of the VFW. The Bicentennial has provided a much needed forum for all citizens, old and young, to express their thoughts on our country's past and give some insight into our country's futw·e. This contest affords us the opportunity to grant recognition to our tal-

ented young people and the history of our country.

This spirit of our Nation past and our great country present has been uniquelY captured by a young man from my district in Tennessee who is VFW District VI winner of the 1975-76 Voice of Democracy Contest. Hubert J. Thompson, of Hillsboro High School in Nashville, wrote the following essay on the subject of "What Our Bicentennial Heritage Means to Me." Along with the VFW and Mrs. Morris P. Landiss, the Hillc;boro High sponsor of forensics, I am proud to share this moving statement of a fellow Nashvillian, Hubert Thompson, with my colleagues:

WHAT OUR BICENTENNIAL HERITAGE 1\!F..A!'!S TO ME

(By Hubert J. Thompson) Our bicentennial heritage means many

things to many people. To some, it is glorious battles and great victories. To others, 1t is a historical pageant of the events that resulted

in the birth of our country. To still others, it is the Foupding Fathers, our courageous leaders and exemplary statesmen. But to me, our bicentennial heritage is primarily three things: a privilege, an opportunity, and a lesson.

The privilege is that America is the land of liberty. Nowhere else in the world have our freedoms been guaranteed so long or so well. Freedom of speech, of assembly, of religion, and of the press; freedom from unreasonable search and seizure; freedom to vote and control one's own government; and fr~edom to live and work where one chooses were all established two hundred years ago and have been refined and safeguarded ~:;ince then. Only in America could a nation with such a diversity of peoples and philosophies guarantee these freedoms. It should be a source of pride and gratitude to us to live in a country where liberty is not merely tolerated by the government, but is claimed by the people as a precious right.

Our bicentennlg.l heritage is also an opportunity. Only in America, the land of Uberty. have all men been able to strive toward the fullest expression of their own personal tal-

7240 ents and capabilities. The CO"nstitu:tioli guarantees equal protection under 'the law. Every person has both tl'le 'right and the opportunity to find himself and to make his own contribution to the world. Whether he moves west as a pioneer, fights as a soldier protecting his country, makes new advances in science, works to support our standard of living, or spends his life in service for others, every American can find satisfaction in developing himself and benefiting his fellowm an. Our country has assured the dignity and worth of the individual throughout its history. America is truly the land of opportunit y.

But our bicentennial heritage is more than that; it is a lesson from the past. However the circumstances may appear, our problems are not insurmountable. In 1776, Americans were plagued With shortages of everyday items, a feeble economy, sectional differences, and the crushing burden of the war effort. Yet, when faced With problems that seemed impossible to solve, the struggling young nation pulled itself together and emerged victorious from its struggle. In America today there are many problems. we must contend with inflation, recession, the growing number of poor people, the overgrown governmental bureaucracy, and worldWide threats of war. As our fellow Americans of two hundred years ago conquered their problems, we shall vanquish ours. If our bicentennial heritage teaches us nothing else, we should learn that there is a way out of any difficulty-if the American people can unite in pursuit of a common goal.

What does our bicentennial heritage mean to me? It means a privilege-to live in the freest country on the globe. It means an opportunity-to make the most of my talents and gifts. And it means a lesson-to realize that every problem is merely a step on the road to greater glory. From the depths of my heart, I am thankful for our bicentennial heritage.

ESTATE AND GIFT TAX REFORM

HON. MAX S. BAUCUS OF MONTANA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, March 18, 1976

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words today on the subject of estate and gift tax reform.

I should begin by saying that I am not an expert in this :field. I pay my taxes, but fortunately, I have not had the opportunity yet to pay an estate tax.

A useful beginning for me in addressing the subject of estate and gift tax reform is to describe my congressional district. On the whole, western Montana is a collection of small businesses, farm and ranches. With a few notable exceptions, there are no large industries in Montana. In many ways, my State's economic composition in 1976 is similar to the economies of other States a cen-tury ago. · ·

The most notable feature about the farms, ranches, and small businesses in my district is that they are largely owned by single families. The family tradition is strong in Montana, and its bonds are strengthened by the passage of property from generation to generation,

The economic and family ·stability of

EXTENSIONS OF. REMARKS··

my State iS being jeopardized by the operation of the Federal estate and gift tax system. The $60,000 exemption for estate tax set in 1942 is entirely too low to pro.;. teet the transfer of property from parent to ·child for the preservation of familyowned small businesses, farms and ranches.

IIi the 1940's less than 1 percent of the estates in the United States were required to pay Federal estate taxes. That :figure has risen to more than 11 percent in the 1970's. I suspect that the :figure is substantially higher than that in my district, but this far I have been unable to obtain the necessary data from the Internal Revenue Service to document that fact.

My assumption that Montana's percentage of taxable estates is higher than the national average is based on the following factors. First, the valuation of estates in Montana tends to be arti:fically inflated. Let me explain. The $60,000 exemption, when adjusted for 34 years of inflation, should be $210,000. However, during that same period, the average pr ice of farm land in the United States increased by more than 200 percentwhich means that farmland worth $60-000 in 1962 would be worth at least $240. - · 000 in 1976. Recent figures for Montar{a show that land values are increasing annually by more than 10 percent-a substantially higher rate than the Consum-er Price Index ·annual increase.

Second, with respect to small businesses, farms and ranches, capital requirements are increasing at .rates substantially higher than inflation, largely because the businesses are more capital intensive and less labor intensive.

Another factor which has interfered with the transfer of family-owned Montana businesses from one generation to the other is that there exists an inherent liquidity shortage in the small businesses, farms, and ranches of my State. Estimates by the U.S. Department of Agriculture show that, on the average, at least 80 percent of the value of farms and ranches in the northwestern United States is tied up in land and equipment: In most cases, this kind of property cannot be converted into cash if these businesses are to be retained within families.

My contacts with people in the State suggest that for family farms and ranches to rem~in in operation, they will have to have land. and equipment worth more than $250,000. If properties of that size are to be retained in a family when the parents pass away, it is essential that some type of protection be available to the children to insure that the property will not have to be sold to pay for the estate tax liability. Unfortunately, that type of protection does not exist for all families today. For example, a recent report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture indicates that one-fourth of all farm rea:!' estate transfers are now made for the purposes of settling estates.

The upshot of · the situation is this: For the :first two centuries of this Nation, oui· ·Federal laws did not preclude the paSSage . of businesses, homes . and otber . personal ppss.ession.S from .• ~e

March 18, 1976

parents of the average family to their children. However, the current exemp- . tion level now does little more than cover the cost of the home and places in jeopardy the passage of the family business to subsequent generations.

A DISCUSSION OF SOLUTIONS

There are more than 150 bills 'now pending in Congress which, among other things, seek to raise the estate tax exemption. I have supported one of these bills as a cosponsor and support in spirit dozens of others.

However, I am concerned that the current momentum in Congress may lead. to indiscriminate, across-the-board in- · creases in the exemption from its current level of $60,000 to some level sub-:stantially in excess of that. My concern with that momentum is that it may fall to take into account the revenue loss that accompanies higher exemption levels.

Do not get me wrong; I am not opposed to a higher exemption level-indeed, I strongly support a substantial increase. However, I think we should look long and hard before that level is raised across the board. President Ford has proposed to increase the exemption. from $60,000 to $150,000. There are at least 55 bills now pending that would raise the exemption to higher levels than that. There are three bills now pending, that, like the President's, would seek to increase the level to $150,000. According to estimates made by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the revenue loss, by raising the exemption level to $150,-000, would be $1.1 billion. Senator MaNDALE, in introducing his bill that would raise the exemption level to the same level as that proposed by the President, estimates that the revenue laws would be a.s high as $1.7 billion.

The number "1.7" may not sound like much to us in Congress-we always have a way of chopping off zeros to make numbers look more manageable. However, when one considers the :figure of $1.7 billion in terms of our national population, it means that we would have to raise nearly $10 from every man, woman and child in America to recoup the loss.

I must confess that I am increasingly distraught by the way we make :fiscal policy decisions in this country. Most people believe· that it is both useful and beneficial to keep our national budget near balance. It is true that there are times during periods of economic recession when the Federal Government should p1ime the pump and create a deficit, but it is also true that during periods of national prosperity, we should attempt to pour tax revenues back into the well. Unfortunately, we perform that last task poorly. That is, we do a splendid job in lowering taxes and raising spending during periods when our economy is in decline, but when national employment picks up and our economy begins operating at full capacity, we somehow cannot find the political wiil to c;ut expenditures and/or raise taxes.

Actually, tax incl'eases and expenditw·e. cu~ are not an "either;or" situ~;~.ti.on,. When we sense that the economy is overheating, we· should both cut back q;n,e~penditure~ and raise taxes.

March 18, 1976

our economy is not now overheatingfar from it. I believe we need to continue to prime the pump until our economy gets back on its feet. However, I do not believe we should move to cut estate taxes in a permanent way, where not only will we lose billions today, but we may be losing many times that in the futw·e.

Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to look more restrictively at the various proposals to raise the estate tax exemp· tion level. To my mind, the principal reason we should raise this level bears on a national policy decision to oppose increasing "giantism" in business and agriculture. We want to retain small farms, ranches, and businesses. And, we want to keep these enterprises within families.

If that is the policy we want to follow in connection with estate tax reform, then the reform should be tailored to that problem. For example, if we want to insure that Federal tax laws do not interfere with the retention of farms within families, we should draft the revised laws restricing them to family farms. A number of bills now pending do just that.

Similarly, if we want to insure that Federal tax policy does not deter the transferral of small businesses from one generation to another within families, we should restrict the reforms to that particular problem. There are bills now pending which do that. .

To the extent that the problem of transferral of farm property relates to artificially infiated real estate values, we should seek to adjust those values by looking to the true agricultural value of the farmland that is included in the decedent's estates.

If the Congress restricts its moves in reforming the estate tax laws, I believe we will be addressing the real problems now facing owners of small businesses, farms, ranches in the United St.ates. Moreover, we will be protecting the Federal fisc in a way that will keep our national economy in good health.

FLORENCE P. DWYER

HON. FRANK HORTON OF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, March 17, 1976

Mr. HORTON. Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues in paying tribute to the very distinguished former Member of the House, Mrs. Florence P. Dwyer, who passed away in Elizabeth, N.J., on February 29.

Flo Dwyer served in Congress for 16 years before her retirement at the end of the 92d Congress and she was my predecessor as ranking minority member of the Government Operations Committee. During the many years I sat next to her in committee, I learned to appreciate and admire her concern for the operations of Government.

I had the highest regard for Mrs. Dwyer

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS .

both as a person and as my ranking minority member. She was a dillgent representative of her district, a friend of the consumer, having sponsored legislation to create an independent consumer protective agency, and a forerunner in the field of equal rights for women. Mrs. Dwyer was a colleague with whom I was pleased to have had the opportunity to serve, and of whom we can all be proud.

GIVE US A CHANCE

HON. JAMES ABDNOR OF SOUTH DAKOTA

IN T HE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


Mr. ABDNOR. Mr. Speaker, the word from South Dakota is: "Get the Government off our backs. and give us a chance!" This is the story I am getting, not only in dozens of letters every day, but also wpen I am stopped by citizens on the streets and at meetings in my State.

They are disgusted with the roadblocks Government has thrown up before them in the way of rules, regulations, and redtape. They are tired of giving up over 40 percent of then· income in various forms of taxation only to see much of it go down the drain.

In a recent editorial, the Aberdeen, s. Dak., American-News expressed it well. I would like to share their observations with my colleagues: PEOPLE HAVE TOLD LEGISLATORS To GET Gov

ERNMENT OFF THEIR BACKS

The "closing day" of the South Dakota Legislature was a long one-extended 42 hours through a clock-stopping technique often employed when time runs out before the lawmaking procedure is completed. But it is likely to be a short day in comparison with the time that will be spent between now and Election Day in November continuing the debate on the political phllosophy that was the crux of the closing hours.

At stake in that debate-and a matter of increasing concern to many South Dakotans-was the question of what is to be done to curb growth of state government and the skyrocketing costs.

The time element in the final session was not conducive to the Republican effort to whittle the $172.8 mllllon operating fund recommended by the appropriations committee for the next fiscal year. And it was not surprising that the Democrats called it a grandstand play for political purposes.

But in fairness it should be pointed CYUt that Republicans did try earlier in the session for approval of a reS()].ution that would have required. limiting the cost of continuing operation of government to the amount of continuing revenue provided. The resolution was defeated by the Democrats in the Senate.

The next opporlunity for the Republicans to advance their cost-cutting goal came after the appropriations measure was reported out of committee near the session's end. Time didn't allow a judicious pruning of the recommended expenditures. The closing marathon emphasized again that there must be a better method-one that allows more input from individual legislators-than is now used.

However, the methods of preparing the budget is secondary to the philosophy of the people and the lawmakers.

This year the peop!e have been telling the

7241 legisla-tors they want to get government off their backs. They are rebelling against new and higher taxes. They frown on additional government agencies and new levels of bureaucracy.

It is encouraging that messages from the rank and file are getting through to the legisla-tors and that many of the legislators agree with their constituents that cost of expansion of government is more than taxpayers can afford.

In the November election 105 South Dakota legislative posts will be up for grabs. The candidates for those posts wlll be expected to express their views on belt-tightening and escalating bureaucracy.

A REPRIEVE FOR REVENUE SHARING

HON. WILLIAM L. HUNGATE OF MISSOURI



Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Speaker, as we come to t..."'le considero.tion of revenue sharing, the following editorial from the Christian Science Monitor may be instructive:

A REPRIEVE FOR REVENUE SHARING

Has federal revenue sharing returned "power to the people" as the Nixon administration said It would, or simply provided a way for Washington to avoid its responsibility to improve conditions in local communities? Five years into this $30 billion legacy of the "new federalism," the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

Like birds at a winter feeder, the 39,000 cities and towns covered by revenue sharing have become used to those quarterly checks from the federal government. Now, Congress is wrangling over whether to continue this massive program and efforts to scrap or modify it are mounting. There are, in fact, strong arguments against simply extending revenue sharing for another five years as the White House, mayors, and governors urge.

For, far from being the "resounding success" President Ford proclaims, this new form of federal aid has more often than not helped perpetuate local programs and policies (including their bad points) rather than brought about reform or boosted new and innovative municipal serVices.

The state of the economy no doubt has influenced mayors to throw revenue-sharing sandbags against the rising tide of property tax rates, but so too have thinly disguised political considerations. Boston Mayor Kevin White squirreled away $20 million in revenue sharing to use just before his bid for reelection.

Among nationwide shortcomings: less than 3 percent of the funds have been used for social services and specific help for the disadvantaged; citizen participation in deciding how to spend the money (as envisioned by the legislation creJ.ting revenue sharing) has been almost nil; antidiscrimination guarantees have been easily circumvented by receivers and inadequately enforced by the federal government.

At the least, these defects should be corrected before revenue sharing becomes a more permanent part of the federal budget. Since (as a Brookings Institution study showed) the program has made only a ''limited contribution" toward equalizing differences between per capita income and tbe local tax bite among states, perhaps the aid formula should be changed to favor poorer localities more than it already does.

While federal aid to state and local govern-

7242 ments has increased sevenfold since 1960, the economic pinch and municipal problems that still need solving add up to a continued requirement for Washington's help. But that help should not come without guarantees that it is being properly applied.

Now, Congress is tied up with its own reelection worries and wondering whether the next president will be a Republican or Democrat, all of which is bound to influence decisions on revenue sharing. For this reason, the best bet would be to extend the program through 1977 and let the necessary tinkering wait until after the campaign quest ions have been answered.

WILD KINGDOM

HON. MICHAEL HARRINGTON OF ~SACtrUSETTS



Mr. HARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, Raymond S. Calamaro seeks the taming of the governmental wilderness known variously as the intelligence community, the national security bureaucracy, and the action arm of the imperial Presidency. Writing in the New York Times of March 17, he maps out five areas where law and democratic pl'inciple should be applied in a response to what we have learned about these areas over the last 2 years. Since, in my view, the Congress should be acting now to install constitutional order in this dangerous terrain, I am inserting Mr. Calamaro's article into the RECORD. I hope that my colleagues in the House, especially those who are concerned about ethics and standards, give it careful consideration:

THE WAY THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING (By Raymond s. Calamaro)

Our Government seems to be going haywire. It has responded to the overwhelming evidence of misdeeds by the Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation and other intelligence agencies by ratifying past abuses and sanctioning their continuation. And very few people seem to mind or even notice.

1. Covert activities. The Government has participated in a number of war-like acts, termed "cover activities," against countries with which the United States is at peace. These activities include the use of militarytype force, bribery, and tampering with the internal politics and domestic tranquility of other countries.

Although our Constitution provides that Congress, not the President, must decide when we go to war, the President continues to assert a right to initiate such action without prior Congressional approval.

Instead of removing all doubt, and declaring such activities unlawful unless expressly permitted, the Senate is on its way to adopting a resolution containing a watered-down compromise that hardly changes the status quo.

2. Government lawlessness. The Government seems uninterested in enforcing the law against high officeholders. A compelling case has been made for th'e need for a tempol·ary "special prosecutor" to investigate and prosecute crimes by intelligence officials. but the Ford Administration resists the notion.

Instead of concentrating on such crimes. the House of Representatives has decided to investigate Daniel Schorr, a newsman,

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS for providing The Village Voice with a "secret" report on intelligence that had already been leaked and described in a num· ber of newspaper stories.

3. Ove1·sight. This Is the process by which Congress makes sure that the executive is enforcing the law consistent with the Constitution. A resolution to improve oversight by forming a new Senate committee is being considered. The measure approved by the Government Operations Committee is a very promising start, but oversight h a.s failed so badly in the past that much more must be done than merely to give a n ew commit tee oversight responsibility.

The heart of the problem h as been t hat many legislators preferred not t o know when it came to matters of intelligence. For a n ew oversight committee to be truly effect ive, it will be necessary to require it to be informed on certain specific subjects. Those subjects should include intelligence activities that pose a particular t hreat to individual rights, for example surveillance and disseminat ion of information in investigat ive files.

It is not too late for the Senate to strengthen tile resolution in this way, or to write these requirements into separate measure. But, unfortunately, some Senate staff members fear that t h e resolution will be weakened by the Rules Committee. For example, it is known that a number of pro-F.B.I. sen ators will at tempt to deprive the to-beformed oversight committee of power over legislation concerning F.B.I. intelligence activities. Without such power, oversight would not just be ineffect ive, as in the past, but laugh able.

4. &>~recy. The executive and the Congress seem to be falling all over each other to invent methods to prevent disclosure of classified information. So much effo1·t is being spent on this that it seems to have been fcrgot ten why we got into the subject i n the first place.

The real questions are how to prevent the recurrence o! intelligence-agency abuse of people's const itutional rights, and how to prevent the President from engaging the United States in unauthorized military and paramilitary activities.

The problem is not how further to protect these agencies from accountability by tightening procedures for secrecy.

President Ford has sent to the Congress a bill to toughen penalties against individuals who disclose intelligence "sources and methods." Presumably, it could have been used to send Daniel Ellsberg to prison for releasing the Pentagon papers (much information in these papers is what the Pentagon would probably describe as "sources and methods») .

In addition, the resolution presently being considered by the Senate Rules Committee includes a pernicious provision to discipline senators for disclosing secret information. As Senator Jacob K . .Tavits correctly argued, but to no avail, this provision contravenes the spirit of the speech and debate clause in our Constitution.

5. Infiltration. Typical of the whole approach to solving--or, more accurately, not. solving-the problem is the part of President Ford's executive order that permits the C.I.A. to intlltrate student, labor and cultural organizations even though such activity was banned by a 1967 executive order.

No wonder that the former Director of Central Intelligence William E. Colby can say that intelligence has emerged "from the shadowy :field outside the law." Intelligence has not been brought inside the law; instead the law is being stretched to include intelligence-agency crimes and bad acts.

we should consider seriously whether our nation needs to spend even a. small fraction of its present budget of $10 billion (}n intelligence. We should consider ce.refully the suggestions of serious individuals like I. F. Stone, Henry Steele Commager and Garry

March 18, 1976 Wllls, who have rec(}mmended dismantling the C.I.A.

Many of the same people who now tell us our national security depends on intense intelligence activities are those who told us our national security depended on fight ing a war in Vietnam.

ADDITIONAL NAVY SHIPS

HON. THOMAS N. DOWNING OF VmG1NIA



Mr. DOWNING of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I have always been a fervent supporter of the military and I was delighted when the House Armed Services Committee recommended the authorization of additional Navy ships.

While I commend this action, I am distressed to learn the Navy does not have available funds to pay what they already owe to various shipyards throughout the country. If this is true, it is an intolerable situation which must be quickly corrected.

There are other serious problems regarding the Navy's shipbuilding program which must also be resolved.

I include a letter addressed to me dated March 13, 1976, and signed by Mr. J. P. Diesel, president of NewPort News Shipbuilding Co. in these present remarks. In his letter, Mr. Diesel states:

These issues threaten not only the future naval shipbuilding program bu t the one which is already underway.

He also says: Time has run out.

I will also include a memorandum written by Mr. Gordon Rule, a senior Navy civilian for contract matters, along with my present remarks.

The Rule memorandum is an important document which must be read by those people in Government who are concerned about the future of the U.S. Navy. Action must be taken and it must be taken now.

The material follows: MARcH 15, 1976.

Hon. THOMAS N. DOWNING, Rayburn Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. DOWNING: The House Armed Services Committee recently recommended the authorization of additional Navy ships. However, you should be aware, as the Representative of the First District of Virginia, that it is a great frustration to Newport News Shipbuilding to find the Congress be~ coming aware of the need for future ships when the Navy has not yet come to grips with what they already owe to their shipbuilders.

I emphasize the question of the availability of funds and the question o! the Navy's willingness or capability to promptly deal with the economic problems underlying its Naval shipbuilding ploogram. These issues threaten not only the future Naval shipbuilding program but the one whieh is already under way. This situation is so severe that last summer we :round it necessary to stop work on the DLGN41. We are now seriously considering similar action on the CVN'lO. We cannot see how it is reasonable or prudent to plow ahead with a project the size of the CVN70 in the

March 18, 1976 present situatfon. Not only are the other Carriers not current in terms of pricing, but every other Naval shipbuilding program at Newport News is also seriously in arrears. Everyone knowledgeable appears to recognize this. I have received repeated assurances that the Navy recognizes that it does have significant finan<:ial obligations to us but nothing is done to resolve the underlying problems.

Recently the senior Navy civilian for contract matters, Mr. Gordon Rule, wrote a memorandum to the General Counsel of the Department of Defense, at that gentleman's request, to outline Mr. Rule's views of the problems with Navy shipbuilding. I have attached a copy. While I might not agree with the entirety of this memorandum, its thrust is correct and it describes fairly some causes of the Navy's problem with the shipbuilding industry. While this memorandum does not indicate Newport News' specific problem, I am sure you can appreciate them from our discussions.

I need to bring all the pressure to bear that I ca.n. for a prompt and equitable resolution of the differences between the Company and the Navy. Time has run out. For this reason, it is requested that the Rule memorandum be inserted in the Congressional Record. I, of course, will defer to you on how to do that. But we need this in the public domain, and we need it there quickly.

Sincerely, J. P. DIESEL,

President.

NAVY SHIPBUILDING IN THE UNITED STATESVIEWS OF GORDON W. RULE

Major Premise: Where will the Navy find the shipbuilding capacity to produce our country's known requirements for ships?

Minor Premise: If such capacity can be found, under what terms and conditions will it be available to the Navy?

MAJOR PREMISE

It seems reasonable to ask SECNAV and CNO who continue to say our Navy needs X number of new ships for the :fleet by Y year, if they ha.ve a plan or blueprint of where they expect to get those X ships built.

I suggest two things greatly effect any answer to this major premise:

(1) We have no mobilization base in the United States for Navy shipbuilding.

(11) The Navy plays games and places ships in predetermined yards under the guise of competition. (Examples are Trident submarines to EB and FFG's to Bath and Todd. Newport News is smart enough to know where Admiral Rickover wants the Tridents built and that they are only being asked to bid for windowdressing. Similarly, an signs clearly point to NAVSEA wanting both Todd yards building FFG's and again the rest of the industry are smart enough to know this.)

When I was in the Bm·eau of Ships-now NAVSEA-the Navy had a well recogn12Jed policy of keeping five building yards in bustness for Navy new construction work, BethQuincy, Electric Boat, New York Ship, Newport News and I forget the fifth yard.

The Maritime Commission had a comparable list of yards for their ships. We kept them in business by allocating ships to them.

When I returned to the Navy in 1963 in my present job, the then ASN(I&L) told me no such policy existed any longer and any yard could go out of existence. We are now paying the price for that shortsightedness. ASD(I&L) had a group working on mobilization planning and many times I asked our representative on that group why they wouldn't develop a mob plan for shipbuilding. A satisfactory answer was never :forthcoming.

Were I Secretary of the Navy I would deterInine i:r any realistic plan was 1n existence for building the ships in the FYDP. rr- no

OXXII--458-Part 6

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS such plan existed, and I mean good, sound long range planning, acceptable to the industry and understood by all, disciplinary action would surely be undertaken.

This apparent lack of planning was so obvious to me that I wrote a letter dated 8 March 1974 to the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Stennis, which letter stated in part:

"The foregoing is set out in order to better understand the situation facing the Navyand a newly minted CNO. In capsule, the Navy is in an almost unbelievable situatiOn. Unless a CNO is selected and confirmed by your Committee who fully understands the seriousness of this situation and has plans to cope with and remedy it in the very near future, the U.S. Navy will be in very deep trouble indeed.

"The serious situation I speak of is that the shipbuilding industry in the United States does not want to build ships for the Navy. That is not just my personal view, it is the attitude of shipbuilders in this country and Secretary Warner knows it. There is no evidence that the CNO understands this situation or has any plans for corrective action.

"It is very interesting for the present CNO to outline to your Committee the Navy•s future ship requirements and how strong our Navy must be, but he should be asked where these ships will be built, etc. He should be questioned about the lack of competition and indeed no bids at all for specific ships presently required by the Navy and funded by the Congress.

"This Is the situation facing the new SECNAV and CNO. Your Committee may wish to discuss with these new appointees their comprehension of this problem and what they intend to do about it."

ASN (I&L) Bowers stated in a recent meeting that he had been working with the Maritime Commission for a year looking toward a mutual agreeable mobilization plan for building ships. rt•s about 'time. Additionally, Admiral Kidd wanted to reopen Mare Island and Philadelphia Naval Shipyard well over two years ago in order to obtain additional needed capacity for new construction, but nothing happened.

MINOR PREMISE

If such capacity can be found, under what terms and conditions will it be available to the Navy?

Two things here are irrefutable. First, the Navy must get the required ships built without recourse to the Defense Production Act and second, the shipbuilding industry must be assured of fair contrects and treatment by the Navy, and a reasonable opportunity to earn a good profit for building the most complicated piece of hardware the Navy buys. The Navy should realize tha~ one way or another, these shipyards will get paid what they are entitled to via changes, equitable adjustments under their contracts, claims or P.L. 85-804. There are enough good claims lawyers-many of whom worked for the Navy and know our weaknesses-to assure that.

Additionally, the following points must be considered in connection with this premise:

(i) The building of a Navy combatant ship always involves concurrent development and production. There is no engineering development phase in shipbuilding as there is in every other piece of hardware the J,\1avy" procures.

(ii) When the Navy is designing a ship and having it built concurrently, the result is massive changes-both authorized and constructive-requiring fair and prompt adjudication or they can develop into claims. rt should be recognized that concmrency, rather than development, pilot production and then production will add at least twenty-five percent more to the cost of a procurement.

7243 (iii) When the Navy utilizes the lead/

follow yard method of ship procurement, claims and delays are inherent--they always have been.

(iv) Shipbuilding labor is SQ-35 % nonproductive or inemclent.

(v) The Navy makes unfair contracts for building the ships it requires and the industry knows and resents this. (Type of contract, delivery dates, pricing to meet an erroneous budget estimate, are prime examples of this.)

(vi) These unfair contracts have, of necessity, led to claims against the Navy, and although some of these claims are of dubious validity, those that are valid are not settled as promptly as they should be.

(vii) A review of shipbuilding claims-or requests for equitable adjustment-as they are sometimes termed for statistical purposes, will show that the Navy hasn't learned many lessons in recent years and that our track record of ship contracting has been disgraceful.

(vill) The Navy recently went to Court to sue our best surface ship builder. Newport News.. When the Navy does this. and then is told by the Judge to negotiate your differences and report back to the Court--which is what the Navy should have been able to do without going to Court--it is obvious something- is very wrong.

So much for the description of what this minor premise involves. Now, wha.t needs to be done.

It is suggested that before the Navy can hope to have a successful shipbuilding program, there must be a reestablishment of mutual respect and trust with the shipbuilding industry in the United States. This can only be accomplished by deeds, not words. Instead of litigating and awarding claim inducing contracts providing fees for law firms, the folloWing course of action is proposed:

(i) Recognize that our track reccmi of ship procurement is very poor indeed and that at least 50% of the blame for that record is properly chargeable to the Navy. (The most important thing wrong with the Navy today-not the fleet but the producer side of the Navy-is that we will never admit we made a mistake.) Thus, it. is essential that we recognize our deficiencies before we can hope to take corrective action.

(ii) The Navy today needs new faces to properly and intelligently provide the required climate for dealing with the shipbuilding industry and indeed for properly evaluating our own mistakes. Today people are polarized and captives of the ways and prejudices that have produced the conflicts, claims, etc. Someone must be found who will take hold of this problem and provide the new philosophy of complete fairness in all our dealings with the shipbuilding industry, both in the making and administration of our contracts. This result is achievableby the right, tough-minded person or persons-without any loss of firmness and protection of the Government•s best interests. What the goal here must be is simply fairness and respect for each other's position as distinguished from the current dug-in positions that produce adversary relationships without flexibility or reasonable fall back positions. That is what negotiation-to reach mutual agreement-is all about. It is fashionable for some persons in authority in the Navy to moan about how shipyards that formerly were privately owned and operated are now owned and operated by large conglomerates that are only Interested in making a profit. This mentality probably still looks fo!'" a corner grocer instead of going to a chain store.

{iii) The most Important short tenn objective must be the settlement of the Litton and Newport News problems. I submft the Ll«on yard is a national asset ror tttture Navy new ship construction and w& should

': 7244 recognize thfs as a fact. The Navy and DOD actively encouraged Litton to build this yard in Mississippi and the first Navy contract through that new yard-the LHA's-should have been a cost type contract, at least for the first ship. This Litton LHA matter should be settled under P.L. 85-804 as was Lockheed (C5A) and Grumman (F14) by reformation of the contract to cost type on the supportable theory of essentiality to the national defense. In my opinion, Litton Is more deserving of 85-804 reformation treatment than Grumman ever was. Litton did not buyin on the LHA contract and Grumman did. We need that modern yard for Navy work and we should be planning right now to put work in there. Newport News must be negotiated to settlement and I believe that can be accomplished 1f handled cooperatively by negotiation and not lltigation. It is fully realized that any settlement over $25 milllon must be approved by the Congress. Thus, I would go to the Chairmen of the Armed services and Appropriations Committees and fully apprise them of the planned settlement procedures and get their blessing in advance. I feel confident they would approve.

(lv) The most important short and long range objective must be the making of right type of ship construction contracts. A re• view of our track record in using firm fixed price contracts and later fixed price incentive contracts (incentive on cost only) for building Navy ships says loud and clear that it's about time we woke up to the fact that changes and improvements must be made. More specifically it ls recommended that the following suggestions be considered and if neces':'ary, discussed with the shipbuilding industry via the Shipbuilders Council of America:

(a) New construction Navy ships should be allocated to building yards under an ap• proved shipbuilding mobllization plan. This would eliminate the specious comuetitlve exercises we go through and would recognize the almost Impossible task of competitively pricing the unknowns involved in the concurrency of develo!'ment and construction of a ship or shi~s. The Navy allocates submarine overhauls by planning years ahead where each ship be assigned. It Is suggested that this same procedure would be prudent for the upcoming DE 1052 class overhauls rather than compete these overhauls.

(b) With both the Seapower Subcommittee and the GAO taking positions against cost type contracts for shipbuilding, it appears the Navy will continue to utilize fixed price incentive contracts (cost only incentive) for Navy shipbuilding. This FPI type of contract can be made a satisfactory contractual instrument. It is not today because of the tortured manner in which we structure them. The basic test of a soundly structw·ed FPI contract-and indeed a CPIF contract-is the credibility of the target cost. The target cost should really be called "most probable cost" and should be that figure which the contractor has a 50/50 chance of overrunning or underrunning. This Is fundamental in incentive contracting. It is this precise point-target cost-where the Navy starts the process of making unfair contracts. When the Navy negotiate a 95/5 share above target cost for the first 26 million of overrun of target, the target cost figure is patently phoney. Moreover, when the Navy negotiates a 95/5 share and then also a 152% celUng, the target cost figure ls patently ridiculous. First priority for the future must be the negotiation of more reasonable target costs for our FPI shipbulldlng contracts and tf the budget has to be changed, then change it.

(c) When our ships are allocated rather than price competed, I would start the contractor to work by means of a cost-no-fee contract to be definltized to an FPI contract by an agreed upon date. The difference be-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS tween a cost-no-fee interim contract and a letter contract is that the contractor will be p~id 100% of his costs vice 8Q-85%, which is of great benefit from a cash flow point of view and also from an interest standpoint. The cost-no-fee interim contract would contain the unilateral definltlzation clause used in letter contracts and would provide that If it is not definitlzed by the agreed upon date the 100% of cost payments would revert to 8Q-85%. The reason for this is obvious.

(d) The contractor would submit his proposal to definltize to an FPI contract and not competing for the contract price-wise, the likelihood is a more honest pronosal. This will then be compared to our official Navy estimate for that particular building yard and a far more realistic target cost negotiated. At this point of definitlzation we would also have much more reliable subcontract costs available than trying to fully forward price. Consideration should also be given to a redetermination of price at say 60% competition as the Navy used to do.

(e) With the negotiation of a realistic target cost, instead of dictated labor hours and costs-as we have done to meet a budget figure--the target profit, share and celllng matrix would fall into place without having to be tortured to make up for an unrealistic target cost. With respect to profit, it is es· sential that a new and broadened philosophy be utlllzed, one which recognizes the shipbuilders' entitlement to a good/reasonable profit for bullding the most complicated hardware the Navy procures. If it should eventuate that a shipbuilder realized excessive profits then we should rely on the Renegotiation Board to take appropriate action.

I firmly believe this suggested outline would work. given the will to make it work on the part of the Navy and would provide the necessary inducement to industry to actively and willingly participate in our shipbuilding programs. Toc<ay, I believe these shipbuilders have reason to suspect that we are being unfair to them when we make our contracts. This feeling must be negated and I respectfully submit my approach would do it and would also comply with Secretary Clements' desires and objectives.

A TRIBUTE TO MR. PETER J. DESANTIS

HON. LEO J. RYAN OF CALIFORNIA


Mr. RYAN. Mr. Speaker, on the evening of March 27, a testimonial dinner is being held by the Grand Lodge of California, Order Sons of Italy in America, in honor of Mr. Peter J. DeSantis, Past General Venerable.

Mr. DeSantis is being honored on this special occasion for his many outstanding and unselfish contributions to the Grand Lodge, his country and his community. Under his leadership, the Grand Lodge of California has made more progress in membership than during any period of the order. Mr. DeSantis has also been responsible for many new and successful programs while serving in his many posts in the Order Sons of Italy in America, the Supreme, the Grand and local lodge levels.

Some of his more important acknowledgements include special recognition by Italian Minister Colombo at a White House state dinner, Star of Knight Com-

March 18, 1976 mander and Star of Solidarity by the Italian Government and numerous State and local government resolutions in acknowledgement of his services.

Mr. DeSantis also serves on the Los Angeles Mayor's Advisory Committee as the public relations chairman. He is a board member of the United Nations Association of Los Angeles and serves on the advisory board of the Federated Italo-Americans of California.

These are only a few of this fine man•s accomplishments in the past years. Certainly the honor being bestowed upon Mr. DeSantis at this testimonial dinner is greatly deserved. I would like to offer my own best wishes and congratulations to this outstanding gentleman, Mr. Peter Joseph DeSantis.

EILBERG'S APPROACH IS BEST

HON. RON DE LUGO OF THE VmGIN ISLANDS


Mr. DE LUGO. Mr. Speaker, the Virgin Islands Daily News recently published a thoughtful editorial in support of legislation introduced by the chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, JosHUA EILBERG, on nonresidents in the Virgin Islands.

I would like to take this opportunity to commend the dedication and hard work put in by the subcommittee and, in particular, by Chairman EILBERG over the past year on a very difficult and complex problem. I also commend the Daily News for its civic leadership in this matter and call attention to the editorial by including this very important contribution in the RECORD:

EILBERG'S APPROACH Is BEST

We must join Congressman Joshua Eilberg in his dismay over the administration's reaction to his proposed legislation on nonresident aliens. This is one more case of a blanket decision being made without regard to its consequences in the Virgin Islands. The situation is even wor~e than usual this time because a satisfactory alternative-the Ellberg Blll-has been put forward, and the administration has cho~en to oppose it.

Enberg's mea~11re, which a House subcommittee was holding a hearing on this week, offers the promise of a solution to the problem of the longtime non-citizen resident in the Virgin Islands. The bill would set up a special committee to review the status of non-immigrant aliens with an eye to granting them permanent re:;idence. Among the things the committee would consider are the individual's character, economic clrcwnst:mces and the number of relatives he or she might be able to bring into the country if given a green card. The virtue of this f:ystem is that it offers a means of differentiating between thoee who have made their homes here and developed genuine roots ln the community, and those who, even though they may be longtime residents, have no genuine tie'\ here.

The immigration chief in his statement strongly opposed Eilberg's blll, claiming that in some respects it would be unconstitutional. He made lt clear that the admlnl.,tration preferred a nationwide policy, rather than one tailored to any specific part of the country, and indicated preferences for legis-

· ~

March 18;1976-lation granting all ~liens permanent residence, without regard to the economic impact on the Virgin Islands. In other words~ the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which did much to create the allen p~:obiem in the first place by abandoning, or being incapable of !ulfill1ng, its responsibilities, n ow wants to legislate the problem out of existence.

We recognize that the Virgin Islands can,not continually plead for special treatment and favors. However. this is obviously a case where what may be the best solution for New York and its estimated 1.5 million illegal aliens can only be harmful to these islands with their total population o.f about 100,000. In the one case the melting pot can absorb immigrants by the mllllons, while in the other· only a very few thousand could remold the melting pot.

Washington has long had a way of making sweeping decisions without giving thought to thelr effects on these islands, and we have long had to live with the unfortunate consequences of some of these blanket decisions. In this instance. we would urge the administration to recognize that Congressman Ellberg's approach offers the best promise and to give lt Its support. Should the administration persist on the course indicated by the Immigration chief, it can only create undue hardship here with new and serious problems that the federal government w111 have to address itself to at a later date.

PHILADELPHIA EXPANDS BIKE PATHS

HON. JOSHUA EILBERG OF PENNSYLVANIA



Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Speaker, the city of Philadelphia is already known for its safe and extensive system of bicycle trails. Fairmount Park has been one of the Nation's finest bicycling centers for many years, with 15 miles of paved bike paths in the main body of the park, and more trans being added in outlying parks throughout the city.

At the recommendation of Mayor Frank Rizzo, bike riding on Sunday will now be even more enjoyable, and safer. Each Sunday from 8 a.m. until noon, a 2-mile stretch of the West River Drive along the Schuylkill River will be closed to all auto traffic to allow bikers a safe ride through the park.

"Bike Drive West" began Sunday, March 14, with City Councilman John B. Kelly Jr.. Fairmount Park Director Robert C. McConnell, and Fairmount Park Recreation Division Supervisor Morris Ozer officially opening the program.

This weekly closing has been introduced to call attention to the fine bicycle facilities in Fairmount Park, and to provide the expanded area for bike riding free from automobile interference.

Other popular bike trails in the Philadelphia park system include the East and West River Drive bike paths in Fairmount Park, and the 5.5 mile Forbidden Drive bike path in the Wissahickon Valley. Both trails have been designated ''NatiOnal Recreation Trails" by the U.S. Department_ of the Interior.

More ·bike paths are being planned for


park areas throughout the city, including Pennypack Park, Tacony Creek Park, Franklin Delano Roosevelt Park, and the Wissahickon Valley.

ASHRAE'S EFFORTS TO PROMOTE ENERGY CONSERVATION

HON. ROBERT W. KASTEN, JR. OF WISCONSIN



Mr. KASTEN. Mr. Speaker, on January 21, 1976, Mr. William P. Chapman, president-elect of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, & Air Conditioning Engineers, Inc., appeared before the hearing on Federal consumer representation plans in Houston to offer the Federal Energy Administration the continued cooperation and services of the society in promoting energy conservation.

Mr. Chapman quite correctly assessed the difficulties the Federal Energy Administration faces in trying to meet the conflicting needs of the Nation's different classes of consumers and still try to reduce our dependence on other nations for our basic energy resources. Because nearly one-third of our energy is used in buildings, cost-effective conservation measures will reduce our energy consumption and provide us the time we need to develop alternate sources of energy.

I am particularly impressed with the society's efforts to promote building code standards to implement cost-effective conservation measures-in both new and old buildings.

I commend the society for its achieve• ments in this field and would like to place excerpts of Mr. Chapman's speech in the RECORD at this point in order to share them with my colleagues:

FEA CONSUMER REPRESENTATION PLAN

{Remarks of Willi1mt P. Chapman, Presidentelect, ASHRAE)

The FEA should listen to the voice of the voter and the taxpayer.

But it is one thing to profess to be responsive to the consumer and another thing actually to be responsive. This public hearing ... is unmistakable evidence that the FEA h ·as its ear to the ground, that it wants to know the public's attitude.

Listening to the public 1s easier said than done. For there is no single, homogenized body which can be called the public, or the consumer.

Some members of the public demand that the government bring back cheap gasoline; others want the emphasis to be on ma.c;s transit. Some members of the public think the preservation of the environment is the paramount good; others are convinced that the extre.m.ism of some environmentalists will result in a backlash which will be harmful to the environmental movement. . . . So you see that there really is no such thing as "the public".

Because our energy problem is so complex, the one component of the public which can be helpful to the FEA in its new Consumer Representation p~ Ls the engineers, and particularly the engineers in the heating, ventilating, and air-copditioll.ing, or .HVAC, field. These engineers ·are banned together

7245 1n the organiz~tion I am privileged to repre-: sent, t h e American Society of Heating, Refrigeratin g, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, also known as ASHRAE, We have nearly 30,000 members and that is a fair-sized slice of the public.

I would like to volunteer the services of our members to the FEA. Our members can provide some technical inputs to the FEA effort to listen to the public. We can inform on the use of energy in buildings; nearly onethird of the energy consumed in the U.S. is used in buildings. We can inform on which conservation measures make sense and which do not. We can inform on which measures would be effective and which would not.

We can advise against false claims, and to suggest that proper standards be used to measure performance. By adhering to our standards and by using well known management tools, we can make improvements in the use of energy that are economically justifiable.

* • So our people can be regarded by the FEA

as a corps of experts which would be happy to participate in the FEA Consumer Representation Plan, and can make a cont ribution. Indeed, our people have already been hard at work-

For two years-in a most important phase of energy work. I refer to the standard on. energy conservation in new buildings which was completed last August-ASHRAE Stan dard 90-75. It is a series of guidelines relating to building envelopes (that is, the exterior of the buildings). heating and air-conditioning systems and components, water heating systems, illumination. and other elements. of a structure which a.fiect the amount of energy that buildings consume. It applies to virtually all new structures, including sin gle-family homes.

I regard the development of Standar d 90-75 as the single most important piece of work which ASHRAE has undertaken in its distinguished 80-year history.

Even before it was finalized, many jurisdictions across the country had adopted it and made it a part of the building code. In the next year numerous states, counties, and cities will either adopt the standard, or will modify their building codes in accordance with it.

You may quite properly ask: How do I know whether Standard 90-'Z5 will help our country to save energy? FEA asked that question. It then commissioned one of the nation's most respected management consultants and engineering companies Arthur D. Llttle, Inc., to make an impact study of 90-75 and find out.

After making an independent appraisal of the standard, Arthur D. Littre reported that the guidelines would do exactly what they were intended to do-save energy-and they would do so without escalating the cost of construction . .Arthur D. Little told the FEA that their study showed: "Percent savings in annual energy costs ranged from 9-15% in a single family house to 30-45 '7rin commercial buildings." The average on an buildings would be about 27%.

Initial cost of construction would be less than for conventional buildings, with savlngs running from 4¢ to 94¢ a square foot, with the greatest savings being in office buildings. The savings are due to the reduced requirement for mechanical equipment, which offsets added design cost, and added cost for materials that improve the heat transfer aspects of the structures.

Both FEA and ASHRAE know that it is u.ecessan ~o get the A.. D. Little impact . report to everyone concerned with bullding design, construction and ftnance; and also to those that are instrumental in preparing building codes. We must convince everyone that S-tandard 90-75 is in the best national interest.

Accordingly, we have begun to hold a.

7246 series of seminars in 59 cities from coast to coast to explain the provisions and use of Standard 95-75. To prepare for these Eeminars, we held two 3-day workshops in which members of the committee which drafted the Standard trained the people who are conducting the local-level seminars.

To date, nearly 1,000 architects, engineers, builders, subcontractors, manufacturers of equipment and materials, building code officials, and others with an interest in the subject, have attended these meetings; before we are through, we expect some 5,000 will have been briefed on 90-75.

Now we all know that there are many more existing buildings than new buildings, and that it would serve our country well in its efforts to achieve energy independence if steps could be taken to make these existing structures more conserving of energy.

ASHRAE has just embarked on a program of drafting a standard for conserv!ng energy in existing buildings. We call this project Standard lOOP-the "P" standing for ' 'provisional."

The dlfiiculties which face our organization 111 drafting this new standard are forbidding.

* • * Undoubtedly there are many measures that

would save energy, but would also be quite costly. Would Government at various levels do such a politically unpopular thing as to require such drastic measures? Could meaningful tax incentives be provided to encourage the public to cooperate?

What we are talking about is an economic policy that has the constraining factors of limited energy resources. But also we are talking about an untapped resource-energy conservation; the elimination of waste. Further, we have the resource of engineering imagination-the optimization of energy use.

* * "' * ... What to do? A partial answer is to

make better use of what we have, through scientific energy management in our buildings.

The optimization of energy wlll be our duty forevermore. The day of inexpensive energy is past. The American people are going to have to face theEe two hard realities. I have no doubt that the FEA will present this to the public, and will make meaningful suggestions.

I do not envy the position of the FEA. It must be torn between the several demands of the fossil fuel producers, the electric and gas utilities, the manufacturing plants which cannot turn a wheel without abundant energy, the home-owners who heat with gas and do not relish the Idea of converting to something else, the transportation industry, the police who want our streets more brightly illuminated as a deterrent to crime, the consumerists with their familiar demands, the environmentalists, and so on-and so on. Add to that the attitude of all Americans: Let's get our country out of the position where the foreign oil producers can pull the switch again and shut off our petroleum supply overnight.

The pressures are enormow. But I'm sure the FEA can take the heat-and ASHRAE is here to help.

Thank you.

DADE JETPORT-III

HON. WILLIAM LEHMAN OF FLOIUDA


Thursday, March 18, 1976 Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have from

time to time brought materials before my colleagues regarding the North Dade


Training Jetport issue. I have previously outlined the reasons leading to the Jetport Pact of 1970, which required a search for a site to replace the Dade-Collier jetport north of the Everglades. I have also discussed more recent findings which contradict the environmental fears and usage projections which led to the pactfindings that there has been no environmental damage at the current facility, and that training activity, far from reaching projected levels there, has fallen off dramatically.

I have two further concerns regarding this unnecessary and duplicative replacement, which I would like to mention today.

Site 14, which has been selected as the replacement site, is partially located in conservation area 3B and is situated over the Biscayne Acquifer. These are the sources of all drinking water for Metropolitan Miami. There are two potential hazards related to construction on the site, neither of which has been addressed to my satisfaction. One is that, without adequate precautions, the flow of water through the conservation area and the acquifer might be interrupted or reduced, leading to the possibility of increased salt water contamination of the acquifer. The other is that storm runoff from the paved areas of the facility could be polluted by jetport waste and, being readily absorbed in the porous ground of surrounding areas, might contaminate the acquifer and Miami's water. If site 14 is to replace the Glades Jetport, a closer look must be taken at the possible risks to the public health.

The search team for the new site considered a number of potential locations, but one very fundamental alternative was not available. Under the terms of the Jetport Pact, the current DadeCollier site-the "do-nothing" optioncould not be considered, and a new site had to be chosen. Despite the fact that the present site is more than adequate to handle current activity and present levels could increase almost tenfold without passing the original projections, despite the lack of environmental damage, unless the pact is abrogated or allowed to terminate without action next year, the Federal Government will be asked to pay over $69 million to acquire land and construct facilities simply to duplicate an existing and perfectly adequate site. And we in Congrses will be called upon to authorize and appropriate these funds.

I was pleased to see that the South Florida Regional Planning Council, made up of elected omcials from four south Florida counties including Dade, had voted unanimously on March 1, to recommend that the Jetport Pact be allowed to terminate with no action. Mr. Speaker, the Miami Herald report of this action follows for your information and that of our colleagues:

[From the Miami Herald, Mar. 2, 1976] FORGET BUILD:ING NORTH DADE JETPORT, PLAN

Nl:NG BOARD TELLS METRO, UNITED STATES

The South Florida Regional Planning Council Monday said Metro and the federal government should forget about building a. new training jetport in Northwest Dade.

Council members, including two Metro

March 18, 1976 c01nnussioners, said there simply isn't a need for a new training strtp to replace the existing facility north of Everglades National Park.

In a 9-0 vote, the council recommended that the Jetport Pact be allowed to terminate when its current term expires in 1977.

The Jetport Pact is the 1970 agreement in which Metro agreed to close the Everglades training airport as soon as a substitute site could be acquired by the federal government.

The site being proposed for acquisition is commonly known as Site 14 which straddles U.S. 27 just south of the Broward County line. Metro has an application pending for $69 million in federal funds to develop a training airport there.

But that application is expected to run into difficulty because an impact study has shown that the existing training strip in the Everglades hasn't caused environmental damage.

And the need for a second major commercial airport--which had been envisioned for the future on the Northwest Dade Site 14-appears to have faded because of a leveling off in air travel.

Those factors led to Monday's Regional Planning Council vote, which constitutes the council's comments on the impact study conducted by the Federal Aviation Administration.

The planning council's vote doesn't affect the Jetport Pact, since that is an agreement among Metro, the state and the federal government. But the vote does show that two Metro commissioners, Harvey Ruvin and Clara Oesterle, feel that the acquisition of Site 14 isn't needed.

The planning council is made up of elected officials from Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and Monroe counties.

MARONITE CATHOLIC BISHOP PRAYS FOR RESTORATION OF PEACE IN LEBANON

HON. JAMES G. O'HARA OF MICHIGAN


Thursday, March 18, 1976 Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Speaker, it recently

was my great privilege to attend a special charity appeal dinner held in Mount Clemens, Mich., to help victims of the tragic war in Lebanon.

The dinner was sponsored jointly by the Most Reverend Francis M. Zayek, Maronite Catholic bishop of the United States, and the World Lebanese Cultural Union's U.S. National Council. The principal speaker was Bishop Zayek, who made a most moving appeal for assistance to those who are, in his words, "refugees in their own homeland.,

The future of Lebanon remains clouded, Mr. Speaker, and while the work of statesmen goes on in an effort to restore peace, harmony, and brotherhood, the urgent need continues to bring solace to those who are the victims of the rising and continuing tensions throughout the Middle East.

It is this deep tragedy to which Bishop Zayek addressed himself at the charity appeal dinner, and I commend his thoughtful and sensitive comments to my colleagues:

Drennan said: "The first daughter to the love of God, is charity to man.''

We are gathered tonight for a Charity Ap-

March 18, 1976 peal Dinner, to help the victims of ~he ~ragic war in Lebanon. The deed of chanty 1s the noblest, and is the seal and mark of our. faith and love for God, whom we do not see, but serve in our neighbor. I am sure that many of you remember Lebanon as it was two years ago. Lebanon was the Switzerland of the Middle East, the bridge between East and West. Beirut, the Paris of the Middle East with its jour Universities, it was _the center of prosperity, trading ana. ~a_nkt!l'g. Lebanon was a land of freedom ctvtltzatwn and. democracy where the Christians, Moslems and. Jews lived for more than half a century in complete harmony, peace and. brotherhood.. More than 300,000 Syrians found in Lebanon work, understanding and led a higher standard of living than in their own country.

Today in less than ten months, the once prospero~s Lebanon is but ruins, fire and blood. More than 10,000 people have been kllled and more than 20,000 have been wounded. 700,000 workers are out of the_ir jobs, and 50,000 Lebanese are refugees. tn their own homeland. living in Monastenes, huts and tents. The widows, the orphans, the wounded and many other victims are asking for help-Our Maronite Patriarch has launched an appeal to the world to save the homeless from a severe winter and from hunger. They are in dire need. of antibiotics, medicines, plasma and also dried eggs and milk, flour, canned meat and blankets. We have already shipped some of these requests to Lebanon.

This is the reason of o1Lr Charity Appeal dinner tonight. We are here to answer their appeal, to thank God for all the blessings which He bestowed upon us abundantly, and to tell Him that out of gratitude to His generosity toward. us we are not forgetting those who hunger for justice, peace and sustenance. To our gifts and sacrifices we will also add our prayers to Almighty God asking Him to finally bring peace to the whole Middle East and to look mercifully upon the bloodshed as a price for understanding, coexistence and reconciliation.

This is what Gasseb Kayrouz, a 22 year old Maronite Seminarian, has written before leaving Damour to go see his parents and relatives in Nabha and before he was captured and killed by the leftists: "To my countrymen I say, those who live in the same house can have their differences, but without hating one another; they can argue with one another, but without killing one another, together, Christians and Moslems, we . ate, we drank: together we prayed. to the On_e and Only God. I ask, if I am killed that no recrimination may be taken. I am sure one day the mercy of God will gather us again. I am dust, but the strength of God will make me participant of the Divine Light and life. If I have offended anyone, I ask to be forgiven, because I am a sinful servant of the Lord".

My dear friends, on my behalf and on that of all those who will benefit from your help, generosity and charity I extend to you all our deep gratitude and assure you that God will reward you a hundredfold because He has promised to reward whoever gives a glass of water to his neighbor in His name.

I take this opportunity to extend my sincere and warm thanks to all of you for your klndness, your standing ovation and your love for the values which I represent as a Bishop in the Catholic Maronite Church; I deeply appreciate the cooperation of the World Lebanese Cultural Union, represented by Dr. Daher Rahi, the well known humanitarians, Mr. and Mrs. Woodrow W. Woody and all those who worked hard to make this Charity Appeal Dinner a succe~ . I thank you and Wish you health and prosperity and ask God to keep you in His love and care and bless you and· your loved ones with many years. · · ·

EXTENSIONS OF .REMARKS.

¥EDICAID ABUSES

HON. ANDREW MAGUIRE OF NEW JERSEY



Mr. MAGUIRE. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation designed to change current medicaid practices as they relate to independent clinical laboratory services-to lower costs, to help control existing and potential abuses, and to enhance the quality of service for medicaid and other patients.

The independent clinical laboratories to which I refer receive medicaid dollars for performing chemical, bacteriological, and other examinations on human body materials, with data obtained from the examinations used as part of the process of diagnosis, treatment, or prevention_ of various diseases and for assessing an Individual's medical condition.

Mr. Speaker, there is telling evidence that there are grievous loopholes in the medicaid program which allow individuals to profiteer at the taxpayers' expense. · Specifically, the medicaid fee schedule for reimbursing laboratories is outdated and must be redesigned to reflect the highly automated and technologically advanced test procedures now available. A good portion of medicaid funds is being siphoned off for the benefit of a small number of health care providers-a handful who are far more interested in money than in medicine, far more interested in profits than people.

I am referring to various clinical laboratories which channel high profits directly to the laboratory owners and. through them, to some of the physicians supplying these labs with medicaidfunded test business. These laboratory abuses, which bilk both the taxpayer and the needy, have become a national scandal.

During the hearings conducted by Senator FRANK Moss' Subcommittee on Long-Term Care in February 1976 it was estimated that, by conservative estimates, $1 out of every $5 spent on behalf of medicaid or medicare payments for clinical labs was·either fraudulent or unnecessary. These abuses cost millions of dollars each year and untold suffering. Some of the abuses are subtle, some of them are gross, but all of them are unconscionable. They must be stopped.

One example of abuse described in subcommittee testimony, involves charges for a blood chemistry analysis performed by a device known as SMA-12. This device reports almost instantly on the status of as many as 12 blood chemistries in any given test samples. Under prevailing medicaid fee schedules an unautomated laboratory can be paid the $12.50 for a SMA-12 test, even when the test is actually performed by a larger automated laboratory to which the first laboratory mailed the test sample. The automated laboratozy returns the results along with a bill for $3.50 to the smaller laboratory. Medicaid is in turn billed for the $12.50 for the sam~ test. Indeed, some small and largely unautomated inde-

7247 pendent clinical laboratories have marked up as much as 300 percent or more the cost of tests performed on a subcontraot or referral basis by .. large automated laboratories and then collect the markups from medicaid. .

In the area of overbilling, there have been numerous instances where labs are able to overbill medicaid for certain tests, even under false test claims, without those practices being detected at eithe1· the prepayment or postpayment processing levels.

Some laboratories frequently take a single test which produces multiple, component results, such as the chemistries produced by SMA-12, tests to wh ich I referred earlier, and bill for each component as if it were a separate test. Thus for a cost to one lab of $3.50 for work done by another, medicaid is billed a staggering $58, or nearly five times the maximum permissible reimbursement. In another area of overbilling, laboratories have billed and received from medicaid $15 for a German measles test known as -Rubella titer when, in fact, that test had been performed free of charge for the laboratory by the Department of Health of the State in which the lab was located.

It is the fat in the fee schedules which permits these outrageous ripoffs of a taxpayer-supported health care program for the impoverished.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation I am introducing goes a long way toward eliminating the abuses and profiteering I have briefly described.

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that fee schedules for reimbursing services must relate to actual costs of performing the tests, taking into consideration advancing technology in the independent clinical laboratory industry. We could realize as much as a 40-percent reduction of current service cost levels by implementing this bill.

This bill introduces into this area of medicaid service the concept of c.ompetitive bidding. Through competitive bidding, the States .can have laboratories bid for tests, thus allowing for a provision of services at a cost much lower than currently available. In fact, in recent subcommittee hearings held in New York City, it was stated that this method could realize a 50-percent reduction in costs. This approach, however, at present is unlawful. My bill would provide authority to utilize this approach and therefore give medicaid recipients the choice of providers. In addition, physicians will be able to choose laboratories which offer greater adequacy and availability of service.

This bill will also requii·e laboratory services to be provided only by licensed laboratories and qualified health personnel. In conjunction with the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act, the bill will result in the upgrading of standards and quality of services to which our citizens are entitled.

Finally, this bill will reduce charges for services p:rovided to the lowest rate possible to individuals other than medicaid program participants. In the case of laboratory X-ray services, these would not exceed the lowest amount for such s~rv-

7248 ices, and only a nominal amount for processing the samples.

I am-convinced, Mr. Speaker, that with this bill we can address many of the problems to which I have referred as they relate to independent clinical laboratories providing medicaid services: Problems of overcharging, problems of high markups and problems of low quality.

In conclusion, I am hopeful that hearings on this legislative proposal will take place simultaneously with those already scheduled next week on a separate, but complementary, bill in the Subcommittee on Health and Environment .of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce: H.R. 11431, the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act of 1976.

CONGRESSMAN HEINZ OFFERS TWO BILLS TO RECYCLE ABANDONED SCHOOL Bun.J)INGS

HON. H. JOHN HEINZ Ill OF PENNSYLVANIA

I N T HE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thu1·sday, Ma1·ch 18, 1976

Mr. HEINZ. Mr. Speaker, throughout the United States many elementary and secondary school buildings have been forced to close due to decreasing enrollment, shifts in population, consolidation, and for other reasons not associated with structural deficiency. In my Stat-e of Pennsylvania, 144 schools were closed between September 1974, and September 1975. Another 120 are slated for closure at the end of the current academic year. Closer, seven schools in Montgomery County, Md. are schedliled to close at the end of this year. The same problem exists nationwide. In New York the number is over 200, and in Salt Lake City alone, 20 schools have been closed during tne past 8 years due to a 35-percent decrease in em·ollment. In Wichita, Kans. 13 schools have been dosed over the last 5 years.

Many of these buildings are structurally sound and centrally located. They could continue to be valuable resources for their .communities through alternate uses. The problem facing most communities in which these buildings are located is lack of planning assistance and funds to convert these buildings for other productive uses.

Today I am introducing two bills which are designed to assist communities to deal with this problem. The Surplus School Conservation Act of 1976 is designed to provide grants, on a limited and competitive basis, to communities that wish to retain unused school buildings for other productive purposes. The Surplus School Conversion Act of 1976 is designed to encourage private industry to purchase these buildings for conversion to alternate revenue producing enterprises in situations in which the communities no longer have a use for these buildings.

Mr. Speaker, the post World War II baby boom resulted in _explosive growth during the late 1950's a.nd 1960's in many school districts. During this period, pub-


lie school enrollments increased by over 8 million students to a peak of 52.8 million pupils in 1971. Educational planners were conditioned to an expansion orientation. The growth enabled remarkable changes to take place in educational programs, facilities and services.

In recent years, these same school districts have experienced a reverse phenomenon-declining enrollments. Nationally, the first decline in public school enrollment occurred in 1972. Recent projections of public school enrollment by the U.S. Office of Education indicate a decline of over 4 million youngsters in grades kindergarten through 12 in the next 10 years. Shrinkage and how to cope with it have become as much a theme of the 1970's as growth was for the 1950's and 1960's.

Mr. Speaker, there is no debate over the widespread shrinkage problem. It is creating turmoil at the elementary level now, and the trend will reach secondary schools within a few years.

In addition to declining enrollment, many schools have been closed due to out-mobility of the population. We are a country of movers, or more accurately, of movers and stayers, with those who move being apt to move again, and most of the movement being made by young people. So we have the problem of overall population decline made sharper by outmigration. The fiigbt from the inner cities has compounded the rate of decline for those areas, and even the older ''inner-ring" suburbs are experiencing decline.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most complex problems resulting fTom the declining enrollment is what to do with school buildings that are no longer needed. While community and school officials have had exp·erience in closing obsolete schools, many districts now are faced with the problem of having to close relatively new schoo1s, in some instances schools that are not even paid for.

The closing of the neighborhood school is a higllly emotional event for students, parents, and staff. Yet it has become a fact of life for many communities.

Mr. Speaker, if an entire building becomes exeess, yet is structurally sound and fit for rehabilitation and recycling, the building should be kept in use by someone. We have learned from bitter experience in abandoning elementary schools that "mothballing" se1dom works. W-e know the best way to protect property is to fil1 it with people. Boarding up window preserves neitner the buildi.."lg nor the real estate values of its neighborhood.

The No. 1 problem of closed schools is vandalism. Next is the pressure from those who cannot stand seeing valuable property sitting idle. Finally, closed schools are a psychological thorn in parents' sides. "Since these buildings are not being used for anything else, why can our children not go there?"

In addition to these pressures against n10thballing, it does not make sense economically to have too many buildings standing idle; they will deteriorate. So back to the question-What do you do with an empty school?

Mr. Sp-eaker, once a school is closed,

fdarch 18, 1976

it does not mean that the productive life of the building is over. This is precisely the reason I am introducing these two bills today. Vvhat communities need is assistance in creating a plan for using these buildings, and financial assistance in implementing these plans. Almost all communities have administrators available to conduct the plans.

There is considerable evidence that unused school buildings can be put to good alternate uses as is illustrated in the following examples:

Dayton, Ohio, where a 2,200-student high school has been converted to a center for manpower training, adult basic education, community recreation cent er, and the like.

Kalamazoo, Mich., where -a large high school was relinquished to the city for adult education, a private school, and a senior citizens' center.

Jacksonville, Fla., where an 800 pupil junior high is now a community / school center, administrative offices, and the like.

Harrisburg, Pa., where the school board has taken the position that parts of a 2,500-pupil junior high can be used for any community project it can afford.

Westmoreland County, Pa., where one elementary school is now a junior college, and another has been leased to the Navy Reserve which pays maintenance costs in return for use of the building.

'There are many additional examples of surplus school buildings being sold to private industry, thus returning these buildings to the tax rolls:

Ithaca, N.Y.-where a building was sold to an entrepreneur who recycled it to a shopping center, housing for the elderly, and private offices.

Claremont, Calif.-where an old school is now a shopping center, and

Madison, Wis.-where an engineering .concern bought a surplus school for offices.

To this list might be added walk-in centers for counseling, drug abuse, and other rehabilitative programs; neighborhood medical and dental clinics; light industry; warehouses, and many more. Unfortunately, for every satisfactoTy solution, there are scores of instances of abandoned .school buildings serving no useful purpose.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of these t wo bills is to provide Federal assistance to enable communities to maintain and operate, in the most efficient, creative, and economical manner possible, closed school buildings for other productive purposes determined by the -communities. Not only in the fields of educational and social services, but also for commercial, revenue producing purposes, so that taxpayers will recover some of their equity in unused property.

These p1·oposals are specific and pragmatic. They do not pretend to solve serious problems overnight. They are real-istic steps needed to meet a growing problem.

Mr. Speaker, ~ have been receiving tremendously encouraging su_pport for these bills i.rom school and municipal officials from throughout the country. I commend to my colleagues the "surplus school conservation" and "surplus school

March 18, 1976

conversion" acts in the fi1·m belief that through enactment we can help communities solve a very serious and growing problem. I believe the bills I have introduced are proper vehicles for our efforts.

BILL TO AMEND THE 1946 INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION ACT

HON. DON YOUNG OF ALASKA



Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, with my colleague Mr. DoN CLAUSEN of California, I am pleased to introduce today a bill to amend the 1946 Indian Claims Commission Act to extend the life of the Commission beyond the current termination date of April 10, 1977 to September 30, 1978, a period of 18 months.

This proposal is the product of a recently completed investigation by the President's Office of Management and Budget into the Commission's work and its progress toward completing same. OMB concluded that the Commission's work is proceeding in an expeditious manner which should result in substantial completion of the bulk of the pending claims by the end of 1977. The administration's recommendation recognizes the desirability of permitting plaintiffs in the remaining cases to enjoy the same forum and appellate procedures as those who preceded them. At the same time, it would serve to reduce so far as possible the number of cases which may be transferred to the Court of Claims upon termination of the Commission.

The Commission was established to hear and adjudicate for once and all time all Indian tribal claims against the United States, both legal claims and moral claims based on unconscionable dealings, which occurred prior to 1946. Previously, Congress had handled such claims by enacting special jurisdictional statutes authorizing the U.S. Court of Claims to hear them individually. By establishing the Commission, Congress ended this practice. It required all tribes to file their claims with the Commission by August 13, 1951, authorized the Commission to award only cash payments for valid claims, and barred any return of lands to a claimant.

Three hundred and seventy claims were filed which, through severance and redocketing, resulted in 615 total dockets. As of March 18, 1976, 460 of the 615 claims had been disposed of, with 195 having been dismissed, 265 dockets resulting in awards totaling $576,300,000 and 155 claims still pending in various stages of litigation.

The 1946 act required the Commission to complete its work within 10 years. However, in setting this limit, Congress underestimated the difficulties inherent in preparing and trying 100-year-old cla.ims and in establishing "new law." It also underestimated the innumerable procedural and other delays commonly associated with extremely complex liti-


gation. Not surprisingly, the Commis~ion did not meet its original deadline. Since then, Congress has four times extended the Commission's life for 5-year periods. The last extension, passed in 1972, set April 10, 1977 as the Commission's termination date and provided that all remaining business be transfen-ed to the U.S. Court of Claims for completion.

Last year, the Senate amended the Commission's 1976 authorization with a provision extending the life of the Commission for 3 years. However, a majority of House conferees opposed the amendment and the matter was deferred for further study. Tomorrow the House Subcommittee on Indian Affairs will conduct a hearing on the Commission's annual authorization. It should be an appro· priate occasion to consider the 18-month extension proposed in this bill.

I believe that a review of the probable consequences of transferring uncompleted cases to the Court of Claims in 1977 will show that such transfers would most likely result in unnecessary expense to the Federal Government and would certainly delay rather than expedite completion of the remaining Indian claims. An extension of the life of the Commission would a void these consequences and ultimately serve the cause of justice for Native Americans. I therefore strongly urge favorable consideration of this proposal.

SERTOMA CLUB ESSAY WINNER

HON. ANDREW JACOBS, JR. OF INDIANA


Thursday, Ma1·ch 18, 1976

Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, the Sertoma Club of East Indianapolis recently sponsored an essay contest on "What Freedom Means to Me." There were 30 finalists.

Mike Gable of School 77 in Indianapolis won with the following essay:

THE GREAT GIFT (By Mike Gable)

In the year 1776, the United States received a gift, the gift of freedom. A gift that was not bought with money but with fighting and hard work.

Inside the great gift are smaller gifts. The gift to vote for whomever you think can do the best job. The right to trial by a jury. The gift to voice your opinion or freedom of the press. The gift to peaceable assembly. The gift to an equal education. The gift to own your own property.

To be worthy of these gifts you should try to live up to your responsibilities as an American. One of your responsibilities is to obey the laws of the land, respect the rights of others and to vote in an election. These are just a few of your responsibilities from a list of others. I think as an American you should try your best to live up to these responsibilities.

For these gifts we should say thank you to people like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin and the others who helped us earn our freedom. We should try to carry out their dreams to help America grow stronger.

As America grows stronger people will grow to love and respect freedom. I hope

7249 people will love and cherish freedom so it will never perish from the United States or any other place in the world where it is shared.

The runners up were: Winner and school: Mike Gable, 77; Amy Krohn, St. Lawrence; Diana Imel, 112; Twila Hendrickson, 28; Chris Graves, 37; Valerie Garrett, 53; Paul Murphy, 81; Michael Curry, 85; Barbara Bowden, ·wanamaker; James Robertson, 94; Jeff Walker, 111; Ellen Trick, Brookview; Robert Schutt, Grassy Creek; David Mooney, Heather Hills; Pat Jeffers, Little Flower; Laura Wesner, Lakeside; Peter Worley, Pleasant Run; Monica Pittman, Sunny Heights; Mary Frances Zappia, Holy Spirit; Ian O'Brien, Moorehead; Maria Gonzalez, St. Bernadette; Elizabeth Myers, Lady of Lourdes; Felicia Roseburg, 88; Maggie Matl, St. Simon; Jim Bowie, Hawthorne; Debra Eltzroth, 62; Karen Tribble, 54; Missi Koon, St. Matthew; Jeff Johnson, 57; James Cole, St. Rita.

PR0!3LEV1S AND ABUSES IN THE FOOD STAMP PROGRAM

HON. PHILIP M. CRANE OF ILLINOIS



Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, we have all been concerned about the rapidly escalating costs in the food stamp program and about the increasing incidence of problems and abuses in this critical area. As a cosponsor of the original National Food Stamp Reform Act, the MichelBuckley bill, I want to call to the attention of my colleagues an excellent column that sums up the character of the problems that plague the food stamp program.

The column is headed, "Food Stamp Scandal Shows Reagan Right," and it goes on to describe some of the former California Governor's proposals for local contTol. It is an accm·ate headline in another sense: It was Governor Reagan's task force of State and local officials who first described many of the problems, and advanced many of the recommendations for solution, over 18 months ago. I commend to my colleagues' attention the following article:

[From the Times-Picayune, Jan. 19, 1976] FOOD STAMP ScANDAL SHOWS REAGAN RIGHT

(By John D. Lofton, Jr.) WASHINGTON.-Last year, when Treasury

Secretary William Simon had the guts to commit truth publicly, and labeled the federal food stamp program "a well-known haven for chiselers and rip-off artists," he was viciously attacked as a liar by Sen. George Me.. Govern, who heads the Senate Select Com· mittee on Nutrition and Human Needs.

The South Dakota Democrat blasted tlHI

7250 Secretary for making "a deliberate misstate· ment," and charged that what Mr. Simon was saying about the program was nsharply at odds with all other available data.."

But now, in a couple of excellent lnvestl· gative articles in the washington Star news· paper, reporter Michael Satchell has made some new data. available which, to put it mildly, leaves Sen. McGovern looking .1·ather ridiculous.

It seems that government auditors and FBI agents have uncovered evidence of massive and illegal use of federal funds among some of the 6,700 banks, credit unions, checkcashing outfits and other agencies nationwide that sell food stamps to the public.

A preliminary survey by Department of Agriculture investigators, which only skims the surface, shows that, despite a law which requires them to deposit within 24 hours receipts of $1,000 or more from food stamp coupon sales, 18 stamp vendors have not yet deposited receipts totaling $8,788,983.

Reporter Satchell says "a portion of this $8.7 million sems to have been embezzled, either spent or salted away." Two credit union vendors .reportedly used their food stamp receipts to pay operating expenses and to make loans. This free use of federal funds is called "lapping."

A top Agriculture Department official is quoted as saying: "The potential of this is enormous, just enormous. Just the first quick check has turned up a handful of vendors owing $8.7 million. Imagine what it could amount to when the entire program is audited. How much of the money has vanished? And how long has this been going on? You have millions of federal dollars floating around in the inner cities. What's it been used for? Has it financed illegal activities? Why is it only now being discovered?

There are also strong indications that a cover-up has been going for a long, long time to hide these Ulegal activities within the federal food stamp program. Reporter Satchell quotes several middle-level employes of the program as saying that the pt•ocess of "lapping" has been going on for years but that the rule was: ''Keep it quiet, don't rock the boat."

What this emerging scandal within the food stamp program demonstrates is the wisdom of RonaJ.d Reagan's suggestion that progrruns such as this should be totally funded and operated by -state and local governments, where, presumably, they would be run much more efficiently and policed more closely; or, perhaps, be eliminated entirely.

As it sta.m:ls now, the states are supposed to be the first line of defense against fraud in the food stamp program. But, in fact, there is actually a disincentive for the states to ferret out wrongdoing be_cause, for one thing, it 1s all federal money-not state dollarsthat -pay for the bonus value of the food stamp-s which amounted to $4.4 hillion in Fiscal 1975. It .is only human nature that peopl.e spending nther people's money ar.e much less careful than if they were spending their-own.

Presently-as it is now run from Washington-the iood stamp program is a mess. As reporter Satchell writes, quoting employes from within the Agriculture Department Food Stamp Division, the program is "rife with cronyism anti neyotism and is a haven for incompetents .and that much of the blame for turnitlg .food sta.Illps into the worst run of the nation's we1ftn'e programs lies with poor leadership within the division."

The more we ieat'll about the program, like "food 'Stamp'S, 1ih'&'t "M'r. Reagan wants to .return to the sta1les--->Where, unlike at the federal level, there ls '&t leMt the hope at being able i;t, retmm t!te9e tnel'e'dibly -expensive boondoggle&--'.t'he 'ftlM'e tM ·tdeas !being put Yorth by "the "forme!' 'Ca.llfor!~lll. Governor make sense.

In any event, in light of these recent reve-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS lations about the federal food stamp pro. gram, the burden of proof would seem ~ be not on "those, like Ronald Reagan, :who :want more local .contr.ol o:ver the program. but on those who argue that it should eon• .tinue to be funded by the federal government.

OPEN THE DOOR FOR CLOSET CAPITALISM

HON. ELFORD A. CEDERBERG OF MICHIGAN



Mr. CEDERBERG. Mr. Speaker, capitalism remains the backbone of this country, as well as a declining number of other nations, in spite of efforts in recent years by liberals to shortcircuit the system. Unfortunately, many of its advocates have become reticent. not for the lack of a forum from which to speak but rather in reflexive protection against the diatribes of a vocal minority extolling the benefits of socialism and protesting the decadence of capitalism.

Michael Novak, a Catholic theologian in a March 14th Washington Post column, has labeled these supporters, "Closet Capitalists," and in fact makes a confession, much like the alcoholic admitting his illness, that he has been one for years. He explains that although he tried to rationalize socialism, an effort made to keep in tune with the times, his logic and commonsense finally prevailed and rejected its concepts.

Likewise, I think this Congress has many "Closet Capitalists," men and women who stand with the current trend to liberalize, or more COlTectly socialize, our fundamental economic structure but who are unable to shake the realization that "decadent" capitalism has produced achievements unparalleled elsewnere.

This very richness~ the residual of production over consumption, has enabled us to minister to the needs of the people more comprehensively and equitably than alternative forms of government.

I appeal to those of my colleagues, who eontinue to be distt~seti by the logic of those programs which belittle the beneiits of capitalism, the importance of profits, and the need for the independent entrepreneur. In all likelihood, you are a closet capitalist.

It is not something for which one should be ~mbarasseti. In contrast, you mould be proud that you have not allowed yourself to be swayed by fallacious arguments that WDuld undermine the fundamentals of our society.

The incentives provided by capitalism, however decadent in its rewards for those who would take advantage of them, benefits everyone. The proof is around you. It cannot be denied, nor should it be.

Profit is the magic word that stimu-lates investment which in turn allows for gTowth, expansion, and renewal. These activities mean jobs, productive and permanent, without which any effort directed to the social needs of our society would fail.

March 18, 1976 Profits motivate our most intelligent,

our most industrious, and our m-ost creative to produce to their maximum eapacity, for whatever reason, .and compensates them in a similar manner. It provides the dreams of better days and higher standards of living which motivate our youth to educate themselves. And who benefits from an this? We all do.

Better education provides the mechanism for even greater utilization of the tools of capitalization. Better technology. higher efficiency, and greater production are its 1·esults. More jobs and a greater surplus, .above our consumption, are its gains.

Therefore, I call your attention to Mr. Novak's article reprinted below as a guide for reexamining your own convictions. You may be surprised. Closet capitalists may be found in many diffe~.'ent forms, not the least of which is a Congressman: [From the Washington Post, Mar. 14, 1976J

A CLoSET CAPITALIST CONFESSES

(By Michael Novak) The day I heard Michael Harrington say

that most liberals are "closet socialists," I knew by my revulsion that I had to face ..an ugly truth about myself. For years, I had tried to hide, even from myself, my unconscious convictions. In the intellectual circles I frequent, persons with inclinations like my own are mocked, considered to be compromised, held at ann's length as security risks. We are easily intimidated.

The truth is there are probably millions of us. 'Who knows? Your brother or sister may be one of us. The fellow teaching in the class next to yours; the columnist for the rival paper; even the !amous liberated poetess-our kind, hiding their convictions out of fear of retribution, lurk everywhere. Even now we may be conupting your children.

We are the closet capitalists. Now, at last, our time has come. The whole world is going socialist. Nearly u ·s out of 142 nations of the world are socialist tyrannies. A bare 24 are free-economy democracies. w~ are the world's newest, least understood and little loved minority. It is time for us to begin, everywhere , organizing cells of the Capitalist Liberation Front.

I first realized I was a capitalist when all my friends began publicly declaring that they were socialists, HaJ:rlngton and John Kellll€th Gailbraith having called the "SignaL. How I wished ~ .could be as left as they: Night after night I tried to persuade myself of the coherence of their logic; I did my best to go straight. I held up in the privacy of my room pictures of every socialist land known to me: North Korea, A1banla, Czechoslovakia. (land of my grandparents) and even Sweden. Nothing worked.

When I quizzed my socialist intellectual friends, I found they didn't like socialist countries, either. They all .said to me: "We want socialism, but not like Eastern Europe." ~ said; "CUba?u No suggestion won their assent. They didn't want to be identified with China (except that the streets seemed clean). Nor with Tanzania. They loved the idea of socialism.

"But what i'5 it about this particular idea you lilre?" I asked. "Government control? Will we have :a. Pentagon of heavy industry?" Not exactly. Nor did they think .my suggestion witty, that under socialism everything would "function like the Post Office. When they began to speak of "plannln~," I asked, who would police tlle planners? They had. enormous faith in poUticia.nS, bureaucrats and experts. Especially in experts.

March 18, 1976 "Will Mayor Daley have 'clout' over the

planners?" I asked, seeking a little comfort. "Or congressmen from MissisSippi?" My friends thought liberal-minded persons would make the key decisions. Knowing the nation, I can't feel so sure. Knowing the liberal-minded, I'm not so comforted.

Since they have argued that oil companies are now too large, I couldn't see how an HEW th.at included Oil would be smaller. My modest proposal was that they encourage monopoly in every industry and then ~ake each surviving corporation head a cabmet officer.

Practical discussions seemed beside the point. Finally, I realized that socialism ~ not a political proposal, not an economtc plan. Socialism is the residue of JudaeoChristian faith, without religion. It is a belief in community, the goodness of the human race and paradise on earth.

That's when I discovered I was an incurable and inveterate, as well as secret, sinner. I believe in sin, I'm for capitalism, mod1fied and made intelligent and public-spirited, because it makes the world free for sinners. It allows human beings to do pretty much what they will. Socia.lism is a system built on belief in human goodness; so it never works. Capitalism is a system built on belief in human selfishness; given checks and balances, it is nearly always a smashing, scandalous success, Check Taiwan, Japan, West Germany, Hong Kong and (one of the newest nations in one of the recently most underdeveloped sectors of the world) these United States. Two hundred years ago, there was a China, and also a Russia. The United States was only a gleam in Patrick Henry's eye.

Wherever you go 1n the world, sin thrives better under capitalism. It's presumptuous to believe that God is on any human's side. (Actually, if capitalism were godless and socialism were deeply religious, the roles of many spokesmen in America would be reversed In fascinating ways.) But God did make human beings free. Free to sin. God's heart may have been socialist; his design was capitalist as hell. There is an innate tendency in socialism toward authoritarianism. Left to themselves, an human beings won't be good; most must be concerned. Capita.lism, accepting human sinfulness, rubs sinner against sinner, making even dry wood yield a spark of grace.

Capitalism has given the planet its present impetus for liberation. Everywhere else they are hawking capitalist ideas: growth, liberation, democracy, investments, banking, industry, technology. Millions are alive, and living longer, because of medicine developed under capitalism Without our enormous psychic energy, productivity and inventions, oil would still be lying under Saudi Arabia, undiscovered, unpumped and useless. Coffee, bananas, tin, sugar and other items of trade would have no marke•ts. Capitalism has made the world rich, inventing riches other populations didn't know they had. And yielding sinful pleasures for the millions.

Six per cent of the world's population consumes, they say, 40 per cent of the world's goods. The same 6 per cent produces more than 50 per cent; far more than it can consume. No other system can make such a statement, even in lands more populous, older and richer than our own. As everybody knows, hedonism requires excess.

Look out, world! The closet capitalist are coming out. Y_ou don't have to love us. We don't need your love. If we can help you out, we'll be glad to. A system built on sin is built on very solid ground indeed. The saintliness of socialisln will not feed the poor. The United States may be, as many of you say, the worthless and despicable prodigal son among the nations. Just wait and see who gets the favted cal!.


SYNTHETIC FUELS

HON. WILLIAM S. MOORHEAD OF PENNSYLVANlA


Thursday, Mareh 18, 1976

Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, this Nation needs a strong synthetic fuels industry, but it is not going to get it unless major changes take place in our attitudes about its importance to our future. Time and again, we have been told that unless we begin today, th~ long-term goal of energy independence will not begin to be met tomorrow-if ever. Much of our hope rests with the quick development of synthetic fuels.

Despite evidence clearly showing that a sizable portion of our national energy needs can be provided through quick commercialization of already existing synfuels technology, almost no effort has been made by ERDA to incorporate already known capacity into our national energy program. Their inertia stems from policies seemingly able to do only one thing-to slow down the growth and development of alternate fuels. Why this is so at a time when we continually hear of the need to deregulate natural gas, to decontrol oil, and to press ahead for nuclear power development is no mystery. It is simply a case of misplaced emphasis on solutions to energy needs.

American industry has told us over and over again that it is willing to galvanize its know-how, its organizational capacity and its capital, and go into synfuels production. What industry wants is assurance that it will be able to recover its operating costs, and obtain a reasonable return on its investment. As it now stands, it will get neither, and the real loser will be the American people who will be left with little solution to the energy supply problems we all know lie ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I introduced H..R. 11494 to provide a very necessary incentive to that search for answers. I believe we must use as many synfuels technologies as we can muster. I believe we must adopt as much flexibility in our choices as we can develop. I am confident that my bill will provide opportunity for both to happen.

Recent hearings before the House Science and Technology Subcommittee, ably chaired by my good friend and colleague KEN HECHLER, revealed grave misgivings held by various industry leaders concerning present-day synfuel policies. Many of industry's fears can be eliminated if H.R. 11494 is enacted. For that reason, I am including as part of my remarks an account of the problem and its solution carried in the ~rch 1 issue of the Oil and Gas Journal. Th-e text follows: ERDA PoLICI!:S SAm SLOWING GROWTH OF

ALTERNATE FuELS

The Energy Research and Development Administration resembled a well-used dartboard last week after a. series of congres-sional hearings on its fossil-fuel pl'ogram.

Industry and congressmen alike scored ERDA for paper-ridden bureaucracy and weak efforts to get the synthetic-fuels in-

7251 dustry off the ground in House science and technology subcommittee hearings.

Industry critics claimed ERDA will fail to meet its long-term goal of developing alternate-fuels supplies by which the U.S. could reduce its dependence on foreign oil.

ERDA's most vocal and outspoken critic was Carl E. Bagge, National Coal Association president, who said that ERDA's problem "is the fact that its primary method for performing research, de-relopment, and demonstration is predicated upon a paternalistic and pedantic 'father-knows-best' assumption."

Proposals rut. Bagge charged that "several (industry) interests have recently been precluded from pursuing otherwise viable projects precisely because of the rigidity of ERDA's request-for-proposals bidding procedure;• which he argued should be much more .flexible.

Bagge explained that "ERDA's stubborn insistence on following the same pattern in its contraeting is a major obstacle to energy progress."

For example, with demonstration plants, program officials identify an a.rea of technology and then issue a request for proposals. Conceptual-design contracts are then issued which -are 100% funded by ERDA. Upon completion of these designs, a winning design is selected, and industry and ERDA share the remaining costs of the project on a 50-50 basis.

"We do not believe ERDA should participate in demonstration plants the same way every time," Bagge said. "Achieving energy independence will require the use of many coal-utilizing technologies, each of which will require the resolution of dltrerenteconomic, technical, and environmental uncertainties before they can be successfully commercialized. We submit that until ERDA develops sufficient .flexibility to deal with each technology, it will not succeed in its stated mission."

Bagge suggests that ERDA encm:trage unsolicited proposals for a whole range of projects within the context of general goaloriented guidelines, thereby eliminating the current rigidity within the agency.

Supporting Bagge was Dr. George Hill, director of the fossil-fuel department of the Electric Power Research Institute. Hill, "dismayed at the procurement policies and time delays associated with ERDA procurements," said that the "requirement to issue competitive requests for proposals at each stage of a major pilot or demonstration-plant procurement unnecessarily stretches out the development program and leaves the selected contractor of a given phase uncertain as to his future role 1n the project."

Incentives needed? But even with a mm·e flexible bidding process, some industry representatives claimed that synthetic-fuels development would not come about without some federal financial incentives.

American Gas Association Pres. F. Donald Hart expressed his concern with the lack of progress in the development of a high-BTU, coal-gasification industry. Though the Lurgi process has proved the industry a viable one, Hart said, no commercial plants have been built because of the financing problems. Hart urged Congress to enact a bill providing loan guarantees for high-BTU gasification plants.

Columbia Gas System Inc., however, plumped for an assured governmental pricing policy for synfuels. According to Ch.airman and President Bernard J. Clarke, the main problem impeding building demonstration plants is "the uncertainty as to the regulatory treatment which would be afforded to investm.ents by ColU1Ubia in demonstration plants during the extend.ed time for construction and startup and until the output of the plant becomes economically competitive.

"If we could be assured of a recovery of our

7252 operating costs and a return on our Invest• ment during this period, our views or joint participation with ERDA would be entirelJ dlfl'erent. Absent that assurance, we must look to ERDA to take the lead.'•

ELECTION REFORM, OR POLITICAL BLACKMAIL?

HON. BILL FRENZEL OF MINNESOTA



Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Speaker, following is an editorial that appeared in the March 16, 1976, issue of the Washington Star. I do not necessarily concur with the remarks aimed at or questioning the motives of the distinguished chairman of the House Administration Committee, but I do think the editorial is correct in its analysis of the committee's bill.

The questions raised about the bill in this editorial are being raised all overthe country. Yesterday I inserted a Post editorial which touched on some of the same questions.

The committee bill is now broadly understood to be destructive to the Election Commission's independence.

It is becoming more obvious that the correct course of action for the Congress is to merely reconstitute the Elections Commission.

The editorial follows: ELECTION REFORM, OR POLITICAL BL!~CKMAIL

It's hard to tell whether Rep. Wayne Hays is working for or against legislation to keep the Federal Election Commission in bus ness.

You will recall that Mr. Hays had wanted to kill the commission but was turned around by George Meany of the AFL-CIO and House leaders who wanted the commission kep-t alive.

Mr. Hays's House Administration Committee has completed work on legislation ostensibly aimed at saving the Election commission from legal lnflrmitles found by the Supreme Court. 3ut while fixing the flaws, the Admlnlstratlon Committee has added several appendages, at least one of which is highly controversial and might result in a presidential veto.

The Administration Committee has decreed that corporations that have organized political action committees to collect funds for candidates cannot solicit donations from employes; they could solicit only stockholders and management omoials. No slmilar restriction was put on political action committees of labor organizations.

It is a blatant attempt by Mr. Hays & Co. to give labor an -apper hand over management in raising political funds and electing candidates. A Republican member of the Administration Committee argued, to no avail, that llmiting the right of solicitation to a certain class of individuals may be unconstitutional.

The White House has indicated that President Ford may veto the blll if it contains the restrictive provision when it reaches his desk. Mr. Hays, with his usual swagger, threatened to block requested appropriations !or the U.S. Information Service unless Mr. Ford signs the bill-which smacks of political blackma.U.

But wait. There may be more to all this than meets the eye. Perhaps the foxy Mr. Hays is trying to pull a fast one on his col,

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS leagu.::s who want to keep the Election Commission In business. Could he be deliberately courting a presidential veto, hoping that the Election COmmission wlll die of it?

TULSA PROGRESS SALUTED

HON. JAMES R. JONES OF OKLAHOMA



Mr. JONES of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to share with my colleagues an article that appeared in the U.S. News & World Re· port on March 22, 1976, entitled "Mid· America's Success Story."

One of the highlights of the article was the summation of the rapid progresS and development currently being wit· nessed in my home city of Tulsa.

The article follows: MID-AMERICA'S SUCCESS STORY

TuLSA.-Typical of the booming cities of mid-America is this Oklahoma metropolis, born in 1880 as an Indian vlllage and nour• tshed on oil in its formative years.

Today, 96 years later, Tulsa is approaching maturity with skyscrapers reaching into the prairie sky and suburbs rippling outward.

The city's economy is galning diversity. It has capitalized on its central location in the U.S. to become a major computer dataproce~ing center. Four major oil firms process their credit-card accounts here-Shell, Sun, Skelly and Cities Service. Avis Car Rental and American Airllnes reservations aro handled in Tulsa.

KEY: A WATERWAY

A big boost for the city's growth came in 1971 with the opening of the Arkansas River Navigation System, a 448-mlle waterway tying this region to the Mississippi River and giving it access to the sea.

The project was a dream of the late Oklahoma Senator Robert Kerr who brushed aside charges that it would have been cheaper to pave the river with concrete rather than tame it for a waterway.

Today, Senator Kerr's project is proving itself. Last year, 350,000 tons of cargo moved through Tulsa's Port of Catoosa. Some products such as huge heat exchangers for petrochemioal plants are shipped overseas via the waterway.

Tulsa's oil-tool manufacturing, steelfabrication, and petroleum-service industries are currently leading the city's economic activity. At latest report, deposits in the 23 banks were 54 mlllion dollars ahead of a year ago, while loans had increased by 115 million. Says Russell Hunt of the First National Bank:

"Housing is making a strong comeb:lCk and petroleum-related flrtns are still expanding. Despite the end of the oil-depletion allowance and the rollback in oil prices by Congress and the President, we are stlll makIng loans to oil firms with optimism."

After years of preoccupation with growth, Tulsa now is turning attention to becoming a better place to live.

The VVilliatns Center, a 200-mlllion-dollar urban-renewal projec ... covering nine square blocks, is restoring vitality to the downtown business district. Under construction or in the advanced planning stage are a E2-story office building, a 400-room luxury hotel, a theater for the performing arts, a parking garage and a Galleria. shopping mall. Amid all this will be a 2.5-acre plaza to give green space.

' Matt~ch 18, 1976 The Arkansas River, which skirts the

downtown area, is being beautified with a series of dams, parks and recreational facilities.

CAMPUS. IN SUBURBS

Spread over a hillside in the suburbs is the !futuristic campus of the university established by Evangelist Oral Roberts. Opened in 1965, tC.e university has 3,000 students enrolled and graduate schools in medicine, law, business and theology.

"I don't care what you think about Oral Roberts• brand of religion, you have to admit that he's building a great university," comments a Tulsa business leader. "He has hired top educators to teach there by paylng more than the competition."

Jenkin lJoyd Jones, editor of the Tulsa Tribune, says that Tulsa retains its pioneer spirit. "People here like to build and improve things," he asserts. "That's what separates pioneers from ordinary people."

Mr. Speaker, I want to close with what you already know, and that is Oklahoma is the land of tomorrow and tomorrow is here now.

FEDERAL EMPLOYEES: MYTHS AND REALITIES

HON. HERBERT E. HARRIS II OF VmGlNIA



Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the att-ention of the Members of the House a statement made by our colleague, STEPHEN J. SOLARZ Of New York, made before the New York City and Long Island Council-District 2-of the American Federation of Government Employees on March 31, 1976.

The statement follows: FEDERAL EMPLOYEES: MYTHS AND REALITIES

(By Hon. Stephen J. Solarz) This is the year in which we celebrate the

200th anniversary of the first truly democratic revolution in the history of mankind.

For most Americans the promise of progress contained in the Deolaration of Independence has been amply and abundantly fulfilled.

But for many Ameri::ans the po3sibilltles for participation in the mainstream of the political and economic life of our country are still more illusory than real.

We have heard much in recent years about the legal and social disabilities which have been imposed on blacks, chicanos, women, homosexuals, and other recognized minorities.

But I want to talk tonight about another minority constituting an even smaller percentage of the population than any of the groups I referred to a moment ago.

I have in mind a minority which suffers from the kind of political and e::onomic restrictions which, if imposed on blacks. chicanos, gays, or women, would lead to a majcr social a.nd political upheaval in our society.

I have in mind a minority whi::h, in this Bicentennial year, is still prohibited !rom actively participating in the political life of our country.

I have in mind a minority which, unlike any other group of Americans, is forced to accept wi~ked wage controls whtch limit their pay increases to less than 50% of the annual increase in the cost-of-ll.,fng.

I am talking, of course, about the 2.8 million men and women who serve our nation in their capacity as federal civilian employees.

March 18, 1976 " These are troublesome times for· all public

exnployees. It is a rare day that you don't flick ·UP a newspaper and find some peripatetic politician taking a cheap shot at the men and women who see to it that our government works.

In this presidential year, federal employees have been forced to take the brunt of these demagogic denunciations. Some of the most important public officials in the land have found the federal government and the people who work for it a convenient scapegoat, and a means of distracting public attention from the fact that, they themselves, offer no real solutions to the ma.ily complex problems that face our nation.

These politicians, who parade as non-politicians, would have us believe tha.t the federal government has grown too big and insensitive, and that all civil servants are lazy, mindless drones, receiving lots of money for little work.

The fact of the matter is that the federal bureaucracy has not grown out of· hand. Indeed, listening to these putative presidential .po&Sibllltles one would never know that the number of federal employees has hardly increased in the last thirty years.

In 1946, there were 2,666,000 civilian federal employees. In 1976, thirty years later, there were 2,802,000 civilian federal employees-an increase of only 6/10 of 1%. In the meantime, ow· population has doubled and the size of our work force has increased by over 50%.

What has grown greatly since 1946 is the amount of benefits distributed by the federal government. Last year's federal budget totalled 373 billion dollars as compared to a 1947 federal budget of only 55 billion dollars. This is an increase of over 650%. Even discounting inflation, the real value of federal programs has increased more than 250%. I doubt that there is a private corporation in the country that can boast that they more than doubled their produ<ltlon while increasing the size of their work force by less than 1%. And, for all the talk of inefficiency and waste, I wonder how many private corporations can match the proud record of the Social Security Administration and its employees who distribute over 70 billion dollars a year to over 31 million Americans with less than 79,000 employees.

But the attacks on the federal government are based not only on inaccurate facts but on false premises as well. President Ford, for example, has frequently attacked government regulations for interfering with our freedom and has equated any sort of government action with an infringement on our most cherished liberties.

I fear, however, that the President is better at football than philosophy. For the fact is that government regulations have usually been promulgated to solve problems created not by unlimited government interference but by unchecked private power.

Were it not for the minimum wage laws and the fair labor standards act tens of millions of Americans would be suffering from the tyranny of the sweat-shop.

Were it not for the price controls on oil and natural gas the giant oil companies would be doubling and tripling our energy bills.

Were it not for the Social Security system millions of elderly Americans would be starving or panhandling instead of living with the modicum of dignity provided for by the checks you send them every month.

And, were it not for federal intervention, millions of black Americans in the south and elsewhere in the nation would still be effectively prevented from exercising their right to vote.

In the last quarter of the twentieth century it is about tlm.e we realiud that in our interdependent society public regulation is

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS sometim-es the only effective answer to private tyranny. And that what President Ford and the other champions of conservatism promise us is nothing more nor less than freedom for the rich and exploitation of the poor.

The fact is that real freedom-not the fake freedom offered us by the president--requires an expansion rather than a contraction of government services.

Only a national hea1th insurance program will free the American people from the debilitating worry of an economically ruinous illness.

Only stronger consumer protection laws will free us from the danger of unsafe products and poisonous drugs.

And only a federal government dedicated to the creation of a full employment economy will free us all from the personal indignities and social consequences of joblessness.

The President and his conservative cronies may not yet have recognized these fundamental truths but there have been some of us in the Congress who have tried to improve the lot of the federal civil servent.

Indeed, the House of Representatives, has already voted to repeal the arbitrary and archaic Hatch Act and to restore to federal employees the same political rights as those enjoyed by their 210 million fellow citizens.

Just a few days ago, the Senate passed a similar vel'Sion of the bill as well, and I confidently expect that a conference committee Will soon iron out the differences between these two different bills so that the Congress can put this vitally needed legislation on the President's desk.

There are rumors that the President may veto this bill. He has vetoed so many other bills that it wouldn't at aU surprise me if he vetoed this one too. But I would suggest that President Ford's rejection of this legislation would be an act of shear hypocrisy. It would be simply unconscionable for the President, who continuously makes political hay out of limiting your well deserved pay increases, to now deny you your political rights to do something about it. At a time when fewer and fewer Americans even bother to vote we should be encouraging rather than discouraging the participation of all Americans in our political process. But it seems tha.t the only role President Ford wants you to play in politics is that of whipping boy for him and his administration.

Well, I disagree with President Ford. I think he was wrong in limiting your pay increases and I have sponsored legislation which would eliminate his veto over your pay. In short, I am for taking the salaries of Federal employees out of politics and for giving federal employees the right to participate in politics.

I also believe we should give federal employees the same collective bargaining rights now enjoyed by many state and municip-al workers and almost all private sector employees. The history of labor relations in this country over the last 40 years has proven that we are all better off if workers, through their unions, have a say in determining the terms and conditions of their employment.

Finally, I want to say a few words about the importance of the work you do. Because of your efforts millions of Americans no longer suffer from want and deprivation. It is you and the government you work for that serves as the protector of the people against the forces of private selfishness a.nd corporate greed.

It may be true that ·in our determination to help the underdog, we have occasionally established programs which create more problems than we soive. But, I believe, as did Franklin Roosevel~ "Better the occasional fault of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omission of a. government frozen in the ice o~ its own indifference."

7253 .· And, so I say to you that the best way to

celebrate the bicentennial would be for us to take our icepicks to Washington.

CUTBACKS AT LORING? . '

HON. WILLIAM S. COHEN OF MAINE



Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, on March 11, 1976, Maine was shocked to learn that the Defense Department is considering a plan to substantially reduce both the military and civilian personnel at Lor-ing Air Force Base in Limestone. -

The unexpected recommendation to cut back at Loring was contained in a preliminary report released to the Maine congressional delegation and to the public by the Air Force. The Loring reductions are to be considered as part of an Air Force attempt to eliminate $150 million nationwide from its budget. Some $24 million of the $150 million in cutsor one-sixth of the nationwide totalwould come from Loring.

Specifically, Air Force plans call for deactivating the 42d Bombardment Wing of the Strategic Air Command. The B-52's now at Loring and the tankers that service them would be reassigned to the Air Reserve Forces. The only major units left at Loring would be the 49th Fighter Inceptor Squadron and its support personnel. Loring would be reduced to a forward operating base capable of supporting alert and reserve activities.

In human terms, the cutbacks would be extremely serious. Some 83 percent of the 3,328 military positions at the base would be eliminated, as would 70 percent of the existing 656 civilian positions. Obviously, the kind of cutbacks the Air Force is contemplating pose a serious economic threat to Aroostook County, where unemployment is ah-eady alarmingly high.

No major change at Loring can be implemented immediately. Federal law carefully spells out procedures that must be followed in cases of military closings and cutbacks. The National Environmental Policy Act requires the Air Force to file complete studies of the environmental and economic impact of any Loring cutbacks. Hearings will have to be held, and the full impact on Aroostook County and Maine must be assesserL

The Maine Congressional Delegation intends to make a unified effort to trv to prevent these preliminary recommen: dations from being implemented. In order to make Maine~s case forcefully, we will need the support and backing of the public of Aroostook County. It will take several months for the Air Force plan to be reviewed, and during that time there will be ample opportunity for all those concerned with Loring's future to be heard. I believe a strong case can be made for keeping Loring's strength at its present level; it will be up to all of us to see that this case is made to the Air Force.

At ·this point, I insert two memorials · from the 107th Maine Legislature and ' ·

7254 the Air Force Department's announcement regarding the proposed changes at Loring:

S.P. 752 Joint resolution requesting information con

cerning the proposed reductions at Loring Air Force Base Whereas, the arts of economics and of pol

itics are often inextricably entwined; and Whereas, often terms such as "cost effec

tiveness" and "cost-to-benefit ratio" do not fully reflect the underlying reality of a situation; and

Whereas, the decision to institute extensive reductions at Loring Air Force Base of necessity originated in some part of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government; and

Whereas, the decision to Institute this and other Air Force base reductions could have a significant effect on presidential primary elections to be held this year; and ·

Whereas, it is of vital concern to the Legislature of this State to know that the decision to make reductions at Loring Air Force Base, With the grave economic consequences to Aroostook County and to Maine which accompany that decision, was not made because of political considerations on the part of anyone in the Executive Branch of the Federal Government; now, therefore, be It

Resolved: That We, the Members of the 107th Legi3lature, now assembled in special session, do hereby urge and request the Members of the Maine Congressional Delegation to ask the Department of Defense to provide them with detailed information as to where and how the decl!:ion to make reductions at Loring Air Force Base originated, and as to the complete reasons why this decision was made; and be It further

Resolved: That duly attested copies of this Resolution be immediately transmitted to the Members of the Maine Congressional Delegation With our thanks for their prompt attention to this Important matter.

H.P. 2188 Joint resolution protesting the threatened

reductions at Loring Air Force Base Whereas, the Legislature has learned that

the Air Force is recommending inactivation of the 42nd Strategic Air Command Wing of the 69th Bomb Squadron at Loring Air Force Base and, in addition is recommending severe cuts in the manning levels of the base; and

Whereas, grave doubts have been publicly raised about the strategic wisdom of inactivating the 42nd Strategic Air Command Wing; and

Whereas, it is estimated that 83% of the Air Force personnel stationed at Loring Air Force Base would be transferred because of this recommended cut and that 70% of the civilians employed at. Loring Air Force Base would lose their jobs at the base; and

Whereas, the inactivation of the 42nd Strategic Air Command Wing and the cut back in personnel would be an extremely damaging blow to the economy of Aroostook County and the State of Maine; and

Whereas, the Air Force has indicated that the decision concerning this reduction is not yet final; and

Whereas, if these reductions are necessary to the federal defense budget they should be equitably apportioned among all Air Force bases in the United States rather than concentrated at Loring Air Force Base; and

Whereas, federal law requires the Council of Environmental Quality and the Air Force to weigh carefully evidence of environmental and economic damage which these reductions might cause; now, therefore, be it

Resolved: That We, the Members of the 107th Legislature assembled in Special Session, do hereby respectfully protest the recommended reductions at Loring Air Force

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS Base and w·ge and request the Members of the Maine Congressional Delegation to use every means possible to bring the Air Force to a reconsideration of the strategic, economic and environmental Wisdom of instituting these reductions; and be it further

Resolved: That duly attested copies of this Resolution be immediately transmitted to those congressional delegates with our thanks for their prompt attention to this important matter.

LORING Am FORCE BASE, MAINE

Proposed action: Inactivate the 42d Bombardment Wing (Strategic Air Command) and transfer B-52 and KC-135 assets to other locations. Inactivate the 69th Bombardment Squadron and transfer 14 B-52s to Non-Operating Active (NOA) status. The 30 Kc-135 tanker aircraft assigned to the 42nd BOinbardment Wing will be transferred to the Air Reserve Forces during FY 77 as part of a previously announced modernization program. Retain the 49th Fighter Interceptor Squadron detachment With a programmed implementation date of April 1976 and retain the 4000th Aerospace Application Group mission. Reduce Loring to a forward operating base capable of supporting alert aircraft and contingency operations by the end of 1976.

Basis for the proposed action: The imperative need to manage the resources of the Air Force With less while maintaining the deterrent value of Strategic Air Command, has led to a critical review of all base operating functions, activities, and installations. The Congress has also been mindful of the possibill• ties of further economie:> and the Senate Ap· propriations Committee has recommended that these economies be taken in support areas, not combat units. The results of our r~view and the on-going modernization program of transferring KC-135s to the Air Reserve Forces initiated in 1974 permits us to relocate the active units from Loring and reduced the base to a forward operating tnse capable of supporting alert aircraft and contingency operations.

The Air Force has been converting Reserve force units into KC-135s at the rate of one Reserve Squadron per :fiscal quarter. With the knowledge and experience we have gained with this program within the last year, we are confident that we can now suceessfully convert two Reserve Units per quarter. This increased rate of conversion will more quickly bring the Reserve forces into the Strategic mls3ion and allow the Air Force to advance by one year the retirement of older, less efficient weapon systems.

The primary consideration in selecting the bases for reduced status or closure, is to insure the Air Force maintains its capab111ty to perform its assigned missions at the least cost. In determining which of the citrrent strategic bases should be eliminated or be reduced in active status, an evaluation of each of the existing bases was conducted using the following criteria:

a. Retain essential activities. b. Reduce excess capacity. c. Generate maximum near term savings. d. Consider programmed force adjust

ments. e. Retain bases with capacity to expand

primary mission activities. In order to maximtze near term savings,

the Air Force's evaluation focused upon bases with a single mission rather than upon multimission bases. Bases with tactical fighter, air logistics centers, training, or other major missions in addition to the strategic bomber or refueling missions were therefore eliminated from consideration. Because high one-time costs would be incurred, significant near term savings could not be realized by ellminating or moving the bomber/tanker mission when other mission ( s) would remain or also reql1ire relocation. That evaluation

l'Vlarch 18, 1976 resulted in the identification of Loring AFB as one of the bases that could be reduced with the least Impact upon strategic capability and at the same time maximize near term savings. These savings are realized by inactivating the B-52 squadron and transferring its aircraft to a NOA • status, transferring the KC-135s to the Reserve Forces, and retaining the 400th Aerospace Applications Group and the 49th Fighter Interceptor Squadron detachment at Loring.

In recognition of the Impending phaseout of the strategic mission at Loring, its potential to accommodate other missions was evaluated. Consideration was given to operational sultabllity and requirements, facility availability, new mission requirements, and the base potential in comparison to other installations. The evaluation led to the conclusions that other active duty missions could not be economically transferred to Loring, and that the base should not be declared excess to Air Force requirements and closed.

Impact of the proposed action: The current Loring authorization of 3328 military and 656 civlllan positions would be reduced by 2750 mllitary and 465 civ111an positions leaving 1·esidual authorizations of 578 mi11-tary and 191 civilian positions. Prior to a final decision, the Air Force will conduct a detailed study of the technical, operational, economic and other pertinent factors related to the proposed action, including preparation and filing of an Environmental Impact Statement.

A draft EIS will be filed With the Council on Environmental Quality and disseminated to all Interested agencies, activities, and parties for comment. Notice of the availability of the draft EIS will be published in the Federal Register along with appropriate information guidance as prescribed by regulations.

Comments will also be solicited on the draft EIS and those received wm be evaluated and considered in the final EIS, which will be filed with the Council on Environmental Quality and announced in the Federal Register. Decisions made after completion of the envh·onmental process, which wm take approximately 4 to 9 months, will be announced promptly.

All base actions are proposed to be accomplished by September 30, 1977.

WORLD HUMANIST WEEK

HON. BELLAS. ABZUG OF NEW YORK


Thu,rsday, March 18, 1976

Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Speaker, in recognition of the deep concern with ethics and human values evinced by humanists the Honorable Abraham D. Beame, mayor of the city of New York, has proclaimed that the week of April 4-10, 1976, will be observed in the city as "World Humanist Week." A copy of this proclamation is inserted for the information of my colleagues: PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YoRK

Humanism 1s deeply concerned with ethics and values and in assisting people in

•NOA status retains the aircraft in the active inventory, but manpower authorizations and other resource associated with the aircraft are reduced. NOA aircraft permit normal cycling of aircraft through programmed depot maintenance and avoid reducing the total number of aircraft needed to sustain combat readiness of the total B-52 force.

Mar.ch ._ 18, 1976 tb.eir search for those values which will help thei;n achieve their full potential ~s human beings. ·

·numanists have struggled , for freedom of conscience in order to have a world in which e'ach person is free to come to his or her own concept of truth.

Humanism affirms the inherent dignity and worth of every human being, and asserts that individuals are responsible for the realization of their aspirations and that they have within themselves the power of achieving those aspirations.

Humanism has been at the heart of the scientific and technological revolution which has given humanity an unparalleled opportunity for achieving an abundant and meaningful life. Humanism is not tied to any one nation, tribe, or person, but draws on the experiences of all societies and aims for the comradeship of all people.

Now, Therefore, I, Abraham D. Beame, ~ayor of the City of New York, do hereby proclaim the week of April 4-10, 1976, as "World Humanist Week" in New York City, and let this commemoration serve to renew the determination of all Americans to preserve the ideal of universal brotherhood.

REPRESENTATIVE HALL URGES ADOPTION OF HIS FA.Mll.Y FARM BILL

HON. TIM L. HALL OF ll.LINOIS



Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, today I had the privilege to offer my views on the importance of Federal estate tax reform in testimony before the Ways and Means Committee. The task of the committee is awesome in its magnitude and complexity, and I urge all of my colleagues to give their support to the committee and to the long overdue reform of the Federal estate tax laws. At this point I am inserting my testimony before the Ways and Means Committee: STATEMENT OF HoN. TIM L. HALL BEFORE THE

WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE ON ESTATE TAX REFORM Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of

the Committee, I wish to thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today. I come in support of crucial reform in the Federal estate tax laws, which you will find in my bill, H.R. 7912.

My bill is similar to H.R. 1793 introduced by my distinguished colleague from Texas, ~. Burleson. The bill would raise the exemption for purposes of the estate tax from $60,000 to $200,000, exempt from taxation the first $100,000 passing to a surviving spouse and allow valuation of farmland and open space land at the value of its current economic use rather than at its highest potential use as commercial or other property.

These measures are crucial and vi tal to the preservation of a cherished American institution. Without these reforms, the small family business and the family farm will disappear from the American scene. This event would be a tragedy for all Americans.

.In 1942, the Congress determined that each of us should be able to inherit without cost the basic family estate. The figure of $60,000 was chosen as an amou1;1t reasonable enough to ,accomplish this goal. srnce that time in~ation has eroded. the integrity' of that' :figure. B~sed on the consumer price index, approximately $205,000 would· be needed now to equal the value of $60,000 in 1942 dollars.

_ _'i'_'~u can readily see that intia~ion has pro-

EX~;ENSIONS: OE REMARK~ vided the U.S. Treasury with a hidden tax hike and ~dditional' revenues. The property in a 1942 estate of $60,000 incurred no tax liability under the Federal tax code. That same property today would generate a tax liability of as much as $30,000.

This is wrong. An economic .burden is being placed unfairly on the survivors of decedents with small estates when in fact Congress decided correctly many years ago that the small estate should pass free from this tax burden.

I recommend to the Members of the Committee adoption of an exemption that corrects the unintended hardships caused by inflation. All Americans will benefit by your action.

My bill also addresses a particular injustice brought about by the changed economic circumstances. Farmers are especially hard hit by estate taxes, since their estates are often land rich and cash poor. Many sons and daughters of farmers would like to carry on the family farm, but they find they are unable to do so because of the steep estate tax. All too often, the heirs must sell all or part of the family farm to pay the taxes. I have been saddened to see examples in my own district of forced sales of farms that had been in the same family for generations. In the year 1975 alone, the number of farms in Illinois declined by 2,000.

It is imperative to provide relief from this situation and to preserve the family farm. The small ifamily homestead has been the backbone of our country's agricultural success, and it may be one of the few remaining avenues for personal independent enterprise. If the Congress fails to act, we may be witness to the disappearance of the family farm in America.

One measure of relief is raising the exemption to $200,000. Another necessary step is the valuation of farmland for estate tax purposes by reference to its actual use. The need for this reform is most evident in agricultural communities bordered by urban or suburban areas. The demand for commercial and residential land forces the price of land far beyond its economic value as farmland. When these values are used for estate tax purposes, the heirs have no choice other than to liquidate the land for simple economic reasons.

Accordingly, I urge the Members of the Committee to approve a provision in the Federal code that would permit the valuation of farmland and woodland in relation to its current economic use. This action will preserve for future generations one of America's outstanding economic entities, the family farm.

U.S. PRESIDENTS SHOULD BE THE PEOPLE'S SERVANTS-NOT THEIR SOVEREIGNS

HON. THOMAS J. DOWNEY OF NEW YORK



Mr. DOWNEY of New York. Mr.

·7255 ded.i~· • tion to community service and entertainment is w~ll k.nown, and esteemed throughout the community. WGSM has set an exampl~ for broadcasting in its f'rrst 25 years that serves as a standard throug·hout Long Island.

I add my congratulations and best wishes to those already extended to WGSM, and look forward to their increas2d success over the next decades.

The article follows: U.S. PRESIDENTS SHOULD BE THE PEOPLE'S

SERVANTs-NoT THEIR SOVEREIGNS Richard Nixon thinks that if you break in

and burglarize someone's home or business, you are a criminal and should be punished, but, if he orders a break-in, while President, he should not be punished. That's the gist of what he says in an absolutely amazing reply to a committee of Congress.

The former President, of course, did not choose to honor the Congressional Committee with a personal appearance, but, rather, sent his reply in writing. Referring to the President as a "sovereign" and, indeed, sounding more like the English King, against which the American Revolution was launched, Mr. Nixon proved once again to be the Chutzpah King of the Universe by indicating the President could do things that were unlawful for all the rest of us peasants.

Brushing off all constitutional safeguards of equality under the law for all men and this being a nation of laws, not of men, Mr. Nixon again shows a complete lack of understanding of the entire American system of government and justice. The same hightoned justifications for lying, cheating and stealing that we heard when Nixon was President are found in his deposition. Richard Nixon is not repentent. Anyone else that had done what he had would, deservedly, be in a federal penitentiary today, but Richard Nixon, a pardoned criminal, is not apologizing to anyone. He continues to insist that a President is above the law.

The "Imperial" President has learned nothIng. His answers should serve as a final reminder to that minority of Americans who seriously talk about Richard Nixon re-entering public and political life.

FEDERAL ESTATE TAX RELIEF FOR FARMERS

HON. JOHN M. ASHBROOK OF OHIO



Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Speaker, Federal estate tax laws are seriously outdated. The present estate tax exemption is $60,-000. Previously I have introduced legislation which would have doubled the exemption, but infiation over the past half dozen years has made that increase too low. To remedy this situation I have 'introduced legislation (H.R. 12277) which would increase the exemption to $200,-000.

The $60,000 limit on the estate tax ex-· emption has hit farmers hard. When a farmer dies, many families are unable to pay the high estate taxes. They are forced to sell the family farrn. ·

I urge the Ways and Means Committee

Speaker, once again, ·wasM radio station, in my congressional district has dealt editorially with an important public issue and -has spoken with a sense and clarity worthy of commendation. On March 13, 1976, WGSM took a look at Richard Nixon's latest statements about the nature of the American Presidency and has found his analysis wanting. I am submitting the editorial below.

'In addition, I want to congratulate WGSM on the celebration this year of its 25th anniversary on Long Island. Its

in its current hearings on tax reform to remedy this situation by increasing the estate tax exemption to $200,000. This inCl~ease 'of the exemption is long over-

due. n wm help to relieve the increasingly heaVY burden on farm families.

I have alSO introduced H.R. 5131. It would, at the election of the executor, allow a farm estate to be assessed at its value for farming purposes. This is a valuable alternative to present tax policy of valuing land at its highest potential value.

Farmland should be assessed at its value as farmland. Computing the estate tax based on a nonfarm use often forces a family to sell the farm.

I urge the Congress to move on these two important bills. We should help keep the family farm within the family.

AN EXCELLENT HISTORICAL WORK ON CAREER OF THE LATE CLAIR ENGLE

HON. HAROLD T. JOHNSON OF CALIFORNIA



Mr. JOHNSON of California. Mr. Speaker, many of us here in the House remember well the colorful, dedicated, knowledgeable colleague, the late Clair Engle, who served northern California in the House of Representatives and subsequently the entire State of California in the U.S. Senate. As his master's thesis a young student at California State University at Chico, Stephen Paul Sayles, wrote an outstanding biography of our good friend Clair.

He told of Clair's early days in Tehama County of northern California and his dedication to public service which was so determined that he became the youngest district attorney the State has ever known. He became the Tehama County district attorney at the age of 23 only months after his graduation from law school.

In 1943 Clair became Representative in Congress following a special election and in 1958 he moved over to the U.S. Senate. I was privileged to follow in his footsteps here in the House of Representatives.

Mr. Sayles' thesis served as the basis for an article entitled, "Clair Engle and His Political Development in Tehama county, 1911 to 1944," published in the winter edition of the California Historical Quarterly. An excellent review and summary is contained in the Chico Enterprise Record, an outstanding daily newspaper which points out with pride they always refer to Clair Engle as "the happy warrio1·" because of the way he relished combat against odds.

Mr. Speaker, so that my colleagues could recall the spirit of Clair Engle who served so many years ago, I did want to insert in the RECORD at this point the editorial from the Chico Enterprise Record which captures the spirit and the flavor of an outstanding legislator. AN EXCELLENT HISTORICAL WORK ON CAREER

OF THE LATE CLAm ENGLE

No history of California politics could ever be complete without some generous chapters on the career of the late U.S. Sen. Clair Engle, the Red Bluff Democrat whose service to

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS our own region, the entire state and the nation as a whole spanned some 30 years.

And it is our opinion that whoever eventually compiles such a political history Will do well to take advantage of research and writing on the subject of Clair Engle by Stephen Paul Sayles, a young Chico High and Chico State graduate who is now working on his doctorate in history at the Uru.versity of New Mexico.

Sayles already is gaining recognition both as a historian and as an authority on Engle, who died of cancer in 1964. For example, the current Winter Edition of the prestigious California Historical Quarterly, published by the California Historical Society in San Francisco, features an article by Sayles entitled, "Clair Engle and His Political Development in Tehama County."

In close and dramatic detail, the arti.cle traces Engle's career from his first Tehama County election campaign-when he became California's youngest district attorney at the age of 23 in 1934--up through his election to the U.S. Senate in 1958 and his attainment of political prominence on the national scene.

The article by Sayles pays careful attention to the prewar era when politics in Tehama County and Northern California were conducted on a vigorous, slam-bang basis that especially suited the tough, savvy nature of young Clair Engle. It was in those early battles that Engle gained the knowledge of mixing politics and human nature into a combination to win elections.

The article also stresses some of the high and low points of Engle's service as a district attorney. He gained statewide attention in 1940, for example, when the then California Attorney General Earl Warren named him special prosecutor in a case concerning a blood-feud killing in Trinity County. Despite fervent opposition by angry mountain men who didn't like "outsiders," Engle obtained a conviction in that case and a legislative commendation in the resolution okaying an appropriation for his special service.

A low point-and a heart-breaking one-came when one of Engle's closest personal friends was involved in a Christmas Eve fatal hit-and-run incident north of Red Bluff. Engle asked Atty. Gen. Warren to appoint a special prosecutor so he wouldn't have to prosecute his friend. Warren firmly refused and told Engle, "If you want to go any place (in politics), you have to put your personal feelings aside." Engle lost friends in that case--even though he fa.iled to obtain a conviction-but the lesson taught by Warren stayed in the young d.a.'s mind. He was a tougher politician thereafter.

Yet the Sayles article stresses that Engle had a great sense of kinship with the working people and with those who need friends most on the political scene. The combination of toughness and closeness with the average citizens constituted a major key to Engle's success.

These segments of the Sayles article generated fond memories in the minds of Enterprise-Record staffers who covered Engle's activities over the years. We always referred to him as "the Happy Warrior" because of the way he relished combat against odds. And his love of the region he represented was a strong motivation in his service.

Engle flew his own plane (and became known as "the flying congressman") to enable him to cover his huge district, the largest in the nation. An E-R staffer remembers accompanying Engle on one such aerial campaign swing. As Engle deftly began the little plane's descent from the rim of mountains surrounding Quincy and its small airport, he called the attention of the newsman to the lush carpeting of sky-reaching pines covering the mountainsides:

"Look at the trees!" he cried exuberantly. "I am the luckiest congressman in the United

March 18, 1976 States. Not only do I represent some of the best of America's people, but I also speak for more trees, and more water, than any other man in the House of Representatives."

As "Sayles also points out in his current article, the trees and mountains and water played major roles in Engle's success in Washington. He became one of the nation's leading authorities on conservation, irrigation, fiood control, forestry and other matters dealing With natural resources. As chairman of the House Committee on Interior Affairs, he was the most powerful man in Congress on these important matters. He wrote most of the Central Valley Project CVP) legislation, helped father the Sacramento Valley Canals Project here in our own Mid-Valley area, and carried California's ball in countless battles over water rights and other such matters.

The fact is that most veteran political observers feel that Engle's career was really only beginning-insofar as national impact was concerned-when cancer felled him during his initial term in the Senate. He had been gaining ground among national Democratic leaders and would undougtedly h..:!.ve played a key role in the politics of the mid-1960s and beyond.

The Historical Quarterly article by Paul Sayles, therefore, is certain to gain wide readership both in California and elsewhere. We obtained information on Sayles from W. H. "Old Hutch" Hutchinson, professor of history at Chico State, under whom the young Sayles completed his master's thesis on Engle's early career.

The master's thesis ran 490 pages and served as the basis for the current magazine article. At present, Sayles has completed his course work and orals on his doctorate at the University of New Mexico and is now researching his PhD dissertation, which will concentrate on Engle's career in Washington, with emphasis on his senatorial years.

Sayles is the son of Mr. and Mrs. Paul M. Sayles of Chico. He in-tends to make history his lifetime work. His article on Eng.le leads us to believe that hls contributions ill his chosen field will be wo::thwhile indeecL

RECONSTITUTE THE FEC

HON. BILL FRE ZEL OF MINNESOTA



IV.Ll'. FRENZEL. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday in the other body, the Senator from Michigan (Mr. GRIFFIN), moved to amend the pending elections bill so that the Federal Elections Commission would be reconstituted and the other controversial aspects of the pending bill be eliminated. This motion for a simple reconstitution of the FEC failed by a single vote 46 to 47.

The closeness of that vote clearly shows the strong reservations about passing a comprehensive revision of election law in the middle of an election period.

Just after the Supreme Court decision in January, the President recommended a sin'lple reconstitution of the FEC. So did most observers outside of the Congress. Nevertheless, the committees of jurisdiction have presented both Houses with bills which represent comprehensive revisions and recodifications and which almost incidentally reconstitute the FEC.

The closeness of yesterday's Senate vote on the Griffin amendment is proof

Mat~ch 18, 1976

of strong congressional resentment against the pending elections bills which shape the independence of the FEC, are obviously self -serving to the Congress and make complicated rules changes in the middle of the game.

I hope you give the House the opportunity to pass an amendment similar to the Griffin amendment.

47TH ANNIVERSARY OF LULAC

HON. J. J. PICKLE OF TEXAS



Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Speaker, my good friend and able colleague from the Rio Grande Valley, Congressman KIKA DE LA GARZA, spoke last month at the 47th anniversary of the League of United Latin American Citizens celebration by the Washington, D.C. LULAC chapter.

This is a very fine and noteworthy address which tells a brief history of this laudable organization and quickly capsules the heritage of a people who have contributed g.reatly to this country-the Spanish-speaking Americans.

I insert this excellent speech in the RECORD with the hope that each of you will read it and learn from it, as I have: SPEECH PRESENTED BY KIKA DE LA GARZA

IN CELEBRATION OF THE 47TH ANNIVER•

SARY OF LULAC Through many years, approaching half a

century, the League of United Latin American Citizens has been a service and action organization of great force for the Spanishspeaking people of the United States.

It has been effectively involved in many issues affecting our people. Its work has focused on educational improvement, employment opportunity, raising the quality of health care, advancing civil rights, and active participation in community affairs.

Yes, LULAC has been in the forefront of progress in all the above and many more. We remember the names of Canales, Perales, Garza, Alaxnia, Gonzales, and many more of those brave and loyal Americans who initiated the struggle to right the wrongs, to broaden the opportunities, to shoulder the responsibilities. We should not forget--we should proudly point out that those who began LULAC believed that every right had a corresponding obligation, and they so conducted their private and public lives. We commend them, and I, as a member of the Congress of the United States of America, in my official capacity, salute them.

I remember Felix Tijerina and his "Little School of the 400." I would like to think that this was the beginning of so many programs like Headstart and Bilingual Education, to mention two in the :field of education. And I remember SER, and it is with some pride that I recall my humble participation in this endeavor. The road was diffi<:ult and we had to go all the way to the White House. We should not forget and be eternally grateful to President Lyndon Johnson, for it was he pet·sonally who gave the word to fund SER for the first time And we remember the early court cases for equality in education and LULAC at the forefront.

The list is long, my friends, and these items are but a few. In peace and in war we have set·ved our countt·y. It is with pride that we

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS recall thi)Se who have served in time of war. We need not mention names. The lists of Congressional Medal of Honor recipients and Purple Hearts proudly carry the names. We remind ourselves again here today that no one with a Spanish surname has ever deserted in the face of an enemy in the battlefields of the world.

In all of these areas gratifying progress has been made and continues to be made.

Now, in this Bicentennial year of U.S. independence and the 47th anniversary of the founding of LULAC, the national spotlight is being thrown on the contributions made by Spanish-speaking people, beginning early in that struggle for independence and in the time since freedom was won.

During this our Bi<:entennial celebration it is entirely appropriate for attention to be paid to the assistance rendered by foreign countries and foreign nationals in those early years. This aid played no small part in the success of the American Revolution.

Most Americans have known from their school days about the valuable support given by France, exemplified in the person of the Marquis de Lafayette. Valuable leadership also came from the Polish patriot, Thaddeus Kosciusko, and many Americans know about that. Knowledge of the assistance provided during the Revolution by Spain and citizens of her American colonies unfortunately is less widespread.

That lack is being remedied. In this Bicentennial period, Americans generally are being forcefully reminded of the significance and richness of our Spanish heritage. It is a heritage that goes far back. .

The very discovery of the New World was the result of a Spanish undertaking.

Later, the Hispanic people who first landed at St. Augustine, Florida, built from there the routes of passage that enabled other imxnigrants to push their civilization westward.

The Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 rearranged the colonial map of America. By this treaty Spanish rights were recognized in Florida including most of the southern part of th~ present State of Georgia, and the regions now known as Mexico, Texas, New Mexico anct California.

After the original Thirteen Colonies declared their independence from Great Britain, Hispanics participated in a telling fashion in the Revolutionary War.

At the outbreak of the Revolution, Spain's foreign Ininister, Grimaldi, wanted his nation to join France in war against Britain. This effort did not succeed at the time but within weeks after independence was' declared by the colonies the Spanish government was providing substantial secret subsidies to pay for arms and other essential supplies for the Continental Army.

Fortunately, not long after the Declaration of Independence an experienced Inilitnry man, Don Bernardo de Galvez, was named by royal order as governor of the Spanish province of Louisiana. He assumed that position on January 1, 1777. He was only thirty years of age, but he already had seen military service in Portugal and in New ~pain and had attended the Inilitary school 1n Algiers. After completing his courses there he was ordered to Louisiana to command that province's fixed regiment.

After he became Spanish governor of Louisiana, Galvez proceeded to do all within his power to weaken the British in his area.

His most notable contribution to the colonists' cause during this period was the assistance he gave American agents in New Orleans in procuring essential war materials and supplies. He also brought about the seizure of British ships that had been enga<>'ed in a profitable contraband trade. Early in his governorship he established an artillery militia unit in the province.

Galvez also took an inventory of avail-

72Z7 able manpower by ordering a census taken

-in May 1777. The results showed 17,926 people in Louisiana-16,292 in the area occupied by the present State and 1,636 in the Arkansas and Dlinois districts. New Orleans had a population of 3,206.

After Spain declared war against Great Britain on June 21, 1779, Galvez, the military man, was free to assume a more direct role. He soon proved himself no less capable in the field of open action than he had been in his covert operations.

On August 27 of that year, Galvez left New Orleans at the head of an expedition against the British up the Mississippi. Part of his army was recruited along the way. It included Spaniards, Mexicans, Cubans Louisianians and several hundred Indian~.

Within a month this army of 1430 men captured Fort Bute, an important British military and trading post ~t the northern boundary of the Isle of Orleans, attacked and captured British forces at Baton Rouge, and accepted the surrender of Natchez.

Other victories lay ahead. Early in March 1780, Galvez led his army on an expedition of conquest to Mobile. Within days, after a selge and bombardment of Fort Charlotte the British garrison surrendered the Fort and Mobile. Soon afterward Galvez went to Havana to form an expedition against Pensacola. A hurricane dispersed his fleet, but it was reformed and on the last day of February 1781 it left for Pensacola, appearing off that outpost on March 9. The Spanish Army landed the next day, and after extended siege operations against the fort it was surrendered on May 10.

Later that year, Galvez was made governor of West Florida and Louisiana, and given the title of Viscount of Galveston, the city he had founded and which was named for him. Also, he was authorized to place on his coat of arms the brig Galveston with the motto "Yo solo" in recognition of his having led the fleet into Pensacola Bay.

The victories won by Galvez were all the more s~g?fficant because during these years the Bnt1Sh forces had turned their attention to the American colonials in the South taking control of Georgia and sweeping up through South and North Carolina.

_Galve~· operations kept the Mississippi R1ver open for the delivery of American supplies to the western reaches of the Colonies His efforts along the Gulf Coast and in west~ ern Florida helped to bring about the defeat of Cornwallis and the eventual regaini~g by the Continental Army of the Caro~Inas and Florida. These were key elements 1n the success of the American Revolution.

Galvez is not forgotten and I hope his memory soon will be a visible presence in our Nation's Capital.

The Spanish Government has proposed to present to the United States a statue of this leader of 200 years ago. Last week I had the pleasure of joining a number of other members of the House of Representatives in sponsoring legislation to authorize the selection of an appropriate site for its erection here in Washington. It is a deserved tribute to G~lvez _and a token of the long and warm fnendsnip that traditionally has existed between the people of Spain and the people of the United States.

Other Spanish names loom large in the American Revolution.

In May 1789, a British expedition was sent to capture the Spanish post at what is now St. Louis with the aim of ultimately pushing on to Natchez. The expedition was repulsed by C.aptain Don Fernando de Leyba, the SpaniSh commandant of San Luis de Ylinoises.

In a counterattack to this British offensive, the Spanish sent a force against Detroit in January 1781. With about sixty militia and sixty Indians, Captain Eugenio Pourre surprised Fort St. Joseph and the British garri-

7258 son surrendered immediately. The Spanish held the fort for only twenty-four hoursbut still it was a. victory.

It is clear that throughout these Revolutionary years, the assistance of the Spanish Government and the personal efforts and combat effectiveness of Spa.nish military leaders were factors o:t vital importance. Their role has been too long neglected, but it is coming to be widely recognized during the Bicentennial period.

Recently I obtained from the U.S. Bicentennial Commission a listing of HispanicAmerican projects and events being undertaken by states, cities, counties, communities, educational institutions and private organizations in connection with the Nation's 200th birthday.

It is an imposing and heartening list, in both its length and the variety of observances planned.

Throughout the United States the Bicentennial celebration is being tied in with the history of the Spanish-speaking people in America. The theme is emphasized in many books and other publications. Ceremonial pageants will highlight our Spanish-American heritage. Community participation will spread out knowledge of the imJ)ortance of this heritage.

To show their variety let me give you a few examples, drawn almost at random from the Bicentennial Commission listing.

In Utah, the State Board of Education has produced an educational film depicting the epic journey in 1776 of the Franciscan Friars through the present states of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and Arizona. Copies of the film have been made available throughout the southwestern region.

A community action program in Tucson has trained young people in the area in video production techniques in order to produce a videotape oral history celebrating the Mexican-American heritage of the Southwest.

Across the continent, down in Florida, a compilation has been published of research on the Hispanic influence in that region from 400 years ago to the present. In Miami, the Hispano-American Committee has arranged for the writing and publication of a biography of one of America's Founding Fathers, the great Thomas Jefferson. Written in Spanish, the book will be distributed nationally among bilingual students and also throughout Latin countries.

In another project, historical tapes and video productions are telling of the Hispanic experiences of Boston, Massachusetts. And in Brooklyn, New York, the Public Forum Association is establishing a library of fifty-two video tapes on Hispanic culture and history.

In San Bernardino, California, the county museum is sponsoring a hike to take place next month along the route followed by Father Garcia over the old Mojave Indian Trail 200 years ago. Also in California, a park emphasizing the Mexican heritage is being developed in the Spanish-American community of Barrio de Van Nuys.

In the Middle West, the Dlinois State College Bicentennial Committee is producing a written history of Mexican-Americans in the Chicago Heights area. The book traces the group's origins and discusses its problems and community development, linking yesterday with today.

A Latin American studies Conference a.t Arizona State University will be held on the subject "Revolution in the Americas." Down in the American Virgin Islands, a project is under way to stimulate research on the effects of the American Revolution on the peoples and societies Df the Caribbean.

The Spamsh-Amerlcan musical heTitage wlll be explored. 1n a conference ancl performance in Santa Fe.

In my home town of Mission, Texas, the city's Bicentennial Commission is restoring

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS a histori<:al mission and developing a recreational park.

The Houston American Bicentennial Commission has sponsored the publication of a booklet presenting in Spanish the text of the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence.

In San Antonio, that vitally important early outpost of Hispanic culture, religion and commerce, the Bicentennial is being observed with a host of appropriate events. They include a Mariachi Festival, Fiesta Naches Mexicanos, La Semana Alegre, Fiesta San Antonio, a Charreada, and a particularly significant Pan American Day observance sponsored by the Bicentennial Committee and the Pan American Round Table of San Antonio.

Also in San Antonio, the roots of SpanishAmerican healing and humanistic culture are being explored in a series of film festivals. The series has been developed by the University of Texas Health Science Center.

This is only a bare-bones sampling of the diverse ways in which attention is being drawn to the historical and present importance of our origins. Nothing but good can come from these Hispanic-American celebrations and observances of our Nation's 20oth birthday. It might be proper here to recall also that while Washington and Jefferson and Madison and Franklin were initiating their quest for independence, our ancestors who inhabited the Western hemisphere, not a part of the English colonies, were also yearning for the same concepts of liberty and freedom. It was not long after that the cry for independence was heard at Dolores Hidalgo and there came in our history the names of Hidalgo and Bolivar and Marte, as well as Dona Josefa Ortiz de Dominguez, to name a few.

But long before then, even before the first white man came to these distant shores, our noble ancestors, at least for many of us, had already created a civilization that equaled if not surpassed that of the European empires.

Yes, my friends, it is well we should remind ourselves that our people had built pyramids greater than those by the river Nile. They had established an educational system, they practiced medicine, even to the extent of performing sophisticated surgery-including brain surgery. We had a calendar, and zoological gardens where the great Montezuma kept all the birds and animals of his kingdom. And so it was as you progressed South to what is now Central and South America, and to this day you see the imprint of "our people" before the advent of the European peoples. We could continue, but let it suffice for now to attest to the fact that when someone says "the Europeans brought civilization", we can rightly say, "no, they added". Yes, they added to that which was already here.

And now that fate has left its imprint and many of us are citizens of these United States of America, some by birth and many by choice, we of the Spanish-surnamed population are entitled to let our hearts swell with pride over the accomplishments of our for.ebears through the years-before, during and since the American Revolution-for they have contributed in no small measure to the emergence of the United States as the leader of the free world.

There possibly were times in the early days of the League ~ United American citizens when the personal motto of Don Bernardino de Galvez-"! alone"-seemed appropriate for this organization, but those times have long since passed into history.

LULAC is not alone today. Its own motto, "All for one--one for all," is a symbol {)f its strength--and we are a most important part of the Bicentennial, for we were here before, we assisted then, and we are indeed an integral part now, of the American dream of 1776.

llfa?"ch 18, 1976

OU SPORTS ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM PROPERLY PREPARES STUDENTS

HON. CLARENCE E. MILLER OF OHIO


. Thursday, March 18, 1976

Mr. MILLER of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, Ohio University, located at Athens, Ohio, offers students one of the most innovative and unique courses of study found today among the Nation's colleges: the Ohio University sports administration graduate program. Developed in 1967, this program today prepares students for the administrative tasks and responsibilities tied to collegiate and professional athletics. Enrollment is limited and the program's curriculum is demanding. Graduates of the program are now involv~d in a wide variety of athletic administration. Ohio University is understandably proud of this program and I would like to offer the following article recently published in the Ohio University Alumni News:

FROM CAMPUS TO FRONT OFFICE

One employee of the Cincinnati Reds seldom got to see the championship team in action last season, for while Pete Rose was making clutch plays on the field, Terry Barthelmas '63, MEd '71, director of stadium operations, was busy observing stadium personnel.

Barthelmas got his job with the Reds after serving an internship with the club while a student in Ohio University's sports administration program. He is one of approximately 30 OU graduates employed by professional teams or leagues.

The OU master's degree program has had great success in placing graduates, according to Dr. William G. Stewart, the program's director.

Even in a tight job market, 13 fall quarter graduates have found jobs with such organizations as Madison Square Garden; the Indiana Pacers of the American Basketball Association; Veterans Stadium in Philadelphia; Frostburg (Md.) State College; Louisiana State University; the Boise (Idaho) A's, a minor league baseball team; the University of Washington; and the Malaysia Department of Sports.

Dr. Stewart is responsible for much of this success as he continually finds valuable internships for sports administration students.

One of the latest developments involves Jlm Snyder, Bobcat basketball coach of 25 years, and Dave Scott, former OU alumni director and one-time Bobcat cage star. These men have been chosen to develop a national sports program in Saudi Arabia. They hope to use OU interns and graduates in the program which is designed to make the country competitive at the international level.

Another valuable feature of the sports administration program is its sponsoring of guest speakers from all areas of sports.

In the fall speakers included Don Weiss, director of public relations for the National Football League; Dr. Joe Hoy, a.thl':ltic director a.t Western Michigan University; and Bob Baur, an NFL referee for 13 years.

Gary Nickels, a sports administration graduate employed as a. minor league administrator wtth the Philadelphia Phlllies, has scheduled a visit during the winter quarter.

In addition to these speakers, who often interview students for internships and jobs while visiting the campus, a syntposium is conducted each year to provide additional information for students. Special speakers and graduates of the program head discus-

Ma1"ch 18, 1976 sion groups intended to give students a. look at the experiences, activities, duties and re· sponsibilities that the future graduate may encounter.

Some of the stories to be related may include one by Mike Manning and Dean Taylor of the Boise A's. When rain drenched the baseball field during their internships, the two were forced to produce a. dry field or postpone the game and lose money. Finally, t he t wo decided to burn tires soaked with gasoline to dry the surface. The plan worked, although it prompted a. visit from the local fire department, but the foul odor created by t he experiment kept many of the fans away anyway.

The OU program was developed in 1967 by Dr. James G. Mason from an idea of Los Angeles Dodger magnate Walter O'Malley and is offered through the School of Health, Physical Education and Recreation.

The p1oneer in the field, the program remains the most established in the eyes of many sports administrators.

Bob Wirz, director of information for ma• jor league baseball, has said, "The best developed program in sports administration that I know of 1s at Ohio University."

Don Weiss of the NFL has remarked, "We are sold on the Ohio University sports ad· ministration program, especially so after having interns :from this program for parts of the last three years."

The first of five women to finish the program was Tina Seredneskey '72, who is pres· ently employed as recreational supervisor by Deerwood Management Corp., a. Columbus firm that owns condominiums. She also has worked for the Continental Racquet Club.

Despite the great interest from all areas, the program has chosen to remain small. Dr. Stewart said it will be expanded only when job opportunities grow; This policy permits only 25 of about 300 students seeking admission each year to enroll.

Those admitted select from course offerings as varied as their backgrounds. Three quarters of classroom work and at least a. three-month internship are required for graduation; however, only two physical education classes are mandatory. Elective courses include classes in management, economics, journalism, psychology and education.

The need for graduates trained in these areas is becoming more apparent With the growth of big-time sports. Whlle some own• ers demand that employes advance through the ranks, many others see the need for specialized administrative training and look to Ohio University for their future frontoffice executives.

A TRIBUTE TO FLORENCE DWYER

HON. JOHN W. WYDLER OJ' NEW YORK


Wednesday, March 17, 1976

Mr. WYDLER. Mr. Speaker, it was my pleasure to have known and served with Florence Dwyer as a Member of the House from the time I was elected until the time she retired.

In addition to knowing her personally and serving with her on the Government Operatioru; Committee, I had the opportunity to watching her extend not only the usual congressional help to her constituents but to extend to them a real love and concern and to her family as well.

I was pleosed and proud to have known cx.xn--459-Part e


her and realize she has left much behind her in her work in Congress which will benefit our Nation for years to come.

CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE IS OUTDATED

HON. TOM HARKIN OJ' IOWA



Mr. HARKIN. Mr. Speaker, the census of agriculture is an invasion of privacy and an unreasonable burden upon farmers, and it does not yield timely, accurate information. A continuation of the census of agriculture is a waste of time, effort, and money-roughly $15,000,000 could be saved by the alternative I propose in my bill.

The painstaking questionnaire used in the census of agriculture inflicts 200 questions upon a farmer who is required by law to answer all of them. Increased demands for data have caused more frequent surveys which have further taxed the patience of farmers to the point where 17.6 percent of them in 1969 refused to respond to the questions, thus violating the law. The 1974 delinquency is sure to be even higher.

Besides the burden upon the farmer, the information attained from the agriculture census is soon outdated and many times erroneous. Taken every 4 to 5 years, benchmarks established for use in the next census were entirely out of line. The census simply cannot keep up with the rapid changes occurring in agriculture. For example, the number of farms raising dairy cattle dropped 40 percent in one 5-year period; questions asked in the census simply have not reft.ected the changes.

Mr. Speaker, today more and more businesses and Government agencies, even the consumer, are dependent on current, accurate information.

A simple way to attain that needed farm information is by probability sampling. This method is already in use by the Statistical Reporting Service of the USDA in making hog and cattle estimates. This method is much more accurate than the census. For example, one agriculture census underestimated the cotton crop by a fulll 0 percent, the error in probability sampling is at most 2 percent.

The arguments for the continuation of the farm census center on the needs to supply demographic and economic data about the farm population and the farm production; also it supplied localized county data. These needs can be met under the new system with a large savings for the taxpayer and the removal of a large burden from the farmer's shoulders. Demographic data regarding the farm population can be obtained from the Census of Population. Economic data can be found through probability samples as demonstrated by the SRS. Rele-vant county data can be obtained from a survey administered to a sample 25 percent of the population.

7259 Probability surveys already used by

the Statistical Reporting Set-vicesSR5--have demonstrated their widerange superiority. Probability surveys can be given to a scientific sample of farmers and will relate more accurate and timely information than was possible from the cumbersome and obsolete Census of Agriculture.

This agriculture survey can be integrated with surveys for the Labor and Commerce Departments so that all the needed information can be quickly and cooperatively gathered with no duplication. Also these sm·veys can be spread out over 5-year time spans, eliminating peak work loads and the need for additional temporary employees. I estimate that my bill will eliminate 60 to 120 jobs from the Federal bureaucracy.

Mr. Speaker, given the changes in agricultm·e and in methods of information collection, it makes no sense to continue the Census of Agriculture. My bill establishing a system of "probability samplings" offers accuracy and efficacy while removing a substantial burden from the farmers.

LEARNING TO LOVE THE PALESTINE LIDERATION ORGANIZATION

HON. LARRY McDONALD OF GEORGIA



Mr. McDONALD of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the terrorist Palestine Liberation Organization-PLO-is reportedly seeking ways of "legitimizing" its Sovietbacked claim of being the "only legitimate representative of the Palestinian people" and of gaining support ior a PLO-controlled "mini-state" by presenting a ''moderate" face to inft.uential Americans in public life.

During the late February meetings of the PLO's debating branch, the Palestine National Council, PLO leader Arafat suggested to Senator ADLAI STEVENSON, Jr., that the PLO might be willing to recognize the right of the State of Israel to exist if the Gaza Strip and West Bank territories were turned over to be administered by the United Nations which under pressm·e from the Arab and Sovietbloc countries has declared Zionism to be racism.

When Senator STEVENSON reported this conversation to the press, the extremist nature of the PLO was immediately demonstrated. The PLO had been trying to reunite the terrorist groups of the Rejectionist Front which prefers armed struggle and international terrorism to the exclusion of any other tactic. Th.e Rejectionist Front, led by the Marxist-Leninist George Habash, howled its objections.

Shortly thereafter, the PLO said that it was convinced that "political activity" was currently "ineffectual" and that "armed struggle remains the only cow·se." The PLO Central Committee, meeting in Damascus, decided to make its priority the development of a "new guerrilla uprising against Israeli occupation forces." We are seeing the :..·esults

7260

of the PLO decision in the current student rioting in Israel.

The United Nations has demonstrated that it is under the control of the Soviet/ Third World coalition. The U.N. has granted the PLO observer status and other privileges. Clearly the U.N. would in short order recognize the PLO, which has never been chosen anyone's representative in any sort of election, as the "rightful" ruler of the West Bank and Gaza. The result would be a PLO-run "mini-state," a land base from which the PLO could continue to launch attacks on moderate, pro-Western Arab States and Israel.

The Was hington Post commented on Arafat's approach to the illinois Senator, asking "Was the proposal a snare from the start, made simply to con an influential American into thinking that the PLO is 'moderate' and that 'intransigent' Israelis are to blame for the Mideast stalemate?"

One American organization promoting "alternatives" to resistance to the PLO terrorists is the Institute for Policy Studies-IPS. IPS cofounder and senior fellow Arthur Waskow for some 18 months has headed the IPS project on U.S. Middle East poliey. The project is investigating the "triangular relationship among the U.S. Government, the Israeli Government, and the organized Jewish community in the United States."

Art Waskow was previously active in trying to organize American Jews and others to support of the North Vietnamese and Vietcong aggression in Vietnam. Waskow was the author of the original scenario for the Mayday riots in 1971 with the goal of "shutting down the Government."

Waskow's so-called "antiwar" activities included taking a leading role in the Trees for Vietnam project, and in the People's Peace Treaty, a pledge negotiated between Communist students in Hanoi and some of their supporters in the U.S. National Student Association.

The IPS project is "studying" the U.S. relationships with Israel with the aim of showing that this alliance and our Middle East military strategy adversely affects the quality of American life. This line coincides exactly with that of the Soviet-directed disarmament drive in the United States led by the World Peace Council and the Communist Party, U.S.A. The argument is that the Government has a new responsibility-a responsibility to provide a highly-paid job for every American, and that the money for this massive Federal jobs program should be taken from our defense budget.

IPS and Art Waskow run several overlapping projects and groups designated to bring American Jews to support of the PLO. These include the Wholly Bagel Coffeehouse and the Tzedek, Tzedek"justice, justice"-disc-ussion group in Washington, D.C. IPS fellows and former staffers Joe Stork, Sharon Rose, Gil Friend and others have worked for the Middle-East Research and Information Project-MERIP-another pro-PLO, pro-Marxist New Left "research" and


propaganda outfit. And Waskow's group also work with Breira-"alternative"-a New York based, sophisticated propaganda operation also seeking accommodation with the PLO. Breira is headed by Robert Loeb, who formerly was the Chicago coordinator of the Jewish Peace Fellowship and was active with the Jewish Campaign for the People's Peace Treaty.

The IPS Project on U.S. Middle East policy also has as an active participant Paul Jacobs. Jacobs, a former editor of Ramparts magazine, is a fellow of IPS' overseas branch, the Transnational Institute--TNI. In 1964, Jacobs testified under oath that he had been a member of the Communist Party, U.S.A. for 5 years. More recently he has been active in pro-Cuban activities, such as the Venceremos Brigade's 1973 Expo-Cuba, and in writing attacks on the CIA for the Organizing Committee for a Fifth Estate magazine, Counter-Spy.

Other IPS Transnational Institute fellows involved currently in the Middle East project include Joe Stork of MERIP, a recent speaker on the new mini-cartels at the National Lawyers Guild convention; Afsaneh Najmabadi, capitalism in Iran; Helen Lackner, Saudi Arabian studies; David Caploe, Zionism, Israel and the West; and Fred Halliday, Iran and the Persian Gulf states.

The Institute for Policy Studies is the heart of an extensive network of pressure groups aimed at manipulating U.S. domestic and foreign policy in the interests of foreign groups, often associated with the Cubans and the Soviet Union. When these pressure groups come to Congress to advocate abandoning our allies and instituting new policies, let us ask ourselves, who really benefits?

INTERNATIONAL DEMOLAY WEEK

HON.THOMASJ. DOWNEY OF NEW YORK



Mr. DOWNEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, the Order of DeMolay is a character building organization of young men from 13 to 21 years of age, who are seeking to prepare themselves to become better citizens and leaders for tomorrow by developing those traits of character which have strengthened good men in all ages; the organization has carried out the aforementioned goals for over 50 years through programs of athletic competition, social activity, civic service, and charitable projects.

The members of Renaissance No. 3224 chapter, Islip, N.Y., will observe the year of 1976 as the 57th anniversary of the order so as to exemplify to all citizens here and everywhere their many activi-ties, and to tender recognition to their millions of Senior DeMolays.

As the Representative in Congress for New York's Second Congressional District I am making my constituents and my colleagues aware that March 14

March 18, 1976

through 21, 1976, will be observed as International DeMolay Week and urge all our citizens to join in saluting the young men of the Order of DeMolay, and in expressing our grateful appreciation for the fine example set by them, in contributing to the welfare of our community by addressing themselves to the building of good character among our youth; thus aiding in the development of leadership for tomorrow.

SIMPLIFY AGRICULTURAL CEI •SUS

HON. ROBERT W. KASTEN, JR. OF WISCONSIN

I N T HE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


Mr. K.t\...STEN. Mr. Speaker, many of us are aware of the paperwork burden Government regulations place on businesses, but few of us are fully aware of the burden placed on our Nation's farmers by the agricultural census. Members of the agricultural community recognize the value of the data compiled by the census. They are willing to comply, but are constantly frustrated by time-consuming paperwork, by deadline requirements that do net take into account their peak working seasons or the timing of their tabulations for tax purposes, and by lack of coordination between the IRS and the Census Bureau on the categories of information they require.

A recent letter from one of my constituents, Mrs. Laura Beane, of Fort Atkinson, Wis., puts the entire problem into perspective. Most of us in Congress have never suffered through the rigors of feeding 500 head of cattle while trying to come up with one set of figures for the census by January 1, then another tabulation a short time later, then still another, all while trying to get complex tax records together.

Each of my colleagues should read Mrs. Beane's letter to get a better insight into the need for streamlining the agricultural census. It provides one of the best arguments I have seen for passage of H.R. 11271, legislation I have cosponsored to allow statistical sampling methods in taking the ag census, thereby eliminating a large percentage of the paperwork now required for each individual farmer and rancher.

Mr. Spea.ker, I include Mrs. Bean's letter at this point in the RECORD:

FORT ATKINSON, \VIS , March 1, 1976.

Congressman BoB KAsTEN, Longworth Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR BoB: Received your Agribusine:::s Kews Letter today and was very glad to see you are attempting to do something about t he Ag Census. A year ago was about the limit and had me nearly up the wall as regards government information surveys. It began around the 20th of December with a Federal Cattle on Farms Survey which had to be filled out and returned before January 1, Our farm is on comput er type records and we take a complete cen sus of animals and crops stored on

March 18, 1976 our farm each December 30--31 so I hopefully put this census off until such time as the men compiled the necessary breakdown fig· ures for me. With nearly 500 head of cattle, this is no small task. However, before the figures could be compiled I was called by phone and it was necessary they have this information immediately. To top it off, their categories no where near fit ours. So, as the bookkeeper, it was more work. Then the Official Ag Census "book" came. our complete figures were not yet back from the computer for year end taxes and inventory. So I set it aside, hoping that somehow they would mesh when they did show up.

It was just a few short days when we received another report form regarding numbers of trucks and other vehicles on the farm. It runs to about a dozen, Ucensed and not (those not are used strictly for manure hauling and Wisconsin does not require licenses for those) . I set this aside, hoping the men would compile this information for me and I'm honestly not sure if it ever got mailed.

In just a few short days another "census taker" arrived for a special census for the ASCS office as I recall and I spent the better part of 2 hours with her.

By shortly thereafter, our records were returned from the computer and it meant sessions with our lawyer-accountant for tax purposes. Then the better part of 2 days with the Ag Census since their categories of information do not keep pace with those that ms thinks they must have. I finally in disgust told them there were no breakdown figures available on some categories.

Since I took Ag Census myself some years ago, I know the reasons for It and the vital information it collects. However, couldn't all these various types of census be done at approximately the same time when records of farmers were available--such as about tax time--February 28, rather than scattered throughout 3--4 months, requiring searching of records, etc for much miscellaneous, extraneous information.

In farm businesses where the husband attempts to keep all records himself I honestly do not know how these things get done. I know the constant requests for informatlon irritate the average farmer very much since one very lrrltated farmer "slcted" his dog on me while I was attemptlng to get the census form. I honestly couldn't blame him as it was the busy season of the year and he had no time to spend at the kitchen table givlng me stupid answers to stupid questions-and some of them are just that.

I appreciate your efforts on the Ag Census and perhaps a llttle coordination in timing these various efforts would help a lot and gain more cooperation.

Sincerely, LAURA BEANE.

THE SILENT PARTNER OF HOWARD HUGHES-PART IX

HON. MICHAEL HARRINGTON O.F MASSACHUSETTS



Mr. HARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I am inserting today the ninth installment of the Phlladelphla Inquirer's eXJ)086 regarding Howard Hughes' privileged rela-


tionship with sectors of the U.S. Government. In this segment, reporters Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele discuss Hughes' connections with Nevada politics and with the military-industrial complex: THE SILENT PARTNER OF HoWARD HUGHE8-IX

Nowhere is the Hughes largesse in the political process more evident than in Nevada, where Hughes has long needed preferential treatment to run his multi-million-dollar gambling and hotel empire.

In the 1970 elections alone, the Hughes organization contributed $430,000 to candidates of both parties who were running for office within the state.

Once again, the bipartisan nature of Hughes political gifts was apparent in the 1970 Nevada elections.

Though aligned with outgolng Gov. Paul Laxalt, a Republican, the Hughes organization made substantial contributions to both Democratic and Republican candidates for governor.

All that has paid off. The state government of Nevada has bent over backward-even going so far as to ignore its own laws-to go along with Hughes' demands and eccentricities.

For example, Nevada law requires that every applicant for a gaming license to operate casinos must be fingerprinted and provlde a full disclosure of all aspects of his or her personal and business life.

But in 1967, when Hughes began buying Las Vegas hotels and casinos, Hughes was not fingerprinted and refused to disclose certain detalls of his personal and professional life.

Even so, Nevada officials went along with his "unusual accommodation," as one official would later term it, and Howard Hughes was issued licenses for his multi-mlllion-dollar casinos.

Some state authorities were not comfortable with the knowledge that Nevada law had been circumvented for Howard Hughes' benefit alone.

Stlll, they probably would have said nothing about heir concern had it not been for a bitter internal power struggle in the Hughes empire late in 1970. But as a result of that upheaval, which led to the ouster of Robert Maheu as head of Hughes' Nevada operations and to Hughes• own mysterious departure from the gambling capital, Nevada officials were uncertain who was actually administering Hughes' vast Nevada holdings.

So when the Hughes organization sought to make changes in gaming licenses to reflect an internal shakeup after Maheu's departure, gaming officials wanted proof that the changes were indeed directed by Howard Hughes.

Later, the Nevada Gaming Commission received two letters, one which was signed by Howard R. Hughes and another containing his fingerprints.

But the unrelated Clifford Irving affair, in which Hughes' signature was forged on checks for literary advances that made it appear as-if Hughes was cooperating in producing an autobiography, made Nevada officials wary about accepting a letter signed by Hughes as proof of his .intentions.

They wanted a discreet face-to-face meeting with the reclusive billlonalre.

As Philip P. Hannifin, chairman of the

7261 Nevada Gaming Control Board, said at a board meeting on March 16, 1972:

"Mr. Hughes has chosen to live in a mystery and to surround all of his activities with secrecy. And, under different circumstances, I would concede his right to do that.

"But, I find that such behavior is incompatible with the spirit and intent of Nevada law. So much is unknown about this man, his motives and his goals, that the state is in an awkward position.

"This application would ask us to enlarge an already improper situation, and asks the state to take risks of unknown size ...

"In essence, Nevada law requires every applicant or holder of a gaming license to fully disclose all aspects of his personal and business life. Mr. Hughes has avoided this disclosure despite our attempts to deal with him on a discreet and private basis. This avoidance of disclosure is inconsistent with Nevada law and with the demands this board has placed upon all other applicants and licensees."

Hughes refused the face-to-face meeting. But a year later, the license changes were ultimately approved.

Hughes had prevailed, even though it meant bending and twisting Nevada law.

When Hughes was considering large-scale mining operatlons in Nevada early in 1968, efforts which were later shelved, he was anxious that no one enter the field ahead of him.

To help assure himself of a clear, uncompetitive field, he enlisted the support of the governor of Nevada.

In a memorandum to Maheu dated Feb. 10, 1968, Hughes told his then top aide:

" ... Please tell the governor that I have been researching various minerals and substances suitable for a mlning program, and that I would be very upset indeed if somebody entered that field ahead of me.

"So please tell the governor I truly hope he will not, in his genuine enthusiasm, accidentally mention the possibility or desirablllty of a mining operation in Nevada to somebody else."

Hughes has often picked up supp01·t from local politicians by other means over the years. In doing so, he has, for all his secretiveness, demonstrated a surprising flair for public relations and endearing himself to local politicians.

A favorite Hughes practice is to promise to finance a major local improvement. Later, he quietly drops his plans. Such was the case in Las Vegas in the early 1950s.

During the Korean War, Hughes adroitly exchanged some land he had purchased in northern Neva-da for a 27,000-acre tract outside Las Vegas owned by the federal government.

On this barren piece of desert, Hughes announced that he would build a rocket plant. No plant has been built there to date.

In 1956, Hughes' plans to build an aircraft manufacturing plant in Florida were announced by his representatives at a press conference at the governor's office in Tallaha...."See.

No site had been purchased, Hughes men said, but they were searching for a 30,000-acre tract. Rumors suggested that the Florida plant would be even larger than Hughes' Culver City, Calif., plant, his main operation.

"While I am not ready to talk about geographic locatlons," Hughes said in a news release, "I can say that I intend to establish in

7262 Florida a company which will engage in t :tc design, development and maimfacture of ~tir pranes."

The governor of Florida was ecstatic, sayin g that the Hughes plant and allied indust r ies would comprise the largest indust ria l" deVelopment in Florida. To date, no such plant has been built.

And such was again the cas e in Las Vegas in the late 1960s.

On Dec. 10, 1967, Hughes reached an agreement with Las Vegas officials to const ruct a supersonic transport jet airport in southern Nevada to serve the State, California and Arizona.

In a news release issued by his office, Hughes said he did not expect to make a profit on the deal and would "gladly give the county the option of buying the new airport at its cost."

Hughes made Nevadans an additional vague promise at the same time.

"I will go this far," he said in a news release. "I wlll promise some kind of small industrial effort in some part of Nevada with no agreed or committed time schedule.

"Now I want to be completely fair. And I should warn you that I am not noted for getting things done in a hurry. I promise one thing: it won't be on as favorable a schedule as you expect, or as favorable a schedule as you would like it to be, or as favorable a schedule as I would like it to be."

All of these plans had the enthusiastic support of Nevada's Gov. Laxalt.

"Anything this man does," the governor said of Hughes, "from the gaming industry all the way down the line, will be good for Nevada."

As it turns out, Hughes was not exaggerating in 1967 when he told Nevadans that his improvement projects would not be completed as soon as they would like. Eight years later, neither the airport nor the "industrial effort" has been build.

But Hughes' political contributions and his efforts to ingratiate himself with local politicians do not tell the full story of how the reclusive industrialist influences American government.

The story is found in the biographies of the men Hughes employs. To an incredible degree, Hughes draws on individuals who have at one time worked for the government themselves.

Over the years, Hughes has steadily drawn on persons to represent him who have had ties with the Army, Navy, Air Force, Justice Department, Department of Transportation, the Postal Service, IRS, CIA, FBI, the Civil Aeronautics Board, the Congress and the White House.

Like most major defense contractors, Hughes has long employed former Pentagon military and civilian officials to head strategic Hughes Aircraft Co. divisions.

Since 1969, defense contractors have been required to report the names of high-ranking military and civilian defense officials who leave federal employment for jobs in defense industries.

According to an analysis of Defense Department data made by the staff of Sen. William Proxmire (D., Wis.), 52 civilian and military defense officials went to work for Hughes Aircraft in fiscal years 1971 through 1973.

The figure, it should be pointed out, does not include defense officials who joined Hughes Aircraft before 1971.

Among the one-time military officers who went to work for Hughes during 1971-73 were Thomas J. Walker, a Navy vice admiral; Lowney H. Spencer, an Air Force major; Gerald F. Keeling, an Air Force major general; Andrew J , Reiss Jr., an Air Force major; John P . .

Pa.barcus, a .Navy commander; Earl L. Bozeman, an. .Air· Force colonel; John B. Byron, a Navy commander; Stanton W. Josephson, an

Anny colonel;· c. G. Chandler Jr., an Air For.::e major general; David E. Galas, an Air F orce colonel, and Howard R. Edwards, a Navy commander.

In addition to placint retired military personnel on its payroll, Hughes Aircraft Co. also formed an advisory board and invited retired high-ranking military officers to become members.

As Lawrence A. Hyland, general manager of t he aircraft company, explained the purpose of the board to retired Army Gen. D. Clyde Eddleman, in a letter inviting Eddleman to join the board after he retired from the Army in 1962:

"You are cordially invited to join the advisory board of the Hughes Aircraft Co. We feel that your experience and judgment will be very valuable to our management as we plan and execute our program.

"We also hope that your contacts with our management and scientists will be stimulating and interesting. We visualize our board as furnishing us the advice and counsel normally available to a corporation through its board of directors. Since the Hughes Aircraft Co. is privately owned, it does not have a corporate board of directors ... "

Interestingly, the invitation to join the Hughes Aircraft Co., board was extended to Eddleman not long after he was involved in a series of Army decisions that ultimately led to the awarding of a disputed helicopter contract to a division of Hughes Tool Co.

Although the company lost an initial design competition conducted in connection with the development of a new light observation helicopter, the contract for building the machines eventually was awarded to the Hughes Tool Co. division.

The FBI, the IRS, the CIA and the Justice Department have also been fertile recruiting grounds for Hughes.

Robert Maheu, Hughes' Nevada chief until his 1970 dismissal, was himself a former FBI agent and counterespionage agent in the 1940s.

Maheu, who once testified that he left the FBI because "I had difficulty finding a Communist in the state of Maine," where he was then stationed, also worked, according to a Senate Committee report, for the CIA on a freelance basis in 1960-61 attempting to organize a plot to assassinate Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

His son, Peter, who also worked in Hughes' Nevada operations, testified that he too worked for the CIA for a brief period during the 1960s.

Richard Danner, general manager of the Hughes-owned Sands hotel and casino, who testified before Congress that he delivered $100,000 in campaign contributions to the Republican campaign in 1970, is also a former FBI agent.

Walter Fitzpatrick, one-time manager of the Hughes-owned Desert Inn, is a former IRS agent. Ralph Winte, director of security for Hughes' Summa Corp., is another former FBI agent.

Henry Schwinn, a former ms official, was named managing director of the Frontier Hotel shortly after Hughes acquired it. Dean Elson, a former FBI agent, was also employed in Hughes Nevada operations.

Edward P. Morgan, a Washington attorney who has represented Hughes on many occasions, was once an FBI agent, a Truman Administration official and chief counsel to a Senate subcommittee on foreign relations.

Robert D. Peloquin, president of International Intelligence Inc. (Intertel), a private intelligence and security agency that has since 1970 supervised security at Hughes• Las Vegas casinos, was formerly chief of the Justice Department's first organized crime task force.

Another former member of that task force, William G. Hundley, was· -also instrumental

in founding Intertel, and other one-time Justice officials or FBI agents are also Intertel officials.

Further, Peloquin has represented Hughes as a private attorney in discussions with Justice Department officials when Hughes was facing criminal indictment growing out of possible securities law violations in the takeover of Air West, a West Coast airline.

Hughes' hiring of Abe Fortas' law firm in the TWA case was typical of the way he employs politically important Washington law firms on specific issues.

In 1969, for example, when Congress was considering legislation affecting tax-exempt organizations such as the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Hughes was represented on Capitol Hill by two well-known law firms.

One was Hogan & Hartson, whose senior partners have been drawn mostly from government service including such agencies as the ms.

The other was Clifford, Wa1·nke, Glass, Mcnwain & Finney, whose senior partners include long-time adviser to presidentsformer Defense Secretary Clark M. Clifford among them.

NO-FAULT AUTO I NSURANCE

HON. WILLIAM L. HUNGATE OF MISSOURI



Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Speaker, since the no-fault insurance issue remains under consideration, the following article may prove helpful.

The article follows: [From the Christian Science Mon itor,

Feb. 18, 1976] No-FAULT AUTO INSURANCE UP FOR F EDERAL

SCRUTINY (By Lucia Mouat)

WASHINGTON.-No-fault auto ins ur a.nce, once widely considered the answer to weaknesses of the traditional insu1·ance system, is run ning into some fault problems of its own

Just as it is about to undergo a critical test of approval at the federal level, no-fault has become the target of blame in a spate of recent news stories. These insist that the insurance reform measure is causing substantial hikes in the cost of premiums and that high claim payments cost insurers heavy losses. The Government Employee Insurance Company (GEICO) for instance, last month announced its first net operating loss in 32 years and blamed the change on nofault .

No-fault p roponents bristle a t such charges. While they concede that the general trends are true, they point to industrywide in flation and poor state no-fault laws (where t hey exist ) as culprits.

Nonetheless, no-fault backers an d detra ::tors alike are keenly aware that the net effect of the charges is likely to make the Capitol Hill debate on no-fault sharper than ever.

The Senate is slated to consider federal no-fault legislation on the floor within the next few weeks. It passed a similar measure two years ago by an 11 vote margin and is expected to do so again but by a slimmer edge.

The House remains the most difticult roadblock. Though reportE!d out by a House subcomm~ttee last !all, the House leglslation h~ yet to be called up and marked by the House II_iterstate a.nd Foreign Commerce Cominittee. When and if it is, the measure !s

J.ltla'tch 18, 1976 likely to undergo tough line-by-line questioning.

A presidential veto also looms as a possibility. Although Mr. Ford is not against no-fault itself, he wants to give the State action route more time. Transportation Secretary William Coleman backs the administration position but has privately expressed support for federal no-fault, and some proponents are hopeful he might decide to stake his job on it. So far Secretary Coleman has given no public indication of such a move.

No-fault proponents say that the insurance reform idea is the object of a "smear" campaign conducted by the trial lawyer community and several major auto insurers.

These backers say that in practice the motive behind no-fault reform-to rechannel much of the money which now goes for attorney fees back to the accident victim by having his own insurance company pay his medical bills--has worked.

Proponents also insist that no-fault premiums have fared no worse than liability insurance. State Farm Insurance, for instance, which has supported federal legislation since 1973, says Its premiums in the 16 no-fault states went up only 9.8 percent in 1975 compared to a 12.2 percent hike in states with traditional liabllity systems.

No-fault appears to have a bad record, these proponents say, because some participating states have few restrictions on lawsuits and because state legislators and insurance departments often mandated unjustified rate cuts (averaging 15 percent) when no-fault was introduced.

In etfect, no-fault backers say, auto owners in such states have been asked to support both a no-fault and a fault system since lawsuits are still too easy to file. In 13 nofault states, for instance, one can sue on a fault basis for any medical b1lls totaling more than $1,000. In Massachusetts, first state to choose a no-fault plan, that thl·eshold is a low $500.

Under the proposed federal no-fault standard, which is considered so tough that even the comprehensive Michigan law would have to be upgraded to meet it, one's own insurance company would reimburse full medical expenses and up to $15,000 in wage losses.

The right to sue would be limited to extremely serious cases. No monetary threshold is set, however, since no fault proponents consider such a dividing line self-defeating. The hope In keeping the suit restriction tight is to see that more of the $1.8 billion in annual attorney fees on accident cases is paid out in direct benefits to the injured party. Actual estimates say that the federal standard would double the number of premium dollars available to pay victims of economic loss without forcing real insurance costs up.

HON. FLORENCE P. DWYER

HON. MILLICENT FENWICK OF NEW JERSEY

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, March 17, 1976

Mrs. FENWICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise also to express my sorrow at the death of the Honorable Florence P. Dwyer, a woman who represented her district here so honorably and so well. Her constituents knew where she stood on any issue: she kept their interests at heart; she made government real to the people of her district. They returned her in every election with an increasing majority. It did not matter how they changed the district, no one could beat Flo DwYer 1n

· EXTENSIONS OF REMA.RKS

the 12th District. She was a remarkable woman, a great public servant, an earnest and dedicated legislator.

Mr. Speaker, I am confident that I express the feelings of all the New Jersey delegation in concurring in the remarks of the gentleman from New Jersey <Mr. RINALDO) who just preceded me.

BLACK LEADERS DO HAVE A NATIONAL PLATFORM

HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL OF NEW YORK



Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, there has recently been an effort by the press to give the impression to Americans that black political leaders are failing to define what the black issues will be during this political year. The Congressional Black Caucus has been engaging in political forums throughout the Nation so as to make our voices heard on the key issues as we see them. In late November of last year we set forth our platform at the Democratic Issues Convention in Louisville, Ky. We have also been meeting with the major Presidential contenders within the Democratic Party to attempt to ascertain their positions on the issues of concern to us. We will continue to address the issues of full employment, equalization of the tax laws, national health insurance and the rest throughout this election year.

Our colleague, WALTER FAUNTROY today wrote a column for the Washington Post entitled, "Black Issues." He clearly states the roles we have been assuming in an attempt to get the media and the candidates to address themselves to the issues we have been raising. The myth that black leaders have not delineated what the issues are is just that, a myth. I insert the column in the RECORD at this point for my colleagues' careful review:

BLACK IsSUES

(By Walter Fauntroy) It seems in vogue these days for civil

rights activists of the 1960's, black and white alike, to lament the fact that "presidential candidates are not addressing black issues this year." I welcome, therefore, William Raspben·y's effort to address the subject in his article, "The Absence of 'Black Issues'."

I do not feel that Mr. Raspberry needed to go to such great lengths to posture so many possible answers to the question. The fact is that there are only two answers, in my judgment. The first is that, as Mr. Raspberry points out, what most Americans, black and white alike, have come to think of as black issues have largely been resolved. The second is that few political leaders are prepared to force the American people to deal with the basic problems confronting us in the nation that just happen to be reflected most acutely in the black experience: high unemployment, inadequate health care, urban fiscal and physical decay and the like.

In the fil'st instance, those looking for "black issues" as we define them in the 1960's are going to be very disappointed today. In the 60's, civil rights issues were rightly perceived as affecting only blacks. It was blacks, and blacks alone, who were denied access to public accommodations by law across the

: r :7263 South. It was at blacks, and blacks alone, that various barriers to the ballot were aimed to deny us access to the political system. Thanks to the courageous action of many, many people and wise leadership of a Martin Luther King Jr., we resolved those issues at Birmingham with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and at Selma, Alabama, with the Vot .. ing Rights Act of 1965.

Dr. King used to say after Selma that the civil rights victories we achieved in the 60's didn't cost the country anything. It didn't cost anything to take the "for white only" signs down. It didn't cost much to send federal registrars south to protect the rights of blacks to register and vote. But, he said, the human rights gains that the nation must score to "fulfill the civil rights victories" which he had won would cost money. It would require taking rich Individuals and multi-national corporations off of public welfare in this nation by reforming our tax system. It would require working coalitions of the "unmonied many" to convince the "wealthy few" to pay their fair share to fund much needed social and economic programs that would result in a more even distribution of the wealth of the nation.

Thus, in the late 60's, we launched a "Poor People's Campaign" that summoned blacks and whites, Spanish-speaking, Asians, and native Americans to the "human rights" movement of this decade, the right to live, the right to jobs or income, health care and a decent living environment.

It is wrong for anyone to suggest, as Mr. Raspberry's column does, that black leaders have failed to hammer out black-related platforms and to map strategies for forcing the major parties to address black issues. The fact is that these black issues that reflect themselves most acutely in the black experience have been defined by us over and over again. I personally had a major role in defining them as vice chairman of the White House Conference "To Fulfill These Rights" in 1966. I redefined them as issues chairman for the Poor People's Campaign; then again as chairman of the Platform Committee of the National Black Convention in Gary, Ind., in 1972. As members of the Congressional Black Caucus, we defined them again in terms of our legislative agenda for the 94th congress. Anybody who expects any other issue orientation to come out of our National caucus of Black Democrats in Charlotte, North Carolina, in May is in for a big disappointment.

These issues have been and remain jobs for those willing to work or income for those unable to work; housing; health care; education; and urban problems that require tax reform and a redistribution of the wealth of the nation to solve. The problem is that the "wealthy few" who are the one per cent of the people who contribute 90 per cent of the money politicians get to run for public office, successfully delude Middle America into thinking that busing is the issue and that somehow blacks are the enemy. The wealthy few and their politicians tell the American people that it is impossible to fund a full employment program without raising their taxes. What they don't tell the American people is that if the wealthy few paid their fair share of taxes, not only could we fund a full employment program but also with the increased tax yield from a full employment economy, we could wipe out our current deficits and reduce taxes for the middle income Americans who carry a lion's share of the burden of financing the nation's budget today.

What they don't explain to the American people is how a multi-national corporation like Gulf Oil could earn a net income of $1.065 billion in 1974 and pay 2.9 per cent 1n federal taxes, a mere $27 million in federal taxes. Had they been taxed the way the average American is taxed, they would have

72.64 paid 16 per cent of that income or $170 million in federal taxes. They used part of the unpaid tax money to bribe South Korea's ruling politica.l party to the tune of four million dollars i;o maintain their price setting control in one of the several industries that are responsible for the inflationary cycles sweeping the world. What they don't tell the American people is that for every one per cent of the unemployed that we could put to work to bring private industry up to full production, we would save $16 billion in tax revenue losses or $64 billion annually if we could get unemployment down to 4 per cent this year. In short, a modest dose of tax reform to eliminate gaping loopholes enjoyed by the wealthy few would enable us to fund much needed programs that would result in wiping out our deficits and reducing the tax burden on Middle Americans who are being deluded into thinking that busing is the issue and that blacks are the enemy.

The fact is that we know just what the black issues are. The problem is that neither white political leaders nor the meclla are prepared to awaken the Archie Bunkers of America in general, and middle income Americans in particular, to the fact that these issues are color blind, that they are their issues as well as ours.

HUNGER

HON. LEE H. HAMILTON OF INDIANA



Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I include my Washington Report entitled "Hunger":

HUNGER

It is an irony of tragic proportions that in a day when man can walk on the moon, transplant hearts and fly routinely at twice the speed of sound, he cannot adequately feed himself.

Recently the United Nations estimated that about 460 million people are malnourished. Another estimate is that the number of people who "go hungry" for some part of the year exceeds one billion. ·

As staggering as such statistics are in themselves, projections for the future are even more alarming, especially since world population is projected to double by the end of this century. Unless something is done, many foresee an increasingly hungry world. The result will invariably be more unrest and more instability throughout the world.

The complexity of the problem and the dearth of accurate information offer us little solace. A well-founded understanding of the world food problem requires insights in economics, ecology, agronomy, nutrition, political science and a host of other academic disciplines. Furthermore, it is not reassuring to have an expert tell us that "there are really no accurate figures on food production for any poor country" and that "the margin of error in the estimate for India alone could feed or starve 12 million people."

One can say, and be technically correct, that world food output can be doubled or tripled during the next several decades, but that is not the crucial point. The important question pertains to cost: at what cost--social, as well as economic--can a. given increase in output and a more equitable distribution of food be achieved?

The responses to this question vary depending upon one's underlying a.ssum.ptions. Some argue that the world has reoohed, or nearly reached, the technical limits of its ability to feed the present population. Others argue that a fundamental shift tn the ·world

food economy toward chronic tood scarcity and higher food prices has occurred and wlll persist-a fact which will make it increasingly difficult "to sustain present levels of con-

. su_mption as the world food supply lags behind growth in demand. In a third and more optimistic view, high food prices and limited food supplies are seen as transitory. In this view the necessary expansion of agricultural production can be achieved for many yea.rs to come if the problems are nationally identified and tackled.

All agree, however, that our world's food problem has to be dealt with at two levelscoping with food emergencies and assuring in the long term an adequate standard of nutrition for an increased population. Intertwined in both of these challenges are problems of production, distribution and the creation of world food reserves.

Food production must be increased. The agricultural policies of major food exporting countries must allow for full capacity production. The food exporting nations alone, however, will not be able to meet the world's basic needs. The largest growth in world food production can and must take place in the chronic food deficit countries. Dramatic increases in food production a.re possible in the less developed countries with the right blend of national policies and technical know-how. Major emphasis to achieve increased production must be placed on new research and additional investment in irrigation, in storage and distribution systems, in the production of fertilizer, pesticides and seeds, and in all kinds of agricultural credit institutions. Steps must be taken to farm more land, to use more fertilizer, to increase the water supply, to better manage the ocean fisheries, and to develop new varieties of crops.

Better systems for food distribution are essential. It has been estimated that at least one quarter of the world's food disappears between the field and the table. It is easy prey for rats, insects, fungus and mildew. To eliminate such waste, transportation systems have to be upgraded, concrete warehouses built and mar.~teting methods modernized.

Food reserves must be established. The grave vulnerability of mankind to food emergencies caused by crop failure is apparent. Today our world's food reserves have been depleted. Replenishing them requires international agreement on the size of the needed reserves, on the sharing of responsibility for holding reserves, and on the guidelines for the management and distribution of the reserves.

In addition to these international efforts, the U.S. should take several steps to assist the 460 million people who are malnourished, including increased food aid, a firm commitment to create world food reserves and a strong emphasis on helping to increase food production in the developing countries.

In short, we must prosecute the wa.r against hunger as aggressively as we pursue our own national defense. There are oany claims upon our resources today, but surely none exceeds the claim of seeing that people do not starve.

PUBLIC CITIZEN TESTL.\t!ONY ON BYINGTON NOMINATION

HON. ROBERT F. DRINAN OF MASSACHUSETTS



Mr. DRINAN. Mr. Speaker, in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- of. March 16 I inserted, with introductory remarks, the

Ma-rc~ 18, 1!)76 , ;' -~ . . , .

March 15 letter that 27 other Members of the House of Representatives and I sent to Chairman WARREN G. MAGNUSON and the other members of the Senate Commerce Committee urging the disapproval of the nomination of s. John Byington to become the new Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. In yesterday's RECORD I inserted the testimony delivered on March 1, during the Commerce Committee's hearings on the Byington nomination, by Carol Tucker Foreman, executive director of the Consumer Federation of America.

Today I am inserting in the RECORD a copy of the testimony delivered on the same date and during the same hearings by Joan Claybrook, Esq., and Sidney M. Wolfe, M.D., of Ralph Nader's Public Citizen. Ms. Claybrook is the director of Congress Watch and Dr. Wolfe is the director of the Health Research Group; both organizations are supported by Public Citizen.

The Public Citizen testimony effectively evaluates the views and statements of Mr. Byington in light of the standards against which Presidential nominees should be measured. I commend this testimony to my colleagues in the House:

STATEMENT ON THE NOM.INATXON OF JoHN BYINGTON

lVu-. Chairman, members of the Commerce Committee, we represent Publie Citizen, a public interest organization concerned with the impact of government and corporate policies on citizen interests, to testify in opposition to the nomination by President Ford of John Byington to be chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

The Product Safety Commission is one of the most important of the regulatory agencies because it has authority to protect citizens from the unreasonable risks of injury in the design or manufacture of most consumer products, with the primary exceptions of food, drugs, cosmetic and motor vehicles. Each year some 20 million Americans are injured in the home as a result of incidents connected with consumer products. Of the total, 110,000 are permanently disabled and 30,000 are killed. A significant number could have been spared if more attention had been paid to hazard reduction. The annual costs to·the Nation of product-related injuries may exceed $5.5 billion.1 It is our concern about the effectiveness of this agency which prompts us to oppose Mr. Byington. As the delegation of Congressional Democrats to the 1975 White House meeting on regula- ' tory reform told the President last summer: "The single most debilitating flaw in our regulatory system has been the chronic failure of Presidents to name-and the Senate to insist upon the naming of-of outstanding public servants qualified by t-raining and commitment to implement the lette1· and spirit of the laws which they are sworn to uphold."

Recent discussions before this Committee and in othe1· forums have elaborated a number of critical standards against which Presidential nominees should be measured, by the public and by the Congress. We would like to compare Mr. Byington's views and statements, many of them in response to written questions asked by the Committee, against these standards to explain why we believe it would be a mistake for the Committee to recommend confirmation.

1 This figure, taken from the final report of the National Commission on Product Safety, June 1970, does not include damage from consumer products regulated by other Federal agencies.

MareTt 18, ;1916 1. DEMONSTRATED DEDICATION AND SENSITIVITY

TO CONSUMER AND MINORITY NEEDS

Mr. Byington's only activities directly related to support of consumer interests have occurred during the past two years whlle serving in the Office of Consumer Affairs. Prior to that time he worked in various capacities representing business Interests, incl udlng a business trade association, in private law practice, and in the Commerce Department on business exports.

During his tenure the President and the Office of Consumer Atrai.rs abandoned prior endorsement and officially opposed the first priority in consumer legislation, the Consumer Protection Agency, S. 200 and H.R. 7575, and recommended a fourth class substitute developed by Mrs. Knauer's office, something Inappropriately called Consumer Representation Plans. We have prepared a lengthy crt tlcism of these plans and wish to submit them for the record of this hearing. Last April, prior to the design of these plans, we submitted a memorandum to Mrs. Knauer listing 45 speclflc steps which could be taken to make federal agencies more responsive to consumers. All of these recommendations have been ignored. The memorandum is attached for the hearing record.

Essentially, the Consumer Representation Plans are a consumer fraud-they are unenforceable promises by the various executive agencies to do better what they should have been doing all along. Structurally they are empty. They do not create, acknowledge or even recommend any speclflc rights for consumers. They are nothing more than a useful diversionary device behind which federal bureaucrats can yawn and continue their disregard for the interests of consumers and camouflage for the President's multitude of anti-consumer actions, especially his announced veto of the Consumer Protection bill.

When asked by the Committee for his position on the consumer blll, Mr. Byington had perhaps his first opportunity to make a personal public statement about a critical piece of consumer legislation he had pressed for just one year ago. While claiming an interest In making the governmental decision-making process "more responsive to the people" and in providing "signlflcantly increased opportunities for consumer participation,'' he would not endorse S. ?.00. He recommends making the agencies more open and responsive to full consumer participation, while ignoring the fact that consumers rarely have the resources or expertise to do so. Mr. Byington has obviously decided, as has Mrs. Knauer, to trim his sails in accordance with President Ford's reelection plans, although he states to the Committee that there were no conditions, expressed or Implied, attached to his nom1nation as Chairman.

When asked by the Committee whether the Consumer Representation Plans will provide meaningful consumer advocacy in the agencies, Mr. Byington replied: " ... if we can stimulate consumer participation and also sensitize federal program managers so that they better represent consumers' interest, then I believe there is a distinct possibility that the Federal bureaucracy may be made more responsive to consumer needs." This response either intentionally or in Ignorance confuses public relations gimmicks, consumer education, responses to consumer complaints and consumer service on advisory councils, which are discussed in the Consumer Representation Plans, with legal advocacy of consumer views in rulemaklng and adjudicatory proceedings, which are clearly not part of these plans. It also indicates Mr. Byington thinks an agency employee can adequately represent an outside interest in an adversary proceeding--a situation frought with conflicts of interest.

When asked by the Committee whether

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS he would support, for the Consumer Product Safety Commission, a provision slm1lar to the one in the Magnuson-Moss Federal Trade Commission amendments allocating funding for public interest representation, Mr. Byington says he would "if it was necessary to get consumer input and participation within the decision-making process of the Commission." This response indicates again the nominee's insensitivity to the meager resources of the few consumer groups who vallantly try to keep up with the work of the Commission, and the need to vastly expand the participation of citizens in the regulatory process. In response to another question, Mr. Byington suggests that "such steps should be taken as are necessary to insure that consumers and consumer organizations will have an important opportunity to play an important role in the standards development process," but he falls to acknowledge that support is ln fact necessary, or delineate what specific steps he would endorse.

When asked by the Committee about the Commission's advisory committee, Mr. Byington acknowledges criticisms of adVisory counclls in the past and assures the Committee that he is "committed to having the advisory council play a very signlflcant role, particularly in the contribution of valuable expertise and information as well as an excellent sounding board for new Ideas and concepts." These statements must be contrasted to the inactivity of the twelvemember OCA Consumer Advisory Council which In recent years has not had one leader of a national consumer group presented despite the short, two-year terms of its members.

Like the so-called Consumer Representation Plans, Mr. Byington contenances occasional benevolent accommodation to consumer Interests. For someone who will for seven years be Chalrinan of an Independent agency not accountable to any political force, this Is not enough. 2. PHILOSOPHICAL COMMITMENT TO REGULA

TION UNDER THE PRODUCT SAFETY ACT

Three statements by Mr. Byington in response to Committee questions llluminate his basic view of the regulatory process.

First, he quotes the National Commission on Product Safety as to the relationship between the Commission's mission and the regulated industry: "' ..• we have concluded that the greatest promise for reducIng risks resides in energizing the manufacturer's ingenuity. . . . We mean that with Government stimulation they can accomplish more for safety with less effort and expense than any other body . . .' " Left unexplained are the means for "energizing the manufacturer's ingenuity" and "stimulation," but it doesn't sound like regulation.

Second, when asked by the Committee about priorities among research, enforcement, standards development, consumer education and regulation under Section 15, Mr. Byington responded: ". . . I belleve as a general principle that the method for determining priorities among the various techniques open to the Commission . . . should be to judge each of them in terms of how much it can be expected to differentially contribute to achievement of the Commission's goals." This response is gobbledegook to avoid responding to a very important question which would reveal the nominee's comprehension and view of· the most expeditious and effective actions which can be taken under the Act.

Third, when asked about the Commission's current policy of "motivational complian<:e"-a presumption that a few tough criminal enforcement actions are sufficient deterrent to other manufacturers to promote voluntary compliance with the Act and reduce the need for inspection of individual

7265 manufacturing operations-Mr. Byington responded again in generalities, resting on "case by case basis," "criminal sanctions play a vital role in the overall mix of enforcement tools" and "resource limitations would probably dictate the need for some selection criteria for referral of violations for prosecution." Unanswered are questions about whether such an enforcement selection method and voluntary compliance really works, and what criteria should be used in selecting cases for enforcement. While few would question the thesis that fear of strong, vigorous regulation and enforcement can "motivate" industry toward making less dangerous products, Intent without action is not sufficient. Perusal of the Commission's own annual report shows it has brought very few criminal lltigatlon cases.

If Mr. Byington has a strong commitment to effective enforcement under the Product Safety Act, he avoided every opportunity afforded him by the Committee questions to say so. 3. EXCEPTIONAL COMPETENCE AND QUALIFICA

TIONS IN REGULATORY AGENCY MATTERS

Mr. Byington has no background or experience in regulatory law. He has worked at Mrs. Knauer's office since 1974 as a manager: ••. . . my responslblllty is that of the chief opera-ting officer. Mrs. Knauer establishes overall policy and obviously has final approval on budgetary and personnel matters. It Is my responsiblllty to oversee the day-today operations of the office within the policy guidellnes which have been established and serve as director in her absence."

While the Office of Consumer Affairs has submitted comments on some agency proposals, they are only written submissions, they cover only a few proposals out of thousands published in the Federal Register, and, we have learned, they are not prepared by Mr. Byington. These submissions are the extent of the OCA's participation in agency regulation.

No further comments are necessary. Mr. Byington simply does not meet this standard. 4. CM>ACITY TO WITHSTAND POLITICAL PRESSURE

Mr. Byington's straddle and ultimate failure to endorse the consumer agency bill and his wame 1n responses to many of the Committee's questions indicates his preference to accommodate rather than do battle with strong political forces. When asked what steps he would take to preserve h1s independence at the commission from polltical and industry pressure, he responded: "I shall take all steps necessary to preserve the independence of the CPSC ... " without any elaboration. Either he doesn't know what he should do, or he doesn't want to risk alienating any strong political force prior to his confirmation.

Mr. Byington says he favors independence for the Commission, but he would seek out "frank dialogue" with his Congressional overseers.

5, ECONOMIC AND PHILOSOPHICAL INDEPENDENCE FROM REGULATED INTERESTS

With his prior experience based primarily in the business world, Mr. Byington hedged when asked if be would refuse for a period of 12 months after termination of employment at the Commission any employment or compensation from any person who is regulated directly or indirectly by the Commission (e.g. trade associations, importers, distributors, retailers, etc.) (The law prohibits employment for 12 months with any manufacturer.) Mr. Byington said: "I shall always attempt to conduct myself in a manner consistent with both the spirit and the letter of the law," which means he intends to keep his options open.

In response to a question about the role of the economic impact finding required by the statute. Mr. )3yington gives no lndica.tlon

7266 he understands or is prepared to handle the obstinacy of industry in their routine refusals to provide accurate information to make such evaluations. With his background primarily in business or the promotion of business enterprises, and a preference for accommodation, Mr. Byington is undoubtedly more comfortable in a cooperative than in s.n adversarial posture. Whether this preference would interfere with the required armslength relationships demanded in regulation is not clear, but Mr. Byington certainly haS no demonstrated experience in sustained ad ersarial activities.

6. ADMINISTRA'l'IVE COMPETENCE AND SOUND JUDGllllENT

Mr. Byington prides himself on his administrative skills. Yet, it cannot be overlooked that while he administered an oilice of 55 professionals, the office comm.entec on only a few among many administrative agency proposals alfect:ing eonsumers, and endorsed some important consumer legisl&tion but ignored many very key proposals, such as the amendments to the Freedom of Information Act, the Sunshine Act. oil and gas price regulation, Toxic Substances, small claims courts, class action, bank: for consumer cooperatives, antitrust improvements, attorneys fees for participation in regulatory agency proceedings, clean air and food stamps. Among the consumer legislative proposals ignored were amendments to the Consumer Product Safety Act. a subject of apparent new-found interest at the Office of Consumer Affairs~

In his responses to Committee questions, Mr. Byington criticizes the Commission !or numerous failures or emissions, but the Office of Consumer Affairs has never petitioned the Com.mlssion for action in these areas, and indeed submitted only two comments to the Commission in the last two years.

Listed among Mr. Byington's accomplishments are refinement of the OCA's missions. One of these is consumer redress, or as Mrs. Knauer described it in a letter of March ~1. 1975 to Representative Frank Annunzio, the handling of more than 2,000 consumer complaints each month.

Never mentioned is the fact that a study by the Technical .Assistance Research Programs, Inc. (TARP) which was funded by OCA to review many agency complaint handling procedures, found OCA itself performed unsatisfactorily in two areas: failure to follow-up adequately complaints which are handled in-house, and failure to use complaints to change agency policy. The OCA deputy director does not hold regularly scheduled staff meetings with the people who answer complaints, and no reports or memoranda of the type of complaints received are regularly prepared for policy consideration.

7. HIGH STANDARD OF PERSONAL INTEGRITY

We do not have sufficient personal association with Mr. Byington to comment in any detail on his personal integrity. We think his weasel answers to many of the Committee's questions raise a presumption against him, however. We also were misled by his promises to aiTange the meetings in Washington, D.C. on the Consumer Representation Plan in accordance with the suggestions of consumer groups. The final schedule accomplished precisely the opposite of what was recommended, with no general session held and several agencies of similar interest holding meetings on the same day.

We hope tha.t other witnesses might address this issue to assist the Committee in a complete evaluation.

In summary, we find that Mr. Byington has few o! the qualifications demanded for the important job of Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.


CITIZENS CONSUMER COUNCU..

HON. G. WILLIAM WHITEHURST OP v:tP.GINIA



Mr. WHITEHURST. Mr. Speaker, many of us have been pinioned on the spears of self-serving interest groups, which arbitrarily select only those votes which are of particular conce1·n to them and do not study the questions in depth. Their ratings frequently reflect a narrow, biased position.

Recently the Virginia delegation was rated by the Virginia Citizens Consumer Council. Wide publicity was given to their findingsJ which were based upon just 13 votes in the House. Congressman DAVID E. SATTE'BFIELD m. has issued an excellent press release in response, and I am taking this opportunity to share it with crur colleagues. I think that it not only shows that there are two sides to every issue. but it also makes it quite clear that the Virginia Citizens Consumer Council. like too many other groups~ is willing to sacrifice the broad vttal interests of the American people to serve its own limited ones.

I am pleased to call this statement to the attention of my colleagues:

CONSUMER RATING

The so-called consumer rating of Mem.bers of Congress by the Virginia Citizens Consumer Council does not accurately state the true effect of the 1:l votes in the U.S. House of Representatives to which it re~erred.

A rev-iew of these 13 V{)tes leads me to the conclusion that the position supported by the Council would adversely affect our nation's security, our economy and the long term health, welfare and general well-being of all its citizens.

The position on these votes advocated by the Virginia Citizens Consumer Council would have been

Against exploration. development and production of additional domestic energy resources essential to achievement of selfsufficiency.

Against a device which would assist in alleviating feast or famine conditions in the money market and make mortgage money more available on mutually agreed terms during times of greatest stress.

Against permitting Federal thrift institutions to utilize variable mortgage rates even though state institutions in 41 states may now do so.

Against random testing of manufactured products for safety in lieu of testing every item produced. This would result in excessive costs which would be pa....c:sed on to the consumer through increased prices. (This position ignores the obvious result where such testing requires destruction of the product.)

For greater reliance upon foreign nations for the supply of oil and long run higher costs imposed at will by those who control that oil.

For greater vulnerability to the potential threat to our economy and our national security by foreign nations should they determine to terminate the export of oil to the u.s.

For establishment of a Consumer Protection Agency which, contrary to what its name implies, would not serve the consuming public but would create another Federal agency to act as an adversary in matters under con-

March 18, 1976 sideration by existing Federal agencies which are vested with specific and exclusive responsibilities. Creation of this agency would result in increased administrative and legal costs to the Federal Government as well a.s to producers, manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers and retaflers which would be passed on to the consumer.

For granting the Consumer Product Safety Commission the authority to bypass the Attorney General in commencing and pursuing actions in the courts.

For permitting payment of interest on demand deposits in banks and thrift institutions on a nation·wide basis notwithstanding a current study to assess the effects of this practice which has not been concluded, a position which ignores the advisability of proceeding as a result of enlightenment.

For requiring mortgage institutions to report their loans in standard metropolitan statistic areas by census tract. The effect would lead to substitution of new criteria. for certain loans other than credit worthiness of the borrower, increased costs to lenders and favoring one class of consumers o · er another.

For a program to promote. maintain and develop markets for cattle beef and beef products which was a thinly disguised effort to advertise and promote the sale of beef. The costs would be refie.cted in increased consumer beef prices~

DUring 1975 thel.·e were 612 recorded votes in the House of Representatives. It is unfortunate that this group would attempt to classify Members as pro-consumer or anticonsumer on the b.asis of only thirteen of those votes.

It is unfortunate that any group using its own bia.s as a standard would attempt to rate a Member of the House of Representatives on the premise that any vote on complicated legislation can be so simply classified.

It should be realized that all of the citizens of the U.S. are in one way or another con~ sumers. It should be understood that the best interest of every citizen is served by proper attention to every consideration which may affect the citizen and the nation. No voting record review has. value unless it takes all of the factors into consideration, just as a Member of Congress must if he is to properly discharge the tremendous resnonsiblli· ties of his office. -

H.R. 11-THE SALES REPRESENTATIVES PROTECTION ACT

HON. JOHN Y. McCOLLISTER OF NEBRASKA



Mr. McCOLLISTER. Mr. Speaker, during this past year, there has been a growing interest in legislation which I introduced at the outset of this Congress, H.R. 11, the Sales Representatives Protection Aet. I plan to introduce a revised version of H.R. 11 in the very near future.

This legislation strikes off in a bold new direction in contract law. Because of this, it has generated a good deal of interest, even controversy. To more fully explain the problem which the legislation is designed to counter and the broad features of the bill, I wrote an article which was published in a special report on "Marketing Through the Outside Sales Force," in the magazine Sales & Marketing Management, issued February

March 18, 19?'6

23, 1976. Because this information may be useful to Members in responding to constituent inquiries on H.R. 11 or its revised version, I am including this article, "Sales Reps: The Forgotten Salesmen?" in the Record at this point:

SALES REPS: THE FORGOTTEN SALESMEN? (By Representative JoHN Y. McCOLLISTER)

Salesman X worked for 10 years for a company that manufactured automotive parts that he sold, principally to the large auto manufacturers. Over the 10 years, he invested a quarter of a million dollars in the business. His annual sales approached $3 million. His success, however, was his downfall. Noting that the growing sales volume was producing a comfortable income for the sales rep!resentative, the company cut his territory and awarded the lucrative accounts to the son-in-law of the company president.

A company employing 14 sales representatives represented a xnanufacturer for 10 years, building sales from $200,000 a year to more than $1.2 million. Then, on 90 days' notice, the sales representative company was terminated. The company hired its own salesman to service the account.

The two examples cited above are, unfortunately, not rare events. Quite the contrary. Independent sales representatives, who service the vast needs of marketers, are being abused by some of their principals-and neglected wholesale by their government.

Being independent operators, sales representatives fall between the chairs. The National Labor Relations Board denies them the benefits of organized labor. And yet they lack the status and security of management. They live in limbo, forgotten by all branches of government. They are covered by neither workmen's compensation nor unemployment insurance. It took a special amendment to bring them under coverage of Social Security and they still must pay their entire F.I.C.A. contribution with no help from their principals.

These men and women invest their own money in developing business for the firms they represent; yet they have no equity in that business. Working on a commission, sales representatives customarily pay their own expenses and completely subsidize their own sales. The sales representative pays for his own food, lodging, car expenses, and business entertainment for prospective customers.

But the sales representative's fate is in the hands of his principal. Most reps are not protected by a written contract. The principal also may deduct fr.om the sales representative's commissions any trade discounts granted to retailers by the principal, losses for credit extended by the principal to retailers, cooperative advertising allowances, charges for shipping sample merchandise as well as the cost of the samples themselves, rent for showrooms maintained year round in large cities, and losses on goods returned by retailers to the principal.

Further, the principal retains the option to refuse to fill the orders sales Tepresentatives sell, can cut the territory that they have invested in to develop, and can preempt their larger accounts by converting them into house accounts serviced directly from the manufacturer's home office.

The exposed and vulnerable position of the sales representative is unfortunate. His entire livelihood is maintained at considerable risk to himself and his family. Worse, some principals have seized on the defenseless position of the sales representative and have systematically exploited him.

If there is a single pattern in the hundreds of cases that have come to my attention, it is that sales representatives are being victimized by some principals for being too successful. Surely, if there fs anything on which everyone in this country can agree it 1s that

EXTENSIONS OF REMAltKS successful performance should be rewarded not penalized.

That premise underlies H.R. 11, the bill that I introduced at the outset of the 94th Congress. I introduced a similar bill in the waning days of the 93rd Congress to call attention to this problem. H.R. 11 is designed to ensure that a productive sales representative who is unfairly discharged or victimized by his principal will be able to recover some measure of the investment that he had made in building the successful account that will directly benefit his principal. In so doing, H.R. 11 will also provide a new sense of security and a new stimulus to a sales representative to make investments in developing business that wlll directly benefit both himself and his principal.

The blll will protect only productive, honest sales representatives. To gain eligibillty under the terms of the blll, the sales representative must open a new account or service an existing account for at least 18 months, increase the sales volume by at least 50%, and be terminated without good cause. "Good cause" is defined to include fraud, dishonesty, criminal activity, or gross negligence 1n performing the terms of the agreement between the rep and the principal.

It should be emphasized that nothing 1n the bill interfers in any way with the right and ability of a principal to discharge a sales representative handling his merchandise. The terms of the blll come Into play only after termination (or a substantial reduction in the sales representative's territory or commission rate) , and eligibility is denied those who are terminated With good cause. Thus the benefits of the bill Will accrue only to those productive sales representatives whose efforts can be expected to produce continuing benefits for the principal.

There are Iegitmate reasons why any principal may want to r.onvert his sales force from sales representatives to employee salesmen, or to carve out a comfortable territory for the boss's new son-in-law. All this bill requires is that the sales representative who is performing his proper function and producing sales for his principal not be left high and dry after sinking a lot of his time and money into building up the account. If his investment has made the account valuable for the principal, he should be entitled to some compensation when he is forced to do without his commissions from that account because of some arbitrary action of the principal.

It is important to remember, as well, that the residual compensation is determined account by account. Unless he opens a particular account or services it for 18 months, and reaches a level 50 % greater than it was when he took over the acoount, he has no vested interest in that account. And if the principal discontinues selling to an account, and for that reason terminates a sales representative, then the sales representative has no entitlement either. Entitlement is a factor only when the sales representative's efforts produce continuing benefit to the principal.

The level of residual compensation under H.R. 11 is not burdensome. It is designed to protect the terminated sales representative who is ineligible to receive unemployment compensation or, if injured, workmen's compensation.

Marketers use sales representatives to market their products because it makes good economic sense. Small or beginning companies cannot afford to use huge chunks of scarce capital to hire employee salespersons, pay company benefits for them, and pay their travel and entertainment expenses. Payout under the terms of H.R. 11 would not be so great as to affect the same basic enonomlc relationship that now eXists. It It Is ad-

7267 vantageous to employ sales representatives now, it will continue to be advantageous.

H.R. 11 is pending in the House Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Finance, on which I serve as the ranking minority member. Although the bill was referred nearly a year ago, hearings were not requested in order that concerned parties could comment on the legislation and any rough edges could be smoothed out. That period of comment is approaching an end.

Comments offered on H.R. 11 have been evaluated; modifications are now being drafted and will be incorporated into a new bill that will be introduced momentarily. Public hearings on the bill will begin soon.

MORE JOBS FOR AMERICANS

HON. JOSEPH M. GAYDOS OF PENNSYLVANIA



Mr. GAYDOS. Mr. Speaker, California has become the frontrunner for supPDl'ters of a movement to prohibit the employment of illegal aliens in this country. Although the Federal Government has the exclusive power to regulate immigration, the Supreme Court ruled on February 25, 1976, that this does not mean that States are powerless to pass laws concerning the employment of illegal aliens. Thus, California law now makes it illegal for its employers to hire illegal aliens when such action would deny jobs to legal residents.

Calif01·nia State legislators have responded to the problem of high unemployment by making a brave and difficult decision to set job priorities for legal citizens. Congress would be wise to improve the Nation's unemployment picture by amending the Immigration and Nationality Act to discourage the hiring of illegal aliens.

During the past decade, the United States has tolerated the presence of a substantial population of illegal aliens. Currently, officials estimate that betwc.3n 4 and 12 million persons are residing illegally in the United States.

While the number of illegal aliens has been rising steadily, concern over their presence has also grown, primarily because of high unemployment and lessthan-prosperous economic conditions on the domestic scene. In other times, this problem of illegal aliens might not have fallen into the public limelight. But it is believed that foreign nationals in the United States occupy an estimated 1 million jobs that would otherwise go to American citizens. A House Judiciary Committee report notes that some 356,000 of these jobs were located -in industry; 335,000 in agriculture, and 309,-000 in service occupations. Testimony reveals that of the illegal aliens apprehended in six major U.S. cities between January and June 1975, 62.3 percent of those aliens were employed, mainly in industry.

Mounting evidence confirms the suspicion that illegal aliens are drawn to this country primarily because of economic opportunities not available in countries of their origin. Thus, signifi-

7268 cance of the illegal alien problem is measured most often as an economic one.

In addition to the adverse impact on jobs, illegal aliens reportedly cost the country millions of dollars in unpaid taxes, plus money spent on detention and deportation. They are considered to be ~ serious additional burden to the already-swollen public assistance rolls. And, because they tend to send considerable amounts of money back to their h ome countries, their presence here has an ill effect on the U.S. balance of payments.

Moreover, the status of illegal aliens makes them subject to serious exploitation on the job. Because they fear discovery, prosecution, or deportation, they have no bargaining position with their employers. Consequently, their employment is often characterized by low wages and a lack of common rights and benefits.

Supreme Court Justice Brennan recently summarized the issue this way:

Employment of illegal aliens in times of high unemployment deprives citizens and legally admitted aliens of jobs; acceptance by illegal aliens of jobs on substandard terms as to wages and working conditions can seriously depress wage scales and working conditions of citizens and legally admitted aliens and employment of 1llegal aliens under such conditions can diminish the effectiveness of labor unions.

Clearly, the time is right for the proposed amendment H.R. 8713, which would make it unlawful for U.S. employers or their agents to knowingly hire aliens. This bill could be an effective antidote to the problems created by our illegal alien population. The intention of this legislation is not to close our doors to immigrants, but to eliminate the temptation for illegal entries. Its purpose is not to discriminate against any national group, but to discourage employers who take advantage of illegal aliens.

Opponents to this bill rarely dispute the fact that some measure is needed to reduce the number of illegal aliens. However, they are not in agreement as to the method that should be employed. It is conside1·ations of experience, pragmatics, and money which dictate that it is more efficient to place sanctions on the employer rather than to impose further duties on immigration officials.

Certainly, the role of immigration specialists is important and will continue to play a critical part in the detection and apprehension of illegal immigrants. But experience has proven that foreign nationals are getting through. The Immigration and Naturalization Service-INS--reported that the great majority-88 percent-of illegal aliens apprehended in fiscal year 1974 entered the country without inspection. Only 12 percent violated their status after legal entry. In most cases, these persons are from bordering countries and have successfully escaped border detection.

One solution might be to eradicate the problem by requiring huge new appropriations for border patrols and detection mechanisms. However, the proposed amendment would also serve as a deterrent but at no additional cost--


only a little discipline on the part of employers.

We all know that the strength of this country has been built on the great contributions made by lawfully admitted immigrants from all parts of the world. At the root of Americanism is the belief in the tremendous accomplishments of a society that is the "melting pot" of all cultures. In order to preserve this belief, we should act to eliminate disorderly entry of and unfair job competition from illegal aliens.

TOWARD A BETTER CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT LAW

HON. MARIO BIAGGI OF NEW YORK



Mr. BIAGGI. Mr. Speaker, child abuse and neglect is a tragedy that affects over a million American children every year. It has always been one of my deepest concerns, and I have introduced legislation several times to help stem the problem.

In 1974, the passage of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act seemed to be a major step toward helping the innocent victims of child abuse and their abusers. I was a primary sponsor of that legislation, and I held high hopes for its effectiveness in decreasing child abuse and neglect.

But in recent months, since the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare issued its report to the President and Congress on the implementation of the law, several experts in the field have expressed to me their concern with whether or not HEW is reaching the objectives that Congress set forth in the legislation. After conducting my own extensive investigation, I have discovered several very disturbing things, and I have called on the General Accounting Office to undertake a thorough examination of HEW's handling of Public Law 93-247.

My close friend, Dr. Vincent J. Fontana, medical director and pediatricianin-chief of the New York Foundling Hospital Center for Parent/Child Development and chairman of the Mayor's Task Force on Child Abuse and Neglect ir ... the City of New York, is one of the experts who has been working with me in my evaluation of the effectiveness of this law. I am inserting into the RECORD an editorial taken from the Bergen County New Jersey Record which Dr. Fontana and I feel shows clearly an example of a questionable allocation of grant money, and the need for a thorough investigation.

There are many other discrepancies which I will be bringing to the attention of my colleagues in the next few months. Another example is that despite the ex-penditure of nearly $300,000 on thr£e different projects to determine the national incidence of child abuse, to this date there are no accurate national statistics available from the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, which

March 18, 1976

was created by this law to serve as an information clearinghouse. One longawaited report on the national incidence of the problem, which incidentally, is 5 months overdue, is already being discounted by HEW officials as "misleading and inaccurate."

After spending 2 years and $37.1 million, I cannot understand why we are seeing not a decrease but an increase in the number of children who are being beaten and abused. There are too many discrepancies and too many unanswered questions. It is my hope that the GAO investigation will find out why. Congress has made a positive attempt to help these unhappy children and their par ents, and we must be sure that HEW is complementing, and not sabotaging our efforts.

The following editorial, entitled "Social Service Gimmickery," is from the Bergen County Record of November 25, 1975. I am inserting it into the RECORD for the benefit and information of my collea gues :

SOCIAL SERVICE GIMMICK ERY

Caspar Weinberger, President Nixon's secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, earned t he nickname of "Cap the Knife" because of t he enthusiasm with which--early in his tenure-he tried to obey his boss's orders to cut back federal social service programs. Mr. Weinberger didn't succeed in reversing spending policies at HEW; indeed, by the time he left office, the department was spending more money and faster than under President Johnson's Great Society programs.

President Ford's HEW secretary, David Mathews, is trying to live up to the early image of "Cap the Knife" as an opponent of expanded social service programs. At the same time, Mr. Mathews approves projects that seem t o be of dubious benefit.

Two such projects, as it happens, involve the state Division of Youth and Family Services. Bot h concern the very real problem of child abuse. Neither, in our opinion, would do much to help solve this problem.

We've commented before on one of these projects, t he funding of a $167,000 research study into the causes of child abuse and neglect. Ample evidence of the causes of abuse and n eglect of children can readily be found in medical literature and in the pioneering studies of Drs. Ray Helfer and Henry Kempe in Colorado and Dr. Vincent Fontana in New York. The money to be spent by HEW on the research study could be used more profitably to spread information to those who could help prevent child abuse and neglect.

The other New Jersey project appears equally futile. The HEW department has contracted with the New York public relations firm of Joseph Davis Inc. to develop programs that would increase public awareness of child abm:e . The firm chose New Jersey as one of 20 jurisdictions that will receive these programs.

There were of ccurse, several intermediate hitches. First, Joseph Davis Inc. itself had to learn what should be done to make the public more aware of child abuse. It had no previous expertise in this field. One of its employes spent a couple of days with the Division of Youth and Family Services in Trenton to find out what New Jersey was doing to make the public more aware of child abuse.

The Joseph Davis firm was told of the Child Abuse Control Office-which is underfunded-and of several local programs designed to protect abused children and to secure counseling for their parents. One such progr am- also underfunded-is in Union

March 18, 1976 County. Another is about to be launched in Bergen.

And what is Joseph Davis Inc. going to do with this information? Why, digest it and pump it right back to New Jersey, as well as to 19 other areas around the country that are also beneficiaries o"! this HEW drive to make the public more aware of child abuse.

Oh, New Jersey will get a few goodies from the .tirm-tapes for radio and TV publicservice commercials and designs for billboards. But if the state wants to make use of those designs, lt will have to lease the billboards itself. If it wants to have the radio and TV spots played on more than three or four stations, the state will have to produce the duplicates. And, as we've said before, there just isn't any money for such programs in the current state budget.

Funding for both of the New Jersey projects comes from the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, passed more than a year ago. Known as the Monda.le Act after its chief sponsor, the senior senator from 1141nnesota, the law is supposed to do more than collect statistics or fund research projects. It was designed to help states pay for the training of workers to deal with abuse and neglect. It was supposed to help pay for centers where abuse victims would be treated and their parents would come for help.

New Jersey's share of Mondale Act funds this year is a grand total of $80,000. Yet HEW grants a public relations ~ompa.ny $305,000 to dream up some advertising gimmicks.

Child abuse Js America's hidden disease, and one of its biggest killers. The Mondale Act recognizes this. Unless HEW and its Office of Child Development begin putting the money Congress has authorized to better use, we won't be much closer to eradicating this disease than we were before the law was passed.

H.R. 9725

HON. TOM BEVILL OF ALABAMA



Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Speaker, efforts are once again underway in this governmental body to bring about sweeping legislation which could quite possibly prove disastrous to this Nation's attempts to become energy independent.

I am speaking of a piece of legislation currently before the House Rules Committee, H.R. 9725.

This bill contains a few new angles, a new name and number, and in some instances, a new phraseology. But despite that new phraseology, there can be little doubt as to the impetus of, or forerunner to, this new legislation.

Take away the clever wording and disiuises and what you have is a piece of legislation very similar to the Surface Mining Roolamation and Control Act of 1975, which was kiled when this House sustained President Ford's veto on June 10, 1975.

That bill would have put many small coal companies out of business because of the almost unreal time limitations proposed for completion of the reclamation process. In fact, the President's veto message cited the severe loss of jGbs, higher costs, particularly for electricity, increased dependence on foreign oil, and an unnecessary decrease in coal produc-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS tion as the major reasons behind his decision to vet-o that so-called surface mining bill of 1975.

Before I go into greater detail, let me say that I believe provisions should be made and enforced for the reclamation of land stripped for mining purposes.

My experiences in representing one of the richest coal fields in this countrythe land that encompasses the Fourth Congressional District of Alabama-have shown me that most coal operators are willing to give their full cooperation to the reclamation process. But reclamation must allow adequate time and means for this process to take place. The previously refen·ed to legislation of 1975, and its neatly disguised counterpart of 19'76, would only prove disastrous to this Nation seeking to become independent of foreign oil controls.

In that respect, implementation of that legislation could seriously curtail efforts to transfer the bulk of our industrial plants from oil to coal as a primary souree of power.

An editorial in the March 13, 19'76, edition of the Washington Post pointed out that our Nation is almost at a standstill in terms of arriving at a national coal policy.

Ooal production has failed to increase by any sizable amount over the past 2 years, when it should be starkly evident that we simply cannot continue to depend on foreign oil empires for the bulk of our energy needs~

Much of this failure to increase coal production can be significantly attributed to environmental policies which have hampered new coal operations.

We must an·ive at a national coal policy that will provide for the transfer from oil to coal as a primary source of power for both domestic and industrial needs.

As my distinguished colleague from Virginia, Congressman BILL WAMPLER, told this assembly a few days back, the best thing that could happen to H.R. 9725 would be to let it die where it now rests, in the House Rules Committee.

As I said previously, the Washington Post editorial, entitled "Coal, Oil, and Pepco" projects the problem we are facing here rather emphatically.

I am here including portions of this editorial with my remarks:

In this country's slow progress toward a national fuel policy, nothing is ever as simple as it first seems. For example, one obvious way to save oil is to switch the electric utilities to coal. The utilities have good reason to welcome the change, since oil now costs more than twice as much as coal. But, curiously, coal consumption has hardly risen at all since 1973, when oil prioos shot up and the .AJ:abs imposed their embargo. Coal still generates a little less than half of the nation's electricity, just a.s it did three years ago. Why is the turn toward coal so slow?

From the utilities' point of view, here and throughout the country, the continuing uncertainty over environmental standards constitutes a major hazard. The standards are complex, they are controversial, and sometimes they are changed. Many utilities say that they are fearful of embarking on long and costly conversions of their oilburning plants, only to find whtm the job is finished that local pollution rules have been revised in the meantime.

7269 Present law requires power plants to burn

coal when they are equipped for it. But much broader legislation is under consideration in the Senate. Sens. Jennings Randolph, Henry Jackson and Warren Magnuson, respectively the chairmen of the Public Works, Interior and Commerce Committees, have introduced for discussion a bill that would force nearly all power plants-not only the utilities, but industrial plants as well-to stop using on or gas by 1985. The amount of oil currently consumed by the utllitles and industry together is nearly equal to the volume that this country imports.

The implications of conversion on this scale are enormous. This country produced 695 million tons of coal last year. To meet the requirements of the three senators' bill, production would have to be more than tripled to 2.5 billion tons within the short period of nine years, according to calculations for the Senate's National Fuels and Energy Polley Study. There are now about 160,000 coal miners; thls conversion would require more than 300,000. Figures of this magnitude make it evident that full conversion to coal is probably not possible, as a. practical matter, as soon as the middle 1980s. It is also evident that any substantial shift at all is going to require enm-mous commitments of men and money-commitments that neither the utilities nor the mining companies will make amidst the present rudderless uncertainty over national energy policies.

Thls country wants to reduce Its dependence on imported oil. But it has not yet made up its collective mind about the price that It is willing to pay. The danger of foreign oil embargo:es and disruptions remains as clear as ever. But for the time being, at least, the oil is fiowlng and there is a. strong temptation throughout the country to keep putting off the kind of firm decisions that the three senators' bill would require. The past several years' experience demonstrates that rising oil prices alone will not swing the utilities toward coal. Without legislation, it appears, nothing at all is going to happen-nothing, that is, but a steady rise in oil imports from the Persian Gulf.

LEAVE WELL ENOUGH ALONE

HON. WILLIAM A. STEIGER OF WISCONSIN



Mr. STEIGER of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, the future of Federal revenue sharing is in question right now. While the program will probably be extended beyond this year, it is becoming increasingly apparent that it may be amended to the point that it will be done serious, and perhaps irreparable, harm. This should not be.

The best quality of the Federal revenue-sharing program is that it gives States and local communities the right to determine how their revenue shares will be spent, with few strings attached. This is a welcome change from categorical grant programs, which burden localities with Federal guidelines and attendant redtape, and from increasing Washington involvement in local affairs.

In Wisconsin, revenue sharing has been a big success. Because of the distribution formula and its emphasis on State and

7270 local tax effort, Wisconsin, which has a high tax effort, has benefited significantly from the program. All of us should encourage a program Which encourages local initiative to meet a community's own needs, rather than the multitude of Federal programs that are subject to grantsmanship in awarding funds, instead of actual need.

The Washirigton Star, in a March 17 editorial, made an excellent case for extending the program without substantial changes. As the Star said:

Revenue sharing is one government prograin that seems to us to be working well. Congress ought to leave it alone.

I commend it to your attention: LEAVE WELL ENOUGH .ALONE

After appropriate argument, Congress probably will extend the revenue sharing program. Senators and House members aren't likely to risk the wrath, and perhaps the political retribution, that would come from every corner of the land if they scrap a program that 39,000 governmental units have come to depend on.

The question is: Will the shouting and nitpicking result in amendments that would change the concept of the program?

The program is grounded, above all, In the worthy notion that local officials know the needs and wants of their constituents better than federal bureaucrats do. That being the case, the legislation, which became effective in 1972, provided for the transfer of a small part of federal revenues ($6 billion a year) to states, cities, counties and towns, with few strings attached.

ThiS was a radical departure from the usual manner of dispensing federal aid by categorical grant-tying the funds to specific programs under specific guidelines (red tape, if you wlll) written by government officials In Washington.

The complaints have been predictable. They come from congressmen who want to keep a bigger finger in the federal aid pie. They come from special interests whose lobbying efforts are less effective when grants aren't tied to particular programs. They come from individuals and organizations who believe any federal dollar that doesn't go to the poor or disadvantaged is a dollar misspent. They come from politicians who believe a way to piclc up votes is to convince various segments of the population that they're being discriminated against in the distribution of federal money.

A danger is that Congress may bow to the complaints and burden the revenue sharing program with restrictions that will curtail or eliminate the discretion local and state officials now have in deciding how the money shall be spent.

Another danger is that Congress, in an attempt to answer complaints that too little money goes to the poorer cities and states, may so revise the distribution formula as to tm·n the revenue sharing program into simply another welfare program that must be borne by the more affluent sections of the country. Perhaps some minor adj~stment is needed in this direction but a large tilting of the formula would undermine the program.

Still another danger is that Congress will eliminate the long-range funding provision. The legislation that expires at the end of this year provided a. federal commitment to distribute $6 billion a year for five years. A. House subcommittee voted the other day to ,put the program o~ an annual funding .b~sis. .

That . would mean major ·uncertainty in budget making for the 39,000 governmental units that receive the funds. Local and state

;EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS officials would have no idea how much they ~ould receive, or whether indeed they could count on anything.

Revenue sharing is one government program that seems to us to be working well. Congress ought to leave it alone.

LEGISLATION FOR NUTRITION: IT DEPENDS ON YOU

HON. GEORGE MILLER OF CALIFORNIA



Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert in the RECORD a copy of the address I delivered before the Society of Nutrition Education at their 8th annual meeting in San Diego, August 1975. The text of the speech was recently reprinted in the January-March issue of the Journal of Nutrition Education, and I would like to share the article with my colleagues at this time.

The article follows: LEGISLATION FOR NUTRITION: IT DEPENDS ON

You (By George Miller)

(Editor's Note: Representative George Miller presented this keynote address to the Society for Nutrition ·Education Eighth Annual Meeting in San Diego, August 1975. JNE readers will note that some references are made to the then-pending "School Lunch Bill" (HR 4222), which was passed in October, 1975, by override of the President's veto.)

I am a freshman Congressman and have not been in public life prior to January, 1975.

I appreciate the invitation to speak before your organization, because it is important that efforts are made between the nutrition movement and the legislature to keep in constant contact. I started my "career" in the nutrition field about five years ago whEm I was legislative assistant to the majority leader in the California State Senate. After about three weeks of dealing with nutrition, I found that it was over my head and that I needed help. So I went pounding on the door of the Senate Rules Committee and, after about four months, was able to persuade them to create a select Subcommittee on Nutrition and Human Needs, which hired a nutritionist, Audrey Cross. The awareness of nutritional problems that she and that committee have brought to the California State Legislature has been very helpful.

Nutrition and legislation, I think, can be a very happy marriage.

In the Congress, I sought to serve on the Education and Labor Committee because of the nutrition programs embodied in its jurisdiction. I was delighted to find out that the National School Lunch Program was up for renewal as one of the first items of business. I was also delighted to find out the active role that the Chairman of that committeethe person whom many call the "Father of the School Lunch Program," Carl Perkinsplays in fostering the welfare of that program in the Congressional procedure. To have Carl Perkins watching out for yom· welfare is a big plus.

"FRESHMAN" BILL GETS PASSED

One of the delights of being associated with the nutrition movement is that I guess I'm still the only freshman Congressman who has had 1\ bill signed by the President! Earlier thiS year, Alan Stone from Senator McGovern's staff called and informed me that California was about to cut otr the WIC program, close the clinics and remove the staff.

March .18, 1976 we· needed to extend the financing, aild he aske~ me if I would. help out. I was delighted· but did not know how to go about it. ·

I went to Chrurman Perkins and asked him if he would introduce a. bill in committee. He said "No, it's too late to go to committee." So I said "We'll amend something on the floor; will you help me With that?" He said "There's nothing you can amend on the floor. What you have to do is Introduce a bill and get it considered by unanimous consent." I asked "Does that mean what I think it means-that everybody has to agree?" "Yes," he said. I said "Can we get everybody to agree in the co:mm.l.ttee?" He said "You don't do it that way-you do it on the floor of the Congress. You just take the bill straight from the Speaker's desk and ask for their unanimous consent. If everybody agrees, you're home free. If one person objects, you're in deep trouble."

I said "I'm going to do this" and scurried around for three days and tried to talk to all the "right" people. On the floor of the House, I got up and was recognized by the Speaker. (I had asked him "How are you going to recognize me?" because I didn't know the proceedings. He said "Oh, no problem-you're a rather big fellow, and I'll find you.") .

Everything went fine. Somebody asked me a question, and I answered. I had all my books and papers laid out like Clarence Darrow; I was really going to make a persuasive argument. There were a few more questions, and I got ready to give my speech. The Speaker banged his gavel, and the bill was over. I turned to Bella Abzug and said "What do I do now?" She said "It's over; you won." I didn't even get to make my case.

I tell thiS story to make an important point. The case for the WIC program had been made much earlier. The case was made by the alliance of the medical community, the nutritionists and the welfare organizations. The case was made very clear in our subcommittee and in our full committee. It was a program where we increased the authorization with unanimous consent of that committee-because the case had been made clear by this lobby group; this is a vital program, dealing with a very vulnerable population. Therefore there was Iitle trouble with the passage of that legislation.

SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM CHALLENGED

The message that I would like to leave with you now is: I don't see that case being made for the National School Lunch Program. I am very concerned about the attacks I see being made on this program. I have been told by many long-term members of Congress that it is a program nobody votes against because you combine the best of the farm interests, the consumer interests, the education lobby and all those involved. However, that is no longer true. I think that, as the program has expanded, the professionals involved in it have failed to keep us legislators up to date on the merits of the program and what is being accomplish ed. I t is coming under challenge.

There was an amendment on the floor where we tried to put a 35-cent cap on the price of the lunch to keep the middle-class student in the program and to expand it . It was a Republican amendment, and I was told by two members of the Democratic leadership that there was no way that amendment was going to pass because it was a Republican amendment. That amendment carried the day with the overwhelming majority of the 75 new Democratic members because they could not make the case to themselves of how the expenditure of that money for upper middle-class kids could be rationalized. I think that iS a. failure on my part and a fa.llure on your part to liave them fully understand what nutrition · 'is about.

The legislators understand the WIC pro-

Ma,rch 18, 1976 gram because It is aimed at the poot·est of the poor, but they don't understand it when it is about their children or the banker's child. Somebody said "You mean to tell me we're going to feed Nelson Rockefeller's children?"

CONGRESS NEEDS EVIDENCE

Congress Is going through a period of reevaluation of many programs-the so-called "poverty programs" of the 1960s-and they want the answers. They want the answers in terms of accountabllity, and, as you and I know, that Is very tough to do in nutritional programs. What worries me with the WIC program Is that two or three years down the road, as we look back to see what we have produced, we are going to produce a lot of healthy children, healthy babies and healthy mothers. I don't know how I am going to prove that, and that is where I need you.

The legislation I have introduced 1 and that Senator McGovern has Introduced.__ along with a lot of coauthors in both Houses-may mean the survival of the school lunch feeding program. I think that without adequate nutrition education in the elementary and secondary schools, and without adequate training and ab111ty to get the message across, the attacks on the feeding program itself are going to become more and more severe--because the case is not made. I can make the case in my District, which encompasses some of the wealthiest areas of California. I cannot make the case in Congress with 435 people who are more concerned with what they are doing than what I am doing. That is why I need to plead for your help.

I think we will get the school lunch bill passed with little trouble from here on in. I think the raising of the eligibility limits is going to have a dramatic impact on that program-both in participation and awareness. However the next time it comes before Congress, it is going to come under very severe challenge. My question to you is: Will we have the evidence to justify the expansion of that program if that is the desired goal of the Congress or even the maintenance of the greatly expanded program we Will produce this year? The answer rests on your shoulders. I cannot do it, and I dare say that most other members of Congress cannot, either. Whlle we are backed With tremendous staff help such as Marian Wyman and Alan Stone, the work load does not allow them to do the kind of research that you are capable of doing.

No longer can this kind of program be allowed to live on its laurels because the farm community has changed, the food situation is changing, pricing of food commodities for this program is changing, and it is going to come under severe threats. It is going to have to be maintained on evidence. I am a victim of my law school training: I can go as far as the facts and the evidence allow me to. I need that evidence-just as other people who have been strong proponents of this legislation in the Congress a long time before I wa-s there have got to have that evidence.

When you stand on the tloor of the House, somebody who was a former school principal says "Well I don't know what this program does. All I know is that when I walk by the trash can, 80% of the food is in there. Why are we paying for the food? The kids don't want it, and you can't teach 'em to eat it. Why are we forcing them to eat something they don't want?" On the tloor of the Congress, with the Press reporting it, that is a

1 H.R. 8584, the 1075 nutrition education bill introduced 1n the House (Miller---Caut.)

2 S. 1945, the 1975 nutrition education bill introduced In the Senate (McGovern-& Dak.)

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS very demagogic yet effective statement, one we have to deal with. The problem of wastage in the program has got to be dealt with by you. Whether it is a change In the approach about the Four Food Groups, an updating of your reliance on food technology or a direct confrontation with the food industry, somehow that wastage has got to be cut down.

I think it is cut down through education. However the education has got to go home. It may very well mean a direct confrontation by this lobby and those elements of the food industry that still produce foods that have no nutritional merit. Families need to be educated as to the detriments of those foods.

In a time when programs are competing like they have never competed before for Federal dollars, and when the whole country at all levels is going through major reevaluation of the expenditure of those dollars, we have got to work almost overtime In trying to produce the evidence. More than just simply trying to produce it because it is there, we have got to raise the awareness of the legis~ lature as to this question.

ROLE OF NUTRITION MOVEMENTS

I dare say that my efforts and the efforts of others who have long tried to work for a better nutrition in this country are only as good as you are. I am a firm believer that legislators are only as good as their staff. I take some license with that and consider all of you my staff! How do you like it-for a buck a year or whatever it is? I say that because it is your papers, your books, your testimony that we rely on. It is your papers, your books, your testimony that we recite and regurgitate on the tloor of the Congress for those who don't sit on the Committee.

We need to look at the freshman class in Congress. Many of them were elected from areas that had never elected a liberal in the history of that district. They represent districts in which the registration is of the opposite party. They have got to bring home the evidence if they are going to cast their vote. Otherwise they can only bring home the demagogic statements of those who don't know what they are talking about; some of those statements make great "press."

I hope and believe that the National Nu· trition Education Blll will be given a full hearing in this session of Congress. I think that there is certainly-given the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee on which I reside-sympathy and interest in nutrition. On the Senate side, Senator McGovern is already making efforts. I hope that we can build an effective lobbying interest on behalf of this legislation because this bill is the answer to many of the concerns about the school lunch program. We can make the case that the expenditures of monies that are now being made could have a greater efficiency in terms of cost/benefit if we could combine the educational process With the feeding process. That is the case that has got to be made, and that is the case that will be heard. Everybody in Washington is competing for dollars. I think we can show that, by the investment of the $75 million called for in this bill, we can make far more effective the $3 or $4 billion that we are spending in those feeding programs and can have a much more long-lasting effect.

I would hope that, in those en~eavors this group and allied groups want to undertake in regard to nutrition, you would look on me as a vehicle for much of that work. I would be delighted to help because I have personally never been let down in terms of the background work by people interested in nutrition or food service. I have always found them to be very effective and hardworking, and I would enjoy very much 1t we could continue the relationship I hope we have built up In the rather short time I have been in Congress.

' 7271: THEY LIKE "IKE"

HON. JOSEPH M. GAYDOS OF PENNSYLVANIA


Mr. GAYDOS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of my colleagues in the Congress of the United States to a public tribute being planned for a man who has brought great credit upon himself, his family, his friends, his community, and his country.

In the near futw·e this gentleman will be honored by those who know him best, but for those of you who are not acquainted with him, I am sure you will agree his name has a famllar ring to it-Mr. Guy "Ike" Eisenhower.

On April 3, Mr. Eisenhower will be honored by Legionnaires of the 334d District of Pennsylvania. As their immediate past commander, he will be feted at a testimonial dinner to be held in the Gen. Smedley D. Butler Post 701 in White Oak Borough, Pa. It will be my privilege and pleasure to be the principal speaker at that event, for I have known Ike for many years and believe he is richly deserving of this tribute.

Ike is not a native of southwestern Pennsylvania. Born on a small farm at the foot of the Blue Mountains in Pennsylvania Dutch country, he came to our neck of the State following his discharge from the 82d Airborne Division dUling the Korean conflict. He married a Pittsburgh girl, the former Marjorie May Kelsesky, and opened a business in McKeesport, Pa., which is in my 20th Congressional District. The couple has three daughters--Maryedna, LaUl'ie, and Sally-and recently became grandparents.

Ike's Legion activities began when he joined the Leon Deck Post 991 in Berks County, Pa., a post named after a cousin of his who was kllled in action during World War ll. But, in 1959, he transferred his membership to Port Vue Memorial Post 447, located near McKeesport.

Since then, Ike has spent many long hours promoting his post and the principles of the national American Legion. He is a past commander of Post 447 and stlll serves the membership as its adjutant. Seven years ago, as post commander, his organization had the distinction of being awarded two Department of Pennsylvania Legion trophies: One for the most new members signed and another for the most new Vietnam members recruited. It came as no surprise, therefore, that in 1973 he was the unanimous choice for a 2-year term as commander of the 33d District and adopted the slogan: "Say It Loud: I'm 33d and Proud!".

Ike, however, has not confined his interests solely to the American Legion. He also is vice president of the Port Vue Lions Club, a charter member of the board of directors for the Port Vue Community Blood Bank, a member of the Vigilant Volunteer Fire Co., AMVETS

I ,

7272

Post 8 in McKeesport and several other fraternal organizations. · Mr. Speaker, I believe the present

commander of District 33, Robert D. Goss, Jr., summed up how people feel about Ike when he recently said: "We are proud he was our distlict commander." Obviously, the Legionnaires of the 33d District "like Ike." I do, too.

FLORENCE DWYER, FORMER CONGRESSWOMAN

HON. DON EDWARDS OF CALIFORNIA



Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Speaker, it was with great sadness that I learned of the death of Florence P. Dwyer.

For me, Florence Dwyer was a neighbor as well as a colleague.

In the 92d Congress, our offices were across the hall from one another, and I came to know Florence not just as a Member of Congress, but as a truly fine and compassionate person. One could not help but like Florence Dwyer-she was open, intelligent, and friendly to one and all. ·

She served in this body for 16 years, and her concern for other people was reflected in the fact that her central sta1I members served with her throughout her tenure in the House. Their fondness for this great lady was indicative of the feeling we all held for Florence.

It is just as important to note the feelings that Florence held for the people she represented in New Jersey, and for all people throughout our Nation. These feelings are reflected in her legislative interests and accomplishments.

She was the original sponsor of legislation proposing a statutory Consumer Protection Agency. She labored long and hard hours on the Housing Subcommittee to ensure that decent housing was available to all people. She was a longtime advocate of home rule for the District of Columbia. As we all know, she was instrumental in securing passage of the equal rights amendment. And her record on the war in Vietnam was commendable-she was often found in that minority of Members who throughout the late sixties and early seventies tried to stop the fighting and killing in Southeast Asia.

But there are three other incidents in Florence Dwyer's career that I think are worth noting, because they represent a commitment to an ideal that is higher than party loyalty or political expediency-and these incidents are examples from which we can all benefit.

First, in 1961, when the Republican leadership in the House announced that they would try to join with conservative Democrats to block the passage of liberal l(~gislation, Florence Dwyer and six other Republicans-the New York Times dubbed them the "Saintly Seven"-announced that: they would have no part of this · cabal, that they would judge all legislation on its merits. And indeed ·

EXTENSIONS . OF•,. REMARKS

Florence Dwyer supported much of the legislation that came down Pennsylvania A venue in those years, when so much was done to increase this Nation's responsibility to many citizens who had not previously reaped the benefits of America's bounty-.

Second, in 1964, when she felt that her principles and views were not in accord with those of her party's Presidential nominee, she declined to support that nominee. When asked in later years f~r whom she voted in that election, she winked and asked back, "Who do you think?"

Last of all, in 1966 Florence Dwyer became the ranking Republican on the Government Operations Committee, a position in which she served with distinction during her last 7 years in Congress. According to the rules of the committee, the ranking Republican also served on each of the subcommittees. In that capacity, among her fu·st actions was casting the deciding vote for the Freedom of Information Act, which had previously been bottled up in subcommittee. The bill then easily won approval in full committee and on the floor of the House, and now, in my opinion, it is one of the most important statutes on the books today.

Florence Dwyer was a valuable legislator and friend. She will be missed by those of us who served with her.

MARIANA ISLANDS TO BECOME A COMMONWEALTH OF THE UNITED STATES

HON. PHILLIP BURTON OF CALIFORNIA



Mr. PHILLIP BURTON. Mr. Speaker, before the House of Representatives takes final action on House Joint Resolution 549 today, I wish to make these concluding remarks.

This action will complete the legislative portion of the process by which the Northern !v.Iariana Islands will ultimately become a Commonwealth of the United States. This is an historic occasion in many respects-it is the first admission of new peoples and lands to the United States family in almost 60 years. Only time will disclose if similar action is ever taken by the United States in future years. And finally, this event is one of those rare occasions in human history when a people have joined another people as a result of their own free choice and on the basis of a document freely negotiated by them with the nation of their future association. Both parties can properly take pride in the history they have written in achieving the result which is before the House of Representatives today:

The record of this legislation is replete with documentation-the history of the negotiating sessions between the representatives of the two parties. the committee reports of the on-the-record briefing sessions of the ·Subcommittee on · Territorial and Insular·· Affairs by the ·

IJ,farch 18, 1976. ·

U.S. negotiators, the House and Senate hearings and the reeords of those hearings. the reports of the committees of both bodies, and the record of the cQnsideration of the legislation in the House and Senate.

It is not my intention to review that history here today. I:t is ah·eady on the record. However, I do want to mention some pt·ovisions of the covenant in which the committee has had a particular interest and about which it is desirable that legislative intent not be ambiguous. Om· committee's and my own intent is that all possible ambiguities should be resolved in favor of and to the benefit of the people and Government of the Northern Mariana Islands. For example, if the Northern Marianas are entitled to Federal assistance under more thaJ?, one section of this covenant, or law providing such assistance. the provisions should be construed and administered in that way which will result in the more favorable provisions being applied.

Article I, section 1 5, proVides that specified provisions of the covenant may be modified only with the mutual consent of the Government of the United States and the Government of the Northern Mariana Islands. The applicability of this provision is limited to certain basic articles and sections of the covenant: Article I, political relationship; article II, Constitution of the Northern Mariana Islands; article m, citizenship and nationality; section 501, applicability of certain provisions of the Constitution to the Northern Mariana Islands; s€ction 805, restriction of the alienation of land to persons of Northern Mariana descent-Chamorros and Carolinians. This provision is deemed to be in the best interests of both parties. U.S. interests are. protected in that the application of the provision is specifically limited and defined. Conversely, the provision is in accord with the true meaning of the right of self-determination, which is accorded to the Marianas people under the trusteeship agreement.

Article II, section 202, provides that the Constitution of the Northern Mru·iana Islands, as formulated in accordance with the p:"cvisions of article II, section 201, ... will be submitted to the Government

of the United States for approval ....

It is intended that the Constitution will be presented to the President of the United States for such approval or disapproval and that congressional approval is not required.

Article II, section 203 (c) provides that the power of the legislature will extend to "all rightful subjects of legislation." So as to protect employment opportunities for the residents of the Marianas, the record of the subcommittee hearing . establishes that all parties-United States and Marianas Political Status Commission representatives and the subcommittee-agreed that the understanding of and ability to use the Chamorro language would be a valid factor for the legislature to establish as a ~asure of employability in the Mariana i Islands. · · '

Tms··same· subsection of the covenant· provides for a bicameral legislature, iri ·

Mat~ch 18, .1976

one house of which each of the chartered municipalities of the Northern Mariana Islands will be equally represented. This provision is based on the very large disparity in population between the municipalities on Saipan and the muncipalities on the other islands. For example, out of 5,005 votes cast in the recent plebiscite, 4,239 were cast on the island of Saipan and only 776 on the other islands. This disparity is caused by population ratiosnot by voter participation ratios. More importantly, the centuries-old history of the Mariana Islands is based on the tradition of the significance of land to the people and, therefore, the relative equality and independence of each island. In this respect, the concept is even stronger than the original concept of the equality of our States and we on the committee believe that this concept is understandable and acceptable.

Article v. section 502<a> <2> provides that the matching formulae, if any, which apply to the Northern Mariana Islands, shall be those which apply to the several States. For example, for purposes of medicaid and public assistance programs such as AFDC, the matching formulae shall be computed as if the Northern Mariana Islands was a State, thereby providing to them the higher Federal matching available to low-income States, and without the overall ceiling currently appllcable to the Virgin Islands. This is the meaning of the concluding portion of the provision ". . . as they are applicable to the several States;".

Article VI, section 602 specifies that the Government of the Northern Mariana Islands will have the authority to impose local taxes in addition to those imposed by the Federal income tax Ia ws as provided for in the preceding section 601. The record of the hearing on House Joint Resolution 549 before the subcommittee established the intent that section 602 authorizes, among other actions, the providing of rebates on taxes collected and the enactment of surtaxes on income by the Government of the Northern Mariana Islands, and that the assistance of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service will be available for such activities to the extent feasible.

Article VII, section 702 constitutes an authorization and an appropriation of the guaranteed annual levels of assistance to the Government of the Northem Mariana Islands provided for in this section for each of the 7 fiscal years following the effective date of this section. Also. as provided in section 704{b), there is authorized a pro rata share of the funds provided in section 702, as described above, for the period between the effective date of this section and the beginning of the next fiscal year; and under section 704(d) there is, unlimited in time duration, the authorization for the continuation of the annual level of payments in each category listed in section 702, including the adjustments provided for in section 704<c>, after the expiration of the basic 7-year period provided by section 702 until Congress chooses to change the appropriation or provide otherwise by Jaw.


Article VII, section 703 (a) is intended to extend any future, as well as present, Federal programs and services to the Northern Mariana Islands which are available to any of the other territories of the United States, including Guam, or the Virgin Islands, or Puerto Rico or American Samoa.

Article vm, section 801. It is emphasized that the transfer of property from the Government of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands to the Government of the Northern Mariana Islands, as provided for in this section, includes both real and personal property, and that the distribution of such personal property shall be done "* * * equitably * * *" as agreed to by the Government of the Northern Mariana Islands.

Article VIII, section 805 provides that for 25 years following termination of the trusteeship, the Northern Marianas Government must, and may thereafter, "regulate the alienation of permanent and long-term interests in real property so as to restrict the acquisition of such interests to persons of Northern Mariana Islands descent." The committee has had a strong interest in this section. On the basis of the unfortunate past experience of other territories and newly developing areas, and bee a use of the especial significance of land in the cultural traditions of the people, and, finally, because of the extreme scarcity of land, It was our judg-ment that regulation as provided by this section was essential. It is also the clear intent of all parties that, by the language, "persons of Northern Mariana Islands descent," is meant both Chamorro and Carollnian residents.

A STATEMENT OF IDGHER EDUCATION BY JOSEPH DUFFEY

HON. JOHN BRADEMAS OF INDIANA



Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Speaker, I insert at this point in the RECORD excerpts from a "Background Paper on Education", a most thoughtful document recently prepared for the Democratic National Committee by Joseph Duffey, general secretary of the American Association of University Presidents.

Mr. Duffey. who is chairman of the Task Force on Education for the National Policy Council of the Democratic National Committee, prepared his document as the committee begins its work on policy statements for the forthcoming campaign.

The paper follows: A BACKGROUND PAPER ON EDUCATION

(By Joseph Duffey) Except for national defense, public educa

tion is the largest function of American government, the biggest user of public funds. While the federal government, through grants and shared revenues, contributes an average of $1 for every $5 raised by state and local taxes for all purposes, the federal share of public education at all levels is only $1 for $10. This represents a marked decline since the early 1970's.

7273 This erosion of Federal support for higher

education in recent years, and the accelerated decline which would be Imposed by President Ford's FY 76 budget, have not come about through any systematic consideration of the national priority for education. Rather, they are more directly attributable to the compartmentalized consideration of education as a "controllable" sector of HEW which has been repeatedly cut back because of the growth of "uncontrollable" welfare and health expenditures which make up 95 percent of the Department's budget.

These declines from earlier levels of support raise troubling questions about our national capacity and will to fulfill the commitment to equal educational opportunities and quality education for all. They raise fundamental questions about the maintenance of our educational system as a basic resource for economic, scientific and technological, and cultural growth.

None of the declines have come about as a result of any conscious decision on the part of Congress to assign a lower priority to education In our society. The declines are, in fact, contrary to the rhetoric of national leaders over the past decade, and contrary to the intent of Congress as expressed in an impressive body of legislation designed to strengthen American education and expand educational opportunities. And they are contrary to a growing body of documented evidence that our educational system is an enormously Important factor in the longtel'Dl growth of the economy.

PRACTICAL ECONOMIC POLICY

The expansion of postsecondary opportunities should be more than a desirable national goal; it should be a practical economic policy at a time when youth 18-24 are experiencing twice the unemployment rate of the rest of the work force, and when the per-person cost of public employment programs is $8,000 per year as compared with the cost to the Federal government of less than $1,000 a year to help maintain a student in college.

The expansion of educational opportunity is equally practical as economic policy in view of the fact that over half of all postsecondary students today are part-time, older than the "typical" student age group and centrally concerned with their own employment prospects. Three-quarters of all parttime students are, in fact, already in the work force and pursuing their education to Improve job-related skills. Thus, increasing Federal student assistance will not only decrease youth unemployment and improve the skllls of youth before they enter the work force, it will also deal directly with the problem of structural unemployment, addressing the mismatch between the skills of the work force and available jobs.

Nevertheless, the FY 76 budget for the five major discretionary student assistan~e programs proposes an absolute decrease of $196 million from FY 75 appropriations-a level which is at least $1 billion short of existing program needs.

Federal investment to maintain the strength and vtab111ty of our colleges and universities would also seem to have a sound economic rationale. These institutions coinprise a significant sector of the national econ• omy. They represent a $40 billion enterprise employing 1.5 million people and involving some 10 mlllion students. In hundreds of communities they are among the largest employers, exerting a pervasive effect on the local economy. Surely it is important to assure tho continued health of this sector of the national economy.

Yet most of these institutions are now confronted with serious threats to their quality and their very survival. Educational costs are rising more sharply than the general price index, hard-hit state governments are cutting their budgets, and the sources of funds for private giving ha'\>"e been devastated

7.274 by the economic slump. Accordingly, colleges and universities throughout the nation are cutting back services and staff, increasing tuition and fees, and deferring plant n1aintenance.

HIGHER EDUCATION THE VICTIM

Although higher education costs are rising faster than the general price index, it is important to understand that higher education is the victim, not the cause, of this inflation. It is not part of the driving forces pushing prices higher and higher. In fact, the Federal government has been one of the contributing factors in two areas where cost increases have been particularly significant to institutions: rising needs for student aid and compliance with federally-mandated social programs. Because the national commitment to expanding educational opportunities has not been accompanied by adequate Federal support, institutions have had to provide more of their own funds to make up the d.lJierence, thereby forcing higher charges for students who do not receive aid. The FY 76 budget proposes to eliminate almost every form o! institutional assistance which now provides colleges and universities with marginal opportunitles to sustain the quality of their educational programs.

In addressing an agenda of domestic policies which state goals both as guides to an electorate eager for national leadership and direction and as a program for governing during the latter half of this decade, our political parties must set forth most clearly their strategies for a new direction in our national economic life. This need is foremost at a time when depression and inflation have occasioned threat and insecurity for the everyday life and personal aspirations of so many Americans of all ages. In this area we find ourselves in the midst of a new and serious debate about the future of the economy. There is an urgent need for a review of national policies in areas of fiscal management, capital formation, resource allocation, energy, and federal taxation. But the primacy of debate over those matters at th1s time must serve to modify the way we think of and approach traditional federal social policies which have in the past so often been merely an addendum to our economic policies. In no area is this more necessary than that of education. When we seek to formulate an adequate statement of the national goals and conmlitments in the area of education in this campaign year, we must begin to consider the implications of a national education policy which makes clear federal responsibility and capability in seeking to shape an overall strategy for the economic and social direction for the nation.

This society, if it is to regain social stability as well as economic vitality in the next decade, must effect a "great transition" in which education is a critical process. This will be a transition to new priorities, to alternative economic structures in some areasto new attitudes and values on behalf of managers, producers, consumers-to a population skilled at coping with the stresses as well as opportunities for personal creativity inherent in modern society. It is absolutely critical that attention be given to the processes of education on every level, both those integral to formal institutional structures, schools, colleges, universities, etc., and to those of other media by which education takes place, including television, the arts, publishing, etc., if this "great transition" is to occur. Educational facilities in this country are needed as well to play their traditional role--to create a sense of national unity, and to reconcile ethnic, religious, and racial confiicts. These areas of social development have been neglected both by practical policies and by distorted social priorities of recent administrations.


BAL...I\NCED BUDGET HEARINGS ANNOUNCED

HON. RICHARD H. ICHORD OF MISSOUIU



lV.lr. !CHORD. Mr. Speaker, Congress and the executive branch have been responsible for almost continual Federal deficits since 1950. Yet, we really know very little about them. Do Federal deficits create jobs or lead us into boombust cycles that ultimately cost jobs? Are these deficits raising interest rates depressing stock market prices and re~ ducing the supply of housing? Do the deficits cause inflation or help to reduce it? Many are discussing such issues both within and outside the halls of Congress. I am chail·man of the Committee To Investigate a Balanced. Federal Budget. which is resolved to answer these questions. The committee is an outgrowth of the Democratic Research Organization-DR~omprised. of about 75 Congressmen who have pooled resources, and expertise for the last 3 years in order to provide accurate unbiased information to DRO members on issues facing the Congress. Representative DAVID E. SATTERFIELD III, of Vil•ginia, is DRO chairman.

In carrying forward its DRO mandate, the Committee To Investigate a Balanced Federal Budget was created to determine the impact of deficits on all segments of the economy. Hearings will begin March 23 at 9 a.m. in room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, where expert witnesses will discuss what is happening and what should be done about it. Arthur Burns. Chairman of the Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System, will present informal remarks and will answer prepared questions at that time. On March 24 at 9 a.m. in room 2118 Rayburn House Office Building, Kenneth Thygerson of the U.S. League of Savings and Loan Associations will tell us how Federal deficits have contributed to distress in the housing industry. He will be followed by Dimitris Balatsos, Manufacturers Hanover Bank, who will show how Federal deficits have in1luenced who got how much of the Nation's savings resources.

There will also be two witnesses appearing on Thursday, March 25, at 9 a.m., in room 334. Cannon House Onice Building. The leadoff witness, Geoffrey Moore, National Bureau of Economic Research, is probably the Nation's foremost expert on business cycles. He will tell us whether our deficits have been making our economy's ups higher and its downs lower. James Duesenberry, chairman of the Economics Department at Harvard University, will discuss the likelihood that Government deficits are bringing about a capital shortage-such that full employment and a rapidly rising living standard may no longer be possible. This theme will be picked up on Friday at 9 a.m., in 334 Cannon by the day's three witnesses: Henry Wallich of the Federal Reserve System; James Needham, president of the New York

.~.March 18, 1976

Srock Exchange; and Michael Evans of Chase Econometics Association, Mr. Wallich, will critique those who rlismiss the capital shortage as a likely occurrence. Mr. Needham's remarks will focus on the stock ma1·ket in particular Michael Evans will descTibe the role of Federal deficits in his forecast of inflation, recession, and capital shortage.

These four sessions only begin our treatment of the deficits. A more extensive series of hearing commences on April 29. After 8 more days taking testimony, I am sure the Committee To Investigate a Balanced Federal Budget will be able to come to intelligent conclusions on issues raised by these deficits. Reports and legislative proposals will :flow from our eff01·ts. I intend to keep House Members informed of our PJ:ogress.

SALES OF ARMS TO EGYPT

HON. JOSHUA DLRERG OF PENNSYLVANIA


Thursday, March 18, 1Yl6

Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Speaker, the Ford administration recently announced its intention to sell six military transport planes to Egypt. I have already stated fm· the record my objections to this proposal and my intention to oppose it, but at this time I enter into the REcoRD, for the information of my colleagues. a statement on this subject by Benjamin R. Epstein, national director of the Antidefamation League of B'nai :B'rith:

SALES OF ARMs '1'0 EGYPT

You are undoubtedly aware by now of fue Ford Administration's decision to lift the long-standing American embargo on military sales to Egypt. You will also recall that when Egyptian President Anwar Sadat visited the United States (October 27-November 3, 1975) the subject o'f U.S. milltary assistance to Egypt was discuseed. Nevertheless, at that time the Ford Administration reiterated that an Egyptian request for Amerman military assistance was only under considerati~n. and that the United States government had not yet adopted a position on the matter at lifting the arms embargo to Egypt.

The confirmation by the spokesman of the State Department that "consultations" had begun with various members of Congress on opentng a military supply relationship with Egypt and the admission by Secretary of State Kissinger that the United States had already "agreed" to sell C-130 military transports to Egypt confirms th.a.t the Ford Adlllinistration has decided to accede to Sadat's request for a military relationship between Egypt and the United States.

Even m01·e troubling is the admission by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that while the United States had only agreed to sell six C-130 military transports to Egypt, it was conceivable that Egypt might eventually get some weapons. During the course of the Sadat visit to the Unit-ed States in the fall, it was learned that Egypt was seeking a wide range of American military equipment ranging from wireguided antitank weapons and Hawk antiaircraft missiles to the F-5E fighter plane. Rumsfeld's statement, taken together with the Kissinger statement that "you can't expect Israel to give any approval to the sale, but that we have to do what is in our national interest", clearly in.-

March 18, 1976 dicates that the Ford Administration will try to sell Egypt a wide range of military equipment.

It is, therefore, important to review the implications of this decision for United States Middle East policy. We dispute the Kissinger assertion that it is in U.S. interests to sell military equipment to Egypt. It is our considered opinion that it is not in United States national interest to become the arms supplier to Egypt.

The arguments against U.S. military assistance to Egypt include:

(a) The mllltary balance in the Middle East will be tipped in the Arabs' favor if the United States becomes the arms supplier to the major participants in the Arab-Israel conflict. The argument that the United States will be maintaining the military balance by providing military assistance to Egypt is questionable when one takes into account that Israel faces 20 Arab states, all of which have received and continue to receive sophisticated military equipment from both the Eastern bloc and Western nations. The Arab states have already received $14¥2 billion in military equipment in the last two decades; to increase the :flow with America~ arms now would tip the military balance m favor of the Arabs, and this will inevitably lead to another round o! fighting in the Arab-Israel theater.

(b) The United States is Israel's sole source of arms, while. the Arab states of the region are the recipients of military equipment from the Soviet Union. the United States, France and England. Various Arab states have received, or will, American F-5E fighters, American electronic equipment, ~erican missiles, American tanks, French Mirage fighters, Freneh Matra missiles. English Chieftain tanks, English Jaguar fighters, in addition to all of the sophisticated Soviet mllltary equipment which has been given wide prominence in the press (Russian tanks, fighters, bombers, missiles, etc.).

(c) The decision by the United States to sell Egypt a Wide range of military equipment will destroy the concept of deterrence based on Israeli mllitary strength. The absence of war is dependent upon an Arab realization that it would be folly and suicidal to launch a military campaign against a strong Israel. When this is replaced With an Arab realization that the milttary balance has been tipped in their favor, another outbreak of hostilities will be inevitable, and this would undermine U.S. national interests in the area. It is in American interest to insure the absence of war in the Middle East and not to encourage hostilities.

(d) The Ford Administration makes the point that. military assistance to Egypt will enhance Egypt's standing With the other Arab states. They further argue that Sadat has shown a desire to end his dependence on the Soviet Union in military and other fields, and therefore the United States must give Sadat something so that he can show his people that it pays to maintain friendly relations With the United States; this argument is based on faulty assumptions. To begin With, the greatest danger to Sadat today comes not from external sources, but rather from unrest within Egypt. The deteriorating Egyptian economy, the low standard of living of the Egyptian people and widespread dissatisfaction over this situation are Sadat's greatest problems today. This will not be ameliorated by the infusion of American military equipment. Rather, if the United States was indeed interested in a durable peace in the region, it should be pressing for additional economic assistance to Egypt and not military equipment. It is tractors and not military transports which will insure Sadat of support by the Egyptian people, and enable him to continue to govern Egypt.

(e) To argue that if the United States CXXII---460-Part 6

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS does not assist Egypt militarily now, Egypt will go back into the Russian camp, is -a mistake of profound proportions and an indication that the people who advocate this argument do not understand Middle East politics. Let us remember that Sadat kicked out the Soviet Union from Egypt in the summer of 1972-one year prior to the Yom Kippur War and three and a half years prior to any discussion of American military assistance to Egypt. Further, Egypt turned to the United States after the Yom Kippur War and looked upon the United States as a mediator for the two interim agreements, notwithstanding the fact that the United States had just (during the Yom Kippur War) undertaken a major airlift to Israel to counter the Soviet airlift to the various Arab states.

(f) If Sadat truly wants peace, then there is no reason for the United States to supply him with military equipment. Israel does not seek to attack Egypt, but the Arab states continue to refuse to accept the legitimate existence of a Jewish state in the region and have vowed to destroy that state by either military or political means.

(g) Kissinger himself indicated that the United States cannot be the principal arms supplier to Egypt, but that the Administration hopes that Britain and France will take the lead. If his is so, then there is no reason why the United States should be selling Egypt military equipment. This also contradicts the argument that, if the United States does not supply Egypt With military equipment, Sadat will turn back to the Soviet Union. Clearly, England and France are still allies of the United States.

(h) Finally, the maintenance of international peace and security is the stated goal of American foreign policy because it is in America's national interest. We have supported American efforts to mediate the various agreements between Egypt and Israel because we believed it would be a step towards peace. However, the decision on the part of the Ford Administration to lift the arms embargo on Egypt and begin a program of American military assistance represents in our view a serious reversal of U.s. policy and carries Within it the danger o'f renewed hostilities in the Middle East.

In sum, it is therefore shortsighted of the Ford Administration to request immediate mllitary assistance for Egypt at the risk of losing so much more.

RICHARD W. McLAREN

HON. MARTIN A. RUSSO OF n.LINOIS



Mr. RUSSO. Mr. Speaker, courage is a word which is often used and seldom defined. Recently a man passed from the scene whose life during the past year was a definition of that word.

Richard W. McLaren was a noted lawyer in my native city of Chicago, headed the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and served most recently as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Bob Greene of the Chicago Sun-Times has written an article paying tribute to this man of rare dedication which I would like to bring to the attention of our colleagues. Mr. Greene's words, which describe so poignantly Judge McLaren's dis-

7275

tinctive courage, are well suited for all who are called to public service.

The article follows: JUDGE l\!CLAREN'S COURAGE-PAINFUL JUSTICE

AND A LIFE SENTENCE

(By Bob Greene) When U.S. District Court Judge Richard W.

McLaren died last month at 57, the obituaries took proper note of his distinguished and full legal career.

What was only touched on in the reports of his death, however, was a story more dramatic than any he ever presided over in a courtroom.

It was the story of how Judge McLarenwho suffered from a rare disease known as amyloidosis-determined, and then succeeded, in remaining an active, working, effective member of the judiciary all during his long illness.

The disease brought excruciating pain to Judge McLaren. Amyloidosis manifests itself by 17adually deteriorating the vital organs, and Judge McLaren lived with that disintegration dw"ing much of the final year of his life. The disease does not affect the mental processes, however-and the judge forced himself to withstand the physical pain in order to continue serving the court.

Attorneys, clerks, marshals, secretaries and court reporters at the Federal Building-all knew of Judge McLaren's condition during his last year, but out of respect for him none mentioned it in his presence. He wanted his court to be run just as if it was being presided over by a man in ideal health.

Although walking was an agonizing experience for him, he refused to use a wheelchair in '-he courtroom long past the time when his aides wanted him to do so. Special railings were installed so that Judg-e McLaren could make his own way from his chambers to the bench, a journey that normally would take only a matter of seconds.

"He would use two canes," said Thomas P. Sullivan, an attorney who argued a 10-week case in front of Judge McLaren during the final year. "He was going to walk into ilis courtroom under his own power. It would take him three minutes to make it to the bench. He would move very slowly, literally inch-by-inch. His head would be bowed. We lawyers would stand as he walked, every day, and it was all we could do not to cry."

At the end, all the resilency was gone from his muscles. He could not even hold a sheaf of paper without great strain. But still he worked.

"At night, his wife would read to him from the lawyers• briefs," said .Judge McLaren's law clerk, Roger Dennis. "I certainly don't think I would have had the guts or the patience to carry on as he did. He never mentioned the disease. Right up to the time he died. he had an incredible ab111ty to go right to the root of a problem. A truly amazing mind. And he worked as hard a day as any judge in the building. He started his day earlier and ended it later than almost any other judge. Of all the judges, too, he was extraordinarily kind to the attorneys. He was such a considerate man. Sometimes I'd see him shaking his hands, and rd know that the pain was getting to them so that he had to do something-but he never lost his temper or was discourteous to the people in his courtroom."

Judge McLaren's widow, Edith, said that after she would read the attorneys' briefs to him at night, he would compose his decisions and opinions by himself.

"We had a special pen made for him," Mrs. McLaren said. "It was padded with foam rubber, which made it bigger and softer, so it was easier for him to hold. He liked to think things out and see them in front of him. Sometimes he would have to dictat e, but whenever he could manage to write

7276 things down himself, he would. He was the1·e to do a job, and he was going to do it."

Judge McLaren was an athletic man before the disease struck him-he used to slalom water ski-and it was hard for those around him to watch him die in front of their eyes. But all knew how proud he was, and none urged him to take it easy, or to adapt to a lighter schedule. They knew that Judge McLaren was well aware of his own capablllties.

"There were times when we were in front of the bench, arguing the case, and you could see the pain flash into his eyes," said Lee Abrams, another attorney who was involved in a long case before Judge McLaren. "When you are in eyeball-to-eyeball contact with a man, you know when he hurts. Watching him make his way into that courtroom every day, and then seeing how well he ran his court . . . the whole bullding felt the same way about him. Everyone prayed for him."

On January 29, Judge McLaren delivered a. meticulously thought-out and worded 60-page written opinion on a case that Abrams had argued before him. Less than a. month later, the judge was dead.

"The last year of that man's life was the damndest display of courage I've ever seen," Abrams said. "I don't think anyone who was there wlll ever forget it. Or even think about living and dying in the same way again. Now there was a man.''

THE CHANGING FACE OF DEFENSE THINKING

HON. JOHN P. MURTHA OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES


Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, those of us who have for several years been arguing that America's defense strength was slipping and that a new look was needed at our security decisions have been heartened by the developments of recent weeks.

The highly respected Economist of London called for an "end of the false hopes attached to detente • • • a willingness to use all the forms of countervailing pressures needed to hold Soviet policy in check • • • and a wtllingness to pay for defense budgets designed to match the military problem the democracies face rather than domestic political convenience."

Former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger wrote in Fortune that the threat to the world was similar to that of the 1930's.

As then, the military balance is deteriorating, but the trend in large measure goes unnoticed because the Soviets today though expansion-minded, speak in less bombastic and threatening terms than the Nazis did.

The best news of recent weeks is that this awakening of need has led to decisions by the House and Senate Defense Committees to do away with the annual congr~ssional procedure of slashing defense spending, and responded with a more positive spending program than in recent years.

I believe there is still a great deal to be done to create the national debate that will set the course of our defense spending for yp.: .. :s to come, but I now believe we are getting on the right track.

EXTENSIONS OF REMAIQ(S

I would like to share with my colleagues some of my thoughts at this point on defense from two of my recent weekly columns.

THE DEFENSE MARGL-..r "Currently the United States operates on

a narrower and narrower military margin," according to former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger.

A shrinking defense margin was predictable since military issues have been deemphasized and our strength reduced following every American war. We are row emerging from the post Vietnam period, and Americans face a vital question of what "mllitary margin" we can accept.

In this week's column, I 'vant to compare the strength of the United States and Soviet Union. Next week, I want to look at the implications of these figures and what policie:: they suggest for the years ahead.

Nuclear Weapons-A decade ago the United States had a numerical superiority in strategic nuclear weapons. Today, it has disappeared. The nation lags behind the USSR in every category except multiple warhead launchers and total warheads.

Troop Strength-Figures in this category can be misleading since the U.S. has never had as many men under arms as the Soviets. Presently, though, there are 2Y2 times more Soviets in the military than Americans.

Ground Forces-The Soviets outnumber us in battle tanks (34,000 to 9,000 although we are increasing our strength), steel plated personnel carriers (40,000 to 20,000) and antitank missiles (a 3 to 1 Soviet edge). The U.S. advantages are in helicopters and the marines ( 197,000 men to 12,000 in the comparable Soviet units).

Navy-The Soviets have more major combatants in every category except aircraft carriers and a virtual monopoly on some antiship misslles. The U.S. strengths are '7 nuclear powered surface ships; unsurpassed carrier air power; and more anti-submarine warfare units.

Air Force--The Snviets have 25% more fighter/attack aircraft and medium bombers than the U.S. America's total force is larger when naval air power is included.

Allies-The Soviet army and materials provide most of the strength of the Warsaw pact countries. NATO adds to total strength ot the western countries, but the Warsaw nations have more commonality in leadership and arms, while NATO's equipment and leadership is sometimes uncoordinated.

Those are the facts that cause Schlesinger to conclude that "at no point since the 1930's has the Western world faced so formidable a threat to its survival."

There is no doubt the Soviets are making a major commitment to arms while the U.S. has been regrouping from Southeast Asia, dealing with an unprecedented transfer of presidential power and worrying about domestic problems and the economy. The present equalizing force is American technology and the quality of our military personnel. Even here, though, the Soviets are closing the gap.

Over the next year, our attention must shift to what defense policy we want to adopt in response to these Soviet actions. In next week's column I will examine the direction I believe that response should take.

AMERICA'S DEFENSE FUTURE

The American Defense Debate of 1976 must start from a basic premise: we must watch what the Soviets do, not what they say.

security for America and its allies has been a given factor in the lives of a whole generation of Americans raised in the last 25 years. Vietnam was viewed simply as an American error. We have become used to

Ma.T·ch 18, 1976 peace and want desperately to retain it with the Soviet Union.

Russian actions and military build ups outlined in last week's column show that to secure the peace, America must remain strong defensively. In this week's column, I want to look at some of the present U.S. policies and steps I believe we must take to maintain the peace.

Very simply, the Soviets today are making a greater commitment to defense than the United States. U.S. policy is based on reacting to a long, drawn out conflict (that would give us time to mobllize strength), or a short nuclear confrontation. Soviet capabilities are spread more widely to respond to any type of conflict.

An example of the problem this limited policy creates for the U.S. was the Mayaquez incident. When the word went out for U.S. help in the area, the respom:e was by the 31 year old carrier Hancock (operating on only 3 of its 4 shafts), the helicopter carrier Okinawa (with damaged boller plate), and the escort vehicle Holt (experiencing power supply problems). The situation illustrates there are types of conflicts we cannot combat today effectively.

In response, I believe there are some steps we should take:

1. Defense Budget-We all want to eliminate waste in defense spending. I am personally conducting several investigations at the present time I believe can result in savings without reducing effectiveness. we cannot, however, continue to reduce sharply the defense budget yearly while the Soviets are committing vast resources to their build up. We will have to accept a steady 2-3% growth in military spending yearly to keep pace.

2. Navy-No single U.S. policy worries me more than the lack of U.S. Naval strength. There is a real concern as to whether we can keep supply lanes open to our allies. Right now, America has no firm Naval strength policy for the years ahead. It takes many years to build a ship and we need direction to our future plans. We do not have to match the Soviets ship for ship, but we do have to make certain we can meet our needs on the seas-a question now in doubt.

3. Reserves-With the end of the draft and decrease in U.s. forces, we must rely more on the National Guard Reserves. We have to upgrade the units, make certain the men have proper equipment to train with and use this source to increase our total strength.

4. SALT Talks-We need to control arms growth, but I would rather delay an agreement with the Soviet Union on nuclear weapons for a year and make certain neither side has a nuclear advantage, than to rush to a judgment that would place us at a permanent disadvantage.

Those are four areas I would stress as essential to our national defense. Some pe-ople will stress other problems, but we must hold the debate and adopt a firm policy that will meet our needs.

Americans must face the fact that whether we like it or not, we are still the only military counterbalance to the Soviet Union and the communist world. The years ahead will test our will to check Soviet aggression o::.nd in."',u·e peace through equal strength.

"FBI" AND "COINTELPRO"-REVIEW OF TWO BOOKS

HON. BELLA S. ABZUG OF NEW YORK


Thursda.y, March 18, 1976

Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Speaker, after decades of secrecy, the Federal Bureau of

M_arah 18, 1976

Investigation is coming under more careful public and congressional scrutiny. This long delayed concern has already had some slight benefits in the manner in which the current leadership of the FBI responds to public needs. But far more and intensive oversight will be necessary before that Agency becomes responsive. to legitimate congressional inquiry into its activities.

One of the persistent problems encountered by congressional committees in attempting to perform oversight functions on the performance of the FBI is the veil of secrecy which still surrounds its work. The subcommittee which I chair, the Subcommittee on Government Information and Individual Rights of Government Operations, has been "stonewalled" on several occasions in our attempt to get to the bottom of the question of the destruction of the files maintained in the office suite of former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover.

This is not a unique posture for the FBI to take. In an excellent review of an excellent book by Sanford Ungar on the FBI, Victor Navasky, the well-known author on legal matters, states:

Only in 1975, Ungar reminds us, was it revealed that the F .B.I.-Kelley includedhad kept certain confidentia.l files from Attorneys General Richardson and Saxbe, each of whom assured us that he had the Bureau under control. How can we know that Attorney General Levi is faring that much better?

Mr. _Navasky's review of "FBI" appeared in the New York Times Book Review of March 14, 1976. It suggests that we must begin to debate the role of a sec1·et police in a democratic society and it reiterates that the secrecy which has surrounded the FBI "has prevented the public from even knowing what the issues are." I commend this review and the book "FBI", by Sanford Ungar to my colleagues.

The review by Mr. Navasky follows: [From the New York Times Book Review,

Mar. 14, 1976] "FBI," BY SANFORD J. UNGAR; AND "COINTEL

PRO," EDITED BY CATHY PERKUS-A BooK REVIEW

(By Victor S- Navasky) It is a rare day these days when either the

F.B.I. or the C.I.A_-ou.r intelligence community's Mr. Inside and Mr. Outside-'-is not embarrassed by some new revelation of past impropriety. Just weeks ago the C.I.A. grabbed the headlines, courtesy of Daniel Schorr, but it is undoubtedly only a matter of Ininutes before yet another llitherto unknown atrocity committed by the F.B.I.'s officially discontinued Cointelpro operation surfaces. The disillusioning documentation has come in such rapid quantity that it has almost ceased to shock and has begun to overwhelm. Thus the publication of a book like Sanford Ungar's "FBI" seems a propitious occasion. Traditionally the F.B.I. has cooperated only with those it has had reason to believe would tell its story in its own image. Mr. Ungar, Washington editor of The Atlantic Monthly, formerly with The Washington Post and author of "The Papers and the Papers: An Account of the Legal and Political Battle Over the Pentagon Papers" which won the George Polk Memorial Award in· 1973 for the outstanding book of the year, is the first independent reporter to gain sustai:p.ed access to F.B.I. files, recot:ds and . .nersonnel-includlng a series of personal in-ter-views with the Director. . '

EXTENSIONS PF ~~ One approaches "FBI" in the hope that it

will provide a much-needed perspective on our one and only national police force (which he is quick to designate the Bu.reau, despite their disclaimers). One is struck first by the fact that the mere recounting of what is already known yields a finding. It turns out, for instance, that much of the so-called paranoia of the left-old and new-should not have been so-called after all.

At the height of the cold war the Left charged that the F.B.I. was trading information with Senator Joseph McCarthy, and now we learn that on the eve of his resignation as Assistant to the Director, William Sullivan reminded J. Edgar Hoover in a letter, "You had us preparing material for Senator McCarthy regularly, kept furnishing it to him while you denied publicly that we were helping him.''

The civil rights movement claimed that J. Edgar Hoover was conducting a pe1·sonal vendetta against the movement's spiritual leader, Martin Luther King, and now we learn that in addition to other harassments the Bureau probably attempted through anonymous threats to move the late Dr. King to suicide.

The anti-war movement suggested that the F.B.I. was financing agent provocateurs and Mr. Ungar quotes any number of alumni informants who have surfaced at anti-war trials and other proceedings only to confess that they worked to exploit internal dissension and they instigated break-ins, burnings, bombings and other terrorist activities.

Black nationalists complained that the Bureau had singled them out for disruption and just a few weeks ago in testimony at a damage suit brought by survivors of the 1969 raid on the Black Panther Party headquarters, the former head of the F.BJ.'s Chicago office confirmed that the operation had been initiated as part of the Bureau's campaign to "neutralize" what it called "black nationalist hate-type groups." Apparently J. Edgar Hoover ordered these actions to prevent the emergence of a black leader who could become a "black messiah" and unify black nationalist groups.

Non-violent splinter groups like the SOcialist Workers Party have long insisted that they were a special target of the Bureau, and F.B.I. documents, recently made public under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, confirm that the Bureau launched a special S.W.P. disruption campaign as part of its counterintelligence program. "Cointelpro: The FBI's Secret Wru.· on Political Freedom," edited by Cathy Perkus, documents how the F.B.I. tried to get the University of Arizona Board of Regents to fire a professor who happened to be an S.W.P. member, sent a fake letter from a "concerned mother" alleging subversive activities against an S.W.P. school board candidate, harassed a scoutmaster whose wife was an S.W.P. member and, to generate mutual suspicion, created the impression that an S.W.P. officer had stolen funds from a S.W.P. defense committee.

So what else is new? old-time Bureau critics might well ask. After all, the trial oi Judith Coplon in 1949 for passing Justice Department intelligence reports to her Soviet sweetheart revealed that the F.B.I. tapped telephones and sat silently by while the prosecutor denied that there had been any electronic surveillance. (Her convictions were later reversed.) And the Coplon reports showed that the Bureau complied a dossier on the actor Frederic Marcl~ and his wife because they had been involved in the Henry Wallace movement, and on a music student because he visited the New Jersey headquarters of the Communist Party to talk with his mother. Moreover, muckrakers like Fred Cook in his book "The FBI Nobody Knows," and Max Lowenthal in "The Federal Bureau of Investigation," not to mention former agents like William Turner ("Hoover's FBI: The Men and the Myth'')" and Normal Olle-

7277 stad ("Inside the FBI") had all, in one way or another, blown the whistle and the siren on the F.B.I.

One dillerence between then and now is that until recent years the Bureau had won the public relations war. In addition to attacking the character and motives of its detractors, the Bureau encouraged Harry and Bonaro Overstreet to write "The FBI in Our Open Society," an attempt to refute its critics seriatum. Thus critics of the Bureau were largely discounted by establishment journalists, too complacent to do any investigative checking of their own. The critics were ignored by Congress, which by and large was reluctant to do battle with the keeper of the nation's (and presumably their own) secrets and skeletons, and were dismissed by Presidents and most Attorneys General, reluctant to jeopardize their policy agendas by taking on Washington's most formidable bureaucrat-politician. And in case anyone had any funny ideas, don't forget that when the Bureau had compromising information, say about a Congressman, it was standard operating procedure to confront him with the knowledge but promise discretion.

Ever since J. Edgar Hoover took over the Bureau in 1924, the F.B.I. has controlled its own image: in the 1930's as a gang of gangbusting G-men; during World War II as a crack anti-Nazi counterespionage outfit; after the war as the nemesis of the international Communist conspiracy; and more recently as an army of peace-keeping Efrem Zimbalist Jr's. In the aftermath of the disclosures occasioned by Watergate, various Freedom of Information Act suits and the internal power struggle following Hoover's death, one hoped Mr. Ungar's book would help us to see the F.B.I. without its charcoalgray suit on; that it would give us an impartial calculus for computing the damages, dangers and benefits this unique institution has inflicted and/or conferred on these United States. Instead, Mr. Ungar has gotten a little bogged down in F.B.I. trivia (especially in the first half of the book), and although he Inakes a number of useful contributions to F.B.I. literature and betrays no pro- or anti-Bm·eau bias, the big questions remain unanswered, the great issues under• explored.

Among the contributions: he gives us a glimpse of F.B.I. folkways, values and institutions, rare in books about the F.B.I. written by outsiders. Thus we learn that F.B.I. men have most respect for an agent who has shot someone in the line of duty or, second best, been wounded himself. We are told how for years F.B.I. cars had to be black and shiny, thus they were worthless for surveillance. In a bit of Kremlinology, F.B.I. style, we are told that field offices feature portraits of Hoover and the current Director Kelly, but none of L. Patrick Gray Jr., who resigned as Acting Director after it was revealed that he had destroyed some Watergate evidence. Also, we learn that after Gray ran into trouble, the Director's name was dropped from the credentials all agents carry, possibly an economy measure.

One wishes Mr. Ungar had done more to explore the implications of some of his observations, but it is nevertheless valuable to hear an agent who had for years participated in "the system of defying the rules and faking details of reports and statistics" ask the troubling question, "How does a guy learn to cheat and lie on a daily basis regarding administrative matters but then become perfectly honest on the witness stand?"

Mr. Ungar also has new information on the Bureau's formal and informal authority structures, with much original organizationchart detail on how an agent moves up through and/or gets shifted around the ranks. One wishes, however, that he lrad said a little more about the relationship of the incentive system to Bureau priorities.

.

7278 For example, we are told that agents who were involved in the ctvil rights struggles of the mid-1960's found that their careers prospered in later years. Prior to that time the Bureau seemed to have set itself against the ideology of integration, so one 1s curious as to whether the rewards for civil rights activity were accidental or intentional. And we gain some perspective on tension between the F.B.I. and other intelligence agencies when we hear a C.I.A. man comment. "It was especially important to cover yourself by reporting back home, whenever you talked with Bureau people. Otherwise it might be distorted by them."

"FBI" adds some original material to our file on the Agency's past as well as bringing us new news about its present circumstance. Some of it 1s in the F.B.I.'s favor, such as his account of how the Butte, Mont., office quietly neutralized some balloons the Japanese launched from the Pacific during World War n that were loaded with incendiary devices and anti-personnel bombs and were &urprlsingly successful at starting fires and injuring campers. Mr. Ungar's chapter, called "Big Brother," on the F.B.I.'s computerization after years of resistance, is particularly chilling, including his conclusion that "The fundamental question has become whether it is too late, whether the F.B.I. has already created such a mass of centralized and computerized information that no amount of tampering, adjusting and controlling would eliminate the basic threat. If that amount of information about citizens and their possible wrongdoing is concentrated in a single agency and is so easily retrievable, the potential is there for a government to make judgments about their future behavior or to try new experiments in social control."

In addition to adding to our knowledge one suspects his description of the break-in at the F.B.I.'s Media, Pa., office in 1971 wlll add to the F.B.I.'s knowledge. The Bureau has yet to solve the case, but Unger tells us authoritatively that the Media team had been organized into three groups. The burglars who broke into the office and stole the documents; the sorters, who decided which documents were important and processed them accordingly; and the disseminators, who decided which journalists should get what materials in what order.

Incidentally, it ought to be mentioned that because Mr. Ungar has provided neither chapter notes nor footnotes it is difficult to evaluate the accuracy of his material. The story about the Japanese balloons, for in· stance, sounds as if it comes from the F.B.I. files. If so, did Mr. Ungar check it out? One doesn't expect him to reveal his sources on the Media break-in but one wishes he had given some inkling as to the nature of hiS documentation. The unfortunate result is that we must treat much of what Mr. Ungar says the way we would treat a raw F.B.I. file-with suspicion. Although it should quickly be noted that Mr. Ungar himself appears unbiased and is what the Bureau would (or should) call "a usually reliable source."

He has given us, then, a raw and highly suggestive file on the F.B.I. But alas, like the F.B.I. files themselves, he has raised but not really explored the critical questions, which I take to be three.

In his preface Mr. Ungar says he set out to conduct "an unbiased inquu·y into the nature of the FBI, how it works, who peoples it and what it does." He has done that to a degree, but one can't really understand anything about the F.B.I. unless one understands the late J. Edgar Hoover, who converted the corrupt old Bureau of Intelligence into the streamlined, modern F.B.I. Mr Hoover's presence still dominates the Bureau long after his absence, his values inform its assumptions and it is therefore accurate that the new F.B.I. headquarters is called the J. Edgar Hoover Building.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS But Mr. Hoover as presented by Mr. Ungar

might have stepped out of the pages of "Ragtime." We hear him mispronounce words he often used such as Communist ("Oomminist") (and pseudo ("swaydo"), a term which generally accompanied intellectual or liberal, but nobody was allowed to correct him. The "author" of best sellers, such as "The Masters of Deceit," he neither wrote his books nor read them. His style was to behave as if he were in imminent danger, thus in restaurants he sat against the wall so he could see who was approaching, and in his chauffeured limousine he would put his hat on one side of the rear window ledge and then sink down in the corner on the other side of the car, on the assumption that would-be assassins would fire at the hat. We are even told that in an effort to understand the radical forces in the country he held "long arguments with Emma Goldman and others be had deported during the Palmer raid era."

Based on wba.t we know about Mr. Hoover from other sources, be bad no tolerance for ambiguity and other traits generally associated with the classic authoritarian personality, such a~ the need to dominate his subordinates while being deferential to his (Presidential) superiors. Mr. Hoover's F.B.I. was ideological traffic cop to the nation. We cannot blame Mr. Ungar for not being Erik Erikson, and he did not set out to write a psycho-history, but we wm never understand the F.B.I. until we understand its de facto founder and his imprint on the Bureau.

A second question has to do with the l'elationship between ideology and bureaucracy. What portion of the Bureau's incursions on constitutionally protected territory may we attribute to policy and what portion to its way of doing business? Doesn't a secret, rigidly hierarchical organization which judges performance by statistics and defines reality primarily by what it puts on paper give rise to bureaucratic imperatives that are the equivalent of ideolQ~Jy?

How typical is the agent who told Ungar he would not hesitate to use forbidden procedures against "extremists" "if necessary to get the job done"? Mr. Ungar tells us without further comment that as recently as 1974 the Bureau carried on its shelf of "subversive" literature, a hefty collection of the "liberal" magazine, The Nation. As it happens, The Nation is a left-liberal magazine with the singular distinction of having loudly challenged the F.B.I. during the pervasive journalistic silence of the cold war, which leads one to wonder how common is the Bureau's practice of misusing ideolQ~Jical labels to identify bm·eaucratic and political enemies?

We are told that after Judge Irving Kaufman sentenced the Rosenbergs to death in the so-called atom spy case, Mr. Hoover started doing him favors, such as dispatching a chauffeured limousine to pick him up at the airport when he went to visit his son at college in Oklahoma. One is curious what "favor" Mr. Hoover thought be was returning, or does the F.B.I. routinely make its bureaucracy available to those in high places whose actions accord with its policy p!'eferences? The Socialist Workers Party argues that all of the F.B.I.'s actions against them may be seen as part of a consistent strateJY since "The ruling class, which runs the government, is convinced that it would be better for them if socialism were considered illegitimate or 'subversive.' " There is insight behind the S.W .P. rhetoric, but my own suspicion is that Marxist analysis is inadequate to account for the peculiar blur of ideology into bureaucratic momentum that seems to characterize the F.B.I. Either way a careful study is needed.

Finally, it is imperative to open up the debate on the role of a secret police in a democratic society. Only in April 1975, Ungar

Mat•ch 18, 19'16 : reminds us, was it revealed that the F.B.I.Kelly included-had kept certain confidential files from Attorneys General Richardson and Saxbe, each of whom assured us that he had the Bureau under control. How can we know that Attorney General Levi is faring that much better?

The boundary of secrecy which has surrounded the Bureau has prevented the Bureau from testing its assumptions in the public policy marketplace, and it has prevented the public from even knowing what the issues are. Fragmentary snapshots in Mr. Ungar's book, such as the picture of an F.B.I. informant sitting silently in the car while a nightrider shoots and kills civil rights worker Viola Liuzzo back in the mid-1960's, only hint at the great issues that have yet to enter the public dialogue. To what extent is the F.B.I.-through its vast network of informants, and out of the most benign motives-subsidizing crime and, in rare cases, murder? If, as a number of Bureau critics suggest, the F.B.I. ought to get out of the political surveillance business altogether, what does one do about the truly terrorist organizations such as the S.L.A., the New World Liberation Army, the Ku Klux Klan? How can we prevent a bombing of La Guardia Airport without violating the liberties we are guaranteed by our Constitution?

The F.B.I. has not been forced to address such issues in public because it has never been accountable to the public. Books like "FBI" ought to hold the Bureau accountable. That Mr. Ungar is not oblivious to the need for such accountab111ty is evident from his report of an interview Acting Director William Ruckleshaus had with an F.B.I. veteran who was being considered for the job of Associate Director. What would he say, Ruckleshaus asked, if he were asked in the course of Congressional testimony, whether he had ever participated in an 1llegal activity on behalf of the F.B.I.? "Well, sir," he replied, "I would tell him that was none of his --damn business.''

ELECTION BILLS

HON. BILL FRENZEL OF MINNESOTA


Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Speaker, following is a summary of the differences between the House Administration Committee election bill, H.R. 12406 and the Senate Rules Committee bill, S. 3065. This summary is a reprint offered by the Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, Mr. CANNON, and only represents those differences as of the beginning of Senate debate on March 16.

Since then, of cow·se. several amendments have been adopted. Some of them are technical and conforming amendments and others are far more substantive in natw·e.

I believe this summary will aid my colleagues as they work through this maze of complicated legislation. I also believe it is important for the House to understand that this bill is a major, comprehensive revision of ow· election law.

The listing follows: SUMMARY OF THE KEY DIFFERENCES BET'-"'EElf

S. 3065 AND H.R. 12406

Whereas both bills would reconstitute the Federal Election Commission in an identical manner. H.R. 12406 would have the terms of

'·. ·.: ~ ~ \

March is, 19'i6 one member of the Commission expire each year, providing that the terms of a member representing one political party shall exph·e on alternate years. S. 3065, on the other hand, provides that the terms of two members not affiliated with the same party expire every two years so that members are not reappointed in an election year.

H.R. 12406 requires, as does S. 3065, the affirmative vote of four members of the CommiSsion in order to establish guidelines, initiate civil actions, render advisory opinions, make regulations, conduct investigations, or report apparent violations of law. However, S. 3065 contains an additional provision that no less than two of the four members voting in favor of such actions shall be affiliated with the same political party.

H.R. 12406 provides that the terms of all the present Commissioners, expire when all the new Commissioners are appointed and qualified, whereas in S. 3065, at pp. 5 and 6 of the b111, the existing Commissioners' terms would expire when a majority of the new Commissioners are appointed and qualified. The S. 3065 provision is intended to permit the new Commission to begin operations at an earlier date, in the event a delay occurs in the appointment or qualification of one or two Commissioners.

H.R. 12406 has an identical provision to S. 3065 prohibiting Commissioners from engaging in any outside business or professional activity while holding office. However, under Section 101(c) (1) on page 4 of S. 3065 this prohibition would not become effective until two years after the date the bill becomes law.

S. 3065, at Sections 101 (d) and 101 (g) contains certain transfer and continuity provisions which are not in H.R. 12406. These are summarized on pages 3 and 4 of the Comniittee's report on S. 3065.

Both bills contain certain changes, many of which are similar, in the definitional sections of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and are located at pages 8-11 of S. 3065 and 6-10 of H.R. 12406.

Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 103 of S. 3065 contain provisions to reduce the accounting and recordkeeping burdens for political committees by requiring that records be kept only on contributions in excess of $100 instead of in excess of $10. S. 3065 also has a provision which states that a contributor's occupation does not have to include the name of the employer, firm, business associate, customers or clients for recordkeeping or reporting purposes. These are set forth at pages 11, 12, and 13 of S. 3065. H.R. 12406 does not contain any provisions with respect to this subject matter.

Section 104(a) of S. 3065, at page 12 of the bill provides that in a non-election year, a candidate and his authorized committees must file quarterly reports only for quarters in which more than $5,000 in contributions have been received, or more than $5,000 in expenditures have been made. Section 104 (a) of H.R. 12406 has a similar provision but

would exempt quarterly reporting in nonelection years wherein a candidate and his authorized committees had received contributions or made expenditures in any calendar quarter totalling in excess of $10,000.

Section 106 of H.R. 12406 contains a provision amending 2 USC 437(a) (1) to provide that the principal campaign committee of a candidate or any other authorized political committee which receives or makes contributions on a candidate's behalf shall maintain one or more checking accounts, at the discretion of any such committee, at a depository designated by the candidate. Existing law merely requires the keeping of "a checking account." S. 3065 does not contain a provision with respect to this subject.

·H.R. i2406 revises the advisory opinion prpvls,lpns :or ·2 USC 4S7(f) to p:r;ovlde that

; I • • _ ;; ~ ;[ , " "'1 ·~ l: , \ -;. /

EXTE:Nsio:Ns oF· iiirMARks· all advisory opinions, the transaction or activity with respect to which is not subject to an existing rule or regulation, shall be transmitted to the Congress as a proposed rule or regulation. S. 3065, however, would require only those advisory opinions which set forth a rule of general applicability to be transmitted to the Congress as a proposed rule or regulation.

H.R. 12406, at Section 108(d) has the effect of requiring the Commission to transmit all its outstanding advisory opinions, which are not the subject of an existing rule or regulation, to the Congress for review. Section 107 of S. 3065 (pp. 17-19 of the bill) and Section 108 of H.R. 12406 (pp. 15-17 of the b111) contain the respective provisions which would amend the advisory opinions provisions of existing law.

The enforcement provisions of the two bills provide for similar conciliation and civil enforcement procedures. H.R. 12406, however, does provide for a civil penalty not exceeding the greater of $5,000 or an amount equal to the amount of any contribution or expenditure involved in a violation where such violation is not a knowing and willful one. E. 3065 does not have such a provision. The House bill also provides a civil penalty, where a violation is knowing and willful, to be the greater of $10,000 or an amount equal to 200 per cent of the amount of any contribution or expenditure involved in such violation, whereas S. 3065 would provide a civil penalty for a knowing and willful violation of the greater of $10,000 or an amount equal to 300 per cent of the amount of any contribution or expenditure involved in the violation.

H.R. 12406 requires the Commission to make every endeavor, for a period of not less than 30 days, to correct or prevent a violation by informal methods of conciliation, except under certain specified circumstances just prior to an election which are set forth on page 20 of that bill. The Senate bill, S. 3065, would not bind the Commission to 30 days of conciliation efforts, so that it would have some discretion to take immediate action to invoke the civil relief provisions of the law in the event that it determined that there was probable cause to believe that a violation had occurred, or was about to occur, of such magnitude and nature that the interests of the public would compel immediate resort to the courts for judicial relief. As stated on page 8 of the Committee report on S. 3065, "If such a situation does not occur the Commission is expected to pursue with diligence, for a reasonable period of time, an attempt to correct or prevent all violations by informal methods, except as otherwise provided in the bill!'

There are two additional provisions in the enforcement portion of H.R. 12406 which are not contained in S. 3065. The first is on page 18 of that bill, and states as follows:

"Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Commission shall not have the authority to inquire into or investigate the ut1lization or activities of any staff employee of any person holding Federal office without first consulting with such person holding Federal office. An affidavit given by the person holding Federal office that such staff employee is performing his regularly assigned duties shall be a complete bar to any further inquiry or investigation of the matter involved."

The second provision in the enforcement portion of H.R. 12406, not contained in S. 3065, is on page 26 of that bill, and provides that any member of the Commission, any employee of the Commission or any other person who makes public any notification or investigation under new Section 313(a) (2), without the written consent of the person receiving such notification or the person with resp~ct to whom the . lnyesttgatlon ls made,

7279 shall be fined not more than $2,000. -If it is a knowing and willful violation, the fine would be $5,000. '

The other differences in the enforcement provisions of the two bllls can be found in Section 108, pages 19-27 of S. 3065, and Section 109, pages 18-26 of H .R. 12406.

Section llO(a) (2) of H.R. 12406 requires the Commission to give priority to auditing and field investigating the verification for, and the receipt and use of, any payments received by a candidate under the public financing provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. S. 3065 does not contain such a provision.

Section llO(b) of H.R. 12406 contains a provision which would permit the Congress to disapprove a part of a regulation submitted by the Commission, rather than have to take disapproval action with existing law. S. 3065 does not contain such a provision.

Section llO(c) of H.R. 12406 contains a provision at pp. 27-28 of the bill not in s. 3065, that in any proceeding, including any civil or criminal enforcement proceeding against any person charged with a violation of the Act or the public financing provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, no rule, regulation, guidelines, advisory opinion, opinion of counsel, or any other pronouncement by the Commission or by any of its members, officers or employees, (other than any rule or regulation of the Commission which has become effective) shall be used against any person, either as having the force of law, as creating any presumption of violation or criminal intent, or as admissable in evidence against such person or in any manner whatsoever.

S. 3065 would repeal Section 456 of Title 2, United States Code, which gives the Commission power to disqualify candidates in future elections. Section 111 of H.R. 12406 would retain this section and provide 30 days prior to the Commission's being able to exercise it s disqualification powers.

Sect ion 112 of H .R. 12406 contains a provision which would repeal existing Section 2 USC 43 requiring copies of all reports to be filed with appropriate state officers. s. 3065 does not contain such a provision.

With respect to the provisions limiting contributions and expenditures, the essential difference between the two bills would be that H.R. 12406 would limit contributions by persons to political committees in any calender year to an aggregate of $1,000. This is not in S. 3065, and, under present law, for example, an individual could make up to a $25,000 contribution in a calendar year to a political committee which is not authorized to receive funds on behalf of a particular candidate or where the funds are not earmarked for a particular candidate-assuming that the individual has not made any other contributions in that year.

S. 3065 has a provision limiting contributions one political committee can make to another political committee, (other than to a political committee authorized to receive funds on behalf of a particular candidate) to an aggregate of $25,000 in a calendar year. Under present law, such contributions are unlimited. H.R. 12406 would limit that amount to $5,000 in a calendar year. Both bills contain similar, though not identical language directed at curtailing the vertical proliferation of contributions by political committees. See pages 29-31 of H.R. 12406 and pages 27-29 of S. 3065 for a comparison of these provisions.

S. 3065 and H.R. 12406 both propose a revision of eXisting Section 610 of Title 18 related to limitations on contributions and expenditures by corporations and labor organizations. The changes proposed by both bilJ¢ are similar With the following key exceptionS.· First, S. 3065 contains language at page· a·6 · of that bill, Which would treat public utU~ty ·

7280 holding companies the same as other corporations for purposes of the llmitatlons on contributions and expenditures set .forth 1n the section. Second, H.R. 12406 contains language at page 40 of that bill which provides that an incorporated trade assocta.tlon or a separate segregated fund established by an incorporated trade association would be permitted to solicit contributions .from the stockholders and executive officers of the member corporations o! such trade association and the familles of such stockholders and executive ofilcers. This could be done to the extent that any such solicitation of such stockholders and executive officers and their families had been separately and specifically approved by the member corporation involved, and such member corporation had not approved any such solicitation by more than one such trade association in any calendar year. Third, S. 3065 contains a definition of stockholders not in H.R. 12406.

H.R. 12406 at page ~4 of the bill, raises the limitation on contributions of currency from $100, which Is in existing law and in S. 3065, to $250. It also sets a specific criminal penalty, not in S. 3065, for any person who knowingly and willfully violates the $250 prohibition.

H.R. 12406 restates existing Section 616 related to honorariums, whereas S. 3065 would increase the amount of individual honorariums from $1,000 to $2,000, and the aggregate calendar year amount which may be received as an honorarium from $15,000 to $24,000.

H.R. 12406 at page 45 of that bill, contains criminal penalties which would be applicable for any person who knowingly and wilUully commits a violation of the Act involving the making, receiving, or reporting of any contribution or expenditure having a value in an aggregate of $5,000 or more during a calendar year, whereas S. 3065 would provide for criminal penalties where such aggregate amounts is $1,000 or more. Also, with respect to the imposition of criminal penalties, S. 3065, at page 44 of the bill, provides that a conciliation agreement under certain circumstances would be a complete defense to crim.inal prosecution. H.R. 12406 does not have such a provision.

Section 115 of H.R. 12406, at page 47 o! that bill, contains a provision providing for the termination of the authority of the Commission on March 31, 1977, if either House of the Congress, by appropriate action determines that such determination shall take effect. This provision requires the appropriate committee of each House of the Congress, commencing January 3, 1977, to -conduct a review of the elections of candidates for Federal office conducted in 1976, the operation of the public financing provisions of the Internal Revenue Code with respect to such elections, and the activities of the Commission, and tor these committees to report to their respective Houses not later than March 1, 1977, with a recommendation of whether the authority of the Commission shall be tenninated on March 31, 1977.

Although there are other less substantive differences between the two bills, as well as some drafting differences, the final major difference is the provision in H.R. 12406, which S. 3065 does not have, providing that an individual who has ceased actively to seek election to the office of President or Vice President, to cease receiving public funds and return those funds received by that candidate which are not used to defray qualified ca.mpalgn expenses. These provi-sions relating to both ma.tchtng funds an4 direct grant payments ar-e set forth at pages 55-57 o:f R.R • .12406.


THE AZORES-FRIENDS OF THE UNITED STATES IN SEARCH OF A FUTURE

HON. JACK F. KEMP OF NEW YORK



~r. E(E~. ~r. Speaker, governed by Portugal for nearly five centuries, the mid-Atlantic islands of the Azores have long resented the second-class role to which Portugal relegated them. All through last year, the political turmoil in Lisbon stirred simmering discontent into a strong movement by a large majority of Azoreans to map their own destiny-should Portugal go Communist.

Banding together, under the Front for the Liberation of the Azores-FLF-the Azorean people have placed their lives in jeopardy by publicly declaring their intention of secedin.g from Portugal. In return for their longstanding friendship with the United States, the FLF is appealing to the U.S. Government for help.

The Azores, whose people have always been good and strong allies of the United States, are critical to U.S. defense capability and to assisting our allles. It was here that the United States refueled its rescue aircraft to Israel during the 1973 ~iddle East war-the only European country to allow us to land-enabling the United States to refuel over 565 ftights and carry more than 20.000 tons of urgently needed supplies and equipment to Israeli troops. It is here that the U.S. Navy bases its entire mid-Atlantic antisubmarine warfare effort that. along with wide ranging spotter aircraft, monitors the entire North Atlantic Ocean for Soviet submarine activity. Through the two major sea lanes monitored by the Azores pass a major proportion of ~11 oil supplies traveling by supertanker from the ~iddle East and North Africa to the Western World.

I would like to enter into the REcoRD an article from the February 1976 issue of National Geographic magazine which gives a brief look at the attitudes and way of life of the approximately 300,000 inhabitants of the mid-Atlantic archipelago of the Azores:

THE AZORES, NINE IsLANDS IN SEARCH OF A FuTuRE

(By Don Mosel")

* * * * * The mid-Atlantic archipelago known as

the Azores in one of the few places on earth from which men still go forth in small boats with hand harpoons to challenge the greatest creatures of the seas. The whalers' methods belong to another century-appropriately enough, for in the Azores time moves at a pace of its own, the decades ticking into each other with Imperceptible change. That pace, however, has quickened, and just as the days of the whalers seem numbered, so there seems no going back to the past for today's Azoreans.

POOR, PERHAPS, BUT RICH IN CHARACTER

The nine 1slands-Bome 900 square miles altogether-are separated from Europe by almost a thousand mlle8 and from North America by sixteen hundred. By some stand-

March 18, 1976 ards, the 300,000 inhabitants are generally poor and ill-educated.

They are also hardworking, generous of spirit, and honest almost beyond credibility. On Corvo, the smallest of the islands, the jail has not been occupied within memory. On any island a visitor who forgets a pencil stub or near-empty cigarette package in a cafe will be chased down the sti·eet by an Azorean trying to return it.

The people are blessed in other ways. They live on old volcanoes rising from the MidAtlantic Ridge and cloaked in rich volcanic soil. The North Atlantic Current, a branch of the warm Gulf Stream, ensures a climate without extremes of heat or cold. The earth bursts forth with a copious harvest of crops both temperate and tropical; corn and sugar beets grow here, as do oranges, ba.nanas, and tea. Flowers bloom in an abundance to delight the eye; indeed, they bestowed the name to Flores, a small island at the western end of the archipelago where pastures are separated by lush hedges of hydrangeas.

The bells of the lava-stone churches on the islands peal thrice daily in towns that were fortified to repel the attacks of 16thcentury pirates. The horse at;td oxcart are giving way only slowly to the internal-combustion engine. From the seaside rocks men cast nets for silvery chicharro. High on ridges the sails of a few old windmills revolve slowly, turning lava millstones that grind the corn.

Serene and pastoral as the islands appear, they are being disturbed by change. Governed by Portugal 1'or nearly five hundred years, Azoreans have long felt oppressed by their rulers in Lisbon. In the past year a deepening ideological rift aggravated this old grievance. The islanders, devoutly Roman Catholic and intensely anti-Communist, became fearful of the power that the left wing had acquired in continental Portugal.

Demonstrations, near riots, and impassioned rhetoric chaTged the bucolic Azorean atmosphere with political electricity. Along the narrow streets of Ponta Delgada, the Azores' largest city, I saw many bulldings emblazoned with graffiti advocating independencia: "The Azores for the Azoreans."

Young men wore shirts stenciled with a fierce-looking hawk-aQOT means ~·goshawk" in Portuguese-its wings spread protectively above nine stars representing the islands. Promenading on the broad waterfront esplanade patterned with lava and Portuguese limestone, they greeted each other with a thumbsup sign-the symbol of the Independence movement.

* * I heard the refrain everywhere. For years

Portugal had been "milking the golden cow," Azoreans claimed, exploiting the IslandS' agricultural abundance, taxing imports and exports heavily, and providing little in return. Tllen to that was added leftist control.

This long-standing resentment exploded last summer when Azoreans burned a Communist Party headquarters on Terceira, dumped a Communist leader's car into the sea off Sao Miguel, and demonstrated angrily in major towns. By the end of the summer they had driven virtually every Communist leader to Lisbon and had demanded-and won-the ouster of a number of unpopular Portuguese officials, including a governor.

The cutting edge of the independence movement is the illegal and clandestine Front for the Liberation of the Azores. Since Azoreans assume that Americans are sympathetic, a vlsltor from the Unlted States has no difficulty meeting FLA members. As I traveled about the Islands. I was continually buttonholed by taxi drivers, office workers, and farmers eager to tell me of their affiliation with the movement.

March 18, 1976 CLERGYMAN PREPARES FOR BATTLE

One day I went to a village on Sao Miguel to visit a priest I'd heard about. I met him in front of his church, a 19th-century building that dominated the whitewashed stone row houses of the village. "How many people live in the village?" I asked.

"Fourteen hundred, approximately," he said with a smile.

"How many are in favor of independence?" The priest smiled again. "At least eleven

hundred, approximately." In the church annex we sat at a rough

wooden table and discussed the independence movement. A dozen men gathered around to listen, their faces intent. "We have suffered t oo long under Portugal," the priest said. "Books and school supplies are not provided by the government. Most people here have been to school only three or four years; they can barely read and write.

"We have valuable mineral water, but the Portuguese will not allow us to export it-they don't want us to compete with companies in Portugal-and so it goes to waste. For sugar we pay 50 cents a pound because of taxes, even though we grow the sugar beets here. Look at this man," the priest said, pointing at one of the onlookers. "He is a logger, but now he has to log illegally because he has to get a permit from Lisbon to cut the trees, and it takes too long. Portugal has always considered us third-class Portuguese."

The priest pounded his fist on the table. "We have a will to do something! We don't want to fight, but if we have to, we will fight with sticks and stones and plows."

It was clear from the faces of the men who sat around the table that they were ready to follow their priest.

As we left, the priest stopped to point something out to me. There, affixed to the wall, were a hammer and a sickle. Crossways between them, as if splitting them asunder, was an Azorean kniwe, a podfio.

HOME RULE VERSUS FULL FREEDOM

Not all Azoreans emphatically desired independence. Some feared missteps caused by their own political inexperience, others that political power would be concentrated in the hands of the wealthy. Nonetheless, a group of Azorean officials was preparing a plan for an autonomous Azorean region.

I spoke with a member of the group, Jose Goulart, an articulate young engineer, in his office in Ponta Delgada. "We are so small," he said, "that in my opinion, we will always feel we need to be included in an economic and political structure that is larger and stronger. We have problems just because we are islands, problems of skills and economic development. Anywhere else in the world an area the size of the Azores would need one airport--we have five now and need more. We can't get along with one port. People think that we need nine of everything."

* * In the town of Santa Cruz I had coffee at

a small community center where the people gathered to play cards and dominoes. There I met a somber-eyed, bearded young man who told me that he was a university student in Lisbon, home on vacation. He was a member of the MRPP-a Portuguese political party that stands to the left even of the Communists. He opposed the independence movement, he said, because he feared that without Portugal's protection the United States might try to take the islands over. The majority of Azoreans were very poor, he went on, and only through radical change could they better their lives.

As the student spoke, I realized that some men playing dominoes at a nearby table were watching him closely and with evident hostility. After a while the men got up to leave.

The student nodded toward them as they

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS went out the door. "Sooner or later," he said, "some of those men will be waiting for me." His beliefs were not popular, he explained.

Most Azoreans were looking toward the United States to help them, certainly with moral support, perhaps with economic assistance. "America is like God to us," an Azorean friend told me in Faial, and if he put it more strongly than most, there is no doubt that Azoreans regard the United States warmly.

Azoreans have been emigrating to North America since the 1700's. Several hundred thousand people of Azorean stock live in the United States today, primarily in New England and California. • In search of a higher standard of living than they can achieve in their island vlllages, about 5,000 move to the United States each year now.

"Family ties are very strong," said Jim Flynn, the young vice-consul at the United States consulate in Ponta Delga.da. "When a transplanted Azorean becomes a U.S. citizen, he'll send for his sister, and she takes her husband, and then he sends for his brother, who brings his family .... "

THE AGONY OF EXPECTATION

One morning I sat in Flynn's office as a stream of visa applicants passed through, Flynn, the man who had the power to fulfill or shatter their dreams, sat at a large desk, flanked by an American flag. As the applicants answered his routine questions"What relatives do you have there? Do you have an offer of a job?"-they were apprehensive, almost to the point of shock. Their rough farmers' hands twisted in anguish. At the end of each interview Flynn asked the applicant to stand, raise his right hand, and swear that his statements were true. One elderly farmer was so excited he shot both arms straight into the air, as if being held up at gunpoint.

Most applicants are approved. "One of our jobs," said Flynn, "is to make sure that we don't send people who are going to become public char~s. But there is very little problem with Azoreans. Their families in the States will help them, they are hard workers, and they are too proud to a-ccept welfare. These are good people."

The Azores have been a way station for Atlantic travelers ever since their discovery in 1427 by the far-ranging mariners of Prince Henry the Navigator, Christopher Columbus stopped at Santa Maria on his return from the New World in 1493. Spanish galleons reprovisioned on their voyages back to Spain. In both World Wars the islands played a role in the struggle for control of the Atlantic. Today at Lajes Field on the island of Terceira, 0-141 jet transports of the U.S. Air Force land to refuel on their flights between the United States and North Atlantic Treaty Organization bases in Europe. The United States has kept a contingent at Lajes since World War II to operate what airmen described to me as the "big gas station."

The gas station's strategic importance was underlined during the Middle East war of 1973. With other NATO countries determined to stay uninvolved, Lajes during a 33-day period refueled planes carrying 22,000 tons of equipment and supplies to Israel.

Lajes also is a center of the U.S. Navy's mid-Atlantic antisubmarine-warfare effort. One night I saw the building from which these operations are directed. Behind its heavy locked doors were rooms filled with whirring computers and other electronic equipment.

Lt. Comdr. Bill Dupont told me, "Our primary interest here is in watching Soviet sub-

* 0. Louis Mazzatenta described "New England's 'Little Portugal' " in National Geographic, January 1975.

7281 marines. And 1! you want to know why it seems so tense around here tonight, I'll tell you: We're observing one right now-and we don't think he knows he's being watched."

A squadron of Navy P3's-long-range aircraft, chockablock with detection equipment -is based at Lajes. "From here," Dupont said, "we cover three Inillion square miles of thE> At lantic. This is a big, fixed aircraft carrier in an important locat ion."

* F ACING TOMORROW WITH QUIET STRE NGTH

Isolated and vulnerable, dwelling precariously on their restless mid-ocean volcanoes, the Azoreans face an uncertain futurP.. They lack trained technicians and administrators. Their physical resources are limited. Their transportation lines are long. But Azoreans do have some important things in their favor; a will to prevail, a knotty durability.

HUMAN RIGHTS IN INDIA

HON. JONATHAN B. BINGHAM OF NEW YORK



Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, man·y friends of India have been deeply distressed by the growing evidence that under the government of Mrs. Gandhi that great country has been abandoning the essential rights of democracy and moving toward repressive authoritarianism.

A group of 80 very distinguished Americans recently issued a statement deploring the situation in India and calling for a· restoration of human rights there.

I include an article from the New York Times of March 5, 1976, which includes the text of the statement and the list of signers:

EIGHTY AMERICANS APPEAL TO INDIA To RESTORE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

(By Paul Grimes) More than 80 Americans, most of them

widely known, are issuing a joint appeal today expressing distress at repression in India and calling for the restoration of fundamental human rights there.

The statement is the first formal expression of concern by a substantial number of Americans to restrictions imposed by the Government of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.

The restrictions were imposed under a state of internal emergency that was proclaimed in India last June 26.

Organizers of the appeal described it as a one-time "ad hoc" statement of the feelings of American individuals, not of an o1·ganized group.

SPECTRUM OF OPINION

The signers represent a spectrum of political, academic and other opinion. The n ames of some appear frequently on petitions; t he names of others rarely if ever do.

The appeal was organized primarily by three persons: Dorothy Norman, a biographer of the late Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, Mrs. Gandhi's father; Sidney Hertzberg, a former correspondent of The Hindustan Times of New Delhi, and Ved Mehta, author and staff member of The New Yorker Magazine.

Mrs. Norman and Mr. Hertzberg were long active in the now-defunct India League of America, which, while Britain ruled India, helped muster American opinion for inde-

7282 pendence. Mr. Mehta, who was born in India, recently became a United States citizen.

What motivated the .organizers most, Mr. Hertzberg said, was Mrs. Gandhi's decision early this year to postpone for at least a year the general elections that had been scheduled to be held in India this month.

The three-paragraph statement says: "We are Americans concerned With main

taining and furthering human rights, and our concern extends to all people throughout the world. Consequently, we are distressed by the loss of fundamental human rights in India folloWing the proclamation of a national emergency there on June 26, 1975. Thousands of critics of the Government have been arrested Without charge and without even the right of habeas corpus. The press has been put under strict censorship and Government control. Now the emergency has been extended and national elections have been canceled.

"We deplore these events, especially in India, because there democracy was established after a long struggle for freedom led by some of the greatest contemporary exponents of human rights, and also because the respect of democratic India for these human rights was for so many years a beacon light for all newly independent and developing countries.

"Experience shows that when human rights are suppressed anywhere, and that the longer they are suppressed the longer it takes to restore them. We therefore call for the restoration of these rights in India."

SIGNERS LISTED

Those who signed the appeal are: Ashe, Arthur Jr., tennis champion. Baez, Joan, pacifist, folk singer. Baldwin, Roger N., honorary president, In

ternational League for the Rights of Man. Barth, Alan, author, "The Price of Liberty." Bell, Dr. Daniel, professor of sociology,

Harvard University. Celler, Emanuel, former chairman, Judi

ciary Committee, House of Representatives; author of India Immigration and Naturalization Act.

ChoiUSky, Dr. Noam, professor of modern languages and linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Clark, RaiUSey, former Attorney General of the United States.

Cohen, Dr. BernardS., professor of anthropology, University of Chicago.

Day, Dorothy, co-founder of The Catholic Worker.

Dumpson, James R., former president, National Conference on Social Welfare and former Human Resources Administrator, New York City.

Eckaus, Dr. Richard s., professor of economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Eckaus, Risha, artist. Ellison, Ralph, author, teacher. Fairbank, Dr. John K., professor of history,

Harvard University. Farmer, James, founder, CORE, Freedom

Ride, 1961. Frankel, Dr. Charles, professor philosophy

and public affairs, Columbia University. Frankel, Francine, associate professor of

political science, University of Pennsylvania, author of "India's Green Revolution."

Franklin, George S. Jr., foreign policy organization official.

Freemantle, Anne, writer. Gardner, Dr. Richard N., professor of law

and International Relations, Columbia University and former Assistant Secr~tary o-r State for International Organizations.

Ginsberg, Allen, poet. Grant, Frances R., secretary general, Inter

American Association for Democracy and Freedom.

Harrington, the Rev. Donald Szantho, senior minister, Community Church, N.Y.

EXTENSIONS OP REMARKS Harrington, Michael, professor of political

science, Queens College. Heginbotham, Dr. Stanley J., associate pro

fessor of polltical science, Columbia University.

Hertzberg, Dr. Hazel W., associate professor of history and education, Teachers College, Columbia University; former editor, "India Today."

Hertzberg, Sidney, former United States correspondent for The Hindustan Times, New Delhi.

Howe, Irving, professor of English, City University of New York.

Ilchman, Dr. Warren F., dean, College of Liberal Arts, Graduate School, Boston University.

Isaacs, Harold R., professor of political science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; author, "Scratches on Our Minds, American Images of China and India."

Jack, Dr. Homer A., secretary general, World Confer~nce on Religion and Peace; Editor, "The Gandhi Reader."

Jessup, Dr. Philip C., former judge, International Court of Justice.

Kilson, Dr. Martin, professor of government, Harvard University.

Kurtz, Dr. Paul, professor of phllosopy, State University of New York at Buffalo; editor, The Humanist.

Lash, Joseph P., author. Lerner, Max, author. Levi, Dr. Werner, professor of history, Uni

versity of Hawaii. Lifton, Betty Jean, writer. Lifton, Dr. Robert Jay, professor of psy

chiatry, Yale University. Loeb, James, former U.S. Ambassador to

Peru and Guinea. Luria, Salvador E., Nobel laureate in medi

cine 1969 and institute professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Marriott, Dr. McKim, professor of anthropology and social sciences, University of Chicago; editor, "Villag~ India."

McNickle, Dr. D'Atcy, Director, Center f<>r American Indian History, Newberry Library, Chicago.

Mehta, Ved, author, "Portrait of India." Morris, Dr. Ivan, professor of Japanese, Co

lumbia University; chairman, Amnesty International (U.S.A.).

Mumford, LeWis, author. Noguchi, .Isamu, sculptor. Norman, Dorothy, editor, "Nehru-The

First 60 Years." O'Hare, Joseph A., S.J., editor-in-chief,

America. Park, Dr. Richard L., professor of political

science, University of Michigan; author, "India's Political System."

Patron, Margaret, former India correspondent, The New York Herald Tribune; author, "The Leaf and the Flame."

Pauling, Dr. Linus C., Nobel laureate in chemistry, 1954; Nobel Peace Prize, 1962.

Peretz, Martin, editor, The New Republic. Pickus, Robert, president, World Without

War Council. Plastrik, Dr. Stanley, professor of history,

City University of New York. Power, Dr. Paul F., professor of political

science, University of Cincinnati; editor and co-author, "Meanings of Gandhi."

Randolph, A. Philip, retired president, Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters and former vice president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O.

Reich, Charles A., author; professor, Yale Law School.

Roche, Dr. John P., professor of civilization and foreign affairs, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.

Rose, Dr. Leo, professor of political science, University of California, Berkeley.

Rosenthal, Dr. Donald, professor of polltical science, State University of New York at Buffalo.

Rukeyser, Muriel, poet; president of American P.E.N.

March 18, 197fi Rustin, Bayard, president, A. Phllip Ran

dolph Institute; civil rights activist. Samuelson, Dr. Paul A., professor of eco

nomics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Nobel laureate in economics, 1970.

Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr., Albert Schweitzer professor in the humanities, City University of New York.

Schell, Jonathan, author. Schomer, Dr. Howard, world issues secre

tary, United Church Board for World Ministries.

Shanker, Albert, president, United Federation of Teachers.

Singer, Dr. Milton, professor of anthropology and social sciences, University of Chicago; co-editor and contributor, "Structure and Change In Indian Society."

Smih, Dr. Donald E., professor of political science, University of Pennsylvania.

Spack, Dr. Benjamin, author and pacifist. Stone, I. F., author. Updike, John, author. Wald, Dr. George, professor of biology,

Harvard University; Nobel laureate in physiology, 1967.

Wallace, Dr. Paul, associate professor of political science, University of MissourL

Weiner, Dr. Myron, chairman, department of political science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; auth<>r, "State Politics In India."

Wilkins, Roy, executive director, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Willard, Marian, gallery director. Wofford, Clare, eo-author, "India Afire.." Wofford, Harris, president, Bryn Mawr Col-

lege. Wriggens, Dr. W. Howard, professor of po

litical science, Columbia University. Wurf, Jerry, president, American Federa

tion of State, County and Municipal Employees.

FOOD DAY 1976

HON. BENJAMIN S. ROSENTHAL OF NEW YORK



Mr. ROSENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, 36 of our colleagues are joinin~ me today to introduce legislation to declare April 8 as National Food Day 1976. Our aim is to mobilize public concern for food policies and healthful eating habits.

We can no longer afford to take food for granted. Our once great food surpluses have all but disappeared. Now we have sharp controversy over food prices, the farm program, food stamps, the middleman's share of the food dollar, occasional food shortages, and nutritional programs for children and the elderly. For other countries, the problem is not so much one of cost or quality, but rather availability. They must contend with the chronic threat of starvation and famine.

Last year thousands of Americans observed "Food Day" on April 17. Many special activities were organized, ranging from a nationwide television show to teach-ins at colleges and high schools.

Millions of people in the United States and around the world suffer from hunger and malnutrition. The goal of insuring that everyone is well fed is one we can all share. Food Day 1976 will be a day for cit-

March 22, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 7283 izen groups to make their voices heard and to learn about hunger, the relationship between the food we eat and our health, and who controls our food policies.

Food Day activities are planned in communities throughout the Nation. These are being organized by a coalition uf citizens groups coordinated by the Center for Science in the Public Inter-est.

Sponsors of the Food Day resolution are:

LIST OF SPONSORS

Hon. Bella. S. Abzug, Hon. Herman Badillo, Bon. Edward P. Boland, Hon. George E. Brown, Jr., Hon, Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, Hon. James C. Corman, Hon. Christopher J. Dodd, Hon. Thomas J. Downey.

Hon. Robert F. Drinan, Hon. Robert Duncan, Hon. Pierre S. duPont, Hon. Robert W. Edgar, Hon. Don Edwards, Hon. Donald M. Fraser, Hon. Micha-el Harrington, Hon. Augustus F. Hawkins.

Hon. Philip H. Hayes, .Hon. Elizabeth

Holtzman, Bon. Edward I. Koch, Hon. John .J. La. Fa.lce, Ron. Matthew F. McHugh, Ron. Andrew Maguire, Hon. Romano L. Ma.zzoliJ Bon. Pa.rren J . . Mitchell.

Hon. Henry J. Nowak, Hon. Ri~hard L. Ottinger, Hon. Jerry M. Patterson, .Bon. Edward W. Pattison, Han. Peter A. Peyser, Hon. Frederick W.Richmond, .Hon. Peter W. Rodino, Jr. Jr.

Hon. Benjamin S. Rosenthal, Hon. Gladys Noon Spellman, Hon. Paul E. Tsongas, Hon. Henry A. Waxman, Hon. James Weaver, Hon. Andrew Young.

Text of the resolution follows: H. J. REs. 877

Joint resolution designating April 8, 1976, as National Food Day

Whereas foods shortages have resulted in massive hunger and starvation in m&ny nations; 'S.nd

Whereas malnutrition is a fact of life for millions of Americans: particularly the poor a.nd the elderly; a.nd

Whereas inflation, shortages of fertilizer,

'adverse weather conditions, a.nd other factors have led to record high food prices in the United States; and

Whereas the diets of tens of millions of Americans lead to serious health problems; and ~ereas changes in agricultural practices

are threatening the survival of sman family farmers; and

Whereas a broad eoalition of citizen groups and concerned individuals have designated April 8, 1976, a national day of action to develop a. food policy aimed at assisting needy nations, reducing food prices, improving the quality of the American diet, and insuring the livelihood of the family farmer: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Aprtl B~ 1976, is designated as ''National Food. Day", and the President is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation to promote public involvement in developing a national policy guided by the needs of people, both in the United states and .&broad.

SENATE-Monday~ March 22, 1976 The Senate met at 12 o'clock meridian

and w.as called to order by Hon. HuGH ScoTT, a Senator from the State of Pennsylvania.

PB.AYER

The Chaplain, the Reverend Edward L. R. Elson, D.D., offered the following prayer:

Hear the wm·ds of the Apostle Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians:

Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, 1Je strong.-I Corinthians 16: 13.

0 Lord, our God. we thank Thee for men strong in the faith, who persevered through strain and pain, to reclaim their ancient rights and establish a republic under God. Help us to live in our age as they lived in theirs, to spend and be spent in service to others. Show us not the wa;y back to th-e life which once we knew, but lead us forward to the new life we never yet have known. Move us to a deeper faith in Thee, that guided by Thy wisdom and strengthened by Thy might, we may secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, and herald the coming of Thy kingdom.

Through Him who is Lord of Life. Amen.

APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to the Senate fr<>m the Pr€sident pro tempore (Mr. EASTLAND) •

The legislative clerk read the following letter:

U.S. SENATE, PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE,

Washingtcm, D.C., March 22, 1976. To the Senate:

Being temporarily absent from the Senate on official duties, I appoint Hon. HuGH ScoTT, a Senator from the State of Pennsylvania, to perform the duties of the Chair during my absence.

JAMES 0. EAsTLAND, President pro tempore.

Mr. HUGH SCOTT thereupon took the chair as Acting President pm tempore.

THE JOURNAL Mr. MMTSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the reading of the Journal of the proceedings of Thursday. March 18. 1976, be dispensed with.

The PRESIDlNG OFFICER ~Mr. CULVER) • Without objection. it is so ordered.

WAIVER OF CALL OF THE CALENDAR

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the call of the legislative calendar. under rule VIII, be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

COMMITTEE MEETINGS DURING SENATE SESSION

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that an committees may be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate today.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

EXECUTIVE SESSION Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the Senate go into executive session to consider nominations on the calendar beginning with the Civil Aeronautics Board.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of executive business.

CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD

The second assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of R. Tenney Johnson, of Maryland, to be a member of the Civil Aet·onautics .Board.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the nomination is considered and confirmed.

NATIONAL COUNCIL QN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

The second assistant legislative clerk proceeded to read sundry nominations in the National Council on Educational Research.

Mr. MANSF.IELD. Mr. Pxesident, l.ask unanimous consent that the nominations be considered en bloe.

The PRESIDlNG OFFICER. Without objection. the nominations ar~ considered and confirmed en bloc.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I Tequest that the President be notified of the confirmation of these nominations.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without obleetion, it is so ordered.

LEGISLATIVE SESSION

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. PI·esident, I move that the Senate resume the consideration of legislative business.

The motion was agreed to, and the Senate resumed the consideration of legislative business.

Wll-IDS OF CHANGE IN THAILAND Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, ac

cording to press reports the United States has baited operations at its remaining bases in Thailand and will pull out in 4 months liDless the Premier changes his mind after the April4 election.

The indications are that because of disagreement between the Thai Government and the U.S. negotiators withdrawal of 4,000 U.S. military personnel will be speeded up. As a result, electronic listening stations will close as well as an air base used to refuel U.S. planes -on long flights.

Only 250 U.S. advisers will stay on after July 20, if the 4 months is used up.

A bomb tossed amidst Thai demonstrators at the U.S. Embassy killed four and wounded a number of others.

Mr. President, it was my privil-ege and responsibility to make a trip to Southeast Asia last August. It was embodied

Documents

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS - GovInfo