SENATE-Tuesday, March 9, 1976 - GovInfo

5680 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

SENATE-Tuesday, March 9, 1976 March 9, 1976

The Senate met at 11 a..m. and was The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-called to order by Hon. GEORGE McGov- pore. Without objection, it is so ordered. ERN, a. Senator from the State of South Dakota.

PRAYER

The Chaplain, the Reverend Ed ward L. R. Elson, D.D., offered the following prayer:

Let us pray: O Lord, our God, create in us clean

hearts, and renew a right spirit within us, as we dedicate our lives to Thy service this day. Renew our confidence in the far off divine event toward which the course of man and nations moves. Keep us alert and expectant for that breakthrough in history, that Godly intervention, which will turn all men and all nations to live as children of Thy kingdom. Confirm our faith in the Lord of History through an 1u.1derstanding of the days of our own years, through companionship with great souls, through moments of quiet withdrawal, through constant communion with nature, with history, and with Thee. Help us so to live with Thee this day that at the end we may join the Psalmist in saying:

"O praise the Lord, all ye nations: praise Him, all ye people. For His merciful kindness is great toward us: and the truth of the Lord endureth for ever. Praise ye the Lord."-(Psalm 117). Amen.

APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to the Senate from the President pro tempore (Mr. EASTLAND).

The assistant legislative clerk read the following letter:

U .S. SENATE, PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE,

Washington, D.C., March 9, 1976. To the Senate:

Being temporarlly absent from the Senate on official duties, I appoint Hon. GEORGE Mc .. GOVERN, a Senator from the State of South Dakota, to perform the duties of the Chair during my absence.

JAMES 0. EASTLAND,

President pro tempore.

Mr. McGOVERN thereupon took the chair as Acting President pro tempore.

THE JOURNAL Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the reading of the Journal of the proceedings of Friday, March 5, 1976, be dispensed with.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

COMMITTEE MEETINGS DURING SENATE SESSION

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that all committees be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate t.oday.

CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN MEASURES ON THE CALENDAR Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the Senate turn to the consideration of calendar items Nos. 651, 652, and 653.


DISAPPROVAL OF DEFERRAL OF CERTAIN BUDGET AUTHORITY RELATING TO THE YOUTH CONSERVATION CORPS The resolution (S. Res. 385) disap

proving the deferral of certain budget authority relating to the Youth Conservation Corps, was considered and agreed to, as follows:

Besolvecl, That the Senate disapproves the proposed deferral of budget authority for the Youth Conservation Corps (numbered D 76-101).

DISAPPROVAL OF DEFERRAL OF CERTAIN BUDGET AUTHORITY RELATING TO INDIAN SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION The resolution (S. Res. 388) disapprov

ing the proposed deferral of budget authority for construction grants to public schools in Indian reservation areas, was considered and agreed to, as follows:

Besolvecl, That the Senate disapproves the proposed deferral of budget authority (deferral numbered D 76-103) for construction grants to public schools In Indian reservation areas set forth In the special message transmitted by the President to the Congress on February 6, 1976, under section 1013 of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

DISAPPROVAL OF DEFERRAL OF BUDGET AUTHORITY FOR INDIAN HEALTH FACILITIES

The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution (S. Res. 366) disapproving the proposed def err al of budget authority for Indian health facilities, which had been reported from the Committee on Appropriations with amendments as follows:

On llne 2, after "Deferral" Insert "D 76-39 and";

On line 4, after "on·• insert "July 26, 1975, and";

So as to make the resolution read: BesoZvecl. That the Senate disapproves the

proposed deferral of budget authority (Deferral D 76-39 and D 76-97) for Indla.n health facllltles set forth In the special message transmitted by the President to the Congress on July 26, 1975, and January 23, 1976, under section 1013 of the Impoundment Control Act ot 1974.

The amendments were agreed to. The resolution, as amended, was agreed

to.

S.1 Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, on

yesterday, the distinguished Republican

leader and I met with various members of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary and their staffs. The purpose was to follow up on the statement which we issued a few weeks ago, directed to all members of the Committee on the Judiciary, and to seek a way to break an impasse on S. 1, which has generated so much controversy from both the right and the left. This was done in our capacities as the Senate's leaders and, certainly, was intended in no way to infringe upon the responsibilities of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Furthermore, I could not speak as one with authority on substance, because I am not a lawYer. But I am interested in legislation and, on the basis of the commitment made that the joint ieadership would meet with the various members of the Committee on the Judiciary, that meeting was held in my office on yesterday afternoon.

When the meeting convened, I made the following statement:

GENTLEMEN: I asked to m~t with you on S. 1 to express my concern about the status of the matter.

First, I agree that there is need to bring revision to the Criminal Code, to provide more unliormlty, consistency, and logic to its complex and often confusing applications. In that sense, I am 1n full accord with the Brown Commission ·s study and recommendations.

I am interested in S. 1 as well because it contains two features which I consider of paramount importance to the Crlmlnal Code. One would provide a program to provide compensation to crime Victims-an endeavor which I have advocated for years, and which, if my memory serves me correctly, the Senate has passed on five different occasions, but the House has taken no action on.

Second, I am interested In those provisions which would stiffen penalties and Impose mandatory jail terms against gun criminals, those who not only commit crime but who resort to weapons of violence in perpetrating theil· offense.

The carrying of a gun in the commission of a crime, under my proposal, would be a separate offense. I repeat, a sentence imposed for this infraction of the law would not run concurrently but would be in addition to the sentence imposed for the crime. That bill, likewise, has passed this body once, at least. It has not been taken up in the House:

I, therefore, support a great deal of what is contained In S. 1-perhaps 90 percent of its contents. But there are provisions I cannot support and because of them I would vote agail1st the measure unless some substantial changes or deletions are made.

It was with that view in mind that I approached Senator Scott, the distinguished Republican leader, in mid February. Together we delineated some-let me repeat that word, some-of the provisions of the bill that are acutely sensitive, controversial or which we find particularly offensive. There are probably others.

In any case, it has become clear to both of us, I believe, that unless the various and diverse interests come together soon on these issues and on the question ot what to do about them., there 1s little or no hope for any measure of criminal law reform. Moreover, the House has not acted and probably Will not act unless there ls movement on thls side.

So what I suggest-and I think Senator

March 9, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 5681 Scott joins me in this-ls that this bill be rewritten to extract as much as possible ~at impairs its present form: that it be rewritten and introduced as a brand new Crlmlnal Code reform bill. If that ls possible, then I would hope the job can be done as soon as possible-this week perhaps. If not, then I think we might well consider the issue dead. For the longer these matters linger, then the longer the dissension and disaffection remain and neither frankly reflect well upon this in· stitution.

Gentlemen, I am not a member of the Committee. I have made my suggestions along with Senator Scott but I make no pretenses about what might be done substantively in all respects to achieve this objective. There are times, however, when we can agree on substance and, if no agreement is possible, then we can vote-up or downon these issues on which there is no accord. If we can go that far-to at least identify and act upon the issues involved in Criminal law reform-it will be a major achievement for the Senate.

The question as to what to do about S. 1-1! anything-reposes in the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. HUGH SCO'IT. Mr. President, will the distinguished majority leader yield?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes, indeed. Mr. HUGH SCOTT. Mr. President, I

simply rise to say that I am in general agreement with what the distinguished majority leader has said. Part of our purpose has been to advance and promote legislation. This bill has many f eatures which are objectionable to many of us, including myself, as I have said before in colloquy on this :floor.

I would like to see that part of the bill which consists of a simple recodification of existing law passed.

I would favor the two elements mentioned specifically by the distinguished majority leader, and I would favor other elements in the bill. I would not favor the very strict provisions which, in my opinion, impinge on the freedom of the press. There are other objectionable provisions.

I think the essential point to remember is that the staffs of the various Senators on the Judiciary Committee have been in touch with each other for a period of time in an effort to work out a markup of a bill.

We have suggested to them that they let us know within the next 2 weeks whether such a markup is possible. If it is, we should proceed with it. If it is not, I agree that the bill would have little chance in the other body in view of the delay in this body.

As to the use of my own time, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may transfer it to the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma <Mr. BARTLETT).


The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.

ECONOMIC AID TO AFRICAN NATIONS

Mr. BARTLE'IT. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished minority leader.

The distinguished Senator from California <Mr. TuNNEY> on Thursday of last week spoke 1n this Chamber in

favor of economic aid to Zambia and Mozambique.

First, let me make it clear that I disagreee completely with the apartheid policies of Rhodesia and South Africa, as well as the many internal policies of Russia and China which violate basic freedoms.

The distinguished Senator said that e~onomic aid is the right way to establish peace in Africa, to help avoid a racial war-a war that I believe might spread to South America and could strain racial harmony in the United States.

Marxist Samora Machel, President of Mozambique, has declared a state of war and closed the border with Rhodesia. There have been recent reports that indicate Cuban soldiers disambarking, Soviet ships arriving in the port of Beira, apparently with Soviet arms included in their cargoes, and that Soviet technicians are present in Mozambique. Mozambique has been a training area for guerrilla activity and its role as a staging area for active military incursions in Rhodesia will increase. President Machel's government is clearly abetting a racial holocaust in southern Africa and may be getting ready to throw on gasoline and apply a match.

Closing the Mozambique-Rhodesia border will strain the economy of Mozambique, and is critical to Rhodesia's economy as well.

Obviously, economic aid from the United States to Mozambique would aid its effort to mobilize for war by lightening the economic burdens and would be helpful t.o underpin its military capabilities.

Because the distinguished Senator says this proposed American economic aid would help bring peace to Africa, would he explain to the Senator from Oklahoma why he desires to help a Communist country such as Mozambique and why such economic aid would not better enable Mozambique, Russia, and Cuba to escalate a bitter war between the races in Rhodesia and Southern Africa?

Certainly, economic aid to Zambia, as well as neighboring Zaire, both moderate nations friendly to this country, is in order. Both countries have opposed Soviet and Cuban intervention in Angola and their aggression to implant blatantly the MPLA as the government of Angola.

The economies of Zambia and Zaire are seriously distressed. The price of copper, which represents 90 percent of Zambia's foreign exchange and 70 percent of Zaire's, is unusually low. In a<ldition, the MPLA in Angola, by controlling the Benguela railroad which transports the copper to the Atlantic port of Lobito, controls the life blood of both countries.

The passage of the Tunney amendment on December 19, 1975, which cut off military aid to the UNITA-FNLA forces, gave significant military advantage to MPLA's Soviet equipped Cuban Army, encouraged the South Africans on December 23, 1975, to disengage from the Cubans and on January 12, 1976, to withdraw to the area of the AngolaNamibia border, and signaled the end of the conventional war with the UNITA-

FNLA forces fighting for constitutional government, free elections, and basic freedoms.

My distinguished friend wants to fight military power in Africa with economic aid. I ask him why his amendment cutting off military aid to the UNITA-FNLA forces did not merely substitute economic aid for military aid t.o these forces, or would he have preferred giving economic aid to the MPLA? Does the Senator favor containing Russia and the Warsaw Pact nations with economic aid rather than NATO military forces?

Without ming American troops or civilians in Africa, we must remember the Teddy Roosevelt philosophy of "walk softly but carry a big stick"-and that the big stick he refe1Ted to was not economic aid.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.


Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, on behalf of the distinguished majority leader and myself, I a.sk that the two special orders allotted to us be vacated.


ROUTINE MORNING BUSINESS The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem

pore. Under the previous order, there will now be a period for the transaction of routine morning business for not to exceed 15 minutes with statements therein limited to 5 minutes.

QUORUM CALL

Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimousconsentthattheorderforthe quorum call be rescinded.


MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT Messages from the President of the

United States were communicated to the Senate by Mr. Roddy, one of his secretaries.

EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED As in executive session, the Acting

President pro tempore <Mr. McGOVERN) laid before the Senate messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry nominations which were ref erred to the appropriate committees.

<The nominations received t.oday are printed at the end of the Senate proceedings.)

5682 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE Ma1,·ch 9, 19.76

HOUSE BILL REFERRED PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL A message from the President of the

United States announced that he had approved and signed the following bill:

March 4, 1976: S. 2117. An act to amend section 5202 of

title 10, United States Code, relating to the det ail, pay, and succession t o dut ies of the Assistant Commandant of t he Marine Corps and to amend title 10 of the United States Code in order to make certain disability ret irement det erminations b y the Secretaries of the military department s subject t o review by the Secretary of Defense.

MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE At 11: 10 a.m., a message from the

House of Representatives announced that the House has passed the following bill in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate:

H .R. 12203. An act making appropriations for Foreign Assistance and related programs for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976, and the period ending September 30, 1976, and for other purposes.

ENROLLED BILL SIGNED

The message also announced that the Speaker has signed the following enrolled bill:

S. 2017. An act to amend the Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972, and for other purposes.

The enrolled bill was subsequently signed by the Acting President pro temPore (Mr. McGOVERN).

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED

At 2: 15 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives announced that the Speaker has signed the following enrolled bills:

H.R. 4979. An a.ct to establish the Chickasaw National Recreation Area in the State of Oklahoma, and for other purposes.

H.R. 8508. An a.ct to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to release restrictions on the use of certain property conveyed to the city of Camden, Ark., for airport purposes.

H.R. 11700. An act relating to the application of certain provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to specified transactions by certain public employee retirement systems created by the State of New York or any of its political subdivisions.

The enroiled bills were subsequently signed by the Acting President pro tempore (Mr. METCALF).

COMMUNICATIONS FROM EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS, ETC.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore <Mr. McGOVERN) laid before the Senate the following letters, which were 1·eferred as indicated: AMENDMENT TO BUDGET REQUEST FOR FOREIGN

AsSISTANCE-S. Doc. No. 94-160 A communication from the President of

the United States transmitting proposed amendments to the request for appropriations for the fiscal year 1976 for foreign assistance in the amount of $25,000,000 (with accompanying papers) ; to the Committee on Appropriations, and ordered to be printed.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES The following reports of committees

were submitted:

By Mr. LONG, from the Committee on Finance, without amendment:

H .R. 11893. An a.ct to increase the temporary debt ltmit, and for other purposes (Rept. No. 94-687) .

EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

As in executive session, the following executive reports of committees were submitted:

By Mr. THURMOND, f r om t h e Committee on Armed Services:

Francis Hughes, of South Carolina, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Air Force.

(The above nomination was reported with the recommendation that it be confirmed, subject to the nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate.)

By Mr. NUNN, from the Commit tee on Armed Services:

J ames Gordon Knapp, of California, to be an Assis tant Secretary of the Air Force.

(The above nomination was reported with the recommendation that it be confirmed, subject to the nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate.>

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, as in executive session, from the Committee on Armed Services, I report favorably the nomination of William Holmes Cook, to be a judge of the U.S. Court of Military Appeals. There are 36 captains in the Navy for temporary promotion to the grade of rear admiral Oist beginning with Robert W. Watkins> and Brig. Gen. Allan T. Wood in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve, to be major general and 8 in the Navy for temporary appointment to the grade of rear admiral Oist beginning with Almon C. Wilson> and in the Reserve of the Air Force, there are 6 temporary appointments to major general and 12 temporary appointments to brigadier general (list beginning with Michael Collins) . I ask that these names be placed on the executive calendar.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro temPore (Mr. McGovERN) . Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. NUNN. In addition, there are 34 in the Air National Guard in the Reserve of the Air Force, to the grade of lieutenant colonel and 94 in the Regular Army to the grade of major and below. Since these names have already appeared in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD and to save the expense of printing again, I ask unanimous consent that they be ordered to lie on the Secretary's desk for the information of any Senator.


<The nominations ordered to lie on the Secretary's desk were printed in the RECORD of February 18, 1976, at the end of the Senate proceedings.)

ENROLLED BILL PRESENTED The Secretary of the Senate reported

that today, March 8, 1976, he presented to the President of the United States the enrolled bill (S. 2017) to amend the Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972, and for other purposes.

The following bill was read twice by its title and ref erred to the Committee on Appropriations:

H.R. 12203. An act m ak in g appropriations for Foreign Assistance and related progr ams for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976, and the period ending September 30, 1976, and for other purposes.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the first time and, by unanimous consent, the second time, and referred as indicated:

By Mr. CURTIS: S . 3092. A bill to amend the Social Security

Act and the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to increase FICA and self-employment taxes; and to amend the Social Security Act to revise the retroactive payments and retirement test provisions, and phase out student benefits under the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program. Referred to t he Committee on Finance.

By Mr. BUCKLEY: S. 3093. A blll to require that major replace

ment projects proposed by the Army Corps of Engineers be submitted to Congress for approval. Referred to the Committee on Public Works.

By Mr. PEARSON: S. 3094. A bill to provide financial assist

ance to encourage small-business concerns to implement energy conservation measures. Referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.

By Mr. PASTORE: S. 3095. A bill to increase the protection of

consumers by reducing permissible deviations in the manufacture of articles made in whole or in part of gold. Referred to the Committee on Commerce.

By Mr. MATHIAS: S. 3096. A bill for the relief of Dalia Cuero.

Rei erred to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. HOLLINGS:

S. 3097. A bill for the relief of Loretta. Sloan. Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. WEICKER (for himself and Mr. JAVITS) ;

S . 3098. A bill to amend the Community Services Act of 1974 to increase the Federal share of financial assistance to community action agencies. Referred to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.

By Mr. CHILES (for himself and Mr. STONE):

S. 3099. A bill to designate certain lands in the J. N. "Ding" Darling National Wildlife Refuge, Lee County, Fla., as wilderness. Referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

By Mr. MATHIAS (for himself, Mr. PELL, and Mr. JAVITS):

S . 3100. A bill to establish an American Constitut ion Bicentennial Foundation. Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. SPARKMAN (by request): S . 3101. A bill to provide for increased

participation by the United States in t he International Finance Corporation, and for other purposes. Referred to the Commit tee on Foreign Relations.

By Mr. SPARKMAN (by request): S. 3102. A bill to amend the Board for In

ternational Broadcasting Act of 1973 and to authorize appropriations for fl.seal years 1977 and 1978 for carrying out that act. Referred t o the Committee on Foreign Relations. . By Mr. SPARKMAN (by request ) :

S. 3103. A bill to provide for increased participat ion by the United States in the Asian Development Fund. Referred to t he Committee on Foreign Relat ions.

March 9, 197.6 CONGRESSIONAL .RECORD- SENATE 5683 By Mr. CHILES (for himself and Mr.

STONE): S. 3104. A bill to designate as wilderness

certain lands within the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge, Florida. Referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

By Mr. PASTORE (for himself and Mr. JACKSON) (by request) :

S. 3105. A bill to authorize appropriations to the Energy Research and Development Administration in accordance with section 261 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, section 305 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, and section 16 of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research a.nd Development Act of 1974, and for other purposes. Referred, by unanimous consent, to the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy; and if and when reported by that committee, to the Committee on Interior a.nd Insular Affairs.

By Mr. CASE (for himsel!, Mr. JAVITS, Mr. BUCKLEY, Mr. SCHWEIKER, Mr. ROTH, and Mr. BmEN) :

S. 3106. A bill to terminate the authorization for the Tocks Island Reservoir Project as part of the Dela.ware River Basin project, and for other purposes. Referred Jointly, by unanimous consent, to the Committees on Public Works and Interior and Insular Affairs.

By Mr. PASTORE (for himsell and Mr. BAKER) (by request):

S. 3107. A bill to authorize appropriations to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in accordance with section 261 of the Atomic En· ergy Act of 1954, as amended, and section 305 of the Energy Reorga.nlzation Act of 1974, as amended, and for other purposes. Referred to the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy.

By Mr. PASTORE (for himself and Mr. BAKER) (by request):

S. 3108. A bill to amend Public La.w 94-187 to increase the authorization for appropria· tions to the Energy Research and Development Administration in accordance with .section 261 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, section 305 of the Energy Re· organization Act of 1974, and section 16 of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974, and for other purposes.

By Mr. HANSEN (by request): S. 3109. A bill to terminate the authority

for the pursuit of flight training programs by veterans and for the pursuit of correspondence training programs by veterans, wives, and widows, and for other purposes. Referred to the Committee. on Veterans' Affairs.

By Mr. METCALF: S. 3110. A bill to provide for public dis·

closure of lobbying activities to infiuence decisions in the Congress and the executive branch, and for other purposes. Referred to the Committee on Government Operations.

By Mr. JAVITS (for himself, Mr. HUMPHREY, and Mr. MATHIAS):

S. 3111. A bill to reorganize activities of the executive branch of the Government which are supportive of technological development, to centralize funding for energy and natural resources in a National Technology Development Corporation, and for other purposes. Refe1Ted to the Committee on Government Operations.

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. CURTIS: S. 3092. A bill to amend the Social Se

curity Act and the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to increase FICA and selfemployment taxes; and to amend the Social Security Act to revise the retroactive payments and retirement test provisions, and phase out student benefits under the old-age, survivors, and disabil-

ity insurance program. Referred to the Committee on Finance.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I am today introducing legislation which embodies President Ford's proposals to assure the :financial integrity of the social security system.

We have heard many reports over the past several months of the financial crisis confronting social security. Unfortunately, some of these reports have been misleading, causing unnecessary apprehension among retirees and workers alike by leading them to believe that collapse of the social security system is imminent.

While bankruptcy of the system is not imminent, the fact still remains that the social security system faces some serious financial problems. The system is now paying more in benefits than it receives in tax revenues, a situation which will continue into the future. Moreover, without remedial legislation, trust fund reserves would, under present estimates, be depleted in the early 1980's. These problems are severe enough in and of themselves, 1\t!r. President, but they are made even more serious by the erosion which they cause in the public's confidence in the social security system. To assure the public that the integrity of the social security system will remain intact, Congress must act promptly to correct the shortfall of revenues into the system.

For these reasons, I am introducing today legislation containing the measures proposed by President Ford in his 1977 budget. This bill, if enacted, will insure the :financial integrity of the social security trust funds by increasing the payroll tax rate, effective in 1977, by three-tenths of 1 percent each for employees and employers. These additional revenues will not cost any worker more than $1 a week, and most will pay less. This bill would also raise the tax on selfemployment income by nine-tenths of 1 percent, thereby ·returning the self-employment tax rate to the level of 1 % times the tax rate on employees, where it had been from the time the self-employed were originally covered in 19'51 until 1973, when the self-employment tax rate hit its present ceiling of 7 percent.

These tax increases will have, I am informed, the effe:;t of raising $4.4 billion in additional revenue in 1977. This additional revenue is estimated to be more than enough to offset the anticipated revenue shortfall for 1977, under present law, of $4.1 billion. It would also insure the fiscal health of the trust funds through the immediately foreseeable future by raising the ratio of trust fund reserves to 1 year's outgo to 40 percent by the end of 1981.

This bill would also alter the allocation of revenues to the disability insurance trust fund, which, under present law, would be exhausted sooner than the old-age and survivors insurance trust fund. To bolster the disability insurance trust fund, this bill would allocate 0.25 percent, from the 0.6 percent increase in OASDI-tax rates, to the disability insurance trust fund. This change will permit the disability insurance trust fund to be maintained at a level of about 40

to 45 percent of outgo over the next 5 years.

This bill also provides for three changes in social security benefits. The first of these, which was recommended by the 1971 Advisory Council on Social Security. would prohibit entitlement to retroactive benefits if future monthly benefits would be permanently reduced. Under present law, a person may elect to receive benefits for up to 12 months prior to the month he files an application provided all conditions of entitlement are met. If, as of the retroactive application date elected by the applicant, he was between the ages of 62 and 65, his monthly benefits will be actuarially reduced. This feature of present law would be eliminated.

The second benefit change made by this bill was recommended by the 1975 Advisory Council. It would provide that, except for the first year in which a cash benefit is paid, the monthly measure under the retirement test be eliminated. Under present law, while $1 in benefits is withheld for each $2 in annual earnings above the exempt amount-$2, 760 this year-a beneficiary, regardless of his yearly earnings, receives full benefits for any month in which he does not earn in excess of the monthly exempt amount$230. Under this proposal, the test would be strictly on an annual basis. Under the present test, with annual and monthly measures, benefits are paid in some situations where payment is difficult to justify. For example, a beneficiary who earns, say $20,000, spread evenly throughout the year, has all of his benefits withheld. A beneficiary who earns the same total amount in, say 8 months, can receive full benefits for the other 4 months. The 1975 Advisory Council found this to be an inequitable situation that should be corrected.

The final benefit change in this bill would eliminate benefits for students aged 18--22 who attend school full time. Under this provision, such benefits would be phased out over a 4-year period. The gradual phaseout is designed to insure that persons now receiving benefits as full-time students will not have their benefits terminated. Students' benefits were first provided in 1965, the presumption that an individual who was a fulltime student remained dependent in the same way he or she had been prior to attaining age 18. Regardless of the merits of that p:·esumption, it is obvious that the student's benefit is, for all practical purposes, an educational benefit. This being the case, and in light of the emergence of other public programs of aid to students, it seems questionable to continue the benefit under social security rather than to meet the need, for example, through the basic opportunity grants program and other student aid programs, that is, the guaranteed student loan and work study programs administered by the Office of Education. Neither the basic opportunity grants program nor the guaranteed student loan program existed in 1965.

Mr. President, the President's social security proposals deserve serious consideration. They are designed to insure the

5684 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE JV/arch 9, 1976 financial integrity of the social security system for the next decade, and thus would give the Congress time to work out solutions to the larger problems of the long-range deficits facing the program. I urge both the Finance Committee and the Senate to act expeditiously on this bill.

By Mr. BUCKLEY: s. 3093. A bill to require that major

replacement projects proposed by the Army Corps of Engineers be submitted to Congress for approval. Ref erred to the Committee on Public Works.

Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, I am today introducing legislation to clarify a law written in the first decade of this century. In 1909, the Congress amended a previous law, permitting the Chief of Army Engineers to reconstruct navigation projects when "reconstruction is absolutely essential'' to the efficient and economical operation of the project, provided that the "reconstructed work conform to similar works previously authorized."

That language is quite clear. It requires that the replacement works must "conform" to the existing project in size, purpose, and locale. If it does not, the replacement work must be considered a new project for congressional authorization. Thus the corps can repair or replace in kind, but it must obtain congressional authorization for major shifts in scope or purpose of a project.

Unfortunately, the dividing line has become fuzzy. In the past several decades the Corps of Engineers has spent $1.7 'billion to replace or rehabilitate 16 locks and dams on the inland waterways of this Nation. An additional eight projects are presenlty being reconstructed, while four are being designed, and 11 are under study.

But under this authority, the corps has done much more than replace in kind. It has used this authority in replacing 46 locks and dams on the Ohio River with 19 larger locks and dams. And it is this law that the corps has used to justify its controversial plan to replace locks and dam 26 at Alton, Ill., with a new structure downriver.

The purpose of my bill is not to debate the merits of replacing locks and dam 26. The Secretary of the Army has promised that the Army will not proceed with reconstruction of locks and dam 26 until this issue is clarified by Congress, possibly through the passage of legislation such as S. 1825. Rather, my bill would clarify the reconstruction authority. It is intended t-0 prevent confusion, delays, and litigation over future project work by requiring that major reconstruction programs be submitted to the Congress for authorization prior to appropriation.

Phrased another way, this legislation would assure that the 1909 act is used for its intended purpose: Maintenance, no major expansion. In my view, the Congress should specifically authorize signif-icant replacement and expansion works. Fer that reason, the language of the bill directs the corps to report to the Congress on any plan for major replacement. Congress could then specifically consider and authorize the replacement.

Let me briefly review the case of locks and dam 26 as an example of how the existing process became confused and ultimately failed. The present locks and dam were completed in 1938. They lie at a strategic location: just north is the Illinois River, carrying traffic off the Mississippi toward Chicago; just to the south lies the confluence of the Missouri River with the Mississippi; and on beyond is St. Louis, the Ohio River, and lower Mississippi. Members of the Senate staff who visited the present lock and dam last year report that a strong case can be made for replacement and reconstruction, because of the deterioration of existing locks, and because of their rerestricted length.

To meet the problem of lock deterioration and increased river traffic, the corps under the 1909 authority, designed a replacement dam and locks that would cost about $400 million. The new locks would significantly increase the capacity of the existing locks and be located 2 miles downstream of the existing locks. Design and construction work on the replacement dam was funded through various public works appropriations bills; the replacement was never authorized separately by the Congress.

Frankly, Mr. President, I believe that this and other pending "replacement" projects are too important to be considered outside the context of a national waterways and transportation program. I believe that they should and must be evaluated through the conventional authorization process.

The Senate Subcommittee on Water Resources has conducted oversight hearings on the corps' navigation program. I am confident that this bill will add to the discussions in a positive and useful way as the subcommittee begins to consider legislative alternatives.

This bill is not offered in criticism of the Army Corps of Engineers. I have the highest regard for their professionalism, competence, and integrity. But because of this competence and expertise, the Congress too often has found it convenient to let the corps go its own way, knowing that the corpg would come back with a job professionally done. While I agree that flexibility is reasonable and desirable in many cases, I do not believe it is wise when it comes to projects that may cost $400 million or more.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and also the 1909 legislation be printed at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the bill and material were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

s. 3093 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that Section 4 of the Act of July 6, 1884 (23 Stat. 147 (as amended (33 U.S.C. 6) is hereby amended to read as follows:

"SEc. 4. The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is authorized to operate, maintain, and keep in repair any project for the benefit of navigation belonging to the United States or that may be hereafter acquired or constructed: Provided., That whenever, in the judgment of the Secretary of the Army, the condition o! any

of the aforesaid works is such that its reconstruction is essential to efficient and economical maintenance and operation, as herein provided for, and if the cost thereof shall be at least $4,000,000, the plan for modification, including any change in scope or location necessary to provide adequate facilities for existing and future navigation, shall be submitted to the Congress for approval prior to any work on such reconstruction: Provided. further, That nothing herein contained shall be held to apply to the Panama Canal."

"THE 1909 Acr'' Szc. 6. That section four of the river and

harbor Act approved July fifth, eighteen hundred and eighy-four, be, and is hereby, amended and reenacted so as io read as follows:

"SEC. 4. That no tolls or operating charges whatever shall be levied upon or collected from any vessel, dredge, or other water craft for passing through any lock, canal, canalized river, or other work for the use and benefit of navigation, now belonging to the United States or that may be hereafter acquired or constructed; and for the purpose of preserving and continuing the use and navigation of said canals and other public works without interruption, the Secretary of War, upon the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, is hereby authorized to draw his wal'rant or requisition, from time to time, upon the Secretary of the Treasury to pay the actual expenses of

_ operating, maintaining, and keeping said works in repair, which warrants or requisitions shall be paid by the Secretary of the Treasury out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated: Provided, That whenever, in the judgment of the Secretary of War, the condition of any of the aforesaid works is such that its entire reconstruction is absolutely essential to its efficient and economical maintenance and operation as herein provided for, the reconstruction thereof may include such modifications in plan and location as may be necessary to provide adequate faclllties for existing navigation: Provided further, That the modifications are necessary to make the reconstructed work conform to similar works previously authorized by Congress and forming a part of the same improvement, and that such modifications shall be considered and approved by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors and be recommended by the Chief of Engineers before the work of reconstruction is commenced: Provided further, also, That an itemized statement of said expenses shall accompany the annual report of the Chief of Engineers: And, provided further, That nothing herein contained shall be held to apply to the Panama Canal."

By Mr. PEARSON: S. 3094. A bill to provide financial as

sistance to encourage small-business concerns to implement energy conservation measures. Ref erred to the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.

Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Small-Business Concern Conservation Act of 1976, a bill to minimize the use of energy in the offices, commercial buildings, and industrial plants of small businesses.

In our present economy, many smallbusiness concerns are unable to acquire the capital necessary for the implementation of cost effective energy conservation measures, including a shift from nonrenewable to renewable sources of energy such as solar energy. Yet, it remains vitally important to us, as a nation, that we reduce energy consumption. For, to

March 9, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 5685

do so reduces the drain on our dwindling supply of domestic energy, redIL~es our dependency on uncertain foreign resources, and reduces the impact of high energy costs on the economy.

A significant energy conservation effort need not disrupt our society. Americans can cut their energy use in half without lowering their standard of living according to an FEA-:financed study by the World Watch Institute. In fact, it is estimated that one-third of the total use of energy in the United States is simply wasted.

The Congress has already enacted a number of important energy conservation measures; others are pending. But there are still obstacles to overcome, such as the one to which my bill speaks. We need to provide easier access to the frontend capital required by small businesses to implement energy saving programs. Permanent improvements, such as insulation, storm windows, solar energy equipment, revamped ventilation systems, heat pumps, and heat exchanges can result in immediate energy savings.

FEA Administrator, Frank Zarb, has indicated in testimony before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Joint Economic Committee that--

over $200 billion will be required for energy conserving investments over the next ten years.

A significant amount of this investment must come within the small business community. We are not seeking investments of this magnitude, because normal market forces are not adequate to encourage it. Despite the fact that energy conservation measures are costeffective, many lending institutions are hesitant to provide the needed capital for :financing conservation improvements.

Thus, there is an important role for the U.S. Government to play in helping make this capital a vaila-ble. This is consistent with the long-standing Federal Government tradition of providing a hospitable climate for the small businessmen.

This important sector of our economy constitutes 97 percent of all U.S. businesses, accounts for over one-half of all private employment, 43 percent of business output, and one-third of the gross national product. Small businesses produce more than one-half of the major inventions and innovations in the economy.

In short, the small businesses of America are among our most important and most responsible citizens. They stand ready to join in this national energy conservation effort. But they need the encouragement provided in this bill.

The Small Business Administration currently provides loans to the Nation's 13 million small businesses for a variety of purposes. My bill would authorize SBA loans to small business concerns to assist them in undertaking energy conservation measures. An energy conservation measures loan fund would be created within the SBA from which small businesses could borrow up to 75 percent or $25,000, whichever is less, of the cost of implementing conservation improvements.

It is my hope that the Senate will move expeditiously on this _proposal.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:


Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Small-Business Concern Energy Conservation Act of 1976."

FINDING AND PURPOSE

SEC. 2. (a) The Congress finds and declares that--

( 1) a program to alleviate the shortage of capital to :finance the implementation of energy conservation measures, including a shift from nonrenewable to renewable sources of energy such as solar energy, by small-business concerns is needed to strengthen current energy conservation efforts;

(2) a program to provide financial assistance to small-business concerns which do not presently have sufficient access to capital to implement economical energy conservation measures can result in a significant savings of energy and help reduce the impact of high energy costs;

(3) a program to implement energy conservation measures in existing commercial buildings and industrial plants of smallbusiness concerns will help to increase national economic output and create jobs;

(4) a program to implement energy conservation measures will cause less damage to the environment than programs to provide additional energy in an amount equivalent to the energy that would thus be saved; and

(5) a program to implement energy conservation measures Will contribute to the national security by reducing the volume of petroleum. imports that would otherwise be required and thus reducing the political and economic vulnerability of the United States

(b) It is the purpose of this Act to establish a program of incentives and financial assistance to encourage widespread implementation of energy conservation measures among small-business concerns.

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

SEC. 3. Section 7 of the Small Business Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

"(l) (1) In addition to its other functions under this Act, the Administration is authorized to make loans as provided in this subsection to small-business concerns to assist them in undertaking energy conservation measures.

"(2) A loan made under this subsection with respect to any commercial building or industrial plant shall-

" (A) be in an amount not exceeding the lesser of $25,000 or 75 percent of the cost of purchasing and installing the equipment necessary to effectuate such energy conservation measure, including the cost of any necessary modifications in the structure itself, taking into the account the climatic, meteorological, and related conditions prevailing in the region where the structure is located;

"(B) bear interest at a rate equal to the average market yield ( computed as of the end of the calendar month preceding the month in which the loan is made) on all marketable interest-bearing obligations of the United States then forming a part of the public debt (with such average yield, if not a muliple of one-eighth of one per centum, being adjusted to the nearest such multiple), plus one-half of one per centum for administrative costs;

"(C) have a maturity not exceeding 15 years: and

"(D) be subject to ·such additional terms, conditions, and provisions as the Administrator may impose in order - to assure that the purpose of this subsection is effectively carried out.

"(3) (A) Each application for a loan under this subsection shall be accompanied by detailed plans for the purchase and installation of the proposed equipment and an estimate of the costs involved.

"(B) No such application shall be approved unless the Administrator finds that the proposed equipment is suitable and appropriate and will be effective, that the cost will not be excessive, and that the purchase and installation of the equipment will not involve elaborate or extravagant design or materials.

" ( 4) As used in this Act, the term 'energy conservation measure' means a measure undertaken to permanently modify an existing commercial building or industrial plant, (A) the primary purpose of which is to reduce the amount of energy used in such a building or plant, and/or allow a shift from a non-renewable to a renewable source of energy such as solar energy, and (B) which is likely to result in energy and operating cost savings that will allow recovery of the cost of implementing such a measure within the useful life (not to exceed 15 years) of any permanent facilities installed pursuant to the implementation of such measure."

LOAN FUND

SEC. 4. (a) Section 4(c) (1) of the Small Business Act is amended by striking out "and" immediately before "(B)", and by inserting before the period at the end thereof the following: "; and (C) an energy conservation measw·es loan fund which shall be available for financing functions performed under section 7(1) of this Act, including administrative expenses in connection with such functions".

(b} Section 4(c) (2) of such Act is amended by striking out "and" immediately before " ( B) ", and by inserting before the period at the end thereof the following: "; and (C) pursuant to section 7(1) of this Act, shall be paid into the energy conservation measures loan fund".

( c) Section 4 ( c) ( 4) of such Act is amended by striking out "and" immediately before "(D) ", and by inserting before the period at the end thereof the following: "; and (E) under section 7(1) of this Act, shall not exceed $300,000,000".

EFFECTIVE DATE SEC. 5. (a) The authority of the Small

Business Administration to make loans under section 7(1) of the Small Business Act ( as added by section 3 of this Act) shall become effective 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall expire 10 years after such date.

(b) Prior to the date on which its authority to make loans under section 7 (1) of the Small Business Act becomes effective under subsection (a) of this section, the Small Business Administration shall promulgate and publish the regulations necessary to carry out its functions under such section 7(1).

By Mr. PASTORE: S. 3095. A bill to increase the protec

tion of consumers by reducing perznissible deviations in the manufacture of articles made in whole or in part of gold. Referred to the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I send to the desk a bill to amend the National Gold and Silver Marking Act, 34 Stat. 26, as amended by 75 Stat,, 775, and amended by 84 Stat. 690, 15 U.S.C. 294, et seq., to

5686 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March D, 19, 6 eliminate current tolerances permitted for manufactured gold articles in the current one-half karat without solder and one full karat with solder to a realistic tolerance of three parts per thousand.

When the standards were first set shortly after the turn of the century, the industry did not possess the technical capability to meet exact measurements. The result was that a tolerance of one karat was permitted in the manufacture of gold items, except, in the case of watchcases and flatware, the tolerance permitted was three parts per thousand.

Now what does this mean in layman's language? Let me explain it this way.

Since there are only three recognized qualities in the United States; namely, the lOK, 14K, and 18K, all of these from the standpoint of actual gold content need only have 9K, 13K. and 17K if solder is involved, or 9 %K, 13 1~K. and 17 %K if made without solder.

This legislation will allow items of this quality gold to be manufactured as long as they are marked exactly as to its gold karat content with the maximum allowance of a tolerance of three parts per thousand.

This legislation is necessary in order to open European and Canadian markets. American products have not enjoyed these markets, because they do not meet the plumb qualities which are standards in those foreign countries. The increased value of the American dollar abroad, the rising labor costs in foreign countries, and the enactment of this bill together make these foreign markets reachable by the American jewelry industry.

Failure to act favorably on this bill will also make foreign products more attractive to the American consumer since imports of karat gold are full quality.

This bill has the firm support of Manufacturing Jewelers & Silversmiths of America, Inc., Jewelers Vigilance Committee, Inc., and Retail Jewelers of America, Inc.

This proposal is in the best interests of the industry and the consumer. The jewelry industry, which initially sought a Marking Act in 1906, believed to be the first in a long line of consumer protection statutes, should be commended for its support of this bill, and the Congress should, in turn, act expeditiously to enact this bill into law.

TIME PERIOD

In order to fully allow the transition to gold which will be manufactured within this new tolerance of three parts per thousand, the bill permits a 5-year changeover period. During this period manufacturers will be permitted to sell off their existing inventory.

This transition period is reasonable and will allow manufacturers who have inventory, parts, :findings, and sample lines which have been manufactw·ed and upon which large labor costs have been expended to sell these items.

It is hoped that those manufacturers who are able will stop alloying articles of merchandise made in whole or in part of gold with old tolerances before the 5-year period is over.

Also wholesalers and retailers will be

permitted to sell merchandise with old as well as new tolerances in order to a void consumer confusion.

Mr. President, in the best interest of the American consumer who has the right to know exactly what he or she is buying, I respectfully request that this bill be acted on expeditiously by the Congress.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the RECORD.


s. 3095 Be it enacted by the Senate and House

of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 2 of the Act entitled "An Act forbidding the importation, exportation, or carriage in interstate commerce of falsely or spuriously stamped articles of merchandise made of gold or silver or their alloys, and for other purposes", approved June 13, 1906, (34 Stat. 260; 15 U.S.C. 295) is amended--

(!) by striking out "That in" and inserting in lieu thereof

"(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), in"; and

(2) by adding at the end thereof the fol· lowing new subsection:

"(b) In the case of articles of merchandise made in whole or in part of gold or of any of its alloys which are sold by manufacturers or importers more than five years after the date of the enactment of this subsection and are so imported into or exported from the United States, or so deposited in the United States mails for transmission, or so delivered for transportation to any common carrier, or so transported or caused to be transported as specified in the preceding section, the actual fineness of such gold or alloy shall not be less by more than three one-thousandths parts than the fineness indicated by the mark stamped, branded, engraved, or printed upon such article, or upon any tag, card, or label attached thereto, or upon any box, package, cover, or wrapper in which such article is incased or enclosed, including all assaying deviations and all solder and alloy of inferior fineness used for brazing or uniting the parts of such article (all such gold, alloys, and solder being assayed as one piece) .".

By Mr. WEICKER (for himseif and Mr. JAVITS):

S. 3098. A bill to amend the Community Services Act of 1974 to increase the Federal share of financial assistance to community action agencies. Referred to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.

Mr. WEICKER. Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with Senator JAVITS, legislation to restore the Federal matching share for community action programs to 80 percent. This bill is identical to H.R. 8578, which passed the House of Representatives on November 19, 1975, by a Yote of 244 to 172.

In January 1975, the Congress passed the Community Services Act of 1974 which, among other things, provided for a reduction in the percentage of Federal financial assistance for the Nation's 889 local community action agencies.

Under the provisions of this act, the percentage of Federal :financial assistance would decline from 80 percent in fiscal year 1975 to 70 percent in fiscal year 1976, to 60 percent in fiscal year 1977. For community action projects funded at $300,000 or less, the Federal share would be 75 percent in fiscal year

1976 and 70 percent for fiscal year 1977. This funding formula was a compro

mise reached by House-Senate conferees last year. It is important to note that the original Senate position kept the 80-20 match for all 3 years. The legislation I have introduced today would seek to reestablish the Senate's previous stance on this matter.

In outlining the reasons for the reduced Federal share, the House committee report on H.R. 8575 stated:

The rationale behind these reduct.ions is based on the assumption that State and local governments would be able to meet these increased demands in order to maintain community action programs at the current level. There was a hope that the economy would improve and that local governments would find themselves in an improved financial situation. Unfortunately, this hope failed to materialize.

In:;tead, State and local governments are facing extreme :financial difficulties. In these tough economic times, community action agencies become vital centers for helping people make ends meet. Unless -.:.'e restructure the matching requirement, ess,mtial services to the poor and disad- antaged will be lost. Some community action agencies may be forced to close their door or lay off personnel. CAA's administer a wide range of social services programs at the local level, including Head Start, child nutrition, summer recreation, job training and health clinics.

.Mr. President, I do not believe that this is the time to place an additional burden on these agencies. Unless Congress acts, increased hardships will be placed on the poor.

During the month of February 1976, a second national survey by CAA's was conducted by the National Center for Community Action. The written survey intended to measure both the present experience of CAA's in fiscal year 1976 in attempting to raise local or State nonFederal and to determine the ability of CAA 's to respond to the reduction in the fiscal year 1977 Federal investment as well as the percentage increase in the non-Federal sha-re in fiscal year 1977.

A full 84 percent of those CAA's whose programs are funded at an approved cost of more than $300,000 will be unable to meet the requirements, while 77 percent of those whose programs are funded at an approved cost of less than $300,000 will be unable to meet them.

In testimony supplied by the Communi·ty Service Administration, on February 10, 1976, before the House Appropriations Subcommittee, it stated:

Economic conditions on the local and state level have gotten worse ~ince the passage of the Act (requiring a de~rease in federal assistance to CAAs) and that there is an unavailability of local non-federal funds and resources ... Since state and local governments cannot supply the proportionate nonfederal matching share, it is most probable that at least one of every five CAA jobs would be lost, amounting to approximately 10,000 jobs.

It will require that the Federal funding for fiscal year 1977 be maintained at $330 million. The President's budget request for the next fiscal year is $260 million-a reduction of $70 million. Thus, the CAA's are facing a cruel one-two

March 9, 197'6 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 5687 punch-an increase in the local share and a decrease in Federal assistance.

The legislation we have introduced today will restore the Federal/local relationship that has existed since 1967. It will allow CAA's to continue to effectively administer socially beneficial programs. I urge my colleagues to follow the House's lead and enact this remedial legislation.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, today I join with Senator WEICK.ER in introducing a bill to amend the Community Services Act of 1974 to increase the Federal share of financial assistance to community action agencies. As ranking member of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, I have been involved with the Community Services Administration since its inception, as the Office of Economic Opportunity.

The community action agencies have played the integral role in identifying the economically disadvantaged and representing the interests of low income groups. The objective to provide access and opportunity for people to take control and make the decisions that affect their lives still remains the cornerstone of community aotion agencies. CAA programs are unique in their focus on the needs and problems of low income people. They provide a :flexible mechanism for dealing with the problems of the poor because their programs are locally determined and controlled. A good number of services which would otherwise be unavailable are provided, such as health, day care, and advice on insulating homes for winter, as part of a national conservation of energy and winterization program.

The Community Services Act of 1974-Public Law 93-644-was passed in January 1975. It called for a reduction in the percentage of Federal financial assistance for the Nation's 889 community action agencies. The original matching share was 90 percent for Federal matching funds in 1964 and remained at that level until 1967, when it was reduced to 80 percent. Under current law it has been reduced to 70 percent in fiscal year 1976 and 60 percent in fiscal year 1977, for all programs receiving more than $300,000. For those funded at an approved cost of less than $300,000, the share is reduced to 75 percent in fiscal year 1976 and 70 percent in fiscal year 1977.

The rationale of last year i,;; no longer operative. Present fiscal constraints on local and county governments could not be foreseen last year. The reverse in the economy have taken its toll, causing a loss of revenues to cities and counties and a commensurate cut back of services. Their ability to contribute a matching local share has been severely curtailed.

A recently completed survey undertaken by the National Center for Community Action has concluded that 79 percent-690 CAA's out of 889-will be unable to meet the requirements of the increase in the non-Federal share on fiscal year 1977. Neither State or local governments are in :financial positions to support the local CAA's in providing increases of present local matching funds. The study shows there will be a reduction of 10,000 jobs if the non-

Federal share is increased, and if the fiscal year 1977 budget request for $260 million is appropriated-as compared to the $300 million in fiscal year 1976.

The dual pressures on CAA's will cause increased hardships on the agencies, and a reduction in services they perform. The burden of a reduction in the funding level recommended by the administration budget request for :fiscal year 1977, is compounded by the burden to increase the proportionate non-Federal share. The survey finds that this will be too heavy a load for the local CAA's to bear. To continue the matching ratio would mean a severe program cutback and staff layoffs.

The :fiscal urgency of our cities and communities has been well documented in many congressional hearings. Certainly, the plight of New York City needs no fw·ther documentation. New York City has been forced to cut back the local matching share to the community action agencies. Formerly the city provided a local share of 50 percent to the antipoverty efforts. However, it has been necessary to make cuts of $7 million to the CAA's and it has reduced its share to the prescribed ratio of 20 percent and just cannot do more. Those that will ultimately bear the cost of these cutbacks are those that can least afford it. The low income families who depend on the community action agencies, for so many services will have even less to sustain them.

It is for these reasons that I join in cosponsoring the proposal to maintain the Federal matching level. The need for the continued strong Federal commitment is essential, especially in our current economic situation. We should not ask these most in need to bear a greater burden than they now must carry. By enacting this bill, we affirm our commitment to the economically disadvantaged and to the community action agencies who have served them and provided a unique impact upon attacking the problems of poverty.

By Mr. SPARKMAN (by request): S. 3101. A bill to provide for increased

participation by the United States in the International Finance Corporation, and for other purposes. Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, by request, I introduce for appropriate refence a bill to provide for increased participation by the United States in the International Finance Corporation, and for other purposes.

The bill has been requested by the Department of the Treasury and I am introducing it in order that there may be a specific bill to which Members of the Senate and the public may direct their attention and comments.

I reserve my right to support or oppose this bill, as well as any suggested amendments to it, when it is considered by the Committee on Foreign Relations.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the RECORD at this point, together with the letter from the Secretary of the Treasury to the President of the Senate dated February 25, 1976.

There being no objection, the bill and

letter were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

s. 3101 Be it enacted by the Senate and House

of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the International Finance Corporation Act (22 U.S.C. 282 et seq.) is further amended by adding at the end thereof the followtng new subsection:

"SEC. 11. (a) The United States Governor of the Corporation is authorized (1) to vote for an increase of not more than $540,000,000 in the authorized capital stock of the Corporation, and (2) if such increase becomes effective, to subscribe on behalf of the United States to one handred and twelve thousand additional shares of $1,000 par value of the capital stock of the Corporation.

"(b) In order to pay for the increase in the United States subscription to the Corporation provided for in this section, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated, without fiscal year limitation, $112,000,000 for payment by the Secretary of the Treasury."

THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, Washington, February 25, 1976.

Hon. NELSON A. ROCKEFELLER, President of the Senate, Washington, D.O.

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: There is transmitted herewith a draft bill "To provide for increased participation by the United States in the International Finance Corporation, and for other purposes."

The draft bill would authorize the United States Governor of the International Finance Corporation to vote for an increase of not more than $540,000,000 in the authorized capital stock of the Corporation and to subscribe on behalf of the United States to 112,-000 additional shares of capital stock. rt would also authorize the appropriation of $112 million to pay for the increase in the United States subscription.

This legislation is necessary because Section 5 of the International Finance Corporation Act provides that Congressional authorization must be obtained for the United States Governor to agree to an increase in the capital stock of the Corporation and in the United States subscription to this stock. Moreover, legislation is required in order to authorize the appropriation of the necessary amounts to enable the United States to pay for the acquisition of capital stock.

The International Finance Corporation is a member of the World Bank Group. Its membership ls similar to that of the World Bank and only Bank members can Join the Corporation. The Corporation was established in 1956 to further economic development by promoting private investment in its developing member countries. It is unique among multilateral development institutions in that it operates without a government guarantee on its loans and purchases equity participations.

The Corporation functions more like a private investment bank than does the World Bank with respect to such matters as lending terms, purchases and sales of stock and relationships with private investors, but it has the advantage of being able to borrow from the World Bank. In Fiscal Year 1975, the Corporation made $212 million in new investment commitments. About 50 percent of the funds the Corporation utilized in Fiscal Year 1975 was borrowed from the World Bank, 30 percent was derived from sales o! loans and equity investments and the remaining 20 percent came from loan repayments, net income and capital subscriptions of new members. Total investment commitments of the Corporation as of June 30, 1975 amounted to $1.3 billion.

The Corporation's principal function is to stimulate the fl.ow of private capital into pro-

5688 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 9, 1916 ductive investments by bringing together investment opportunities, domestic and foreign capital, and experienced management. The Corporation wlll make an investment only where sufficient private capital could not be obtained by the private enterprise on reasonable terms and the investment will make a useful contribution to the development of the economy of the member country in which it is made. The investment must also have the prospect of being profitable.

The Corporation invests in productive private enterprises through loans and stock ownership. Where it invests in capital stock, it remains a minority partner without management control. The Corporation does not finance government enterprises or enterprises run by governments. However, the Corporation will participate in enterprises in which there is government ownership, provided there is independent management and the enterprises are operated in accordance with normal business principles. Such participation by the Corporation is particularly important in its least developed member countries where private investment capital is scarce.

The Corporation also functions as a neutral intermediary between private enterprise and government. It has become increasingly engaged in technical assistance in the area of private development investment banks and capital markets.

The presence of the Corporation in an investment has been, in many cases, a determining factor in the decision of foreign investors to participate in projects in developing countries. The Corporation has had a significant multiplier effect, generating $4 of private investment for every $1 of Its own in the projects in which it has participated. Since its inception, the Corporation has been associated with a.bout $6.4 billion of investments and has assisted in financing some 250 enterprises in 57 developing countries. Most of these enterprises have been medium sized firms, controlled by local groups and with local management.

The Corporation has a record of prudent, effective and imaginative management. Its current diversifled portfolio includes 174 companies. Its investment losses have been less than 1 percent of its total cumulative commitments for its own account. In Fiscal Year 1975, the average annual rate of return on loan and equity investments held by the Corporation was about 9 percent.

The proposed replenishment represents the first significant increase in the capital resources of the Corporation since its establishment nineteen years ago. For the first time, existing members are being asked to increase their subscriptions to the Corporation. Under the proposal, authorized capital stock would be increased from $110 milllon to $650 million; of the $540 million Increase in authorized capital approximately $480 million would be alloc "ted to increased subscriptions by existing members and the balance would be reserved for subscriptions by new members.

The U.S. share of the proposed increase in subscriptions would be approximately 23 percent compared with its 33 percent share of the presently issued capital stock. After the replenishment, Its overall share of the Corporation's capital stock would be reduced to about 25 percent, If all members take up their proposed share of the expansion. While the United States share would decrease, such countries as Germany, Canada, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Venezuela would, under the proposed replenishment, substantially increase their shares.

The United States subscription would amount to approximately $112 million. It is anticipated that an appropriation for a.bout $45 mllllon (40 percent) would be sought in Fiscal Year 1977. This figure ls slightly higher than that shown in the President's budget because an international consensus had not

been reached at the time the budget was printed. Upon enactment of authorizing legislation, a formal budget request wlll be transmitted for $45,000,000. Appropriations for the balance would be sought 1n equal Installments in Fiscal Yea.rs 1978 and 1979. Budgetary expenditures would be spread out equally over a period of five years, beginning in Fiscal Year 1978.

This capital replenishment ls essential lf the Corporation is not to decrease its level of operations in the near future and if it is to make significant qualitative improvements in its operations. Current projections show that its present resources will not be adequate to support its current level of operations beyond Fiscal Year 1978. If Increased subscriptions are not made, the Corporation would have to begin to restrict its commitments--in particular, its equity commitments-in Fiscal Year 1977. Not only would the volume of the Corporation's operations contract in real terms, but it would become a more conservative institution, with a smaller portion of its resources available for innovative projects where the risk ls greater.

The proposed capital increase would permit the Corporation to: (a) greatly expand its program for small business where longer and more costly project preparation costs are required; (b) operate to a greater extent in the least developed countries; (c) enlarge its existing program of technical assistance, particularly in the area of capital markets where it has special expertise; and (d) become a more significant partner in major projects, particularly in the area of minerals, where it can function as a neutral intermediary between local governments and multinational corporations.

United States participation in this replenishment is an essential part of our program of practical proposals to respond to the expressed needs and concerns of the developing countries. I proposed expansion of the resources of the Corporation at the annual meeting of the World Bank last September. Secretary Kissinger in his U .N. Seventh Special Session address also gave strong support to the expansion of the Corporation. International negotiations were initiated shortly thereafter. Almost all the major shareholders and most of the developing countries have expressed support for the proposed replenishment. The international negotiations are essentially completed. A meeting of the Corporation's Board of Directors to consider this issue will be held within the next several weeks at which time we anticipate a formal recommendation that the Board of Governors approve the replenishment. I am sending this proposal to you now to permit early Congressional consideration to facllitate a first appropriation in Fiscal Year 1977.

The Corporation has a unique role to play in an era where there is increasing sensitivity in a number of developing countries to foreign private participation in large projects, particularly where natural resources are involved. The Corporation by direct participation in such projects can help assure that local governments will be treated fairly by international corporations while offering to the private investor a degree of protection against arbitrary treatment by governments. It has proven Its abilities in a difficult environment. It has generated considerable investment by its activities, while retaining the confidence of the LDC governments. In a world Increasingly marred by conflicts be· tween the rich and the poor, the Corporation has proven that It can bring together private investors and developing countries in productive endeavors.

I urge the Congress to give the proposed legislation its prompt approval. Because the adoption of the replenishment resolution requires a favorable vote by countries havl:ig at least 75 percent of the total voting pow ar, United States approval of the resolution is

essential to allow additional subscriptions to be made by member countries. A Special Report of the National Advisory Council on International Monetary and Financial Policies on the replenishment of the resources of the Corporation will be transmitted separately to you and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

It would be appreciated if you would lay the proposed bill before the Senate. A similar proposal has been sent to the House of Represen ta ti ves.

The Depar tment has been advised by the Office of Management and Budget that there is no objection to the presentation of this legir:lution for the consideration of the Congress and that its enactment would be in accord with the program of the President.

Sincerely yours, WILLIAM E. SIMON.

By Mr. SPARKMAN (by request): s. 3102. A bill to amend the Board for

International Broadcasting Act of 1973 and to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1977 and 1978 for carrying out that act. Ref erred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, by request, I introduce for appropriate reference a bill to amend the Board for International Broadcasting Act of 1973 and to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1977 and 1978 for carrying out that act.

The bill has been requested by the Board for International Broadcasting and I am introducing it in order that there may be a specific bill to which Members of the Senate and the public may direct their attention and comments.


I ask unanimous consent that the bill · and a section-by-section analysis be printed in the RECORD at this point, together with the letter from the Executive Director of the Board for International Broadcasting to the President of the Senate dated February 26, 1976.

There being no objection, the bill and letter were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

S.3102 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Board for International Broadcasting Act of 1973 (22 U.S.C. 2877(a)}, as amended, is furt her amended as follows:

SEC. 1. Section 3(b) is amended-(a) by striking out "shall consist of seven

members, two of whom shall be ex-officio members" in the first sentence of paragraph (1), and inserting in lieu thereof "shall consist of slx members, one of whom shall be an ex-officio member";

(b) by striking out "the chief operating executive of Radio Free Europe and the chief operating executive of Radio Liberty shall be ex-officio members of the Board" in the fourth sentence of paragraph (1), and inserting in lieu thereof "the chief operating executive of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty shall be an ex-officio member of the Board";

(c) by striking out "Ex-officio members of the Board shall serve on the Board during t heir terms of services as chief operating executives of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty" in paragraph ( 4), and inserting In lieu thereof "The ex-officio member of the Board shall serve on the Board during his term of service as chief operating executive of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty";

JJ,f arch [), 1976 CONGRESS-IONAL RECORD- SENATE 5689 {d) by striking out "Ex-officio members of

the Board" in the third sentence of paragraph { 5) , and inserting in lieu thereof "The ex-officio member of the Board".

SEC. 2. Section 4(a) is amended by striking out "on or before the 30th day of October, summarizing the activities of the Board during the year ending the preceding June 30," in paragraph (8) and inserting in lieu thereof "on or before the 31st day of January, summarizing the activities of the Board during the year ending the preceding September 30."

SEC. 3. Section 8 i amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 8. There are authorized to be appropriated, to remain available until expended: (1) $53,385,000 for fiscal year 1977 and such additional or supplemental amounts as may be necessary for increases in salary, pay, retirement, or other employee benefits authorized by law and for other nondiscretionary costs, and (2) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 1978.

BOARD FOR INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING, Washington, D.C., February 26, 1976.

Hon. NELSON A. ROCKEFELLER, President of the Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: There is transmitted herewith proposed legislation to make required amendments to the Board for International Broadcasting Act of 1973 and to authorize appropriations for the Board to carry out its responsibilities as specified in that Act . .

The bill provides for authorization of appropriation for the Board's operations during Fiscal Year 1977 and 1978 and reflects amendments to clarify sections of the Act. Some of those changes are required by the consolidation of the Radios' operations and management.

A section-by-section analysis explaining the proposed legislation is enclosed.

The Board has been informed by the Office of Management and Budget that there is no objection to the presentation of this proposed legislation to the Congress and that its enactment would be in accord with the program of the President.

Respectfuly submitted, WALTER R. ROBERTS,

Executive Director.

SECTION -BY-SECTION ANALYSIS Section 1: This section changes the com

position of the Board for International Broadcasting to reflect the consolidation of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty and the appointment of one single president for both Radios.

Section 2: This section changes the date for the submission of the Board's annual report to the President and the Congress to reflect the change in the fiscal year.

Section 3: This section authorizes the appropriation of funds in the amount included in the 1977 Budget for the Board for International Broadcasting, $53,385,000 for 1977, and such sums as may be necessary for 1978. It also deletes a sub-section of the Act no longer needed which provided for orderly operations during the period before the Board was formed.

By Mr. SPARKMAN (by request) : S. 3103. A bill to provide for increased

participation by the United States in the Asian Development Fund. Ref erred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. P resident, by request, I introduce for appropriate reference a bill to provide for increased participation by the United States in the Asian Development Fund.

The bill has been requested by the Department of the Treasury and I am in-

CXXII--360-Part 5

troducing it in order that there may be a specific bill to which Members of the Senate and the public may direct their attention and comments.


I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the RECORD at this point, together with the letter from the Secretary of the Treasury to the President of the Senate dated February 25, 1976.

There being no objection, the bill and letter were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:


Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Asian Development Bank Act (22 U.S.C. 285-285h) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section:

SEC. 22. (a) The United States Governor of the Bank is hereby authorized to agree to contribute on behalf of the United States $50,000,000 to the Asian Development Fund, a special fund of the Bank, in accordance with and subject to the terms and conditions of Resolution Numbered 92 adopted by the Bank's Board of Governors on December 3, 1975.

(b) In order to pay for the United States contribution to the Asian Development Fund, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated without fiscal year limitation $50,000,000 for payment by the Secretary of the Treasm·y.

THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, Washington, D.C., February 25, 1.Q76.

Hon. NELSON A. ROCKEFELLER, President of the Senate, Washington, D .C.

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: There is transmitted herewith a draft bill, "To provide for increased participation by the United States in the Asian Development Fund."

The draft bill would authorize the United States Governor of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) to agree on behalf of the United States to contribute the sum of $50 million to the Asian Development Fund (ADF), which is administered by the ADB. It would also authorize the appropriation of that $50 million. It is contemplated that this amount, which bas been included in the 1977 budget, would be the first installment of a threeyear U.S. contribution to the ADF to be spread over fiscal years 1977-1979.

This legislation is necessary because Section 5 of the Asian Development Bank Act (Public Law 89-369, as amended) provides that Congressional authorization must be obtained for the United States Governor to agree to provide :financing for the Bank. Moreover, legislation is required in order to authorize the appropriation of the necessary amounts to enable the United States to contribute to the ADF.

Multilateral negotiations were held in 1975 with a view to replenishing the resom·ces of the ADF which will be fully committed in early calendar 1976. During these negotiations, the U.S. representative stated that he could give no indication of the amount or timing of a U.S. contribution, in part because the United States had not yet completed its contributions to the initial resource mobilization of the ADF and consultations concerning U.S. participation in a replacement had not yet been held witb Congress. The U.S. representative did indicate that the U.S. continues to be a strong supporter of the ADB and the ADF and would, in principle, expect to continue contributing to the ADF. Most other contributors were prepared to agree to a replenishment with contributions during 1976-78

equal to approximately 150 percent of their initial contributions.

Understanding that the United States was unable to commit itself concerning the specific tiining or amount of any U.S. contribution to the replenishment, the ADB Board of Governors, on December 3, 1975, adopted a resolution providing for the replenishment of the ADF resources and authorizing the ADB to accept contributions to the replenishment from its developed country members in amounts specified in the resolution, subject to possible later adjustment by the Board of Governors. The United States abstained from voting for the resolution and reserved its position on the amount proposed in the resolution for a U.S. contribution, $231 million, which was based on the generally accepted 150 percent formula.

The resolution provides for an ADF replenishment in an amount not to exceed $830 million for the 1976-78 period. (Included in this amount are suggested contributions from France and Sweden which have indicated that they would not participate in the replenishment.) Nevertheless, despite possible modifications in the total figure, the ADF expects to raise resources sufficient to increase its 1976-78 commitment total substantially above the $456 million level of 1973-75 in order to increase its level of lending in real terms despite the rapid worldwide inflation.

It is contemplated that most contributions will be made in three annual installments beginning in calendar 1976. The Administration is requesting an authorization for an appropriation of $50 million which would represent the first installment of a U .S. contribution. Since contributions by other countries beyond the first year of the replenishment are contingent on U.S. participation, a U.S. commitment, as provided in the proposed $50 million authorization, is essential for the successful implementation of the total ADF replenishment package. Authorization for the remaining two installments will be requested at an appropriate time after consultations with Congress.

The Asian Development Bank was established in 1966 for the purpose of lending funds, promoting investment, and providing technical assistance to developing countries in the Asian region. Membership is open to all members of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) and other regional countries which are members of the United Nations or of any of its specialized agencies as well as to nonregional developed nations. The Bank now has 41 members of which 27 are regional countries including the three developed countries of Japan. Australia, and New Zealand. Nonregional members include 12 European nations, Canada, and the United States.

The ADB"s resources consist of ordinary capital resources and special funds resources. The ordinary operations of the ADB are financed from its ordinary capital resources which are used to make loans at near market rates and consist of the ADB's subscribed capital stock, the proceeds of borrowings (which are backed by the Bank's callable capital), the sale of participations in its loans, and profits derived from ordinary operations. In its nine years of operation, the ADB has approved loans totalling nearly $1.9 billion from its ordinary capital resources.

The special operations o! the Bank are financed from its special funds resources "whioh consist of contributions made by members, income from special funds loans, income earned by investment of undisbursed special funds resources, and amounts set aside to special funds by the Board of Governors from ordinary capital resources. The special funds resources are used to provide concessional loans to members such as Afghanistan, Burma, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Western Samoa, and Pakistan because their

5690 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE March 9, 1976 financial position requires that they receive loans with lower interest and longer maturities. As a matter of practice, India does not borrow from the ADB. In the years that it has been making special funds loans, the ADB has approved $658 million of such loans, including $165 million in 1975.

Prior to 1973, the ADB's special funds were a collection of contributions each of which was made pursuant to different terms and conditions as to its use. In 1973, the ADB's Board of Governors, with United States support, adopted a resolution creating a new multilateral special fund, the Asian Development Fund, to which all contributions would be made and used on the same terms and conditions. Subsequently, agreement was reached among the Bank's developed country members on an initial resource mobilization for the new ADF of $525 million for the three-year period ending December 31, 1975. In FY 1972 and FY 1975 the Congress authorized U.S. special funds contributions totaling $150 million, of which $100 million has been appropriated and contributed to the ADF. The final U.S. contribution of $50 million to the initial mobilization is included in the FY 1976 appropriation request.

The proposed FY 1977 $50 million contribution for which authorization is now being sought represents the same level of ADF funding appropriated in FYs 1974 and 1975 and being requested for FY 1976.

I urge the Congress to give the proposed legislation its early consideration. U.S. participation in this ADF replenishment would be a particularly meaningful contribution to Asian self-help efforts. Prompt action on this legislation Will serve as an indication to Asia and the world of our continuing strong commitment to the economic progress of the Asian region, befitting our responsibilities and interests as a Pacific power.

It would be appreciated if you would lay the proposed bill before the Senate. A similar proposal has been sent to the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

The Department has been advised by the Office of Management and Budget that there is no objection to the presentation of this legislation for the consideration of the Congress and that its enactment would be in accord with the program of the President.

Sincerely yours, WILLIAM E . SIMON.

By Mr. PASTORE (for himself and Mr. JACKSON) (by request):

S. 3105. A bill to authorize appropriations to the Energy Research and Development Administration in accordance with section 261 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, section 305 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, and section 16 of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974 and for other purposes. Referred by unanimous consent, to the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy; and if and when reported by that committee, to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 3105, the ERDA authorization bill for fiscal year 1977, be referred to the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy for the consideration of titles I, II, and IV thereof and, if and when reported, to the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee for the consideration of titles II, III, and IV thereof.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, title I of the bill is exclusively concerned with

atomic energy, a subject which is within the jurisdiction of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy under the Atomic Energy Aot of 1954, as amended. Title II is concerned exclusively with nonnuclear energy, a subject which under the rules of the Senate is under the jurisdiction of the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. Title III of the bill includes three programs which relate both to nuclear and nonnuclear areas with the remaining being nuclear. Title IV contains several provisions of the bill.

The distinguished chairman of the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Com-· mittee agrees with this request, which incidentally is in substance the same as the procedure which was followed last year in the Senate on the ERDA authorization bill for fiscal year 1976.

I ask unanimous consent that a statement prepared by Senator JACKSON be printed at this point in the RECORD.


STATEMENT BY SENATOR JACKSON

I am pleased to join with my friend, the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island and Chairman of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (Mr. Pastore) in introducing this bill to authorize appropriations for the Energy Research and Development Administration for fiscal year 1977.

This is the second authorization bill for the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) which was organized under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. As the Nation's new energy research and development agency, ERDA was assigned the task of aggressively pursuing the research, development and demonstration of alternative energy sources. In addition, the agency is to establish an R&D effort aimed at new and improved methods of energy conservation. Finally, ERDA aiso inherited the programs and responsibilities of the former Atomic Energy Commission for the development of nuclear energy.

Among the important jobs assigned to it under the Federal Non-Nuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974, ERDA is to develop our coal and on shale resources, to stimulate recovery of oil and natural gas and to provide answers for exploiting the sun's radiation and the Earth's geothermal heat.

The Senate Interior Committee completed its work of the F .Y. 1976 budget request for the non-nuclear programs of the Energy Research and Development Administration by increasing the President's original request by $360 million. In providing this increase for the non-nuclear programs I hoped to see ERDA become the central focus and lead agency for energy R&D. This is the role originally envisioned by the Congress and it was the judgment of both the Senate and the House of Representatives that the President's F.Y. 1976 budget request for non-nuclear programs reflected a "business-as-usual" attitude. In place of President Ford's request, we succeeded in enacting a budget that reflected an accelerated, project oriented energy research and development program. This Nation cannot affort to pursue alternative energy sources at a sluggish pace.

During the Interior Committee's consideration of this year's ERDA budget every effort will be made to assure that all programs of merit receive that funding amount which will drive this country towards greater self-sufficiency in our energy future.

By the request made by the distinguished Chairman of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy I understand that this bill will first be referred to the JCAE for consideration of Titles I, III, and IV and, if and when re-

ported, then to the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee for consideration of Titles II, III and IV.

By Mr. CASE (for himself, Mr. JAVITS, Mr. BUCKLEY, Mr. ScHWEIB:ER, Mr. ROTH, and Mr. BIDEN):

S. 3106. A bill to terminate the authorization for the Tocks Island Reservoir Project as part of the Delaware River Basin Project, and for other purposes. Refened jointly, by unanimous consent, to the Committees on Public Works and Interior and Insular Affairs.

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I introduce for appropriate reference a bill that I believe will end a controversy that for many years has centered around an amazingly beautiful valley of the Delaware River. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be referred jointly to the Committee on Public Works and on Interior and Insular Affairs.


Mr. CASE. Senators ROTH, BUCKLEY, BIDEN, JAVITS, and SCHWEIKER have joined me in sponsoring this legislation which will deauthorize the Tocks Island Dam and Reservoir Project, also known as the Tocks Island Lake Project.

Congress authorized the Tocks Island Project in October 1962, in an effort to meet flood control and water supply problems of the area. The project contemplated a 160-foot high dam that would create a 37-mile, 12,000-acre lake. In 1965, Congress authorized creation of a 60,000-acre recreation area, known as the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, surrounding the reservoir.

Over the years, questions arose about the environmental impact of impounding the free :flowing waters of the Delaware River and about the ability of the proposed project to meet its stated objectives.

As a result, Congress in 1974 authorized an impartial, comprehensive analysis of the dam and reservoir project, including a study of alternative means of meeting the objectives of the project.

Shortly after this congressionally directed study was completed, the Governors of the four States bordering the Delaware River, acting on the basis of the study's findings, recommened on July 31, 1975, that no further funds be appropriated by Congress for construction of the dam and reservoir. The Army Corps of Engineers, which is authorized to build the project, subsequently recommended deauthorization. The Governors, acting through their membership in the Delaware River Basin Commission, did, however, recommend that Congress continue to appropriate funds to complete land acquisition in the project area.

In keeping with this latter recommendation, our bill proposes that all land already acquired be transferred to the Department of the Interior for administration as part of the recreation area and that the Department of the Interior be given jurisdiction to complete acquisition of lands within the project areas.

While the study of the project was underway, Congress halted land acquisition in the dam and reservoir area. As a result, landowners who had agreed to


sell their land to the Government, have been unable to complete those transactions and have not been paid for their land by the Government.

Our bill recognizes this fact by establishing a list of priorities under which land acquisition will take place in the future, giving first priority to those situations where proceedings have been started but not completed, because of the lack of Federal funds.

Other priorities in the bill are: Acquisition of lands of owners who

would suffer a hardship if acquisition of their lands were delayed.

Acquisition of lands on which there is an imminent danger of development that would be inconsistent with a national recreation area.

Acquisition of lands of owners who are willing to sell if they are able to retain so-called life rights to the property.

Acquisition of scenic easements when such easements are sufficient to carry out the purposes of a national recreation area.

Acquisition of lands necessary to preserve the integrity of a national recreation area.

The final section of the bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to relocate U.S. Highway 209 to the western side of the recreation area in the manner in which the highway was to be relocated by the Secretary of the Army as part of the dam and reservoir project.

The Delaware Water Gap abounds in wildlife, including black bear, deer, trout, and foxes. It is a preserve of natural and historic scenery not usually associated with the industrial areas of northern New Jersey-New York and Pennsylvania. It is conveniently accessible from areas which have one of the most intensive needs for recreational space in the Nation.

Land acquisition for the recreation area is more than 75 percent completed.

It is my hope that through this legislation we can complete the land acquisition and preserve for the Nation an opportunity for recreation in an area where the Delaware River has cut a notch through the 1,200-foot high Kitatinny Range.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of our bill be printed in full at this point in the RECORD.



Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the authorization for the Tocks Island Reservoir Project, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York, as part of Delaware River Basin Project pursuant to section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962, is hereby terminated.

SEc. 2. (a) All real property acquired by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the authorization of the Tocks Island Reservoir Project shall be transferred to the Secretary of the Interior to be administered as part of the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, pursuant to the Act entitled "An Act to authorize establishment of the Delaware Water Gap National Recreational Area, and for other purposes", approved September 1, 1965 (79 Stat. 612).

(b) All authority of the Secretary of the

Army pursuant to such Act of September 1965, and the authorization of the Tocks Island Reservoir Project and any unexpended appropriations made for the purpose of such Acts are transferred to the Secretary of the Interior.

SEC. 3. In administering the authority transferred to him pursuant to section 2 the Secretary of the Interior shall give priority to-

( 1) completion of a acquisition of lands for which condemnation proceedings have been started pursuant to the authoriz.ation of the Tocks Island Project;

(2) acquisition of lands of beneficial owners, not being a corporation, who in the judgment of the Secretary would suffer hardship 1! acquisition of their lands were delayed;

(3) acquisition of land,s on which, in the judgment of the Secretary, there is an imminent danger of development that would be incompatible with the purposes of the De-la-· ware Water Gap National Recreation Area;

(4) acquisition of lands of beneficial owners, not being a corporation, who are wllling to sell their lands provided they are able to continue to use it for noncommercial residential purposes for a limited period of time which will not, in the judgment of the Secretary, unduly interfere with the development of public use facilities for such national recreation area, pursuant to the authorization for such area;

(5) acquisition of scenic easements when, in the judgment of the Secretary, such easements are sufficient to carry out the purposes for which such national recreation area was authorized; and

(6) acquisition of lands necessary to preserve the integrity of such national recreation area.

SEC. 4. (a) The Secretary of the Interior shall, as part of the authorization for the Dela.ware Water Gap National Recreation Area, relocate United States highway numbered 209 to the western side of such Area in the manner in which such highway was to be relocated by the Se<!retary of the Army as part of the Tocks Island Reservoir Project. Such relocation shall be carried out for the purposes of reducing the environmental impact on such area and improving the safety of such highway. In carrying out the provisions of this section the Secretary of the Interior shall consult with the appropriate public officials of the State or States involved. The Secretary of the Army shall furnish t-0 the Secretary of the Interior such plans, design memoranda and other materials as have been prepared for the purpose of such relocation by the Secretary of the Army.

(b) There is authorized to be appropriated such amount as is necessary for the purpose of this section.

Mr. SCHWEIKER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished colleague from New Jersey, Senator CASE, today as a cosponsor of his bill to settle the controversy surrounding the Tocks Island Reservoir project.

Since August 1974, when Congress authorized-House Report 93-1274-a 1-year, comprehensive study of the potential effects of this high dam project in eastern Pennsylvania, its status has been in virtual limbo. In the summer of 1975, confusion struck when the President's Council on Environmental Quality strongly recommended that the Tocks project be deauthorized. Three of the Governors from the surrounding four States--New Jersey, New York, Delaware and Pennsylvania--recommended against construction of the dam at that time. However, they took no position on total deauthorization of the project. Only

two Governors voted to complete land acquisition for the national recreation area. The remaining two Governors abstained.

At this juncture, the proponents of the high dam still had a ray of hope. The opponents felt they must continue to wage battle against possible construction of the dam. And the landowners whose land was previously condemned but not purchased sat with nothing except a promise that the Federal Government might pay them at some unspecified date once a solution to the controversy was reached.

This bill, which is also cosponsored by my colleagues from New York and Delaware, has two primary functions.

First, it terminates all authorization for the Tocks Island Reservoir project. It also transfers all land purchased by the Army Corps of Engineers for dam area and all remaining authority and unexpended appropriations to the Department of Interior.

The bill establishes a priority scheme for conducting an orderly transfer and continuation of development of the national recreation area. Prime consideration is given to landowners whose property has previously been condemned for purchase or who would unnecessarily suffer if the purchase of their land were delayed. In addition, consideration would be given to those landowners willing to sell their property provided they could continue to reside there, on a noncommercial basis, for the remainder of their lives. The Department of Interior could purchase "scenic easements" rather than the entire tract if it could satisfy the needs of the park, thus helping to hold down total acquisition costs and avoid unnecessary relocation of landowners.

Second, our bill authorizes the relocation of U.S. Route 209. Presently, this dangerous, twisting, overtraveled two lane highway bisects the center of the proposed park area. The accident and death rates on this highway are among the highest in Pennsylvania, and this kind of hazard has no place in the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area.

The Army Corps of Engineers has already completed extensive engineering studies on the possible relocation of Route 209 to the western boundary of the park. This bill would authorize the Secretary of Interior to construct a new highway after consulting with the corps and working with the appropriate State and local government officials.

I am extremely pleased with the endorsement of this bill by my colleagues from the Tocks Island States. Senator CASE, in particular, is to be commended for his tireless efforts in seeking a realistic conclusion to this complicated, controversial project.

Mr. President, this is a good bill, and I recommend it strongly to all my Senate colleagues as worthy of passage.

By Mr. MEI'CALF: S. 3110. A bill to provide for public

disclosure of lobbying activities to influence decisions in the Congress and the executive branch, and for other purposes. Referred to the Committee on Gove1nment Operations.

Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, the

5692 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE LVlarch 9,_ 1976

Senate Committee on Government Operations, under the distinguished leadership of the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. RIBICOFF, last year held extensive hearings on public disclosure of lobbying activities. All of us should be grateful to Chairman RIBICOFF and his staff for their work in this complex areathe hearings were superbly structuredand for identifying the questions that must be answered in any new lobbying disclosure legislation.

The bill that I am introducing today is based, in part, on the committee's hearings. Many of the suggestions made by witnesses testifying on previous lobbying disclosure bills have been incorporated into the bill I am introducing today. As was the case with S. 2068, which I introduced July 9, 1975 (see RECORD statement, page 21724), the overriding objective of this bill is to balance the need for disclosure against the need for free and vigorous communication.

Its application is carefully limited to the larger interest groups and corporations which are actively engaged in lobbying and which can be presumed to have the capability for exercising significant influence through their lobbies.

The notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements w111 provide the public official and citizen alike with necessary information but will not result in a flood of worthless paper or be so costly and detailed as to constitute a mechanism for Federal regulation.

Mr. President, while this bill is similar to s. 2068 in its basic objectives, I have revised several of its key provisions and want to call the attention of the Senate to these now.

First, I am certain all Senators are aware that the threshold criteria-which ultimately determine who must ''register" as lobbyists and report periodicallyare of paramount importance if legislation in this area is to be workable and equitable.

We all know that registration and reporting entail costs which many groups in our society can ill afford, costs which go well beyond the dollars and manpower that must be diverted to operate accounting systems and fill out Government fo1·ms ... Pub.ijc. relations values-unfortunately, there is a stigma attached to the designation of "lobbyist"-and the competitive disadvantages resulting from disclosure of detailed lobbying strategies must both be taken into account.

We cannot help but restrict the exchange of information and opinion between citizens and the Federal officials who must act in their behalf if we sweep in hundreds of thousands of small, locally based, and poorly funded groupsthe church groups, school and neighborhood associations, business and service clubs, veterans organizations and the like-and require them to pay such costs. Conversely, it will be a travesty if the only effective means such groups have of getting their messages across are tightly covered while a host of large, well financed' nationally based organizations are pe1!mitted to slip through the disclosure net.

Mr. President, this bill clearly distinguished between the smaller "grass

roots" groups, with few or no paid staff What we do not need to know-and employees, :;:tnd those organizations what the Federal Government ought not which spend substantial amounts to em- be empowered to question-is how priploy or retain lobbyists and to solicit vate organizations decide to take posiothers to engage in lobbying for them. tions and express their views with respect Its provisions will operate to screen out to public policy issues. the vast majority of State and local in- Nor is there any demonstrable need terests we, as Senators, hear from, the for requiring the "logging" or otherwise ad hoc citizens groups as well as the recording of telephone calls, for requirlarger organizations which communicate ing the reporting of the substance of with us infrequently and only on a very private letters or conversations to a Fedlimited scale. era! administrator, for informing the

Briefly stated, my bill's threshold pro- Government as to the names of those visions: who belong to voluntary membership or-

Exempt all organizations which have ganizations, or the names of groups with total operating costs-for personnel, of- whom an organization cooperates in purfice space and equipment, telephone and suing its objectives, or the positions postage, advertising and the like-of less which private groups have either taken than $100,000; or expect to take on this or that issue,

Require all other organizations to file along with precisely how much of a a notice of representation with the group's resources have been used in seekComptroller General whenever the or- ing to advocate its position on a particuganization's spending to employ or re- lar matter. tain anyone to engage in specified lobby- All these requirements appear in one ing activities, or to solicit others to en- guise or another in pending lobbying disgage in lobbying, is $1,000 or more in any closure bills, and-even apart from their 3-month reporting period; and potential for abuse and their implications

Require any organization which has for first amendment rights-reporting of filed such a notice, except for specified this kind would produce a mountain of charitable and religious organizations, to paper, costly for the groups involved to report on its activities whenever its produce, costly to process and file. spending for lobbying reaches $5,000 or And, for what purpose? To create a more in any reporting period. new growth industry-the accountants,

What these provisions mean is that lawYers, bureaucrats, assorted paper only those organizations which can af- shufflers, and the like-which will be ford to hire people to lobby-and, pre- needed to understand such reporting resumably, can afford the accounting and quirements, to set up the bookkeeping other costs of notification and report- systems to handle them, and to verify ing-will be covered. And, aside from the and index forms prior to filing them away independent agent or consultant who is to be quietly forgotten? retained for lobbying, the responsibility That, I submit, is all we will accomfor giving notice of representation and plish, if we bury disclosure of needed inreporting will lie with the organization, formation under the mountain of irrelnot the employees or members who may evancies that would be produced by such be called upon to speak for it occasion- requirements. ally in Washington. What we do need to know, and what

Further, as I indicated a moment ago, my bill will require in periodic reporting, these threshold provisions also recog- is: nize the special status and valuable con- The identity of agents or consultants tribution of educational, charitable, and retained to speak on behalf of organizareligious organizations, which are pres- tions or individuals, the amounts reently tax exempt under section 501 (c) ceived from each of their clients for lob(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Such bying or soliciting others to lobby, and a organizations will be required to file description of the decisions they have notices of representation upon reaching attempted to influence on behalf of each t:qe s~rn~ t.11£esl}.qlq_ J;l,P.J>Jicable to all client; and • other organizations. Btit · no 50Hc) (3)' ~ The identity ..Pf organizations engaged group will be required to submit more de- in lobbying-as well as the names of tailed, periodic reports unless its ex- those of their officers, directors, and empenditures for lobbying clearly demon- ployees who devote a substantial portion strate that such activities are a substan- of their time to lobbying-and a descriptial purpose of the organization. tion of each of the decisions they have

Mr. President my second area of con- attempted to influence. cern, in revisin'g s. 2068 and in other Organizations also will be required to pending disclosure bills, is in the report- ~·eport their ~tal expenditures for lobbying and associated bookkeeping require- mg, along with a breakdown showing ments-the paperwork burden-which amounts over $50 spent for employment are to be imposed on the various groups o_f lobb~ists, and for gifts or loans to pub-seeking to make themselves heard. llc officials.

I not only am convinced we can es- Finally, Mr. President, our experience tablish disclosure requirements that in campaign reform should be instrucmake sense without sweeping into the tive. It is essential that any new lobbying net those groups in our society whose ac- disclosure law be unambiguous and tivities are neither sustained nor dis- readily understandable to those who proportionately influential. I am equally must abide by it as well as to those who convinced that we can-and must-pro- must administer and enforce it. vide for meaningful disclosure by those If we insist upon sensible threshold organizations which expend substantial criteria and reporting requirements, thus amounts for lobbying without massive insuring that the paper flow does not Federal intrusion into their activities. eventually pile up higher than Mount

March 9, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 5693 Everest, and if provisions of the act are clearly defined, disclosure can be accomplished without our having to set up yet another governmental agency to supervise it.

r am convinced that we can enact a statute, along lines set out in this bill, which can be enforced without the issuance of voluminous and detailed regulations by its administrators and without creating a huge new bureaucracy.

Accordingly, in revising S. 2068, I am proposing assignment of responsibility for receiving disclosure reports, for monitoring compliance, and for issuance of advisory opinions to the Comptroller General, who also will be authorized to bring any possible violations of the act to the attention of the Attorney General. Enforcement, however, in both civil and criminal actions, will be the responsibility of the Justice Department and the courts.

Mr. President, I understand that mark up of lobbying disclosure legislation is scheduled to begin in the near future in ~he Senate Committee on Government Operations . .3imilarly, hearings have been held in the House in both the Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental Relations of the Committee on the Judiciary, chaired by Representative WALTER FLOWERS of Alabama, and the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, chaired by Representative JOHN J. FLYNT of Georgia.

In short, lobbying disclosure legislation is moving along in both Houses. It is my hope that all Senators will have an opportunity to review the committee hearing records-which are already in print--together with provisions of the bill I am introducing for appropriate reference today. I ask unanimous consent, therefore, that ~he text of my Federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1976 be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD as follows:


Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That thJs Act may be cited as the "Federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1976".

DEFINITIONS

SEC. 2. As used in this Act the term-( a) "person" includes an individual and

an organization; (b) "annual operating costs" include sal

aries, wages, and retainers, payment for office space, office equipment and supplies, telephone, postage and addressing, travel and entertainment, advertising and publications, and services;

(c) "organization" includes a corporation, company, foundation, association, firm, partnership, society, joint stock company, group of organizations, or group of individuals, which has, or expects to have, annual operating costs of $100,000 or more;

(d) "Federal agency" means an Executive agency (as defined in section 105 of title 5, United States Code) , the United States Postal Service, the Postal Rate Commission, the Executive Office of the President, and any regulatory agency of the Government which is not otherwise an Executive agency except the General Accounting Office;

(e) "agency in the legislative branch" includes the General Accounting Office, the Li-

brary of Congress, the Congressional Budget Office, the Architect of the Capitol, the Government Printing Office, and the Office of Technology Assessment;

(f) "Federal officer or employee" means an officer or employee of any Federal agency, of the Senate or the House of Representatives, or of any agency in the legislative branch, and includes a Member of, or Delegate to, the Congress, and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico;

(g) "decision" means any action taken by a Federal officer or employee with respect to any pending or proposed bill, resolution, amendment, noinination, hearing, investigation, or other action in Congress, or with respect to any pending or proposed rule, regulation, hearing, investigation, contract, grant, license, appointment of officers and employees, other than appointments in the competitive service, or other action in any Federal agency;

(h) "exempt travel expenses" means any payment or reimbursement of expenses for travel solely from one point in the United States, or its territories or possessions, to another point in the United States, or its territories or possessions, but only if such payment or reimbursement does not exceed the actual cost of the transportation involved plus a per diem allowance for other expenses in an amount not in excess of the maximum applicable allowance payable under section 5702(a) of title 5, United States Code, for Government employees except that, with respect to any individual, not more than $5,-000, in payment for or reimbursement of such expenses shall be exempt in any one calendar year;

( i) "income" means-( I) a salary, gift, donation, contribution,

payment, fee, loan, advance, service, or other thing of value received (other than payment for or reimbursement of exempt travel expenses) ; and

(2) except for purposes of applying section 4 a contract, promise, or agreement, whether or not legally enforceable, to receive any item referred to in paragraph ( 1) ;

(j) "retainer" means income received by an individual or organization retained for services, other than income received as a paid officer, director, or employee of any other person and income received by a voluntary membership organization in regular dues payments or subscriptions from its members;

(k) "expenditure" means-( I) a salary, gift, donation, contribution,

purchase, payment, fee distribution, loan, advance, service, or other thing of value made, disbursed, or furnished; and

(2) except for purposes of applying section 4 a contract, promise, or agreement, whether or not legally enforceable, to cv.ry out any transaction referred to in paragraph (1);

(l) "congressional committee" means a standing, select, or special coinmittee of the Senate or the House of Representatives, a joint coinmittee of the Congress (including the Technology Assessment Board), and a duly authorized subcommittee of any such committee or joint committee;

(m) "voluntary membership organization" means an organization composed of persons who are members thereof on a voluntary basis and who, as a condition of membership, pay regular dues, subscribe to one or more publications, or make contributions to such organlza tion;

(n) "identification" means, in the case of an individual, the name of the individual and his address, occupation, principal plact of business, and position held in the business, and, in the case of a person other than an individual, the name of the person and its addl·ess, principal place of business, officers, and board of directors;

( o) "solicitation" means to urge, request, or require another person to make a. com-

munication to any Federal officer or employee to influence, in a spectfled manner, a decision by such officer or employee; except that advice given by one person to another who 1·etains or employs such person for such purpose shall not constitute solicitation;

(p) "influence" means to attempt to institute, promote, effectuate, delay, alter, aznend, withdraw from consideration, or oppose any decision by a Federal officer or employee;

( q) "lobbying" means a communication to, or the employment or solicitation of another to make a communication to, a Federal officer or employee in order to influence a decision of that officer or employee, but does not include-

( I) a communication or solicitation by an individual, acting solely on his own behalf, for redress of his grievance or to express bis own opinion;

(2) a communication to a congressional coinmittee which is intended to become a part of the record of a hearing held by any such coinmittee;

(3) a communication to the Congress or either House thereof, a congressional comInittee, a Member of, or Delegate to, the Congress, the Resident Cominissioner from Puerto Rico, or an officer of the Senate or the House of Representatives, made at the request of the body or individual to whom such communication is made;

(4) a communication to a Federal agency, or to an agency in the legislative branch, which is intended to become a part of a bearing record or which may reasonably be expected to become a part of the record upon which a decision is to be made; ·

( 5) a communication to a Federal agency or to an agency in the legislative branch made at the request of such agency, or in the exercise of a right of petition granted by section 553(e) of title 5, United States Code;

(6) a. communication or solicitation by a Federal officer or employee acting in his official capacity or by an officer or employee of a State or local government (or governments) acting in his official capacity;

(7) a. communication or soli!:itation made in the normal course of business by-

( A) a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical available to the general public in the form of news, editorial views, advertising (except in the case of solicitation), letters to the editor, or like matter;

(B) a radio or television broadcast station in the form of news, editorial views, advertising (except in the case of solicitation), editorial response, or like matter; or

(C) a. publisher or author in a book published for the general public;

(8) a communication or solicitation by or authorized by a candidate (as defined in section 591 (b) of title 18, United States Code) made in the course of a campaign for Federal office;

(9) a communication or solicitation by or authorized by-

(A) a national political party or a national, state, or local committee or other organizational unit of a national political party regarding its activities, policies, statements, prograinS, or platforms;

(B) a political party of a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or a territory or possession of the United States, or a committee or other organizational unit of such a political party, regarding its activities, policies, statements, programs, or platforms; or

(C) a candidate for political office of a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or a territory or possession of the United States, or a committee or other organizational unit acting on behalf of such candidate, regarding the activities, policies, statements, programs, or platforms of such candidate;

(10) a communication by an attorney of record on behalf of any person made in con-

5694 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 9, 1976 neeU<>n with any civil action or proceeding ln"tolving such person or any crim1na1 tnwsttgation or prosecution of such person; or

(11) a. eommunicatlon which seeks only to ascerta.tn the status. purpose, or effect of a. decision;

(r) "quarterly reporting period" means a calendar quarter;

( s) "Comptroller General" means the Comptroller General of the United States.

NOTICE OF REPRESENTATION

SF.C. 3. (a) Each-{l) person who receives a. retainer of $250

or more from any other person for lobbying, or for the solicitation of another person to engage in lobbying, in any quarterly reporting period; and

(2) organization which expends $1,000 or more (other than exempt travel expenses) to employ or retain any person to engage in lobbying, or for the solicitation of another person to engage in lobbying, in any quarterly reporting period shall, within 15 days after such reporting period, file a notice of representation with the Comptroller General.

(b) Each notice of representation shall contain a. general description of the subject matter of decisions with respect to which the person filing such notice of representation ls engaged, or expects to engage, in lobbying; and.

(1) in the case of persons filing under subsection (a.) (1) an Identification of the person filing, and an identification of any person from whom such person receives a retainer for lobbying;

(2) in the case of organizations filing under subsection (a) (2) an identification of each person employed or retained for lobbying; and

(3) in the case of voluntary membership orga.niza.tions--

(A) the approximate number and geographical distribution, by State, of individuals who a.re members of the organization, and

(B) the approximate number and geographical distribution, by State, of persons other than individuals who are members of the organization.

(c) Each notice of representation shall remain in force for twelve months after the date of filing. If at any time the information required by subsection (b) (1) and (b) (2) of such notice of representation ls not accurate and current with respect to the person filing, such person shall file with the Comptroller Genera.I, within fifteen days after such change has occurred, such amendment or amendments to such notice o! representation as may be necessary to make the information contained in such notice of representation accurate and current. Upon expiration of such notice of representation a person who continues to be engaged in lobbying and who expects to meet the requirements of subsection (a) (1) or (a) (2), or both, shall file a new notice of representation within fifteen days after the expiration date of such notice of representation.

REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING

SEC.4. (a.) Each~ ( 1) person who is required to file a notice

of representation under section 3 (a) (1); and /2) organization which 1s required to file

votlce of representation under section 3(a.) (2) and which expends $5,000 or more (other than exempt travel expenses) to employ or retain any person to engage 1n lobbying, or tor the sollcltation of another person to engage in lobbying, ln any quarterly reporting period shall, not later than fl.fteen days after the la.st day of each quarterly reporting period, file a. report with the Comptroller General concerning the lobbying activities of such person during that period.

An organization described in section 50l(c)

(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and exempt from taxation under section 50l(a) of such Code shall not be required to file such report, unless the a.mounts pa.id or incurred by such organization during each taxable year t-o carry on propaganda or otherwise attempt to intluence legislation normally exceed $1,000,000 or, if lesser, the sum of-

(A) 20 percent of the first $500,000 of the amounts (including a.dminlstra.tive expenses) paid or incurred by such organization ( other than amounts charg-ed to capital accounts) to accomplish one or more purposes described in section 1'70(c) (2) (B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954;

(B) 15 percent of the next $500,000 of such amounts;

(C) 10 percent of the next $500,000 of such amounts; and

(D) 5 percent of the excess over $1,500,000 of such a.mounts.

(b) Ea.ch report filed pursuant to subsection (a) shall be in such form and detail a.s the Comptroller Genera.I shall prescribe by regulations and shall include the following information:

( 1) an identification of the person filing the report;

(2) a description of each decision with respect to which the person engaged in lobbying (including a.n acknowledgement of each decision with respect to which the person engaged in sollcitation) during the reporting period;

(3) the total expenditures ma.de or debts or costs incurred by the person in or for lobbying and paid during such period, including an itemization of any expenditure of at least $50 for-

(A) retaining or employing other persons to engage in lobbying (and the amount other than exempt travel expenses, paid to each such person) ; and

(B) any gift, or loan, of anything of value (including an identification of the individual making and receiving such gift or loan), where such gift or loan ls made by the person reporting, or by any officer, director, or employee of such person, directly or indirectly, to any Federal officer or employee. This subparagraph shall not apply to any loan made by a. financial institution in the regular course of business and on terms and conditions that are no more favorable than available generally, or to any gift or loan to any individual to whom the donor or lender is related.

(c) Any person filing a report pursuant to subsection (a.) (1) shall also include-

(1) an identification of each person from whom a retainer for lobbying ls received during the period; and

(2) the a.mount received from each such person with respect to each decision described pursuant to subsection (b) (2).

( d) Any organization filing a report pursuant to subsection (a) (2) shall also include an identification of each officer, director, or employee who engaged in lobbying on part or all of ea.ch o! five days during the quarterly reporting period.

( e) Any voluntary membership orga.niza.tion filing a report pursuant to subsection (a.) (1) or (a.) (2) shall also Include an identification of any person from whom income for lobbying ls received during the quarterly reporting period, where such income Is in excess of-

(1) $1,000; and (2) 5 per centum of the total expenditures

of the organization for lobbying in such period.

(!) If any item of income or expenditure required to be reported under th1s section ls attributable in pa.rt to lobbying and in part to other purposes, such item may be reported, a.t the option of the person filing, 1n conformity with regulations prescribed. by the comptroller General-

(1) by a good fa.1th allocation which sets forth with reasonable accuracy that portion of the item expended or received for lobbying, a.n"d. the basts on which the allocation is ma.de; or

(2) by showing the amount of the item together with a. good faith estimate of that part of the item -reasonably allocable to lobbying.

(g) Each person required to file reports pursuant to this section shall maintain records, for each quarterly reporting period, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and standards, and such records shall be preserved for a. period of not less than three years after the close of each such filing period.

DUI'lES OF THE COMPTROLLER GE1'.1'EEAL

SEC. 5. (a) It shall be the duty of the Comptroller Genera.1-

( l) to develop a filing, coding, and crosslndexing system to carry out the purpose o! this Act;

(2) to make copies of notices of representation and reports filed with him under this Act available for public inspection and copying, commencing as soon as practicable, but not later than the end of the fifth day following the day of receipt, and to permit copying of such notices or reports by hand or by copying machine, or at the request of any person, to furnish a copy of any such notice or report upon payment o! the cost of making and furnishing such copy; but no in!orme.tlon contained in any such notice or report shall be sold or utilized by any person for the purpose of soliciting contribution'> or for any commercial purpose;

(3) to preserve the originals or accurate reproductions of such notices and reports for a period of not less than 5 years from the day of receipt;

(4) to compile and summarize, with respect to each quarterly period, the information contained in such notices and reports in a manner which facilitates the disclosure of lobbying activities; ·

(5) to make the information compiled and summarized under paragraph (4) available to the public within 30 days after the close of ea.ch quarterly period, and to publish such summaries as are prepared under paragraph (4) in the Federal Register at the earlles1; practicable opportunity;

·(6) to conduct investigations, and hearings with respect to the notices of representation and reports filed under this Act, with respect to alleged !allures to file any notice of representation or report required under this Act, and with respect to alleged violations of any provisions of this Act;

(7) to prescribe such procedural rules, regulations, and forms as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act in the most effective and efficient manner; and

(8) to transmit reports to the President of the United States and to each House of the Congress, no later than March 31st of each year, containing a detailed ·statement with respect to the activities of the Comptroller General in carrying out his duties and functions under this Act, together with recommendations for such legislative or other action as the Comptroller General considers appropriate.

(b) For purposes of this Act only, the duties of the Comptroller General described in subsections (a.) (6) and (a) (7) of thls section shall be carried out in compliance wlth the provisions of Chapter 5 of tltle 5, United State Code.

ADVISORY OPINIONS

SEc. 6. (a) Upon written request to the Comptroller General by any person, the Comptroller General shall render an advisory opinion, in writing. within a reasonable time with respect to the appllcabllity or the notification, reporting, or record keep-

March 9, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 5695 ing requirements of this Act to any specific set of facts involving such person.

(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person with respect to whom an advisory opinion is rendered under subsection (a) who acts in good faith in accordance with the provisions and findings of such advisory opinion shall be presumed to be in compliance with the provisions of this Act to which such advisory opinion relates. Any such advisory opinion may be modified or revoked, but any modification or revocation shall be effective only with respect to action taken or things done after such person has been notified, in writing, of such modification or revocation.

( c) Any request made under subsection (a), or any advisory opinion, modification or revocation thereof, shall be published in the Federal Register. The Comptroller General shall, before rendering an advisory opinion with respect to such request, provide any interested person with an opportunity to transmit written comments to the Comptroller General with respect to such requests within such period of time as he shall prescribe.

ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 7. (a) If the Comptroller General has reason to believe that any person has committed a violation of this Act, he shall notify such person involved of such apparent violation, and shall make such investigation of the apparent violation as he deems appropriate. Any such investigation shall be considered expeditiously.

(b) If the Comptroller General determines, after investigation, that there is reason to believe that any person has engaged in any acts or practices which constitute a civil violation of this Act, he may endeavor to correct such violation-

( 1) by informal methods of conference or conciliation, or if they fall,

(2) by referring such apparent violation to the Attorney General.

( c) The Comptroller General shall refer any apparent civil violation of this Act to the Attorney General if the Comptroller General determines that such referral is appropriate. Upon such a referral by the Comptroller General, the Attorney General, on behalf of the United States, may institute a civil action for relief, including a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or any other appropriate order, in the district court of the United States for the district in which such person is found, resides, or transa-0ts business. Upon a proper showing that such person has engaged in acts or practices in violation of this Act, a permanent or temporary injunction, restaining order, or other order shall be granted.

(d) The Comptroller General shall refer apparent criminal violations of this Act to the Attorney General.

( e) In any case in which the Comptroller General refers an apparent violation to the Attorney General, the Attorney General shall act upon such referral in as expeditious manner as possible, and shall report to the Comptroller General with respect to any action taken by the Attorney General regarding such apparent violation. Each report shall be transmitted no later than sixty days after the date the Comptroller General refers any apparent violation, and at the close of every ninety-day period thereafter, until there is final disposition of such apparent violation. The Comptroller General may from time to time prepare and publish reports on the status of such referrals.

(i) Any person who has received an adverse advisory opinion from the Comptroller General may file an action for a declaratory judgment as provided in section 2201 of title 28, United States Code, in the United States District Court wherein that person resides or maintains his principal place of business.

POWERS OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL

SEC. 8. (a) To carry out his duties and functions under this Act, the Comptroller General shall have the power-

( 1) to informally request or to require by subpena any person to submit in writing such reports, records, correspondence and answers to questions as the Comptroller General may prescribe relating to the execution of his duties and functions; and such submission shall be made within such areasonable period of time and under oath or otherwise as the Comptroller General may determine;

(2) to administer oaths or affirmations; (3) to require by subpena the attendance

and testimony of witnesses and the production of documentary evidence relating to the execution of his duties and functions;

(4) in any proceeding or investigation, to order testimony to be taken by deposition before any person who is designated by the Comptroller General and has the power to administer oaths and, in such instances, to compel testimony and the production of evidence in the same manner as authorized under paragraph (3);

( 5) to pay witnesses the same fees and mileage as are paid in like cir-cumstan-ces in the courts of the United States; and

(6) to petition any United States district court having jurisdiction for an order to enforce subpenas issued pursuant to subsections (a) (1) and (a) (3) of this section. Any failure to obey the order of the court may be punished by the court as contempt thereof.

SANCTIONS

SEc. 9. (a) Any person required to file a notice of representation under section 3, or to file a report or keep records under section 4, who fails to file such notice, or such report, or to keep such records, shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $10,000.

( b) Any person required to file a notice of representation under section 3, or to file a report, or to keep records under section 4, who knowingly and willfully-

( 1) fa.Us to file such notice, or report, or to keep such records;

(2) files a false notice, or report, or falsifies records, shall upon conviction therefor be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both, for each such offense; and

(c) Any person who sells or utilizes for commercial purposes, or for the purpose of soliciting contributions, information contained in any notice of representation or quarterly report in violation of section 5(a) (2) of this Act shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $10,000. REPEAL OF FEDERAL REGULATION OF LOBBYING

ACT

SEC. 10. The Federal Regulation of Lobbying A<:t (60 Stat. 839-842; 2 U.S.C. 261 et seq ) is repealed.

SEPARABILITY

SEC. 11. If any provision of this Act, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of the Act and the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

SEc. 12. There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this Act.

EFFECTIVE DATES

SEC. 13. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the provisions of this Act shall take effect on the date of its enactment.

(b) Sections 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 shall take effect on the first day of the first calendar quarter immediately following the effective date of the first regulations pre-

scribed by the Comptroller General to implement sections 3 and 4.

By Mr. JAVITS (for himself, Mr. HUMPHREY, and Mr. MATHIAS):

S. 3111. A bill to reorganize activities of the executive branch of the Government which are supportive of technological development, to centralize funding for energy and natural resources ii.1 a National Technology Development Corporation, and for other purposes. Referred to the Committee on Government Operations.

NATIC NAL TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION

Mr. JA VITS. Mr. President, I am today introducing a bill for a National Technology Development Corporation. I feel it is a bill of major proportions and critical significance to the future well-being of the Nation. Whether or not this particular piece of legislation ultimately becomes law, it has become absolutely apparent to me and to many others that the connection between the orderly and purposeful development and utilization of technology and the quality of life in the United States-environment, health, economic, and social-is inextricable.

Our commitment to the development of solutions to our current problems in the areas of materials, energy, environment and urban density must be expanded, and more importantly, directed in a fashion that takes account of the future needs of the people of the United States as a whole. We cannot continue a random course toward development which inevitably limits our products and processes to those which are salable so as to be profitable for the private sector to :finance; nor can we continue to limit all of our governmental efforts to specific critical areas in need of massive funding--such as energy-because of some pressing needs; in other words, we must plan our technological future.

There is a gap--a deep and wide gapbetween our legitimate and imPortant effort.s to develop specific technologies such as in energy, advanced weapons systems and a cure for cancer with the kind of basic research that is being done through the National Science Foundation. That gap must be filled by a governmentally directed effort to channel both investment capital and under-utilized scientific talent into areas that will be of significant probable long-term benefit to the American people-and to the people of the world.

What I propose is an authority with the powers and the :financing capability to fill this gap, an authority which in the long run will not be costly to the American taxpayer because it is nc.t granting money or loaning money-it is investing the people's money in the people's future.

Our existing institutions, although modified and expanded continually to meet and alleviate current pressing problems, were not designed for planning advance technology development oriented toward future needs. The current domestic fossil fuel shortage, which could have been substantially avoided, is con-clusive evidence of this proposition.

It is irrelevant that many of our leaders could have and did foresee the im-

5696 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE March 9, 1976 pending energy crisis-for we were institutionally incapable of dealing with it in advance. We were required by the constraints of our system to await a crisis and react after the fact. We were thus relegated t.o suffer the dislocations and burdens that flow from our second crisis of technology-energy-our first being the beginning of environmental disaster from pollution of our air and watei·.

I will not speculate on our next crisis of SUPPlY or environment, but I believe that unless the existing institutional gap for advance technological planning is filled, the United States will face crises far more severe and long lasting than the pollution or energy crises of the 1970's.

Government, primarily because of historical lack of need, has not dealt with the development and implementation of technology outside of the military sector to any significant degree. With the exception of certain efforts in specific fields, conducted almost solely on a grant or contract basis, the Federal Government leaves civilian innovation to private efforts and private financing.

Historically, with the striking exception of the recent past, such private efforts sufficed with remarkable success. But in recent years, as major breakthroughs and engineering followup become more and more dependent on sustained capital investment and long-term research and development, our business community has been unable t.o provide the necessary effort. I do not indict business for this deficiency; I merely state it as a fact.

We have not witnessed a major technological breakthrough in the transportation sector for some decades; our research and development talent and capital in this sector, which 1s substantial, has been channeled into breakthroughs of consumer convenience, such as automatic transmission and air-conditioning.

Development of more basic changes, such as energy efficient power plants and nonpolluting engines, were avoided and sometimes even resisted, because they offered little or no market attractivenesstheir benefits are long term t.o the public generally and not to demonstrable profitability.

These results are not surprising. although there a.re indeed some shining examples of long-term private research and development, particularly in the electronics industzy where breakthroughs have been of enormous importance.

In the past, this situation was acceptable, because private initiatives would develop outside of the existing business structure if the pressure of public needs not being adequately served was manifested strongly enough.

But today there are two factors that retard such private development. The first is the enormous cost of significant technological innovation, both in terms of manpower and capital. Yesterday's ''better mousetrap" has become today's offshore oil production platform or urban transportation system. The costs of development have become prohibitive and many such opportunities are open only t.o the Fortune "500".

The second constraint. which may be psychological rather than economic, 1s the prevalence of increased corporate conservatism as more and more "trustees" manage big U.S. publically owned corporations with a desire to protect existing market shares rather than create new ones.

These factors sap competition and lead to a slowdown, or even a stagnation of technological growth in some fields. The consequences are increased social and environmental difficulties often leading to crises, and Government then seeks to do battle within a slow reacting ex post facto oriented institutional framework.

I am not contending that new industries will no longer spring up out of the private sector to meet new needs and to develop new technologies. This has happened many times in this century, beginning with the oil industry and ending with the ris~ of the computer and electronics sector.

But that phenomenon is becoming less productive because of the constraints I have described. It is time to begin to plan for our future in technological innovation more providently. If that is not done, we will be continually fighting crises in an attempt to minimize losses and to allocate shortages.

There is a renewed interest in recent days to recreate the office of Science Adviser t.o the President. This is directed at the same basic need that I perceive we are facing-that is, a lack of enough coordinated planning in scientific and technological fields to provid~ for our future needs in a rational way.

The bill I offer today provides an institutional solution to needed technological developmental aid by the United States and eliminate this serious gap in our advance planning capability, which could eventually rob the United States of its role as the industrial and technological leader of the world.

It provides for a single Federal corporation which has the financial capability t.o provide investment capital, where existing market resources are not available.

The National Technology Development Corporation would act much like a private lender but with some significant differences. First, it could invest in promising technologies even though they may be high risk and may not produce tangible economic results for years; second, it would limit its investments to areas established by a technical advisory board as necessary for the public good and in need of increased utilization or development; and third, it would have the option of taking either a nonvoting stock interest in the borrower or a traditional debt obligation, depending on the risk involved and other relevant factors.

The Corporation would have authorized capital of $5 billion, paid in over a 20-year period, with an initial capital stock of one-quarter billion dollars, increasing by one-quarter billion dollars each year until its full capitalization is reached. It would be authorized to invest, loan or guarantee up to 20 times its paidi...Tl capital, or $5 billion for each of 20 years, a small fraction of total capital investment in the United States-about 2

percent-but a critically necessazy component if our technological needs are to be systematically pursued with forethought and with the public interest as the allocating mechanism.

Some will say we cannot afford such a commitment to technology development; that we have survived thus far without such Government involvement. To this I answer: This will be a small price t.o pa,y if we avoid a crisis even as significant as the energy crisis, or the pollution crisis of the past decade. Each of these has cost more in terms of burdens and remedies than advance preparation possibly would have co.-st. Furthermore, this Corporation m ay not cost the taxpayer a single penny. It is a corporation that would be investing the people's money in the future. These investments would mature and begin to pay returns just as any good investment made by a private bank or an individual.

The Corporation would concentra ta its efforts on regions in most need of new industrial capacity and increased employment opportunities and on those borrowers who, while credit worthy in a longterm sense, have tried their best, yet failed to obtain capital through private :financial channels; and it would give priority to small- and medium-sized borrowers.

Among the investments I could envisionare:

First, construction of a solar heating and cooling equipment plant by a small corporation;

Second, minority entrepreneur who is attempting to develop promising new oil r ecovery techniques;

Third, a local development corpora tion v..1th a sound idea for the clean burning of coal;

Fourth, a medium-sized business that is developing new engine concepts for short-range travel; or fifth, utility, for funding of solid waste conversion facilities. If only a few of the Corporation's investments meet their potential, the long-term cost t.o the taxpayer may be zero, and the benefits incalculable.

The corporate form of technology funding would place the Federal Government's long-term development functions in the investment column where they belong, rather than in the annual appropriation process.

Moreover, not only would an investment corporation leverage the Federal Government dollar outlays through use of the private markets, it would also further multiply its useful effects by lowering the barriers to entry in high capital requirements industries for new innovative firms.

Congresn has neither the time nor the expertise to deal on a continuing basis with every issue of technical interest that should properly receive our attention. In recent days. we have had the existence of the Office of Technology Assessment, which I believe is an invaluable aid to the decisionmaking process of issues of major importance to the Nation. In addition, we have this year had the able and coordinated assistance of the Energy Research and Development Admlnistration, ERDA, on issues related to energy development.

March 9, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 5697

But on technological problems and potential solutions which have not yet reached the focal point of public and governmental opinion, the Congress is unable to deal in an e:ff ective way and there is no agency of the executive branch to do it.

I believe an institution such as this must be established if we are to plan for our technological future and add opportunity to those available through private market forces; an institution with these powers and resources is critical if we are to take full advantage of the huge pool of scientific talent in our society.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the RECORD.


s. 3111

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "National Technology Development Corporation Act of 1976".

FINDINGS AND PURPOSE

SEC. 2. (a) The Congress hereby finds that-(1) The activities of the executive branch

of the Federal Government in supporting technological research and development in the fields of resource shortages and utilization through capital funding have become diffused and ineffective because of the multiplicity of responsibilities among Federal agencies and the fragmentation and inadequacy of fiscal resources.

(2) Coordination between governmental and private resources and incentives is necessary to provide for a systematic program of capital funding for technological development.

(3) Substantial reorganization of the executive branch of the Federal Government is necessary to bring about the funding and coordination effort required to stimulate technological development.

( 4) There is a growing domestic shortage of fossil fuel energy resources, and it is becoming apparent that (A) traditional incentives will not provide the impetus to channel sufficient amounts of capital into new and alternative energy resource development and implementation to meet the growing energy needs of the Nation, and (B) long-leadtime development is a necessary component of major technological change in the energy area and requires the assistance of federal capital investment in addition to traditional capital sources.

( 5) The environmental crisis facing the world and particularly the United States has not been met by existing governmental or private provisions for research and development. This crisis cannot be resolved by abatement or conservation practices alone, and requires long-range solutions to pollution and other environmental problems, consonant with the preservation of our standard of living. Technological development and planning, governmental and private, is necessary for this purpose.

(6) The Nation's known mineral resources similarly are being depleted at alarming rates and may soon be inadequate to meet our expanding needs. Environmentally safe substitutes for ow· less plentiful natural resources must be found and developed before critical shortages dev~lop. Present development of such alternatives is inadequate and must be furthered by the provision of federal research and development programs and investment if the Nation is to avoid severe crises in future decades.

(7) Without long-term technological de-

velopment to provide solutions to the Nation's urban housing, transportation, waste disposal, and other environmental problems, the Nation's cities will be subjected to greater and greater strains on their ability to provide essential services for their citizens.

(8) Funding available on a multi-year basis is needed for research and development in the aforementioned and other fields which have uncertain immediate payouts but great potential for longer-range benefits. Specific provision is needed therefore to develop and to consolidate federal programs which will contribute to the financial risks of businesses and nonprofit institutions willing to undertake such longer-range efforts.

(9) Existing institutions, public and private, governmental end non-governmental, at present, cannot provide the magnitude of long-range and high-risk investment capital essential to find and implement solutions to the Nation's future problems of environment and supply.

(10} High-risk and long-range research and development frequently yields patentable and other financially remunerative results from which the Federal Government can replenish and, perhaps, enlarge its future investments. In other instances the lessening of social costs including unemployment and pollution will represent social benefits.

(b) It is the purpose of this Act-( 1) to reorganize, coordinate, and con

solidate the programs of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government and to stimulate and promote the investment of private capital in promising technological research, development, and demonstration in order to plan for, alleviate, and solve ~xisting and probable future materials :ind energy problems of the United States;

(2) to speed the conversion of outdated facilities to uses and materials that meet current needs and future prospects;

(3) to aid small and medium sized enterprises, especially those in economically depressed areas or areas of high unemployment, in securing adequate financing t·:> make investments in research and development in fields critical to the national interest; and

(4) to preserve and enhance competition, and foster more balanced economic growth throughout the United States. TITLE I-NATIONAL TECHNOLOGY DE

VELOPMENT CORPORATION DEFINITIONS SEc. 101. For the purposes of this title( 1) "assistance" means a loan, loan guar-

antee, or investment as may be provided under sections 106, 107, or 108 of this Act;

(2) "applicant" means a person, including a joint venture, seeking assistance for an eligible undertaking, as provided in this Act for the purposes of this Act;

(3) "eligible undertaking" means any undertaking described in section 102 of this Act and specified in a category of technological research as provided under section 105 of this Act;

(4) "Corporation'' means the National Technology Development Corporation established by section 102 of this Act;

( 5) "Boa.rd" means the Board of Directors of the National Technology Development Corporation established by section 103 of this Act; and

(6) "Panel" means the Technical Advisory Panel established by section 105 of this Act.

ESTABLISHMENT

SEC. 102. There is hereby established the National Technology Development Corporation as a body corporate which shall be an instrumentality of the United States and shall have succession until dissolved by Act of Congress. The Corporation shall provide assistance to applicants proposing eligible

undertakings falling within the categories or paragraphs (1) through (3) for the following purposes:

(1) to can-y out technological development in the following areas:

(A} energy and materials resources; (B) pollution and climatological changes; (C) waste-disposal and resource recovery; (D) urban development; (E) agricultural production; and (F) other critical environmental problems

threatening continued national well-being; (2) to advance and speed implementation

or utilization of existing technology; and (3) to provide the basis for meeting fu

ture material needs and avoiding future rasource crises of the United States.

BOARD OF DffiECTORS

SEC. 103. (a} The management of the Corporation shall be vested in a Board of Directors consisting of-

(1) seven members who shall be appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate;

( 2) the Secretary of the Treasury; ( 3) the Chairman of the Board of Govern

ors of the Federal Reserve System; (4) the President of the Corporation ap

pointed under section 123; and (5) the Chairman of the Technical Ad

visory Panel. Members of the Board provided in paragraphs (2) through (5) shall serve ex officio and shall have no vote. The terms of the directors, other than those serVing ex officio, shall be three years, commencing with the expirations of the preceding terms, except that the terms of such directors initially appointed shall run for three years in the case of three directors, two years in the case of two dire::tors and one year in the case of two directors. Any director appointed to fill a vacancy shall be appointed only for the unexpired portion of the term. Any director may continue to serve as such after the expiration of the term for which he was appointed until his successor has been appointed and has qualified.

(b) (1) Members of the Board not serving ex officio shall each be entitled to receive the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay in effect for grade GS-18 of the General Schedule for each day (including traveltime) during which they are engaged in the actual performance of duties vested in the Board.

(2) Members of the Board who are fulltime officers or employees of the United States shall receive no additional pay on account of their service on the Board.

(3) While away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services for the Corporation members of the Board shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in the Government service are allowed expenses under section 5703 (b) of title 5, United States Code.

(c) Five members of the Board other than the ex officio members shall constitute a quorum but a lesser number may hold hearings.

( d) The Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board shall be elected by the members of the Board from among members other than those referred to in paragraph (b) (2). The term of office of the Chairman and Vice Chairman shall be three years.

( e) The Board shall hold regular meetings at least quarterly and shall meet at the call of the Chairman or upon the request of a majority of its members other than ex officio members.

(f} No loan, guarantee, or investment may be made to or :for any applicant pursuant to sections 106, 107, and 108 of this Act other than within the categories established pursuant to section 105 of this Act.

5698 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 9, 1976 ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

SEC. 104. (a) The Board is authorized to prescribe such policies, rules, and regulations at it may deem to be necessary or appropriate to perform functions now or hereafter vested in it.

(b) The Board shall engage in such policy planning, and perform such program evaluation analyses and other studies, as may be necessary to provide the efficient and coordinated administration of the Corporation and properly assess progress towards the achievement of its missions.

( c) Except as otherwise provided by law, the Board may delegate any of its functions to such officers and employees of the Corporation as it may designate, and may authorize such successive redelegations of such functions as it may deem to be necessary or appropriate.

(d) The Board is authorized to establish, maintain, alter, or discontinue such State, regional, district, local, or other field offices as it may deem to be necessary or appropriate to perform functions now or hereafter vested in it.

(e) The Boa.rd shall ca.use a seal of office to be ma.de for the Corporation of such device as it shall approve, and judicial notice shall be taken of such seal.

(f) The provisions of subchapter II of chapter 5 and chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code, shall not apply to any action on the Board.

TECHNICAL ADVISORY PANEL SEC. 105. (a) There is hereby established a

Technical Advisory Panel. The Panel may establish such subcommittees as it may deem necessary to carry out its functions.

(b) The Panel shall consist of 15 persons, including among them-

(1) the Director of the National Science Foundation;

(2) the Administrator of the Small Business Administration;

(3) the Administrator of the Energy Research and Development Administration;

(4) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency;

(5) the Administrator of National Aeronautics and Space Administration;

( 6) the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development;

(7) the Secretary of Transportation; (8) the Secretary of Agriculture; and (9) seven additional members, who are

broadly representative of the scientific, en• gineering, business and labor communities, appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, one of whom shall be designated at the time of his appointment to serve as Chairman of the Panel.

( c) ( 1) The Panel shall determine fields of eligible investment and shall prescribe, for each fiscal year, specific categories of technological research, development and utilization within which applications for assistance by the Corporation will be considered. The Panel, in its discretion, may choose from among these categories a number of priority categories, from which preference shall be given by the Board in its loan and investment decisions.

(2) Such categories and the priorities thereof shall be determined following public hearings and shall be published in the Federal Register within 90 days after final determination by the Panel.

(d) The Corporation shall not accept ap-plications for assistance in any category established or amended until after the expiration of sixty days after the date of publication of any such category in the Federal Register as provided in section 105 ( c) of this Act.

( e) The Congress may disapprove any of the categories established pursuant to sec-

tion 105(c) of this Act by resolution of either the House of Representatives or the Senate passed within the period of sixty days commencing on the date of publication of any such category in the Federal Register as required by subsection 105(c) (2) of this Act.

(f) At any time, the Congress may by concurrent resolution, establish additional categories of eligibility.

(g) The provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (86 Stat. 770) shall not apply to the Panel established by this section or the subcommittees thereof.

DIRECT LOANS SEC. 106. (a) The Corporation is author

ized to make direct loans to any applicant to carry out a currently approved eligible undertaking consistent with the purposes of this Act, if the applicant has presented evidence to the satisfaction of the Board that it is unable to obtain sufficient funds on reasonable terms and conditions from any other source.

(b) Any applicant for a loan shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Board of Directors that there exists-

( 1) a reasonable probability of success of or substantial benefit from the proposal or program with respect to which any such applicant seeks assistance; and

(2) a reasonable probability that the proposal or program with respect to which any such applicant seeks assistance will further substantially the purposes of this Act.

(c) Any loan made by the Corporation shall be for periods determined by the Board, bearing in mind that the maturity of such loans should, whenever possible, coincide with the projected useful life of the facilities financed with such loans or the likely date of successful culmination of the research and development activity financed. The outstanding balance due on Corporation loans shall be refinanced through another lender whenever, in the judgment of the Board, such refinancing is feasible on terms and conditions which the Board considers to be reasonable for the borrowers.

GUARANTEED LOANS SEC. 107. The Corporation ls authorized to

guarantee the payment by an applicant of interest and principal on any loan made to carry out a currently approved eligible undertaking by the applicant, consistent with the purposes of this Act, if the effective interest rate for such loan is not more than 2 per centum above the Federal Reserve discount rate, and the lender is approved bY the Board.

PURCHASE OF STOCK SEC. 108. The Corporation is authorized

to purchase capital stock of any applicant which is a corporation in such amounts as the Board may determine but not to exceed 50 percent of the amount of such stock which is outstanding. The Board shall not exercise the voting rights of any class of stock which it holds.

RECOUPMENT OF INVESTMENT SEC. 109. (a) In making any loan, invest

ment, guarantee of a loan, or other authorized transaction, the Corporation may require the applicant to enter into an agreement pursuant to this section in order to advance the purposes of this Act, further secure its investment, and obtain additional funds for the purposes of the Corporation. Such agreement shall contain provisions to assure-

( 1) that the Corporation, subject to the provisions of section 108, will be given a share in the equity of the recipient having a value not in excess of the amount of the loan or investment made or guaranteed by the Corporation, but in no event exceeding 50 percent of the current equity of the recipient; or

(2) (A) that a portion, not to exceed 50 percent, of the royalties or other income received due to exploitation of any patents or inventions obtained or developed as a result of activity assisted by loans or investments made by or guaranteed by the Corporation shall be paid to the Corporation; and

(B) that any invention developed as a result of activity assisted by loans or investments made or guaranteed by the Corporation shall be made available to others in return for reasonable royalties on terms set forth in agreements with the Corporation or determined by procedures set forth in such agreements.

LIMITATION ON INVESTMENTS SEC. 110. (a) In making any loan, guar

antee, or investment to an applicant, except for small business concerns as provided in section 127 of this Act, for a currently approved eligible project, the dollar amount involved may not exceed the lesser of-

(1) 75 percent of the total amount to be invested in the project to be undertaken, determined without regard to the Corporation's assistance; or

(2) 33,'3 percent of the total pa.id in capital and surplus of the applicant prior to the commencement of the undertaking by the applicant.

(b) No single loan, guarantee, or investment greater than $5,000,000 may be made to any single applicant without the specific approval of the Board.

(c) No loan, guarantee, or investment may be made in a corporation with assets or gross sales greater than $1 billion or in a corporation that controls greater than 25% of the market in the line of commerce in which the loan, guarantee or investment will be made, as determined by the Board after consultation with the Federal Trade Commission, unless a specific finding is made by the Board that the project is potentially critical for the fullillment of the purposes of this Act and that no competing applications of comparable merit have been filed by other potential recipients

SEC. 111. Thirty days prior to making any loan, guarantee, or investment which exceeds $50,000,000, to any single applicant the Board shall cause notice of such proposed action to be published in the Federal Register and on the same calend.ar day as such notice shall appear shall transmit to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report setting forth-

( 1) the name of the applicant; (2) a detailed description of the under

taking for which assistance is sought; and (3) such other information as will fully

advise the Congress as to the expected benefits from any such undertaking. No proposed loan, guarantee, or investment, notice of which has been published in the Federal Register and a report of which has been transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, may be made if, within thirty days of the date of such publication or transmittal either House of Congress by resolution disapproves that proposed loan, guarantee, or investment.

TRANSFER OF PATENTS AND TRADE SECRETS SEC. 112. Except as otherwise provided in

any agreement with the Corporation, any obligations imposed upon a party pursuant to an agreement with the Corporation under section 109 of this Act shall be enforceable by the Corporation against such party and also against any direct or indirect assignee or purchaser of any patent, trade secret, process or business from such party.

AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS SEC. 113. Notwithstanding any other pro

vision of law, all funds obtained by the Cor-


poration pursuant to agreements under section 109 of this Act or as a result of civil actions on behalf of the Corporation to enforce its agreements may be used by the Corporation for purposes set forth in this Act without further appropriation.

TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ADVICE

SEC. 114. The Corporation shall have the authority to request the assistance of Federal, State and local agencies and other persons in evaluating proposals for investments, loans, and guarantees pursuant to this Act with respect to--

( l) the social benefits from successful research or development of the type proposed;

(2) the likelihood of success of the proposed efforts; and

(3) the relative merit of a proposal compared with other proposals. Federal agencies and departments shall cooperate with the Corporation 1n making any such evaluation to the maximum extent feasible.

TAXABLE STATUS

SEC. 115. The Corporation, its property, its franchise, capital, reserves, surplus, security holdings, and other funds, and its income shall be exempt from all taxation now or hereafter imposed by the United States or by any State or local taxing authority, except that (1) any real property and any tangible personal property of the Corporation shall be subject to Federal, State, and local taxation to the same extent according to its value as other such property ls taxed, and (2) any and all obligations issued by the Corporation shall be subject both as to principal and interest to Federal, State, and local taxation to the same extent as the obligations of private corporations are taxed.

PRIORITY AND SUBORDINATION OF CLAIMS

SEC. 116. Except as otherwise provided in any agreement made by the Corporation, claims of the Corporation shall have priority in all bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings to the same extent as obligations due to the United States. The Corporation shall have power to waive such priority in any agreement, and also to accept subordination of claims if the Corporation certlfl.es that this is necessary in order to induce private financial institutions anc! other sources of private financing to assist in financing activities necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act. The Corporation shall also have power where appropriate to agree to waive any liability on the part of any parent entity owning shares in a subsidiary thereof obligated under any loan or guarantee, where such parent entity contributes technical know-how to such subsidiary for consideration or otherwise in aid of research assisted by the Corporation.

COOPERATION WITH EXISTING AGENCIES

SEC. 117. The Corporation shall not finance or assist in financing research or development which duplicates efforts being made by or under the supervision of other federal agencies which have not been transferred to the Corporation pursuant to title II of this Act, but may in its discretion finance or assist in financing efforts which will supplement the work being done by or •.1nder the supervision of federal agencies. Wherever other federal agencies are sponsoring or continuing research or development in a field, the Corporation shall consult with such agencies prior to financing or assisting in financing efforts in the same field.

SEC. 118. (a) The Corporation shall have authorized capital stock of $5,000,000,000 payment for which shall be subject to call in whole or in part by the Board with the approval o! the President to the extent funds are made available under section 131 (a).

(b) The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to, and upon request of the Board shall, purchase stock in amounts designated

by the Board up to a total of $5,000,000,000, but in no event shall the Secretary of the Treasury puzchase more than $250,000,000 of such stock in any single fiscal year.

BORROWING AUTHORITY

SEC. 119. (a) The corporation may issue notes, debentures, bonds and other evidences of indebtedness in such amounts and on such terms and conditions as the Boa.rd of Directors may determine subject to the limitations prescribed in this Act.

(b) The aggregate outstanding indebtedness of the Corporation at any time, including contingent llabillties on outstanding guarantees, may not exceed twenty times the pa.id-in capital stock of the Corporation at that time.

(c) In the event that the Corporation ls unable to pay upon demand, when due, any obligation issued under subsection (a), the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay the amount thereof and thereupon to the extent of the amount so paid by the Secretary of the Treasury shall succeed to all the rights of the holder of the obligations.

PURCHASE OF OBLIGATIONS BY TREASUltY

SEC. 120. To carry out its purposes, the Corporation is authorized to issue to the Secretary of the Treasury to such extent or in such amounts as are provided for in a.ppropria tion Acts, notes or other obligations in an aggregate amount of not to exceed $5,000,000-ooo, in such forms and denominations, bearing such maturities, and subject to such terms and conditions, as may be prescribed by the Secretary o! the Treasury. Such notes or other obligations shall bear interest at a rate determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, taking into consideration the current average market yield on outstanding marketable obligations of the United States of comparable maturities during the month preceding the issuance of the notes or other obligations. The Secretary of the Treasury ls authorized and directed to purchase any notes and other obligations issued hereunder. The Secretary of the Treasury may at any time sell any of the notes or other obligations acquired by him under this subsection. Ninety days prior to requesting the purchase of any asset or obligation under this section the Boa.rd shall cause notice of intent to do so to be published 1n the Federal Register; and such purchase shall not be made if el ther House of Congress shall by resolution disapprove such purchase within such ninety-day period. INVESTMENT STATUS OF OBLIGATIONS OF THE

CORPORATION

SEC. 122. All obligations issued by the Corporation shall be lawful investments, a.nd may be accepted as security, for all fiduciary, trust, and public funds the investment or deposit of which ls under the authority or control of the United States or of any officer or officers thereof.

APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES

SEC. 123. The Board shall appoint a. President of the Corporation and such other officers and employees as it deems necessary to carry out the functions of the Corporation. No officer of the Corporation shall receive any salary or other remuneration from any source other than the Corporation during the period of his employment by the Corporation.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

SEC. 124. (a) No director, officer, attorney, agent or employee of the Corporation or member of the Panel shall, in any manner, directly or indirectly, participate in the deliberations upon or the determination of any loans, guarantee, or investment which may affect his personal interests, or the interests of any corporation, partnership, or association in which he has any interest.

(b) The Corporation shall not--( 1) engage in political activities; or

(2) provide financing for or assist 1n any manner any project or activity involving political parties. The directors, officers, employees, or agents of the Corporation or the Panel shall not in any way use their connection with the Corporation for the purpose of influencing the outcome of any election.

GENERAL CORPORATE POWERS

SEc. 125. Except to the extent inconsistent with the provisions .:if this Act, the Corporation shall have the corporate powers o! a business corporation organized and existing under the laws of the District of Columbia.

PRINCIPAL OFFICE AND BRANCHES

SEC. 126. The principal office of the Corporation shall be located in the District of Columbia, and it may establish branches in appropriate regions of the United States, which shall carry out the functions of the Corporation in such regions subject to the supervision of the President of the Corporation.

SMALL :BUSINESS ASSISTANCE

SEC. 127. (a) Long-range research and technological development are major factors in the growth and progress of industry and the national economy. The expense of carrying on long-range research and technological development programs ls beyond the means of many small business concerns, and such concerns are handicapped in obtaining the benefits of reseach and development programs conducted at Government expenses. These small business concerns are thereby placed at a competitive disadvantage. This weakens the competitive free enterprise system and prevents the orderly development of the national economy. It is the policy of the Congress that assistance be given to small business concerns to enable them to undertake and to obtain the benefits of long-range research and technological development in order to maintain and strengthen the competitive free enterprise system and the national economy.

(b) It shall be the duty of the Corporation, and it ls empowered-

( 1) to assist small business concerns to obtain Government contracts for both longrange and near-range research and develop .. ment;

(2) to assist small business concerns to obtain the benefits of both long-range and near-range research and development performed under Government contracts or at Government expense; and

(3) to provide technical assistance to small business concerns to accomplish the purposes of this section.

(c) The Corporation is authorized to consult and cooperate with all Government agencies and to make studies and recommendations to such agencies, and such agencies are authorized and directed to cooperate with the Corporation in order to carry out and to accomplish the purposes of this section.

(d) (1) The Corporation is authorized to consult with representatives of small business concerns with a view to assisting and encouraging such firms to undertake joint programs for research and development carried out through such corporate or other mechanisms as may be most appropriate for the purpose. Such joint programs may, among other things, include the following purposes:

(A) to construct, acquire, or establish laboratories and other facilities for the conduct of research;

(B) to undertake and utilize applied research;

(C) to collect research information related to a particular industry and disseminate it to participating members;

(D) to conduct applied research on a protected, proprietary, and contractual basis

5700 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 9, 1976 with member or nonmember firms, Government agencies, and others; .

(E) to prosecute applications for patents and render patent services for participating members; and

(F) to negotiate and grant licenses under patents held under the joint program, and to establish corporations designed to exploit particular patents obtained by it.

(2) The Corporation ma.y, after consultation with the A ttomey General and the Chail·man of the Federal Trade Commission, and with the prior written approval of the Attorney General, approve any agreement between small business firms providing for a joint program of research and development, if the Corporation finds that the joint program proposed will maintain and strengthen the free enterprise system and the economy of the Nation. The Corporation or the Attorney General may at any time withdraw their respective approval of the agreement and the joint program of research and development covered thereby, if either of them finds that the agreement or the joint program carried on under it is no longer in the best interests of the competitive free enterprise system and the economy of the Nation. A copy of the statement of any such finding and approval intended to be within the coverage of this subsection, and a copy of any modification or withdrawal of approval, shall be published in the Federal Register. The authority conferred by this subsection on the Corporation shall not be delegated.

(3) No act or omission to act pursuant to and within the scope of any joint program for research and development, under an agreement approved by the Corporation under this subsection, shall be construed to be within the prohibitions of the antitrust laws or the Federal Trade Commission Act. Upon publication in the Federal Register of the notice of withdrawal of approval of the agreement granted under this subsection, either by the Corporation or by the Attorney General, the provisions of this subsection shall not apply to any subsequent act or omission to act by reason of such agreement or approval.

( e) Not less than ten per centum of the total a.mount of all assistance provided under this Act in each fiscal year shall be available only for small business concerns.

NONDISCRIMINATION CLAUSE

SEC. 128. (a) No applicant for assistance under this Act and which receives assistance under this Act shall discriminate in the hiring, rehiring, continued employment, or termination of employment of any person on the grounds of race, creed, or sex. .. J_b) All a.ssista\}ce under this Act shall be denled to applicants found by the B.9aff. to have violated the provisions of subsection (a) of this section until such time as any such discriminatory acts or practices have ceased and remedial or compensatory measures approved by the Boa.rd have been made.

REPORTS

SEC. 129. (a) The President of the Corporation shall prepare and transmit to Congress annually a report setting forth the investment, loans and guarantees made by the Corporation or for which commitments were ma.de by the Corporation during the preceding year, together with a. description of the efforts made by the Corporation to carry out the purposes of this Act and any recommendation.s for further action.

(b) All books, papers, records, or other documents of any description of the Corporation shall be ma.de available to any standing or select committee of the House of Repre- · sentatives or the Senate. All officers, employees, Members of the Board, and Members of the Panel shall appear and testify concerning the business of the Corporation or the Panel or subsidiary advisory panels at the request of any standing or select committee

of the House of Representatives or the Senate. No privilege, executive or otherwise, however denominated, may be invoked, except that individual privileges under the Constitution may be invoked or interposed in the same manner as other such privileges under the Constitution may be invoked before committees of the House of Representatives or the Senate.

AUTHORIZATION ~F APPROPRIATIONS

SEC. 130. (a) There is authorized to be appropriated the sum of $250,000,000 for each of the first 20 consecutive fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 1976, to the Secretary of the Treasury to finance the purchase of Corporation stock.

(b) There are authorized to be appropriated, without fiscal year limitation, such sums as may be necessary to pay the difference, if any, between the interest pa.id by the Corporation on its obligations and the interest received by the Corporation on its loans.

(c) There are authorized to be a,ppropriated, not to exceed $10,000,000 to provide initial opera.ting and administrative expenses for the Corpor-a.tion. All sums appropriated shall remain available until expended.

TITLE II-TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS

SEC. 210. (a) Subject to the provisions of this title the President, during the two year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, may transfer to the Corporation any functions (including powers, duties, and parts of functions) of any other department, ,agency, or instrumentality of the United states, or any officer or organizational entity thereof, which relate primarily to the funding or control 01.f programs or actiVities which encourage technolOgica.1 development. In connection with any such transfer, the President may provide for transfer to the Corporation of records, contracts, liabilities, property, personnel, and funds as are determined by the Director of the Office of Mana,gement and Budget to be employed, held, or used primarily in connection with any function ,transferred under the provisions of this title.

(b) Whenever any such tra.insfer is made within six months or a.fter a periiod of two years from the da.te of enactment of this Act, no such transfer shall be made under this section until (1) a full and complete report concerning the nature and effect of such pro·posed transfer has been transmitted by the President to the Congress, and (2) the first period of sixty calendar days of regUlar session of the Congress following the date of receipt of such report by the Congress has expired without the -adoption by the Congress of a concurrent resolution stating that the Congress does not favor such a transfer. . ( c) Alt' f'linctions- or t~e . Small Business Administration under section 9 of the Small Business Act (72 Stat. 391) are hereby transferred to the Corporation.

TRANSITION AL PROVISIONS

SEC. 202. (a) Except a,s otherwise provided in this Act, whenever all of 1ihe functions or programs of an agency, or other body, or any component thereof, affected by this Act, have been transferred from that agency, or other body, or any component thereof shall by this Act, <the -agency, or other body, or component thereof shall lapse. If an agency, or other body, or any component thereof lapses pursuant to the preceding sentence, each position and office therein which was expressly authorized by law, or the incumbent of which was authorized to receive compensation at the rate prescribed for an office or position at level II, III, IV, or V of the Executive Schedule (5 U.S.C. 5313-5316), shall lapse.

(b) All orders, determinations, rules, regulations, permits, contracts, certificates, licenses, and privileges-

( 1) which have been issued, made, granted,

or allowed to become effective by the President, any Federal department or agency or official thereof, or by a court of competent jurisdiction, in the performance of functions which are tra.nsferred under this Aet, and

(2) which are in effect at the time this Act takes effect, shall continue in effect according to their terms until modified, terminated, superseded, set aside, or revoked by the President, the AdministM/tor, the Commission, or other authorized officials, a. court of competent jurisdiction, or by operation o! law.

( c) The provisions of this Act shall not affect any proceeding pending, at the time this section takes effect, before any department or agency (or component thereof) functions of which are transferred by this Act; but such proceedings, to the extent that they relate to functions so transfen·ed, shall be continued. Orders shall be issued in such proceedings, appeals shall be taken therefrom, and payments shall be made pursuant to such orders, as if this Act had not been enacted; and orders issued in any such proceedings shall continue in effect until modified, terminated, superseded, or revoked by a duly authorized official, by a court of competent jurisdiction, or by operation of law. Nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to prohibit the discontinuance or modification of any such proceeding under the same terms and conditions and to the same extent that such proceeding could have been discontinued if this Act had not been enacted.

(d) Except as provided in subsection (f)-

( 1) the provisions of this Act shall not affect suits commenced prior to the date this Act takes effect, and

(2) in all such suits proceedings shall be had, appeals taken and judgments rendered, in the same manner and effect as if this Act had not been enacted.

(e) No suit, action or other proceeding commenced by or against any officer in his official capacity as an officer of any depart~ ment or agency, functions of which are transferred by this Act, shall abate by reason of the enactment of this Act. No cause of action by or against any department or agency, functions of which a.re transferred by this Act, or by or against any officer thereof in his official capacity shall abate by reason of the enactment of this Act. Causes of actions, suits, actions, or other proceedings may be asserted by or against the United States or such officials as may be appropriate and, in any litigation pending when this section takes effect, the court may at any time, on its own motion or that of any party, enter any order which will give effect to the :fniovisrorrs-o!~thil, 'seei"tkm.

(f) If, before the date on which tmis Act · takes effect, any department or agency, or officer thereof in his official capacity, is a party to a suit, and under this Act may function of such department, ageny, or officer is transferred to the Corporation, or any other official, then such suit shall be continued as if this Act had not been enacted, with the Corporation, or other official as the case may be, substituted.

(g) Final orders and actions of any official or component in the performance of functions transferred by this Act shall be subject to judicial review to the same extent and in the same manner as if such orders or actions had been made or taken by the officer, department, agency, or instrumental-ity in the performance of such functions immediately preceding the effective date of this Act. Any statutory requirements relating to notices, hearings, action upon the record, or administrative review that apply to any function transferred by this Act shall apply to the performance of those functions by the Corporation, or any officer or component.

1.lfarch 9, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 5701' (h) With respect to any function trans

ferred by this Act and performed after the effective date of th1s Act, reference in any other law to any department or agency, or any officer or office, the functions of which are so transferred, shall be deemed to refer to the Corporation, or other office or official in which this Act vests such functions.

(i) Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to limit, curtail, abolish, or terminate any function of the President which he had immediately before the effective date of this Act; or to limit, curtail, abolish, or terminate his authority to perform such function; or to limit, curtail, abolish, or terminate his authority to delegate, redelegate, transfer or terminate any delegation of functions.

(j) Any reference in this Act to any provision of law shall be deemed to include, as appropriate, references thereto as now or hereafter amended or supplemented.

(k) Except as may be otherwise expressly provided in this Act, all functions expressly conferred by this Act shall be in addition to and not in substitution for functions existing immediately before the effective date of this Act and transferred by this Act. TRANSFER OF PERSONNEL AND OTHER MATTERS

SEc. 203. (a) Except as provided in the next sentence, personnel employed in connection with, and the personnel positions, assets, liabilities, contracts, property, records, and unexpended balances of appropriations, authorizations, allocations, and other funds employed, held, used, arising from, available to or to be made available in connection with the functions transferred by this Act, and which are determined by the Director of the Office of Mimagement and Budget to be employed, held, or used primarily in connection with any function transferred under the provisions of this title are (subject to section 202 of the Budget and Accounting Procedures Act of 1950 (31 U.S.C. 581c)) transferred to the Corporation. Personnel positions expressly created by law, personnel occupying those positions on the effective date of this Act, and personnel authorized to receive compensation at the rate prescribed for offices and positions at levels II, III, IV, or V of the Executive Schedule (5 U.S.C. 5313-5316) on the effective date of this Act shall be subject to the provisions of subsection ( c) of this section and section 202 of this Act.

(b) Except as provided in subsection (c), transfer of nontemporary personnel pursuant to this Act shall not cause any such employee to be separated or reduced in grade or compensation for one year after such transfer. Personnel engaged in functions transferred under this Act shall be transferred in accordance with applicable laws and regulations relating to transfer of functions.

(c) Any person who, on the effective date of this Act, held a position compensated in accordance with the Executive Schedule prescribed in chapter 53 of title 5 of the United States Code, and who, without a break in service, is appointed in the Administration to a position having duties comparable to those performed immediately preceding his appointment shall continue to be compensated in his new position at not less than the rate provided for his previous position. The transfer of personnel pursuant to subsection (a) shall be without reduction in classification or compensation for one year after such transfer.

INCIDENTAL DISPOSITIONS

SEC. 204. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget is authorized to make such additional incidental dispositions of personnel, personnel positions, assets, liabilities, contracts, property, records, and unexpended balances of appropriations, authorizations, allocations, and other :funds held, used, a.rising from, available to or to be made

available in connection with functions transferred by this Act, as he may deem necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this Act.

SEPARABILITY

SEC. 205. If any provision of this Act, ot the application of such provision to any person or circUIOStance, shall be held tnvaltd, the remainder of this Act, or the application of such provision to persons or circUIOStances other than those as to which it ts held In• valid, shall not be affected thereby.

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS OF BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

s. 926

At the request of Mr. THURMOND, the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. HANSEN) was added as a cosponsor of S. 92v, a bill to remove statut.ory llmitations upon the application of the Sherman Act to labor organizations and their activities, and for other purposes.

s. 1843

At the request of Mr. DoLE, the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. BARTLETT) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1843, to amend and olarify certain regulatory authorities of the Federal Government over work and activities in navigable waters.

s. 2348

At the request of Mr. HARTKE, the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. BARTLETT) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2348, to amend section 4940 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

s. 2387

At the request of Mr. BAYH, the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. DURKIN) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2387, the Petroleum Industry Competition Act of 1975.

S 2598

At the request of Mr. PACKWOOD, the Senator from Kansas (Mr. PEARSON) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2598, to mandate adequate inspection of all imported meat and dairy products.

s. 2621

At the request of Mr. NELSON, the Senator from California (Mr. TuNNEY) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2621, a bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

s. 2679

At the request of Mr. CASE, the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. WILLIAMS), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. HASKELL), and the Senator from Pennsylvania <Mr. SCHWEIKER) were added as cosponsors of S. 2679, to establish a commission to monitor compliance with the Hensinki accords.

s. 2789

At the request of Mr. TAFT, the Senator from Vermont (Mr. LEAHY) and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. INOUYE) were added as cosponsors of S. 2789, a bill to amend title 38, United Stat-es Code.

s. 2939

At the request of Mr. SCHWEIKER, the Senator from Indiana (Mr. BAYH), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH), the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. PELL), and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. WILLIA.MS) were added as cosponsors of S. 2939, to provide a special

program for financial assistance to Op-c portunities Industrialization Centers.

s. 2962

At the request of Mr. HUGH ScoTT, the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. BARTLETT) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2962, to require the U.S. Postal Service to make certain considerations prior to the closing of the 3d and 4th class post offices.

s. 3004

At the request of Mr. HUMPHREY, the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. BUMPERS) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3004, to establish a National Commission on Food Costs and Pricing.

s. 3036

At the request of Mr. STONE, the Senator from Alaska <Mr. GRAVEL), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. ABOUREZK) , the Senator from Indiana (Mr. HARTKE), the Senator from Michigan (Mr. PHILIP A. HART), the Senator from Ohio <Mr. TAFT) , the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. HUGH SCOTT) , and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. PELL) were added as cosponsors of S. 3036, to authorize payment under the medicare program for certain services performed by chiropractors.

s. 3079

At the request of Mr. THURMOND, the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. HUGH SCOTT) was added as a cosponsor of s. 3079, to amend chapter 49 of title 10, United States Code, to prohibit union organization in the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.

S.3085

At the request of Mr. NELSON, the Senator from New York (Mr. JAVITS), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. JOHNSTON), and the Senator from Iowa (Mr. CULVER) were added as cosponsors of s. 3085, to insure fair and equitable representation for smaller and medium-sized businesses on Federal advisory committees.

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 139

At the request of Mr. JAVITS, the Senator from Oregon (Mr. HATFIELD) was added as a cosponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 139, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to accept Saint Paul's Church, Eastchester.


At the request of Mr. HATFIELD, the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. YouNG) and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. PHILIP A. HART) were added as cosponsors of Senate Joint Resolution 165, to designate National Food Day.


At the request of Mr. NELSON, the Senator from New York (Mr. JAvrTs), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. JOHNSTON), and the Senator from Iowa (Mr. CULVER) were added as cosponsors of Senate Joint Resolution 177, requiring each executive department and agency to designate a small business specialist.

AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED FOR PRINTING

FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT-S. 3065

AMENDMEN~ NO. 1430

(Ordered to be printed and to lie on the table.)

5702 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 9, 1976 Mr. BUCKLEY submitted an amend

ment intended to be proposed by him to the bill <S. 3065) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide for its administration by a Federal Election Commission appointed in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution, and for other purposes.

INCREASE IN PUBLIC DEBT LIMITH.R. 11893

AMENDrtENT NO. 1431


1-M. BROOKE (for himself, Mr. GLENN, Mr. DoMENICI, Mr. McINTYRE, Mr. HUGH SCOTT, Mr. RIBICOFF, Mr. PACKWOOD, Mr. JAVITS, l~. CASE, Mr. SYMINGTON, Mr. MATHIAS, Mr. GARN, Mr. PELL, Mr. MONTOYA, Mr. BAY-tl, Mr. HUMPEREY, Mr. Moss, Mr. BAKER, Mr. STOUE, and Mr. HATFIELD) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by them jointly to the bill (H.R. 11893) to increase the temporary debt limit.

FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' POLITICAL AC IIVI'l'IES ACT OF 1975-H.R. 8617

AMEND:.idENT NO. 1432,


Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill (H.R. 8617) to "estore to Federal civilian and Postal Service employees their rights to participate voluntarily, as private citizens, in the political processes of the Nation, to protect such employees from improper political solici-tations, and for other purposes. ·

AMENDMENT NO. 1433

( Ordered to be printed and to lie on the table.)

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, the Hatch Act Am~ndments <H.R. 8617) which the Senate will consider this week contains a House committee amendment which for the first time allows a President to use White House staff for his political campaign at the taxpayer's expense.

The White House staff t.as gr0wn enormously over the years. There are now 526 members of the President's staff, 30 members of the Vice President's staff, plus an unknown number of detailees from Federal agencies and departments. Section 7325 (b) (2) of H.R. 8617 exempts this large st::,ff from the prohibition of onduty campaign activity which it imposes on other executive branch employees, including Cabinet members and their staffs.

This section, in effect, allows backdoor subsidies for a President's campaign which would be unfair to his opponents in primary and general elections and would undermine the campaign spending limits of the Federal Election Campaign Act. I urge my colleagues to join me in eliminating this section.

In offering this amendment, I am not suggesting that this administration, more or less than any other, is likely to convert the White House staff into political campaign operatives. The point 1s that H.R. 8617, by permitting this to happen, invites the kind of abuse which became so familiar in the 1972 campaign.

Numerous examples of campaign work subsidized by the taxpayer are a matter of public record. Chuck Colson set the tone for this misuse of staff in his famous memorandum to White House staff:

There are 71 days left between now and the election. Every single one of these 1s a campaign day and for those of you who have not been reminded of this lately, every day has 24 hours.

While the record is less complete, examples of misuse of staff for partisan campaign work in the 1964 and 1968 campaigns are also documented.

Whatever party is in the White House, it is wrong for the taxpayer to provide extra subsidies for the campaign payroils of incumbents seeking re-election. Neither the Hatch Act nor H.R. 8617 deals with legislative branch employees, and I was dissuaded from offering an amendment covering both White House and congressional staff because of the germaneness probleins tha~ would arise in the House. It is clear, however, that the same standard of conduct must be applied to Congress as well.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my amendment be printed at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the amendment was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

AMENDMENT No. 1433 On page 7, line 11, insert immediately after

the semicolon the word "or". On page 7, strike out lines 12 through 20. On page 7, line 21, strike out "(3)" an d

insert in lieu thereof " ( 2) ". AMENDMENT NO. 1434

< Ordered to be printed and to lie on the table.)

Mr. NELSON submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill (H.R. 8617), supra.

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS OF AMENDMENTS

AMENDMENT NO. 1237

At the request of Mr. McINTYRE, the Senator from New Hampshh·e· (Mr. DURKIN) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 1237, intended to be proposed to the bill (H.R. 7727) to extend for an additional temporary period the existing suspension of-duties on certain classifications of yarns of silk.

AMENDMENTS NOS. 1275, 1276, 1277, 1408, 1409, AND 1410

At the request of Mr. FONG, the Senator from Arizona (Mr. FANNIN), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. THuRMOND), and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. DoMENICI) were added as cosponsors of amendments Nos. 1275, 1276, 1277, 1408, 1409, and 1410, intended to be proposed to the bill (H.R. 8617) , the Federal Employees' Political Activities Act of 1975.

ANNOUNCEMENT OF HEARINGS

Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, in accordance with the rules of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, I wish to advise my colleagues and the public that the following hearings and business meetings have been scheduled before the committee for the next 2 weeks:

March 9. Full committee and national fuels and energy policy 3tudy, 10 a..m., room 3110, hearing, S. 1864, Energy Informti.tton Act.

March 10. ·Parks and Recreation Subcommittee, 10 a.m., room 3110, hearing, oversight hearing on park concessions.

March 11. Environment and Land Resources Subcommittee, 10 a.m., room 3110, hearing, omnibus wildlife refuge wilderness bills. (S. 1026, S. 1027, S. 1035, S. 1037, s. 1038, s. 1039, s. 1041, s. 1042, s. 1046, s. 1051, s. 1054, s. 1055, s. 1057, s. 1058, S. 1060, S. 1066, and S. 1067 .) March 12. Full committee and national fuels

anct energy policy study, 10 a.m., room 3110, hearing, S. 1864, Energy In.formation Act.

March 15. Indian Affairs Subcommittee, 9 :30 a.m., roon 3110, hearing, S. 2634, community college authorization.

March 16. Full committee, 9:30 a.m., room 3110, hearing, nomination of William L. Fisher, to be Assistant Secretary of Interior; Joh n D. Christie, to be Assistant Administ rator of FEA; Robert L. Hirsch, to be Assistant Ad ministrator of ERDA.

March 17. Minerals, Materials and Fuels Subcommi ttee, 10 a.m., room 3110, hearing, S. 2413, to amend section 21 of the Mineral Leasing Act, as amended.

March 18. Full committee, 10 a .m., room 3110, business meeting, pending calen dar business.

March 22. FuU committee, 10 a.m., room 3110, hearing FEA oversight on oil pricing regulations.

ANNOUNCEMENT OF HEARINGS ON THE EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT

Mr. STEVENSON. Mr. President, on Monday and Tuesday, March 22 and 23, the International Finance Subcommittee of the Committee on Banking,- Housing, and Urban Affairs will hold hearings on S. 3084, a bill to extend the Export Administration Act of 1969, which expires on September 30, 1976, for 3 years.

With limited exceptions, the Export Administration Act is the basic statutory authority for regulating U.S. exports for national security, foreign policy, and short-supply purposes. Among the issues which deserve exploration in connection with legislation to extend the act are: The adequacy of pJ;"esent policies and procedures in regulating technology transfers and assessing their implications for national security; the processing time for export license applications; the roles of the State, Commerce, and Defense Departments, the industry-government technical advisory committees, and the International Export Control Coordinating Committee--COCOM-in formulating and implementing export policy; the adequacy of the appeal review process in export license decisions; the opportunity for public comment on export licensing procedures; and the operation of the Export Administration Act with respect to agricultural commodities and nuclear materials and technology,

Presently pending before the Senate ts a bill (S. 953), previously reported by the Banking Committee, which among other things, amends the Export Administration Act to deal with foreign boycotts. Since S. 953 amends the Export Ad.ministration Act which expires on September 30, it is intended that its provisions be incorporated and considered by the full Senate in legislation extending that act. Since S. 953 has already been fully

March 9, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 5703

considered and favorably acted on by the committee, the subcommittee does not intend its further consideration in these hearings.

The hearings will be held in room 5300 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building at 10 a.m. Interested persons should contact Stanley J. Mar cuss, counsel to the subcommittee in room 456 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510 (202-224-8813).

FEA OVERSIGHT HEARING

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, at the request of Senator JACKSON, the chairman of the committee, I wish to announce that the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs has scheduled an oversight hearing for 10 a.m. Monday, March 22 on the actions taken by the Federal Energy Administration to implement the petroleum pricing policy and provisions of Public Law 94-163, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act approved December 22, 1975.

As the Senate knows, the oil pricing provisions of the EPCA were the culmination of a year of congressional consideration. The legislation put in place a 40-month incentive-based price control formula for domestic oil. The supporters of this legislation contended that the pricing structure was designed to insure continuing price stability in the economy, while still recognizing the necessary for providing incentives to spur the domestic production of oil.

As required by EPCA, the FEA has moved promptly to implement the new pricing policy. A final regulation establishing the initial pricing formula for domestic crude oil was promulgated February 1. Steps are now underway to formulate a further revision of the price structure to be effective March 1-retroactively. A third round of rulemaking will also get underway this month with a view to developing recommendations concerning the inflation and production incentive adjustment limitations established in the new act. In addition, FEA has issued final regulations-effective February!concerning the use of banked costs, the proportionate allocation of costs, and the passthrough of cost decreases. And a rulemaking proceeding is currently underway looking toward the decontrol of residual fuel oil.

The EPCA vested the President with substantial discretion respecting the mechanics of its implementation. There is no question that the Congress-and the Interior Committee in particular-has a special responsibility to maintain effective oversight over FEA's pricing regulations. The committee's pt.rpose will be to assess what the agency has done to date and what it purposes to do in terms of the compatibility of its regulations with the policy objectives and requirements of the new act.

The March 22 hearing will be limited to witnesses representing the FEA. The public record generated by the agency in connection with its rulemaking proceedings is available to the committee. However, the committee is very much interested in receiving prior to the hearingoutside views on the current pricing reg-

ulations and proposals, on FEA's factfinding procedures, and evaluations of the regulatory course being pursued by the agency. Such comments are specifically invited and should be made available to the committee staff by March 15.

The hearing will be held in room 3110 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Interested parties should contact Mr. Owen Malone of the committee staff on 224-1076.

At this point, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, the Senator from Washington (Mr. JACKSON), to Mr. Zarb, the Administrator of Federal Energy, be printed at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Mr. FRANK ZARB, Administrator,

MARCH 5, 1976.

Federal Energy Administ r ation, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. ZARB: Please be advised that the morning of Monday, March 22 has been reserved for an oversight hearing before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs to review the actions taken and proposed to be taken by the Federal Energy Administration to implement the oil pricing and related provisions of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act approved December 22, 1975.

The hearing will include inquiries concerning all of the three stages of rulemaking programmed by FEA under the Act namely: the final regulations governing the price of domestic crude oil promulgated February 1, the upward adjustments in crude oil prices proposed to be effective March 1; and FEA's present views respecting the 10 % limitation on inflation and production incentive adjustments. In addition, attention will be directed to the following: the regulation relative to banked costs, proportionate allocation of costs, and the passthrough of cost decreases made effective February 1, and the proposed revision of that regulation; FEA's proposal to exempt residual fuel oil from controls; the recently announced actions respecting profit margin limitations, the small refiner exemption contained in section 403 (a) of EPCA, and other price and price related actions taken and, proposed since December 22, 1975.

As you know, the EPCA granted the President substantial discretion respecting the implementation of the oil pricing policy on the premise that FEA would move ahead in good faith to achieve the initial price rollback and the subsequent price stability mandated by the Congress. The Act also requires that FEA actions be undertaken only upon detailed factual findings-the purpose being to afford the public and the Congress an opportunity to fully examine the evidence advanced to support regulatory actions. The evolution of EPCA also reflected substantial concern over the accuracy of the existing energy data base and the need for a more precise data series tailored to the EPCA program. And, as you know, the Act requires a periodic testing of the price regulations to determine whether actual prices are within the mandated composite price. It will be very helpful if in your statement at the hearing you will apprise the Committee of what FEA has done to meet these requirements of the Act.

Also, and in view of the complexity of the subject matter it will be very helpful if you will provide the Committee, for the use of its Members, 20 copies of a summary document, setting forth a chronology of FEA pricing and price related actions taken and proposed since December 22, 1975, explaining

the requirements of the new and proposed regulations, and relating them to the pertinent provisions of the EPCA and the existing or pre-existing regulations. It is requested that this material be made available to the Committee not later than March 18, 1976.

The Committee will look forward t o your appearance at the hearing. Please advise me of the names of the other witnesses who will represent FEA. In accordance with the requirements of the Legislative Reorganization Act, copies of witnesses• prepared statements must be made available prior to their appearance. In order to allow time for the Committee's review of prepared testimony, I will appreciate receiving 10 copies at least 24 hours in advance and 100 copies at t he time of the hearing.

Sincerely, HENRY M. JACKSON,

Ch ai r man.

ANNOUNCEMENT OF HEARING ON SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION ADVOCACY OFFICE Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I wish

to announce that the Select Commitee on Small Business will continue its oversight hearings on the Small Business Administration on March 29, 1976. At that time, the committee will hold a hearing on the Small Business Administration Advocacy Office and how it can be strengthened. The Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. McINTYRE) will chair the hearing at a place and time to be announced.

Further information on the hearings can be obtained from the committee offices, 424 Russell Office Building, telephone 224-5175.

NOTICE OF HEARING Mr. NELSON. The Select Committee

on Small Business Subcommittee on Government Regulation will hold a hearing on the subject of "Over-regulation of Small Business" on April 26, in Faneuil Hall, Boston, Mass., at 10 a.m. This hearing will be chaired by Senator THOMAS J. McINTYRE of New Hampshire, chairman of the subcommittee.

NOTICE OF HEARING Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I wish to

announce that the Monopoly Subcommittee of the Senate Small Business Committee has scheduled a hearing on March 12, which is a continuation of the recent hearing on alleged restrictive and anticompetitive practices in the cosmetic industry and their effects on specific small business :firms and the public.

The hearing will be held in room 318, caucus room, of the Russell Senate Office Building beginning at 10 a.m. The witnesses will be announced later.

CHANGE IN HEARING DATE Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, I wish

to announce for the benefit of Senators and other interested parties, that the Subcommittee on Minerals, Materials, and Fuels will now hold its hearing on S. 2413 on Wednesday, March 17, at 10 a.m. in room 3110, Dirksen Senate Office Building. This legislation is an administration proposal to amend the provi-

5704 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 9, 1976 sions of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 relating to oil shale leasing.

Anyone wishing additional inf ormation on the hearing should call D. Michael Harvey, deputy chie! counsel o! the committee, at 202-224-1076.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

MIKE MANSFIELD

Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, MIKE MANSFIELD will be missed. He will be missed by the people of Montana, this Nation, and his fellow Senators. He will stand out always as the quiet giant of the U.S. Senate. MIKE MANSFIELD is an original. We will never again see the likes of him in the position of majority leader. Not only was he my leader but my friend.

I first met MIKE when we served together on the House Foreign Affairs Committee in the 81st Congress. Even then MIKE'S judgment and knowledge of the difficult and complex issues of foreign policy stamped him as a man of broad depth. If Presidents over the years had taken Senator MANSFIELD'S wise counsel, we could have avoided some of the foreign policy mistakes of the past.

For an institution as diverse as the U.S. Senate, MIKE was the ideal leader. Decent, fair, and understanding, he never sought to impose his will on his fellow Senators. He recognized each of us as an equal-none of us with greater power or privilege. He insisted that each Member of the Senate, especially first termers, be accorded a major committee and equality of standing.

A great Democrat, he never approached our national problems from a partisan point of view and, yet, he was a most effective leader as he exercised his influence through character and principle.

Nothing that we can say will enlarge his place in history. His acts and 1·ecord will do this for him.

Lois and I extend our warm friendship and best wishes to MIKE and his great wife and companion, Maureen. I know that they will have continued happiness and fulfillment in the years ahead.

Many tributes have been paid to MIKE and, culling a few that are symbolic, I ask unanimous consent that a broadcast over NBC by David Brinkley, and articles by James Reston and John W. Finney of the New York Times be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

NBC NIGHTLY NEWS BY DAVID BRINKLEY,

MARCH 4, 1976 Once when Lyndon Johnson was leader of

the Senate, they were about to vote on something now forgotten, and one Sena.tor was heard to ask another one, "Why are we voting this?" The answer was, "I don't know. Lyndon wants it."

Johnson, as leader, could and sometimes did run down the list of the other 99 members and say from memory which ones were stealing, or drinking, or having affairs. And often he could get votes he needed by know-

Ing au their secrets and letting them know he knew them.

When Mike Mansfield replaced him in 1961, nobody could 1ma.g1ne him operating that way, and he didn't, ever. He was always quiet, gentle and courteous-qualities specially noticeable in a chamber holding so many assertive egos.

So, there was the occasional complaint a.bout weak leadership, usually heard from those who wanted the Senate to do something it didn't do, and Mansfield would not arm-twist or blackjack them into doing it.

As he announced his retirement, he put out a quiet little statement saying, "My years in Congress encompass one-sixth of our nation's history ... seven Presidents ... the assassination of a President and other extreme outrages . . . able political leadership and seamy politics and chicanery ... the nuclear age ..• men on the moon ... a great war and a prelude to more wars and an uneasy peace."

He said his biggest disappointment was that he couldn't stop the Viet Nam war, which he saw as this nation's greatest tragedy.

But he had other successes, and he will be remembered in Washington as a leader who did his work quietly, smoked his pipe and told the truth.

[From the New York Times, Mar. 5, 1976} SAY IT AIN'T So, MIKE

(By James Reston) WASHINGTON, March 4.-In the last few

months, eight members of the United States Senate and 19 members of the House of Representatives have decided to retire, but none of these has saddened the capital more than the decision of Mike Mansfield to give up the Democratic leadership of the Senate.

This ls not primarily a political loss, like the departure of Lyndon Johnson or Robert Ta.ft from Capitol Hill, but a personal loss. Mike has been not so much the majority leader of the Senate as the moral leader of the Senate, whose personal integrity and fl.dellty to the nation crossed all party and personal controversies.

He was oddly suspicious of judges, maybe because in his boyhood struggles in the mines of Montana the courts were too much influenced by the copper companies. But in the long domestic and foreign policy struggles of the last generation, no man won the respect of the Congress or the Executive more than Mr. Mansfield.

When Lyndon Johnson left the Congress to become Vice President, and President Kennedy urged him to take over the leadership of the Democratic Party in the Senate, Mr. Mansfield argued that Hubert Humphrey would be a better majority leader, and even that it was not wise to have a Roman Catholic President and a Roman Catholic leader of the Senate Democrats.

This was the interesting thing about Mansfield. Wa.shington ls supposed to be a vicious, power-hungry town, intensely personal and partisan, but he got ahead by giving up. In his 15 years as majority leader, unlike Johnson, he never allowed personal differences to overwhelm Issues of principle. He was always for the young, insisting that the new Sena.tors get good committee assignments, and urging new young governors like Reubin Askew of Florida to get into the Presidential race.

In a cynical age, when all Government officials were in t1·ouble, Mr. Mansfield's influence in the Congress, in the White House and in State and the other departments has increased with the years. He has fought his party and his Presidents, but retained their respect. Not only on questions of policy, but maybe more important, on private questions, Mansfield has been one of the few men in

this distracted town who could be counted on for private counsel.

It would be ha.rd to overestimate the private probleins of members of the Congress and the Executive in this town. They seem so prom.l.nent and successful but most of the time are driven by professional conflicts and private tragedies, and usually don't know where to turn.

Nobody, except Mansfield's lovely wife, Maureen, really knows the personal role he has played in Washington in these last fifteen years, or the personal dilemmas and sufferings they have gone through together, since she put him through college (before he had a grade school, let alone a high school education).

He indicated this in his statement of retirement: "My conclusion has been reached," he said, "with my wife, Maureen Hayes Mansfield, who has been with me through all these years and whose sensitive COUUEel, deep understanding and great love have been so much a part of whatever may be the sum of my contribution."

That's Mike. Always the human side of things, and that's precisely why he was probable a better national than a party leader, and why the leaders of both parties, who came to him in trouble, will regret his leaving.

There will be a struggle now for his Job. Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia., his loyal and industrious aide, will probably succeed him, but he is a totally different man, much more partisan, much tougher. and in this sense may succeed but not replace him.

Mansfield always said that Hubert Humphrey really should have been the Democratic leader in the Senate, and 1f Humphrey ls not dra.fted. for the Presidency, he may stlll be in the race, but in any event it is clear that, whatever happens in the Presidential election, the leadership in the 95th Congress will be totally different.

The transition to new men started long ago. Bill Fulbright was defeated in Arkansas last yea.r and the Foreign Relations Committ~e has declined in influence ever since. Representative Thomas E. Morgan, House International Relations Committee chairman for 18 years, retires in January.

Hugh Scott, the Republican leader of the Senate, has retired, as have Senators Paul Fa.nn1n, Republican of Arizona; Hiram Fong, Republican of Hawaii; Philip Hart, Democrat of Michigan; John Pastore, Democrat of Rhode Island; Stuart Symington, Democrat of Missouri, and Senator Roman Hruska, Republican of Nebraska.

But Mansfield of Montana., and his old breakfast companion, George Alken of Vermont, were special characters on Capitol Hill. Somehow they managed to be faithful to themselves, to their parties and to the nation, a combination few lawmakers could put together. They were the- models the Congress admired more than any others, and maybe the best of them all was Mike.

[From the New York Times, Mar. 5, 1976} RETIRING SEN ATE LEADER, MICHAEL JOSEPH

MANSFIELD

(By John W. Finney) WASHINGTON, March 4.-To visitors leav

ing his Senate majority leader's office, Michael Joseph Mansfield, in his laconic way, often says in farewell: "Tap 'er light." It is an expression he learned as a young man in the copper mines of Montana where the oldtimers would advise him. to tap the stick of dynamite lightly into the hole. To his associates, the expression ca.me to typify Mr. Mansfield-a gentle yet sometimes stubborn man who firmly beUeved that a friendly tap on the back was more effective than arm-twisting or cajoling in directing the course of the Senate.

After 15 years as majority leader-longer than any other person-Mr. Mansfield an-

March 9, 1976 (:ONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 5705

nounced today tha.t ~e would not seek reelection, ending 34 years · o_f service in Congress.

In a. brief retirement speech on the Senate floor, Mr. Mansfield said that "the Senate 1S stronger, more responsive, more alive, more innovative today than it was at the time of my entry" in 1953 after serving 10 years in the House of Representatives.

For the dwindling few who can remember the clubbish atmosphere of the Senate of another era, it was a judgment that they could endorse.

NEW GENERATION REA.RD

More than any other man, Mr. Mansfield has changed the character and attitudes of the Senate from a passive institution run by an inner club of a few elderly men into an assertive institution in which the voices of a. new postwar generation of senators could be heard.

There are those in the Senate, including some of the younger generation, who have become restless with the gentle, almost passive style of Mansfield leadership, wishing for the more assertive, partisan, sometiines autocratic ways of Lyndon B. Johnson when he ruled over the Senate before he was succeeded by Mr. Mansfield In 1961.

Such criticism only provokes a smlling, philosophical puff on his pipe by Mr. Mansfield, who in his later years in the Senate became something of a lonely headmaster watching out over the progress of his students on the Senate floor.

His basic concept as majority leader was that the Senate was composed of 100 equal, independent men and that his role was not to direct, order or cajole them but to give them an opportunity to reach a collective Judgment.

If he led the Senate, it was largely because he was so highly respected, almost revered by his colleagues, who sometimes privately would refer to him as "Saint Micha.el."

HUMBLE TASTES OBVIOUS

"He's the most decent man I've ever met in public life," Sena.tor Hugh Scott, who will be retiring this year as minority leader, once observed. "He's fair."

In an institution where many men succumb to a toga complex, Senator Mansfield, while enjoying the perquisites of the majority leader's office, aroused attention over his humble background and modest tastes. His colleagues would chuckle over the way he would use his chauffeured limousine to go to a cut-rate tailor to buy a suit or go to the soldiers home to play golf on a free course.

Sena.tor Mansfield was born March 16, 1903, in Greenwich Village, the son of Irish immigrant parents. With the death of his mother when he was 3 yea.rs old, he was sent to Montana to live with an aunt and uncle.

In World War I, at the age of 14, he lied about his age to join the Navy. He subsequently enlisted in the Army and the Marine Corps. While in the Marines. he served with the garrison troops in China-an unsettling experience for him that was to shape his career and attitudes toward American involvement in Asia.

His wife, Maureen Hayes, persuaded Mike, as he is known to everyone, to leave the copper mines and worked to put him through high school and college. He became a professor of Asian history at the University of Montana and in the process built up the coterie of student supporters who permitted him to win election to the House in 1942.

To his colleagues, Sena.tor Mansfield was a Western moderate, which was one reason Lyndon Johnson selected him as majority whip in 1957 when he was looking around for a deputy who presumably would not cause any friction or trouble. In an ironic twist, Senator Mansfield was to become

CXXII--361-Part 5

President Johnson's most troublesome critic on the Vietnam war.

. FOREIGN POLICY SHIFT

In his international thlnk1ng, Mr. Mansfield went through an evolution from being one of the architects of postwar expansionism to one of the leading advocates of contraction of American power.

To some in the executive branch, he became the voice of neoisola.tionlsm, a criticism that always bothered Mr. Mansfield, who insisted that the United States had neither the mandate nor the resources to be "policeman for the world."

Until the assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem in 1963, Mr. Mansfield was an advocate of American support of the South Vietnamese Government. With the death of the South Vietnam leader, he became one of the most outspoken critics of American involvement in the war.

With Ciceronian intonations, his voice would rise in shrill anger on the Senate floor as he repeatedly asked how long American blood would be spilled in a. senseless conflict.

In recent years, as he sat philosophizing in his office, Mr. Mansfield would expound on how older men should step a.side to give a. voice to the younger generation and recite with pride how the younger men in the Senate were moving into positions of authority on such tradition-bound committees as the Finance and Senate Armed Services committees.

"I Just felt it was time to go," he said today. "As the miners say in Butte, when you complete tapping in the stick, 'you're deep enough.'"

MIKE MANSFIELD

Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, when our good friend, MIKE MANSFIELD, rose the other day in the Senate to announce to all of us, to our country, and to the world that he would not seek reelection, it came maybe as a surprise to some, but not as a complete surprise to me, because I know how MIKE feels. I know his great love for his State of Montana, and it is only natural that there comes a time in a man's life, particularly the long life of service he has given to his country, then that man has a right to have the feeling of wanting to go home. The Senate will miss MIKE, but I think, more importantly, the country will miss him because he is a man of devoted principle, a man of even temper; in substance, a gentleman. A number of years ago I got myself in a bit of trouble by using the words "extreme" and "moderate." I would like to use one of those again in trying to tell a bit of my feelings toward this great man. I do not know who said it, but it has been said:

A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation and temper ls always a virtue, but moderation in principle is always a vice.

His temper has always been moderate, although there have been times on the floor of this Senate when if I had been in MIKE MANSFIELD'S shoes my temper would have gone through the roof of this Chamber. but never MIKE. He can withstand the toughest onslaughts, the meanest slurs, the advantages that are taken of him, but never does his temper go up. And as to principle, he has never varied from it in the years that I have known him. We both came to the Senate

on the same day, although he had served a long time in the House before that, and as I look back on the years that I have been in this body, and a..c: I think of the days when I will look back on it without being here, one of the outstanding memories of those years will be my association with MIKE. A man is not blessed on his passage through life with running into many like him, and God has been good to me in allowing the years of our association to grow in number as they have continually grown in pleasure. I wish for MIKE and his family nothing but the happiest of days ahead. He has earned them and he has earned the plaudits that will fall on his shoulders from his constituents who are the people of this country and to his colleagues who have served with him in this body.

TRIBUTE TO SENATOR MIKE MANSFIELD

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I felt a sense of sadness and regret when MIKE MANSFIELD told us that he has decided not to run for reelection.

MIKE MANSFIELD was in his 6th year of Senate service and 16th year in Congress when I first came to the Senate in 1959. I was green then, but Senator MANSFIELD was so helpful and encouraging that I soon felt at ease in conducting my Senate business on behalf of the State of Nevada.

He is a fellow westerner who loves and respects the rugged Western country and he has always worked to meet the needs of that region and its people.

A fair and forthright Senator, MIKE MANSFIELD has had a direct and vital role in a long series of major legislative accomplishments, in the cause of promoting opportunities for a better life for all our people and in seeking world peace.

As Senate majority leader, MIKE MANSFIELD has typified outstanding leadership with a great capacity for work and an appreciation of the various viewpoints that go to make up this great Nation of ours. Because of these qualities he has attained the respect and admiration of every man in this body regardler.s of political party or philosophy.

The Senator from Montana will be missed in this body, but we also understand the reasons for his decision. We all wish a long and happy retirement for MIKE and for his wife, Maureen.

THE RETffiEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE MANSFIELD

Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, MIKE MANSFIELD is a man of a few words; and so, my remarks about him will be brief, especially inasmuch as he has from time to time found it necessary to chastize this body for producing too much talk and too little work.

It is a formality for Members of the Senate to refer to one another as "the distinguished and honorable Senator," even when we are in no mood to pay one another compliments. But when that phrase is applied to our colleague from Montana, it is much more than a routine salutation. In a period of national sus-

5706 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE March 9, 1976 picion about politics and politicians, Senator MANSFIELD has stood above suspicion, an example to skeptics that public service in Government can indeed be a noble calling. In a time of cynicism about all om· national institutions of power, Senator MANSFIELD'S long career in the Congress restores our faith in the excellence both of our political system and of its leaders at their best.

Like many Members of the Senate, I am not of the majority leader's party; nor do I share his political philosophy. But I trust that every Member of this body shares the principles to which he has devoted hie; work among us. Honor, decency, fairness, tolerance-these have been his hallmarks; and those qualities, much more than our words in praise of him, will remain his most eloquent tributes.

RETIREMENT OF MIKE MANSFIELD Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I deeply

regret the decision of our beloved majority leader, MIKE MANSFIELD, to retire.

I say this with a particularly heavy heart since I have had the good luck to have served in the Senate only under his leadership and for his total period of leadel'Ship.

In the course of this time, I have come to immensely admire his qualities of character, honesty, and integrity and also to really appreciate that most important quality of all which he possesses and that is the quality of respect for the viewPoints of all of his fellow Senators.

Serving under his leadership and with him, each of us has been able to develop our own potential ability to the fullest.

He has permitted each of us the free exercise of our conscience as is intended under our Constitution. Through his own modesty, he has sought to build each of us up and give each of us a share of the confidence we need to carry on our own responsibilities.

I pray that his successor may be as fair and as blessed with these same qualities. Senator MANSFIELD'S leadership was a new kind of leadership in the history of our Senate, a leadership that leads by moral force and by the quality of example.

There have been those who have criticized his qualities of gentleness and respect for the views of others. I have never shared in this criticism. Rather, I have said and continue to say hurrah for those qualities and may they continue to be exercised by our leadership.

SENATOR MANSFIELD )'I.Ir. MATHIAS. Mr. President, every

one who has to deal with other peopleand that is all of us-fully realize that there are two ways to make the beast go. One way is with a stick and the other way is with a carrot.

Senator MIKE MANSFIELD has just announced that he is retiring as a Member of the Senate and as the majority leader of the Senate. One of the distinguishing features of Senator MANSFIELD is that he has been able to make the beast go by using the carrot and by throwing away the stick.

In the 8 years in which I have served with Senator MANSFIELD in the Senate and in the 8 previous years in which I observed him from the other end of the Capitol, I have seldom heard him raise his voice. I have usually seen him with an expression of serenity on his face. He has always been reasonable and rational and brought people with him, not by the weight of his office and prestige, but by the force of his logic.

Senator MANSFIELD is unique in many ways. One of the stereotype concepts of a U.S. Senator is a man who makes a lot of long-winded speeches, while saying very little. That stereotpye, of course, is familiar to all Americans through cartoons and through the kind of humor which has been poked at the Senate on .radio and television shows over the years. Senator Claghorn and Senator Fogbound are better known to our fellow countrymen than most of us who sit here today. Senator MANSFIELD is an exception. He is America's briefest speaker since Calvin Coolidge. I have heard him deny himself opportunities to expand his own Views at the expense of his listeners or his readers and instead succinctly and fully comprehend an answer within the space of one phrase. This in itself is a remarkable achievement and an unusual exercise in Senatorial self-denial. I regret to say that we will miss him for this, among other reasons. His brevity, his conc!seness, and his ability to conserve not only his time but other people's time has been appreciated on Capitol Hill.

But far beyond that, the Senate owes MIKE MANSFIELD a tremendous debt of gratitude. He has served as majority leader through some of the most tumultous years of this Republic's history.

He was a close associate of President John Kennedy and he came to the majority leadership of the Senate at the time that President Kennedy went to the White House. He was, of course, one of the strong characters who stabilized the country at the time of President Kennedy's assassination.

He maintained his leadership during the very difficult period of the Vietnam war-particularly difficult for him. He had on the one hand to maintain his loyalty to the Nation and the Constitution as one of the principal public officials of the Republic, while at the same time expressing his own personal opposition to the Vietnam war and his distress at the ravages that the war was making on the American scene.

Following the Vietnam war, he helped to steer the country through the agonies of Watergate. A more partisan leader might have sought to take more partisan advantage from those difficult months. But again, Senator MANSFIELD saw his duty and he performed it in a stable and evenhanded manner that contributed to the success of the constitutional system as we passed through the Watergate years.

We should all say "thank you" to Senator MANSFIELD without respect to our party affiliations, but only in considera.tion of the job that he has done as a great U.S. Senator for the whole American people. I add a personal word of

thanks for his unfailing courtesy, generosity, and friendship.

SENATOR MANSFIELD Mr. MONDALE. Mr. P1:esident, I rise

to express my deep admiration for the distinguished majority leader of this body, MIKE MANSFIELD.

Senator MANSFIELD'S decision to retire from the Senate after 34 years of service to his State of Montana and his country has, I believe, brought forcibly home to many of us the truly distinguished quality of leadership we have enjoyed during his record 15 years of service as majority leader.

His style of leadership is not loud or :flamboyant; it is steady and quiet. And it is precisely that steady, quiet, but effective leadership which constructed and today sustains the progressive coalition which characterizes the work of this body.

I think of MIKE MANSFIELD with special gratitude, because since coming to the Senate in 1964 I have benefitted from his principle that there are 100 Senators who should have 100 votes. His whole tenm·e as majority leader has been indelibly stamped by his commitment to open and fair debate-to the right of each Senator to put his proposals before the Senate as a whole.

And over the years, all the crucial debates bear the unique print of his leadership. Senator MANSFIELD is far too modest when he says he had no impact on ending the Vietnam War. Those of us who served with him in this body know otherwise. For example:

We know how important he was to enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and in the countless bitter battles over civil rights that the Senate has fought so often in the past decade.

We know of his contributions to the Tax Reform Act of 1969.

We know his contribution to achieving the 18-year-old vote.

We know his leadership in establishing the fairness doctrine and the right of the Congress to respond to major policy statements by the President.

We know that his expertise on the Far East had much to do with creating the climate for opening a dialog with China.

We know his role in reforming campaign finance and reforming the cloture rule.

In fact, we know that in all the legislative snarls in the past 16 years, his calm and decent influence has been felt. As a perceptive observer wrote in this morning's Washington Post-

He has an almost oriental way of sliding things into place, fading into the background and allowing others to take the lead when he agrees with what they are doingand in that way, heading the Senate in the direction he wants.

Mr. President, the Senator from Montana has established a quality of leadership that is too easy to take for granted. But I know that our loss will be the gain of his wife Maureen and his family. And I have the sneaking suspicion that Mr. MANSFIELD'S contributions to the public

March 9, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 57Q7 life of this country will not be over when he leaves the Senate next January.

THE IMPORTANCE OF FORAGE CROPS

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, the February issue of Scientific American contains an excellent article on "forage crops" written by Harlow J. Hodgson. Mr. Hodgson, before his retirement from the U.S. Department of Agriculture last year, was principal agronomist for the USDA's Cooperative State Research Service. Now serving as chairman of a task force conducting a study titled "Ruminants in Support of Man", Hodgson is an expert in plant breeding.

In this article, Hodgson points out some very important and often overlooked facts about grasses and legum.es-forage crops-which are grown as feed for livestock:

Forages a.re the most important crops in the US from several points of view. More land is devoted to them than to all other crops combined. They take up some five times the acreage of all grain crops. The dollar value of forages, expressed in terms of their contribution to human food of animal origin, exceeds the value of any other crop. Indeed, the agricultural system represented by forage crops and the ruminant animals that feed on them (mostly cattle and sheep) can be said to be the backbone of the nation's agricultural economy.

Mr. President, during the past several years various areas of the world_:_most notably northern Africa-have been experiencing prolonged periods of drought and famine. There have been many diverse suggestions for solving present and imminent world hunger problems.

It is often suggested that the human food chain could be shortened if livestock were eliminated, and the grain consumed directly. However, to replace the nutrients of animal origin that the world population consumes would require a large part of the grain crop.

As Hodgson points out, to obtain the minimum daily protein requirement from com everyone would have to eat over 2 pounds of corn per day. Moreover, the quality of the protein would be substantially poorer than it is now. A chiefly "grain" diet would thus require large doses of supplemental vitamins and minerals.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, forages supplied 60 percent of the feed units-the nutritional equivalent of 1 pound of corn-fed to all livestock in 1974. Broken down into its component categories, this means that 82 percent of the units fed to beef cattle, 63 percent of those fed to dairy cattle, and 89 percent of those food units fed to sheep and goats consisted of various mixtures of grasses and legumes.

Forage crops contain high percentages of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin. These fibrous material cannot be consumed by humans, but can be broken down in the multichambered stomachs of ruminant animals. Ruminants, which contribute beef, dairy products, lamb and wool to the economy, efficiently turn forage plants, which people cannot digest,

or feed grains and byproducts, which people do not want, into highly sought after products of considerable economic value.

In addition, most of the land on which forage crops grow is not suitable for other crops; the land being too hilly, stony, wet, dry or otherwise unsuitable for intensive cultivation. Such is the case with the 605 million acres of permament U.S. pasture and rangeland. Forages are also grown on good land, where they play an important part in soil management practices. Much forage is grazed, with the rest being cut. dried, and fed to livestock.

With increasing amounts of grain being exported, and the price of these commodities rising, the trend has been to feed less grain and more forage to livestock, particularly beef cattle. The percentage of forage in the feed of beef cattle increased from 73 percent in 1972 to 82 percent in 1974.

Ca.sh receipts to farmers from beef and dairy cattle and sheep in 1972 were almost $26 blllion, which was slightly more than a. third of all fa.rm ca.sh receipts. The value of the forage that contributed to the feed of those animals was a.bout $12.5 billion. No other crop approached that value.

Forages and ruminant livestock a.re important in every part of the U.S. In 1973 beef cattle provided more ca.sh receipts to farmers than any other commodity in 21 states and ranked among the top five income producing commodities in 47 states. Dairy cattle were the highest producers of income in nine states and among the top five producers in 39 states.

Human dietary preferences in the U.S. do not run much to corn, sorghum, barley, oats and rye. As a. result sucJi grains have traditionally gone ma.lnly into feeding livestock and into export markets.

Those grains were available in large a.mounts as livestock feed because of the tremendous agricultural production ca.pa.city that developed in the United States after World War II. Because no alternative market materialized, the grains (principally corn and sorghum) were available at exceptionally low prices for feeding to livestock. That situation prevailed until two or three years a.go, when the demand for exported grain rose rapidly and drove prices up to five to seven cents per pound.

All indicators point to continued increases in the demand for exported grain. If this holds true, less grain will be available for ruminant livestock. Thus, livestock will become increasing dependent on forages. It can also be expected that farmers growing grasses and legumes will be under pressure to "grow more forage. to produce forage of better quality and to utilize forage crops more efficiently.''

Mr. President, given the importance of forage crops to our economy, and given the projected increases in their utilization as livestock feed, it seems only logical that USDA research efforts on forages and ruminant livestock should be increased.

· Today, the United States exports more than half of its wheat and soybean crops. Sales of other grains are also increasing. The grain agreement recently entered into with the Soviet Union means that even larger quantities of grain will go overseas. The amount of Federal taxsupported research on grains is substantial. Research on some of these commodities has been increased at the same

time that research on grasses, legumes, and ruminant livestock has decreased.

Research on wheat and other exported commodities must continue. They play a vital role in America's agricultural economy and in earning income, they help to balance our foreign trade accounts. However, it seems to me that the United States should be spending a larger portion of its research efforts on the domestic food supply.

In fiscal year 1976, total domestic USDA research-excluding construction-amounted to $252,338,000 with $6,-824,900 or less than 3 percent of that total going to forage crops. In fiscal year 1977, USDA has requested a total uomestic budget of $263,627,000. The amount targeted for for age crop research has been increased to $7,126,500. But this increase, which amounts to little more than 4 percent, is still not enough.

Because forages provide more than half of the feed units for livestock; because about half of the food nutrients consumed by humans in the United States are of animal origin; and because increased research on grasses and legumes could increase their yield, longevity, and energy storage capacity, I have written a letter to Senator McGEE, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee's Agriculture Subcommittee asking that U.S. research efforts on these crops be stepped up.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this letter be printed in the RECORD.


U .S. SENATE, Washington, D.C., March 9, 1976.

Hon. GALE McGEE, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Senate Ap

propriations Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D .C.

DEAR MR. CHAmMAN: The Administration ha.s asked for $263,627 ,000 for domestic agriculture research (excluding construction) for Fiscal Year 1977. Of this a.mount, some $7,126,500, or a.bout three percent, ls targeted for research on forage crops.

As you know, a.bout 60 percent of the feed units fed to livestock in the U.S. are supplied by grasses and legumes. Because of the fibrous nature of these plants, they cannot be directly consumed by humans, but a.re easily broken down in the stomachs of rumina.n t animals. Through this process, some 25 to 30 percent of the typical American's diet is directly based on forage crops.

To date, only limited research on forage crops has been undertaken. Consequently, relatively little is known about the genetic structure of most important forage species. Until such genetic information is available, progress in improving forages is likely to be slow.

By increasing the funds available for forage crop research, a number of useful projects could be undertaken. Among the most important of these, given the current high price of nitrogen-based manufactured fertilizer, is the development of plant-bacteria relationships that wlll provide nitrogen for grasses. Other research efforts could be aimed at helping to increase the yield, longevity, and energy storage capacity of these plants.

The amounts requested by the President for this research is inadequate. Wp.lle there is an increase in the budget for FY '77 over the fiscal Year '78 amount, thJs increase does not even keep up with the present rate of infia tion.

5708 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE Mm·ch 9, 1976 Therefore, Mr. Cha.irma.n, I would respect

fully request tha.t the Appropriations Committee's SUbcommlttee on Agriculture consider increasing the level of funding for forage crop research for Fiscal Year 1977.

With warmest regards, Sincerely,

FRANK CHURCH.

INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, the

report of the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities, due almost any day now, will contain minority views of my own. Those views will be fully explained but part of the reasons for my dissenting from the full report can be found in the article which has prompted this statement and which I will ask to be printed in the RECORD. My understanding of the original resolution was that the committee would investigate the illegal investigations into the private lives of American citizens and, Mr. President, had we confined ourselves to this I think the committee would have made a very salutory contribution to the protection of privacy. This, however, was not the case because almost immediately on starting business we got into the subject of assassinations, which has no relationship to our privacy, and from this we proceeded into other areas and finally, after nearly a year of work, we began to work on the supposed infringements on our privacy and, frankly, Mr. President, I do not think we ever fully completed this, but that is beside the point. During the course of our investigations, and I will say they were very thorough, we created so much grist for the mill of journalism that we came very close to destroying what was rapidly becoming the best intelligence system in the world.

The fact that we were not able to do thts, or better put, the fact that we could not do this is because the average American has confidence in our CIA and our FBI and other intelligence services to the point that the highest interest I ever saw in any poll conducted on the subject was 7 percent. In spite of this, the efforts were not directed at the destruction of intelligence agencies, nevertheless were accomplishing this around the world as more and more of our allies wondered just what we were up to and more and more of our allies and friends began to make it impossible for us to get intelligence. My colleagues do not need reminding that no effort in this world, regardless of where it is directed, requires intelligence and more than any other issue, the subject of peace in this world requires a full and adequate supply of intelligence, whether it is overtly or covertly obtained. Speaking on this subject and writing on it for the Strategic Institute is Lt. Gen. Daniel 0. Graham, who speaks out plainly, bluntly, and very succinctly from the intelligence gathering side of this question. However, I think prior to the release of the committee's report each member should avail himself of the opportunity to read the General's remarks. Therefore, I ask -unanimous consent that the article be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

U.S. INTELLIGENCE AT THE CROSSROADS

(By Lieutenant General Daniel O. Graham, USA (Ret.))

No intelligence officer, clvllian, or mllitary, can view with equanlmlty the damage done in the past year to U.S. intelllgence. Congressional investigations, sensational media treatment and "insider" expos6s have combined to paint U.S. intelllgence agencies as generally evil and sinister, at best inept and often ridiculous. The damage done ls enormous, though hard to quantify publicly. Were intelligence agencies to try, they would only compound the damage. If they enumerate sources lost, they w1ll lose more; if they spell out serious morale problems, morale will erode even further.

INTELLIGENCE ON THE CROSS

The problem of lost sources has been mentioned openly by Mr. William Colby, former Director of the Central Intelllgence Agency, but it need not be recounted in detail for any logical person to understand that losses have been severe and will increase. Intelligence of value to the United States is, by definition, information which other governments would prefer not get into our hands. Thus, any source of information runs a certain risk of arousing the ire of another party if he provides it to U.S. intelligence agencies. In some instances, the source runs the risk of losing his freedom or his life; in others he runs the risk of losing his contacts, his job, his business. Such sources of information, be they cooperating foreign intelligence services or private individuals, cannot but view with alarm the public exposure of U.S. intelligence activities. Simple self-preservation will cause many sources to put distance between themselves and U.S. lntelllgence contacts. Worse, for the long run, is the sharply increased reluctance of potential new sources to have anything to do with U.S. intelligence in the future.

It is hard to overestimate the value of information obtained without remuneration from U.S. citizens who travel or work abroad and from friendly foreign nations who, out of simple patriotism or sympathy to our country, provide information. It is also hard to overestimate the future damage to our intelligence that will result from the new need for such people to weigh their cooperative inclinations against the possibility of their public identification with such "wicked" organizations as the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency. This ongoing and potential damage, coupled with that inflicted on the National Security Agency through exposure of its intercept capabilities and activities, provides ample reason for the despondency current in the intelligence community.

The morale problem is serious. Men and women, civilian and military, who have proudly devoted a large part of their lives to the intelligence profession, are faced with a barrage of accusations against themselves and their superiors which paint them as fools, if not the agents of utter wickedness. The intelligence "heroes" on the current scene are those who break their oaths and for profit, ego, or even vengeance, vilify their embattled former colleagues. Disillusionment, frustration and bitterness are common among intelligence professionals.

The morale problem is worst at CIA, which has borne the brunt of the :flagellation by Congress and the media. The Defense Intelligence Agency has a far less acute problem, since it is only peripherally involved in the intelligence functions which critics find so fascinating-clandestine intelligence, covert operations, and counterintelligence. However, DIA, along with other Defense Department intelligence agencies, shares a deep concern

for the malaise of morale at CIA. All are heavily dependent on a continuing high level of competence and efl'ectiveness in the clandestine services of CIA. Despite press suggestions to the contrary and despite some efl'orts on Capitol H111 to drive wedges between CIA and the military intelligence agencies, there is no smug satisfaction in the Pentagon intelligence circles over CIA's difficulties. There have always been (and probably always will be) important and strongly held substantive intelligence differences of opinion between DIA and CIA, as well as bureaucratic competition. But such differences have not diminished the respect of military intelligence people for the professionalism and dedication to high purpose of their colleagues at CIA. The unconscionable slurs directed at CIA and preposterous accusations such as those suggesting CIA involvement in the assassination of John Kennedy damage all of us.

For my own part, I can speak from t he vantage point of having served with CIA for about three and a half years in three separa t e assignments. CIA has been without a doubt the most competent and innovative organization in Washington, containing the brightest and most dedicated corps of civil servants I have ever encountered. My admiration for CIA has remained undiminished through the years, despite the fact that I found a n umber of the CIA people to be cocky, arrogant, and-most annoyingly-all too willing to knock their military colleagues as numskulls to enhance their own image. These are familiar faillngs paralleling those I have encoun -tered in military duty with elite airborn e units-and they are evidence of high morale and esprit de corps. I do not believe there is anyone in the intelUgence business who has had more numerous or more serious disagreements with CIA on issues of substance, organization and programs. But I deplore the savage attacks on the competence and integrity of CIA. The country cannot afford t he impairment of that Agency's morale, let alone the abolishing of the Agency itself.

THE CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS

Senator Frank Church and Representative Otis Pike have made pious speeches about the continuing need for intelligence, but they seem unable to resist the urge to defame intelligence people-and endanger their lives-if it seems politically acceptable to do so. Senator Church insisted on publishing his Committee's findings on alleged CIA assassination attempts despite the strong and cogent pleas of William Colby that the naming of large numbers of CIA men and their contacts would put their lives and well-being in jeopardy-a warning that came tragically true in Greece, where a CIA man was assassinated. _ Church could have published only the findings without all the masses of detail containing the names of the men involved. What purpose was served by all this exposure? Well, the basic findings were pretty dull reading. CIA, it turns 0ut, never assassinated anyone. The closest they ever got was providing the means to anti-castro Cubans. But the suggestive details of the testimony given were much more likely to titillate the press than were the bare findings .

As for Mr. Pike, he was very much interested in the story of one malcontent ex-CIA analyst named Adams, who accused all intelligence men, military leaders and diplomats who failed to support his unique view of Vietcong strength at. Tet, 1968, of outright lying. Adams wound up his testimony by recommending the firing of Mr. Colby, Mr. William Hyland of the State Department, and myself for "screwing up intelligence in Vietnam." A Mr. Ogle, another ex-CIA man, appeared later at the hearings to testify against the Adams' accusations but was turned away. The sensational charges of Adams made the news for weeks, with Mr. Pike himself (according to Walter Pincus) adding fuel to the


:fire by stating he was going to look into my military promotions to see if I had been rewarded for lying about Vietcong strengths. Despite the efforts of Mr. David Treen, Republican of Louisiana, and Mr. Dale Milford, Democrat of Texas, on Pike's Committee, no rebuttal witnesses were called for nearly three months. Although William Colby's testimony and mine belatedly but thoroughly disproved Adams' wild accusations, no word was forthcoming from Pike.

There is little doubt that such behavior on the part of the Congressional Committees has had a deleterious effect on intelligence, but to be fair about it, it must be said that we were having very serious trouble even before the Congressional investigations. They were, after all, a trailer to the Watergate affair. The previous association of members of the "plumbers" with CIA was an irresistible lure to Congressional investigators. The fact that the Watergate investigation revealed remarkable resistance on the part of CIA to pressures from the White House staff and that General Vernon A Walters, CIA Deputy Director, offered his head on a platter rather than involve the Agency, never seemed to sink in.

THE BREAKDOWN OF SECURITY

Another woe had begun to beset the intelligence community well before the Watergate circus. This was the breakdown of selfdiscipline in government and press on security matters. It had become exceedingly difficult for the U.S. government to keep a secret.

Sadly for intelligence, the efforts of two ex-insiders, Marchetti and Agee, to make money by publishing such secrets as they knew about CIA's business, came to fruition during the Watergate period. These books whetted the appetite for investigation by Congress and for scandal by the press. Other books had been published which were severely critical of CIA and other intelligence agencies, but most were serious, scholarly treatises and lacked the scandal-mongering, namedropping sensationalism of the Marchetti and Agee books.

For decades the government had relied for security of state secrets on a sort of honor system in the Legislative and Executive branches of government. Bureaucrats entrusted with sensitive classified information guarded it out of a sense of duty. Special oaths were signed to gain access to the more highly sensitive types of intelligence. These oaths were backed up with references to certain laws, especially the Espionage Act of 1948, under the provisions of which those who failed to honor their trust and passed classified information to "any person not entitled to receive it" could wind up in jail for ten years. For passing information on U.S. ccas and cryptographic infor~n or information pertinent to nuclear 'weTpoiis, special statutes were cited.

The warning of possible penal action, however, was not the operative cause for the rather good U.S. security over the years preceding the late sixties. Generally, bureaucrats and legislators kept their mouths shut out of a sense of obligation, and newsmen tended to respect the obligations of the government spokesmen as well as the right of the government to have some state secrets.

All this changed in the late sixties and early seventies. The rise of the anti-establishment syndrome stripped away the tacit restraints which had made the system work. Government and exgovernment people lost all compunction to guard a secret i! blabbing it to the press offered personal, bureaucratic or political advantage. Some individuals actually reversed the old feelings of obligation to keep secrets and felt themselves duty bound to reveal them out of a sense of superior morality; Daniel Ellsberg and the famous Pentagon Papers was a case in point.

The same wave of attacks on the establishment and governmental institutions

which broke down the moral barriers to breaches of security made the application of the legal sanctions of the Espionage Act almost impossible. The Justice Department had only a sllght chance of successfully prosecuting those who disclosed government secrets. The Ellsberg case was clearly in violation of the Espionage Act's provisions, but in the atmosphere prevailing at the time, conviction was an unlikely possibility. And here was a case in which the culprit was identified. Most leakage of secrets is untraceable. There are always at least two people involved in these matters-an untrustworthy insider and an agent of the public news media. The government man's motive can be financial reward (as little as a free lunch), bureaucratic advantage, budget impact, political gain, or a simple ego trip. The newsman's motive is usually described as "keeping the public informed," but competition with his fellow journalists in getting those forbidden tidbits of classified information is often a more honest description of motive in the "leak" game.

Both parties to this collusion are guilty of violation of the Espionage Act if the information passed is "related to the national defense." They can be charged jointly under the provision which starts out, "If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions. • . ."

But the evidence of this particular type of malfeasance invariably starts with the publication of the classified material in the media-and there the trail ends. The newsman immediately invokes "freedom of the press" and refuses to name his source. For the media, protection of sources is a sacred right; the right and duty of intelligence people to protect the government's sources are ignored. Media men often take the tack: "It's up to the government, not the press, to police its own leaky security system." That sounds logical, but in fact it's not possible without press cooperation. When security people try to locate the guilty parties in a damaging press leak, they are faced with a wide range of possibilities-all persons who had the classified Information in the various departments of government, congressmen and their staffs, and the White House itself. To be effective in policing the government to stop leaks, officials are almost forced to turn to surveillance, bugging, phone taps and entrapment. It is precisely this dilemma that drove the Nixon Administration to set up the infamous "plumbers" operation in the first place. Most reporters know this perfectly well, and this is why their retort of "clean up your own house" is cynical, not logical.

OVERCLASSIFICATION

Of course, no~ al~ t.b~ blame for damage done to the intel1igence community from the breakdown of security can be laid at the feet of the press. Too many bw·eaucrats have slapped "Secret" and "Top Secret" labels on matters which do not deserve such protection. The labels go on simply because the office or bureaucrat concerned does not want the matter to be too well known. Some of it is sheer administrative sloppiness or laziness. Documents remain classified long after t he need to protect "sources and methods" has passed. Intelligence agencies are particularly reluctant to put out papers with no classification stamp on them. One -wag at CIA said that the only unclassified papers put out at Langley were the paychecks and they would be classified if a secret bank could be set up to cash them. It is hard to convince a newsman that he should respect a classification stamp if he has seen it too often on trivia.

On the other hand, some critics of overclassification are curiously ambivalent on the matter, depending on the nature of the material involved. About a month before I submitted my request to leave my post as Di-

rector, Defense Intelligence Agency, a great furor erupted in the public media about an analysis I had chosen to publish as unclassified. It was an excellent piece of work by one of my best analysts of Soviet politico-military affairs, Dr. Wynfred Joshua. It concerned the Soviet view of detente and the advantages Moscow perceived as inherent in it. It was first distributed in a few copies around the Department of Defense with a "Confidential" stamp on it. Before it was formally printed-in "hard copy" as our jargon goesone reader pointed out to me that the analysis was drawn from open literature and there was no need ifor the classification. I reread it and agreed with him. With the removal of one nonessential phrase, the piece was indeed unclassified. So we put out the "hard copy" without the " Confidential" stamp, and received a hail of criticism for it in the press. It was painted as a "Pentagon assault" on detente policies. It seems that the public "needs to know" some intelligence matters but not others--especially not the analysis of a capable intelligence officer whose findings run counter to what some newsmen think t he public ought to think.

LEAKS AND COUNTERLEAKS

Another complicating factor in the leak problem is the tendency of some key officials to try to manipulate the press by passing selected tidbits to favorite newsmen. Given the nature of the relationship of press to government in this country, it is doubtful that this practice will ever cease completely, and sometimes the deliberate disclosure of intelligence information (not sources) to the public is a positive good. The problem is that the practice can easily get out of control. It happened recently with a series of leaks and counterleaks about Soviet compliance with arms control agreements. Further, while leaks of information by a top official are generally protective of intelligence sources, they cause some newsmen to look up their less discreet contacts to find out what the intelligence sources were. A news item mentioning "satellites," or "communications intercepts" always has a bit more credence and much more pizzazz. The code word of the intelligence operation involved really adds luster.

PLUGGING THE LEAKS

Both babbling bureaucracy and in·esponsible press share the blame for the hemorrhage of leaks in the public med.la which have done grave damage to intelligence. But the solution is not to determine who killed Cock Robin; the solution is to make the laws of the land protecting its intelligence sources enforceable, and then enforce them. Until this is done, the United States will remain a powerful giant, gradually going blind for lack of -intelligence information. . _.

The U.S. intelligence community mayor . may not get the Congressional support necessary to enact the laws required for the protection of our sources of information. It is perhaps a hopeful sign that Senator Church felt obliged to state recently his support for legislation punishing ex-CIA men for making public the names of its agents . It is sad that the death of the CIA man Richard Welch, in Athens was necessary ~ demonstrate the damage that can be done.

-unless there are some teeth put in the U.S. security system, however, there will be more deaths of intelligence people. As of today thirty-two Americans in France, whether CIA personnel or not, must either be brought home or live in fear of being the target of cr.ackpots. Even if they all come home, they will never fully escape the possibility of physical assault or death at the hands of the fanatical or mentally deranged.

Congress may not help out with the security situation, but it will certainly press for change in the organizational structure of intelligence. The Church and Pike Committees will demand changes if only to show

5710 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE March 9, 1976 tha.t their efforts yielded something besides damage to U.S. intelligence. But even those Committees have not made a case that intelligence agencies are "rogue elephants" culpable of serious malfeasance, and therefore requiring massive overhaul.

WHO'S IN CHARGE?

After a.11 the smoke of sensationalism and political posturing is cleared a.way, one or two matters still emerge which suggest a need for reorganization. For example, the lines of responsibility for one type of intelligence activity-covert action in support of foreign policy-are too hazy. It is hard to trace responsibility upward from the CIA to national authority. However, it should be abundantly clear that the intelligence agen<:ies did not undertake the ope-rations criticized by the Committees on their own initiative. The finger of responsibility points at those in ultimate power over national security affairs. The Church Committee's report on alleged assassination attempts, despite carefully obscure treatment of Presidential responsibility, cannot exonerate Presidents and their key political advisers-even those who were the political a.Illes if not heroes of the report's drafters. If, as Senator Church has stated, assassination of a foreign leader such as Fidel Castro is "utterly a.lien" to the American way, was it President John F. Kennedy who was acting in an "utterly alien" fashion, or some lesser figure in CIA? The notion that the CIA would decide to assassinate the Cuban dictator and keep the White House in the dark about it is preposterous. Of course, without the President's knowledge, some overly imaginative technician in the intelligence structure might devise a scheme to put a powder in Castro's shoes which would make his beard fall out. Wild ideas like that get cut off in the structure far short of the White House. But action designed to remove a foreign leader from office by any means, let alone by assassination, would never be taken by CIA without the approval of the highest national authorities.

The danger which Congress uncovered, then, was not that of a "rogue elephant" CIA unilaterally perpetrating wickedness; it wa.s of a fuzzy chain of responsibility for intelligence actions.

On the Executive Branch side, there is no single point of responsibility for the conduct of intelligence affairs. The head of CIA also carries the title Director, Central Intelligence (PCI) , and as such ls the primary intelligence advisor to the President. But he is in fact a servant to the NSC collectively and to Cabinet members dealing with foreign affairs individually. He cannot assume sole authority and responsibility for the conduct of intelligence affairs, many of which are conducted ~y organs outside his control---e.g., in the Defense, State, or the Justice Departments. Thus the blame for covert intelligence actl0ns which Senator Church finds reprehensible cannot rest on the shoulders of the Director, CIA.

A good case can be made for keeping the lines of responsibility for covert action hazy. There is merit to the old doctrine of "plausible deniabillty," that is, that it is often useful to provide the President and his principal Cabinet officers a means short of flat lying to deny responsibility or even knowledge of a specific covert action that goes sour. Friendly foreign leaders, political parties, or individuals can be destroyed by revelation that the U.S. has secretly aided them, particularly if the President admits his knowledge and approval. Thus, informal and deniable lines of responsibility for covert actions make a certain amount of sense.

Whatever the merits o! the hazy lines c! responsibility and "plausible denial," it appears certain that closer Executive and Legislative Branch oversight of the intelligence function will be part of an upcoming reorganization.

AN INSPECTOR GENERAL

There is a second problem area surfaced by the Congressional inquiries which is pertinent to reorganization schemes; the need for an Inspector General for Intelligence outside the chain of command of the intelligence agencies themselves. As was to be expected, every ex-intelligence officer with an unsatisfied gripe about the way his agency had operated in the past showed up at the door of one or both of the investigating Committees. These were mostly ex-CIA employees. Most of their gripes lacked merit, but they did establish the fact that there was no way to air them outside the employees' parent agencies, except by going to the press or otherwise viola ting secrecy oaths. The need for an Inspector General for Intelligence is only partly a matter of protecting the country from intelligence abuse; it is also a matter of removing the excuse for disgruntled individuals In the intelligence system to abuse their access to sensitive information outside the system. The establishment of an Inspector General outside CIA will tend to inhibit some of the wilder schemes which have been from time to time hatched at lower staff levels of the Agency.

The Congressional inquiries uncovered other areas of intelligence activities which may require remedial action. As discussed earlier, there is the problem of the current inability of the U.S. government to keep a secret, and the great damage done by public disclosure of sensitive information. The Congressional Committee activity demonstrated. this problem more than proved it through inquiry. However, this is not a problem to be solved by reorganization; it is a problem to be solved by legislation.

Other matters arising from the Congressional inquiries are those impacting on the rights of U.S. citizens, such as interception of communications, mail openings, surveillance and the like. Such activities are often connected with law enforcement, prevention of terrorist activity, controlling drug traffic, countering espionage, or fighting organized crime rather than with purely foreign intelligence matters. While there will be a hue and cry from some quarters that such activities should be totally abolished, reasoned examination of them will prove to any sensible man that they should not be ruled out altogether. For instance, if U.S. intelligence discovers a channel of communications, by mail or radio or other means, between a terrorist organization abroad and an American citizen, it would make no sense to prohibit interception of those communications by U.S. intelligence on the grounds of protecting the American's "civil rights." In fact, it could be considered unconscionable negligence not to intercept such communications. Abolishing these practices will not solve the problem. The problem is one of insuring that these intelligence collection activities are not misused for purposes other than the legitimate functions of law enforcement, security, and intelligence agencies. And it will be solved by legal and administrative action delineating the bounds of propriety in such activities. The problem is not one to be solved by reorganization either in the Executive Branch or the Legislative Branch.

WHAT IS ALLOWABLE?

Much of the other hurrah coming out of Congressional inquiry and the public media has to do with the techniques of intelligence. There is much pious tongue clucking about the CIA's use of journalists and businessmen in intelligence work, affiliation with and :financial support to oversea churchmen and missionaries, planting false stories in the foreign press, and so on, it seems ad. infinitum. Today there seems to be no better peg for a news item than exposition of some new allegation of wickedness on the part of CIA. Much of this neo-piety on the part of the

press is sheer hypocrisy. There are few brands of deviousness and skullduggery out of bounds to newsmen in digging out information for their own purposes. They know perfectly well that U.S. intelligence agents cannot function effectively using the Gulde Book for Girl Scouts as an operating manual.

One hears and reads a lot of inane arguments involving demands to continue or abolish certain intelligence techniques on the basis of similarity to KGB practices. It makes no more sense to demand the outlawing of an intelligence practice because the KGB uses it than it does to demand that all practices allowable to the KGB should be allowed to U.S. intelligence agencies. The thing to bear in mind about the KGB (and its counterparts in other Communist countries) is that it represents the opposing team in a deadly serious game which the United States can forfeit only at great peril to free men everywhere in the world. The rout of U.S. intelligence by the KGB would mean that Moscow would know everything they wanted to know about U.S. military matters and diplomatic efforts, while Washington would be tota.lly ignorant of everything the Soviets wished us not to know. Further, the KGB is in fact the official instrument of the Kremlin for suppressing the freedom of the people of the USSR; as such it should be denied as many triumphs as possible.

The KGB prides itself on operating under the frankest of amoral codes, the creed of the Chekist. Absolutely anything goes-sex, bribery, blackmail, terror, torture, and murder are to the KGB legitimate tools of the trade. No responsible U.S. inte111gence officer has ever advocated operating under the KGB rules. But it is insane to believe that U.S. intelligence can have the slightest success against such an adversary bound by Marquis of Queensbury rules. In fact, if U.S. intelligence agents were bound by the standards of behavior which the critics of CIA seem to demand, they would be ineffective against even relatively benign security systems of smaller nations such as our neighbors to the north and south.

U.S. intelligence operatives have the enormously difficult problem of doing a job which is rarely possible within the normal American definition of "fair play." In clandestine activity "fair play" could quickly result in the death of agents. The men and women who perform these jobs successfully are possessed of high intelligence, dedication, good_Judgment and character. And they must be willing to work in obscurity, foregoing the personal plaudits of their countrymen. Congressional and press criticism of the techniques used by these people should be tempered with consideration of the problem of finding individuals who can and will undertake the tasks of intelligence. Restriction of intelligence techniques should not be a matter of legislation or even exe::utive fiat. Criticism of techniques is certainly no basis for reorganization.

In sum, the Congressional inquiries produced very little that suggests much need to reorganize the U.S. intelligence apparatus. Possible exceptions are the perceived looseness of the lines of responsibility for covert action and the lack of an Inspector General outside the agencies themselves. Most of the noise arose from matters having no bearing on organization per se.

RESTRUCTURING U.S. INTELLIGENCE

Ironically there are good reasons for organizational change in the U.S. intelligence apparatus quite independent of the Congressional inquiries. These reasons were scarcely illuminated by the Committees, but are at least as important as the need to correct or forestall alleged "abuses." The U.S. intelligence structure has needed some overhaul for several years, mainly because the shifting world situation has changed U.S. intelligence needs, technological advances

Mm·ch 9, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 5711' have changed the way intelligence does its job, and certain aspects of the "centralization" of intelllgence have proved unworkable.

The U.S. intelligence community today remains structured and postured basically to deal with the relatively simple bipolar world of the fifties and sixties when the prime intelligence question was: What are the military capabllities and intentions of the Soviet Union? Of course, there was always some attention given to other areas and subjects especially during times of crisis and conflict, but by far the bulk of the intelligence assets of all intelligence agencies was focused on the U.S.-Soviet military equation. While that equation remains vitally important to U.S. decisionmakers, it has become calculable today with considerable precision as compared to the fifties and early sixties.

But today's world is not so simple and the answers to questions such as: "What a.re the prospects for the Soviet harvest?", "Can Argentine technology support a nuclear weapons program?", "What a.re the Arabs doing with oil revenues?", "Will the French sell helicopters to Iran?" have become vita.I to U.S. interests. In other words, poli:tica.l and economic intelligence on a wide variety of target countries has become critical to good national decision-making. This requires new efforts to collect, process and analyze politico-economic in.telligence; most of these efforts are manpower intensive. And it is unlikely that the intelligence community will be allowed a sharp increase in manpower to carry the new load. What this means to any reorganization is that the current broad overlap among agencies on purely military intelligence matters must be reduced to the minimum which still assures an independent review of those military intelligence judgments of interest to the very top of the government.

In the tactical field, the nature of the intelligence requirement has also changed over the past several years. Once the essential intelligence needs for a U.S. commander were "strength, capability, and disposition" of the enemy forces. With this intelligence he could prepare for tomorrow's, next week's, or next year's battle. Today he must be prepared for a. devastating and critical first battle at all times. This means he needs much more timely and precisely detailed intelligence on potential enemy forces. He is now opposed by modern military technology, especially powerful long-range weaponry, which must be monitored constantly. In any war between forces employing such weapons, defeat or victory can be determined in a matter of hours, perhaps minutes. There is no time to crank up the commander's intelligence apparatus after the start of hootilities. What this means with regard to reorganization schemes is that the needs of the forces in the field and fleets at sea, including their needs for intelligence support from national systems, must not be ignored in the enthusiasm for centralization. If we are not careful, we will diminish the war-fighting and deterrent capabilities of U.S. arms by concentrating too narrowly on the needs of Washington-level intelligence users.

The need to better differentiate the substantive areas of responsibility of the various agencies and to better serve the deployed forces is compounded by the impact of new technology. U.S. collection systems are entering an era where the large, expensive systems are capable of providing precise information on events as they happen. Modern communication allows this intelligence to be passed to field commanders in a matter of minutes or hours.

This situation contrasts with the past capabilities of such systems which provided good information, but generally on a historlcal basis-that is, they told us what the

situation was a few weeks or months or so ago. Thus the new systems will be of infinitely more value in crisis and combat situations. What this means to reorganization is this: (a) the day-to-day tasking and control of new systems must be in the hands of the military crisis and conflict managers (as opposed to the current management by interagency committee) ; and (b) quick dissemination of intelligence to a low enough classification to be used by deployed forces must be possible through the mllltary cha.in of command.

Intelligence cannot be truly "centralized." The case that military intelligence cannot be centralized can be inferred from the foregoing arguments. Intelligence is a vital function of every level of military organization and can no more be centralized in Washington than can "operations" or "logistics." Every commander will require some assets responsible to himself. This is not not to say that there are not legitimate trade-offs between "national" systems and, say, the reconnaissance aircraft conducting intelligence missions. In fact, as the new national capabilities discussed earlier come into being, such trade-offs will undoubtedly take place. But trade-offs between Army reconnaissance battalions and satellites are extremely unlikely to eventuate. Even within the Department of Defense, it is illogical to speak of "centralizing" all military intelligence activities. (DIA has been criticized by some for not accomplishing this centralization-a. job which DIA cannot do, should not attempt, and was not set up for.)

Since more than three-quarters of the U.S. intelligence effort pertains to the various levels of military intelligence, it follows that if that sector cannot and should not become highly centralized, the centralization of political, economic, scientific and law enforcement intelligence with military intelligence makes even less sense. What this means to reorganization schemes is that line authority from a U.S. intelligence "czar" over the departmental, bureau or agency intelligence resources is a totally unworkable concept.

The Director of CIA (DCIA), as a subCabinet officer, cannot oversee the entire U.S. intelligence effort, most of which is subordinate to Cabinet officers. The foregoing arguments concerning centralization in general are at the root of the problem of dualhatting the Director, CIA as a national au·tho:rity over aJ.l U.S. intelligence efforts. Unless given direct line authority over departmental resources, the DCIA cannot be expected to perform effectively even those limited oversight duties reflected in past NSC and Presidential directives. (l\:Ir. Colby did a remarkably fine job of coordinating intelligence community affairs, but this was largely the result of his style of conducting community business and the close personal relationships between him and the other key intelligence chiefs. Success in the current system of dual-hatting the DCIA is critically personality-dependent.) Such direct line authority of DCIA over departmental resources is unlikely to be granted and would not work in any case.

Three out of fou -· dollars in national intelligence programs are in the Defense Budget, but CIA remain::; a bureaucratic contender for tl·':! intelligence do.lar. One cannot logically expe.::t the Director, CIA to judge objectively between programs promoted by CIA and those promoted by oi;her agencies. With the best of will, (such as Mr. Colby applied) the DCIA will be unlikely to resist the pressure from within his own agen :: on important resource issues.

Since the inception of CIA, the dual-hat concept has existed-the DCIA was also the DCI, and as such was charged with leadership

of the entire community effort. However, the Directors of CIA, with the exception of James Schlesinger and William Colby, concentrated their attention on CIA business. In intelligence community affairs Directors of CIA emerged but rarely and then more in the role of adversary than spoke-man. To CIA staffs on the other hand, the Director's role as community leader presented an irresistible bureaucratic imperative to devise mechanisms permitting control or absorption of the intelligence activities of other agencies. As a result, CIA today contains elements competing with the National Security Agency's mission of signals intercept, with the Air Force's mission of developing and operating satellite systems, with the Navy's mission of undersea. intell1gence collection, with the State Departme~1t's mission of managing communications to embassies abroad, with DIA's mission to provide basic military intelligence, and even for a time with FBI's domestic counterespionage and countersubversion missions.

These accretions of control in CIA staff elements resulted in extensive overlap of functions and in an adversary relationship growing up between that Agency and all others in intelligence. It was particularly acute with the military intelligence elements. CIA's "customers" are the NSC and the President; the needs of military customers, particularly those outside Washington, carried very little effective priority with CIA staffers. Regrettably, one aspect of the adversary relationship with the military was the tendency of CIA spokesmen to create and feed the myth that military intelligence agencies consistently produced bloated, self-serving intelligence and that CIA's reasoned, objective intelligence judgments were required to offset these deliberate Pentagon distortions. As Albert Wohlstetter's work shows,• the record of military judgments over the past ten years or so simply doesn't bear that out. The assertion by CIA of its "keep-'em-honest" role in mllltary intelligence kept the Agency for years in the good graces of the liberal establishment, but it created enmity with the military intelligence people who naturally enough resented the i:ciputation of dishonesty on their pa.rt.

The dual-hat concept and the resultant expansion of CIA staff functions also caused a dilution of attention to CIA's primary unilateral responsibility-clandestine collection of foreign intelligence and covert action in support of U.S. foreign policy. The broader the scope of CIA activity became, the more difficult it was to preserve the secrecy required for its central mission. For instance, the CIA chief in a foreign capital, if charged only with liaison with that country's clandestine intelligence service and the conduct of U.S. espionage efforts could maintain a very low profile-say, as a low-ranking embassy employee, or other inconspicuous cover. However, if he is charged with a broad spectrum of activity such as making arrangements with the local government for the purchase of U.S. technical intelligence equipment, exchange of information with the local military people, and so forth, he can no longer maintain anonymity. He requires a title commensurate with his broad range of official contacts, a large office, secretarial help and other trappings of a quasi-diplomat. Under such circumstances the circle of persons, U.S. and foreign, who are privy to his CIA affiliation is too broad to allow more than a pretense of secrecy about it.

CIA involvement in the development and management of large technical systems ( e.g., the Glomar Explorer) with all the requisite

• Albert Wohlstetter, Legends of the Strategic Arms Race, USS! Report 75-1, Washington, D.C.: United States Strategic Institute, 1975.

5712 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE March 9, 1976 contact with industry, contractors, labor forces, opera.ting crews, etc., further weakens its capability to keep that which must be clandestine under cover. A DCIA responsible essentially for clandestine and covert operations can stick to a. "no comment" policy in response to the news media; a DCIA as spokesman for the entire U.S. intelligence effort and as the substantive intelligence contributor to national decisions cannot get a.way with the "no comment" response.

The foregoing discussion of the drawbacks resulting from attempts to "double hat" the DCIA, should not detract from the fact that CIA has more often than not improved overall U.S. intelligence operations when it moved into areas outside the clandestine field. CIA has always been a. well-funded and wellsta.ffed organization. Freedom from the strictures of regular Civil Service rules and regulations and from detailed. oversight by the Office of Management and Budget a.nd the Congress permitted the Agency to attract extraordinary talent and apply it efficiently.

CIA's entry in a big way into the development of high technology systems began with the U-2 program. At the time of the decision to produce an aircraft and camera. system capable of safely conducting overhead reconnaissance deep inside Soviet territory, the natural candidate in government to develop and manage the system was the Air Force. But the Air Force wa.s simply incapable then of undertaking the task with the degree of secrecy required. CIA was capable, and its success in the effort was truly remarkable. The corps of technicians at CIA, once established, remained and has contributed importantly to the development of other high technology collection systems. CIA's entry into other fields has also been marked by improvement of the overall intelligence support to national authorities-not always commensurate with the problems and frictions generated, however. Further CIA staffs cre· ated to solve problems which at the time were not otherwise solvable have taken on a bu· reaucratic life of their own despite capabilities existing elsewhere. The Air Force today, for instance, can develop and manage a U-2 system or a satellite system with as much or with more dispatch a.s CIA.

The thrust of the above argument is that in any reorganization: a) it is imperative that the functions of the head of CIA and the overseer of the total U.S. intelligence effort be separated; and b) CIA's function must be more narrowly focused on the critical and highly sensitive field of clandestine intelligence a.broad and covert action.

ALTERNATIVES

As the Executive Branch has tackled the problem of reorganization, each agency and department is battling for the preservation or expansion of its prerogatives in the intelli· gence business. CIA people prefer either to leave things as they a.re, perhaps with some cosmetic changes such a.s moving pa.rt of the Director's office from Langley to the White House, or for giving the Director, CIA, line authority over other agencies, particularly DOD agencies. DOD people argue for solutions which move CIA functions in military intelligence to DOD control; the JCS guard against encroachment into the tactical intelligence arena. Moreover, every "roles and missions" argument that has ever been raised in the intelligence field has been resurrected, whether pertinent or not. For instance, the old squabble over CIA versus individual Service control of attaches has resurfaced. In the end, however, the Executive Branch examination of the reorganization problem has produced four options which boil down essentially to:

(a) Leave the intelligence community as ls;

(b) Give the Director, CIA direct line authority over other intelligence agencies;

(c) Establish a separate position at White House level (NSC) to oversee the various agencies;

(d) Subordinate the DCIA to the Secre-. tary of Defense or State. There are variations on each of these themes, usually reflecting the grinding of more specialized bureaucratic axes.

The "as-is" option has one cardinal virtue. It is the least disruptive. The complex, delicate, and sorely distressed U.S. intelligence apparatus cannot survive ham-handedness at this Juncture. But it seems hardly likely that It would be politically feasible to do nothing to strengthen Executive oversight except exhort the DOI to exert better leadership. Also, the adverse impact of the Congressional inquiries on the image of CIA makes the previously awkward problems associated with dual-hatting the Director now overwhelmingly difficult. The DCI's effectiveness as intelligence community leader is heavily dependent on positive attitudes toward his leadership from leaders and rank and file in other agencies. It is too much to hope that CIA's image problem, even though largely undeserved, will not impact severely on the DCI's leadership role.

The "as-is" solution was working rather well before the impact of the Congressional inquiries was felt. In response to the Nixon directive of November 1971 calling for positive comm.unity leadership by the DOI, Dr. Schlesinger set up an Intelligence Community Sta.fr headed up by a uniformed officer and staffed by all agencies-not just CIA people as previous ineffective "community" staffs had been. He gave the Community Staff a voice equal to that of the internal CIA staff and as often as not ruled on issues in accordance with the IC staff advice and againct internal CIA arguments. Mr. Colby followed that example and the cooperation within the community was never better. P.owever, the perfectly understandable pressures on CIA for emphasis on selfpreserva.tlon in the light of Congressional and public attack stunted this development. The Intelligence Community Staff has become almost dysfunctional, having very little impact on the affairs of CIA and the intelligence community. It is extremely doubtful that this situation could be repaired in the foreseeable future. Thus the "as-is" option is not feasible.

Option b) , which would sharply increase the power of CIA over the other intelligence agencies seems to have even less political viability than the "as-is" option. It is ha.rd to imagine CIA being given more power over U.S. intelligence activities in the current climate of public opinion. Even if this were possible, the option contains the unworkable feature of outside line authority over the intelligence functions of the various departments.

Option d), subordination of CIA to the Defense Department or the State Department, would probably be strongly resisted by those Departments. Congress would almost surely strongly resist such "aggrandizement" of the Pentagon, and would certainly resist its direct subordination to the State Department so long as Mr. Kissinger is Secretary. It is a very poor solution in any case with respect to the impact on clandestine collection and covert action. As pointed out earlier, separation of these functions even from other less sensitive intelligence functions is essential; separation from regular military and diplomatic functions is even more critical.

Option c), creation of an oversight position separate from that of Director of Central Intelligence is the only one of the basic op-tions which is both feasible and meets the actual needs for executive oversight. Further, this option can be executed without drastic upheaval in the intelligence community. The good features of the current struc-

ture for coordination of intelligence community activities can be preserved, and the proper demands of Congress met.

A PROPOSAL

The responsibilities of this new officer (for the purpose of this paper, the Coordinator of U.S. Intelligence) require careful consideration. Essentially his responsibilities should be the following:

(a) Principal intelligence adviser to the President and the National Security Council;

(b) Chairman of all interagency intelligence boards and committees (e.g., U.S. Intelligence Board, Intelligence Resources AdVisory Committee, the Executive Committee on Overhead Reconnaissance, the "40" Committee);

(c) Establishing policy for the protection of intelligence sources and methods;

(d) Preparation for the President of a National Intelligence Program with resource allocation recommendations;

( e) Establishment and supervision of an Inspector Genera.I's office for national intelligence;

(f) Interface with appropriate Congressional bodies on matters of policy, resource allocation, and operations;

(g) Supervision of the preparation of National Intelligence Estimates and their dissemination.

There a.re two aspects of this solution which should be guarded against by the President and the Congress or both. The first is the danger of concentration of power in the hands of one man; the second is the creation of a stifling bureaucratic layer over U.S. intelligence activities. To a.void these possibilities the following should apply:

1. The Coordinator shall be approved by the Senate.

2. If the Coordinator is military or retired military, his deputy shall be civilian and vice versa.

3. The Coordinator shall not have line authority over the various intelligence agencies and bureaus.

4. The professional staff for all functions shall be limited to one hundred professionals with suitable administrative support and shall not be augmented without Congressional approval.

5. The professional staff shall be drawn from the various agencies of the intelligence community with not more than 40 percent originating from any one agency.

6. The professional staff will serve a fixed term and be returned to the originating agency for at lea.st one year before reappointment.

These safeguards would insure that the Office of the Coordinator would not become an entity with a bureaucratic life of its own. Staffers could not make a career out of serving in the Office, and an institutional bias or basic point of view would be inhibited.

This solution is one which can be put into effect without too much wrenching of the intelligence community machinery. For the most part the mechanisms for the Coordinator to accomplish his missions already exist, and could simply be immediately subordinated to him and physically moved as convenient. Most coordination is now done through the Intelligence Community Staff and the several subcommittees of the U.S. Intelligence Board (USIB) . The Intelligence Community Staff would become the Coordination Staff and the usm committees would function as before but report to a new Chairman, the Coordinator.

The preparation of National Estimates and responses to the National Security Council would be handled by the transfer of the NIOs (National Intelligence Officers) to direct control of the Coordinator. As ls the case now, those officers would be empowered to draw on the analytical resources o! any or all agencies to draft and coordinate substan-

March 9, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 5713 tive papers. The current NIO structure would probably have to be beefed up somewhat in manpower. but should remain relatively small-about twenty-five professional personnel.

Only the Inspector Genera.l's staff would have to be built from scratch. A person with a broad knowledge of intelligence operations should be selected to head up such an offl.ce, but legally trained non-intelligence personnel should probably be included. It should be made abundantly clear to all concerned that the Coordinator's IG is to hear complaints about possible abuses in intelligence operations, not personal grievances against supervisors, promotions, equal opportunity and the llke. Constrained to investigation of abuse complaints, the Coordinator's IG Office should not require more than three professionals and three clericals.

There is ample personnel within the current Intelligence Community Staff to assist the Coordinator in problems involving resource allocation. But the basic budgeting process for intelligence resources should not be tinkered with. It works. Any attempt t<J pull the intelllgence items out of departmental budgets to create a formal overa.11 "Intelligence Budget" with funds controlled by the Coordinator would be unwise. It would create an admlnlstrative nightmare requiring a huge Comptroller Staff at Coordinator level, and it would engender a never-ending bureaucratic struggle over the definitions of "intelligence resource" and "intelllgence-related resource." However. as the Intelligence Community Staff has done over the past few years, a National Intelligence program can be prepared in which the Coordinator sup· ports or withholds support from the pertinent intelligence resource requests of the Departments. This system gives the Coordinator strong leverage but not veto power over what intelligence resource requests go in or stay out of budgets.

The establishment of a Coordinator at White House level will not, of course, cure all that ails intelligence. It does not eliminate the overlap between CIA and other agency functions. It does not restore the necessary emphasis in CIA on clandestine and covert operations. It does not clarify the relationships of law enforcement, counterintelligence, and countersubversion between FBI and the intelligence agencies. It does not establish the proper legal basis to safeguard U.S. secrets. Recommendations for solutions of these problem areas should be given as missions to the Coordinator when established. His first order of business should be the revision of the National Security Council Intelligence Directives (NSCIDs) and Director, Central Intelligence Directives (DCIDs) which govern intelligence community activities at the national level. This should be coordinated with legislative proposals to set before the Congress and completed by mid-1976. The setting up of the Office of Coordinator should be the first and only reorganizational step to be taken now.

The only argument mustered in Executive Branch proposals against the separation of the intelllgence community coordinating function from the Director, CIA is that the Coordinator would not be able to function without an "institutional base." The argument, as one might expect, comes mostly from CIA spokesmen resisting the sharp diminution of CIA dominance entailed in such separation. The argument is a weak one. The Coordinator, with direct access to the President, the Congress and the National Security Council would not lack authority because he did not also "own" the CIA. To accept the objection, one would have to believe that Henry Kissinger, prior to his

appointment as Secretary of State, lacked power because he had only an NSC staff and no "instit utional base."

CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT

In addition to some change in the arrangements for Intelligence in the Executive Branch, there will almost certainly be some within the Legislative. As with the lmmedi· ate changes I have outlined. for the Executive side, I would hope that Congress would be wise enough to change oversight responsibilities to the minimum degree consistent with preventing abuses.

Intelllgence resource oversight by Congress should continue to be handled as it has been-that is, primarily by subcommittees of the Armed Forces Committees of both chambers. The indivisibillty of the Intelligence function from other functions of the various Departments makes separate presentation and separate defense of intelligence budget requests to Congress unwieldy if not infeasible. Certainly, milltary intelligence matters cannot be dealt with effectively in isolation from considerations of military force structure, weaponry and strength.

It would appear that the prime concern of Congress for stronger oversight is in the area of covert actions in support of foreign policy. A once widely supported solution is a joint Committee on Int.elligence. If such a Committee is organized, it would be most effective if it were composed of legislators already versed in intelligence matters and foreign affairs. A committee of the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of Armed Forces and Foreign Affairs committees would be able to deal with issues involving covert actions with dispatch and without the necessity to enlarge sharply the numbers of staff people privy to very sensitive matters. If the two chambers elect not to join forces 1n an oversight Committee, the same principle should apply. Some joining of Committees already cognizant of intelligence matters in their areas of responsibll· ity-milltary, foreign relations and judiciary--should be accomplished so that the Congress can be made aware of covert actions ordered by the President. They should not have veto power over the actions of the President, nor should their oversight be construed as approval. Committees of this nature could be briefed on a regular basis as to the status of ongoing covert actions, such briefings being the responsibllity of the Coordinator.

The primary objection from the Executive Branch to such oversight Committees, joint or unicameral, will be the problem of "veto by leak." This is a serious consideration, probably pertinent more to Congressional staff personnel than to the legislators themselves. This points up the necessity for legislation creating practical sanctions against revelation of sensitive information as a corollary to any reorganlzatlonal schemes.

As of this writing there is in the legislative hopper a. bill sponsored by the Church Committee which would provide for a new Senate Committee with detailed oversight responsibility over all aspects of intelligence, whether in the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the State Department, Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other agency. Even the intelligence activities of military units in the field would fall under this new Committee's oversight. At first glance, such a. notion seems to represent the dreams of the temporary staff of the Church Committee to establish themselves in permanent positions of power and position as the defacto bosses of U.S. intelllgence. It is difficult to see how the very comprehensive nature of oversight suggested by the Church bill could be justified by the findings of the Select Committee. The detailed oversight of "collection, analysis, production, and dis-semination" (i.e., the full spectrum of intelligence work) in the Department of Defense seems h ardly Justified by the skimpy a.t ten-

tion the committee gave to military lntelllgence. For instance. I, as chief of military intelligence and Director, DIA, testified only once on military intelllgence before the Church Committee (and then only to three Senators) during the protracted. hearings. To my knowledge. no accusations of wrongdoing have been levelled at milltary intelligence at all. Yet the Committee proposed. by Senator Church involves stringent oversight of milltary intelligence activity. To what purpose? It seems that the undoubted political imperative for the Congress to keep itself better informed on the relatively narrow matter of covert action has been stretched broadly to cover all aspects of intelligence in a. way that ls surely a serious intrusion into the executive function of government.

REFORM AND RESTORE

The next month or so, as Congress and the White House wrestle with problems of U.S. intelligence organization and rules of conduct, will be crucial to the Nation, and to the future of the Free World as a whole. Reformers must reform only that which 1nust be reformed; reorganizers must reorganize only that which 1nust be reorganized. A combination of puritanical zeal, cynical political partisanship, and bureaucratic power plays can complete the already wella.dvanced destruction of America's eyes and ears-its intelligence service.

I! restoration of U.S. intelligence effectiveness is indeed what motivates the reformers, they must face up to the hard problem of protecting U.S. state secrets, rather than the easy one of creating new Congressional Committees. Legislation is required which recognizes the right of the United States government to have a secret and which provides practical means to apply criminal sanctions to those persons entrusted with secrets who abuse their trusts. This means that the public media must not remain immune from responsibil1ty for publication of national secrets and from protecting the insider who has provided the information and violated his trust.

Within the Executive Branch, the emphasis in providing better lntelllgence organization and oversight of intelligence activities should be based on the realities of the changed world situation, the new technology of intelllgence and the long-standing problems of community coordination-not on the sensational stories arising from the recent Congressional inquiries.

If we are careful, the viability of U.S. intelligence can be retained and much of the damage done repaired; if we a.re not careful, we can so weaken U.S. intelligence that our country will resemble a. blind giant groping its way through the dangers of the next decade.

CONFUSION OF POLICIES IN THE ADMINISTRATION

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I would like to call attention to a shocking situation which exists in my State of Nevada and, I believe, throughout the country.

That is the hardship and unemployment resulting from a confusion of policies in this administration that is difficult to understand or to explain.

A little over a month ago, last January 28, 500 workers at Kennecott Copper Corp. mine and smelter in Ely, Nev., were told they would lose their jobs. Kennecott was being forced to close it.8 Ely operation because the world copper i;;rice has fallen below the cost of production there.

Yet 6 days later, this administration instructed its representative at the World B ank to approve a $33 million copper

5714 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 1Vf arch 9, 1976 development loan for Chile. This development could only be expected to further lower the price of copper in the world and create further unemployment among miners in the United States. But that is not all there is to this tale of Hydra-headed Government folly.

For while one administration head was busy creating domestic unemployment by supporting foreign competitors in the copper mining industry, another was busy signing the veto for a Federal jobs bill that would have put 600,000 to 800,-000 unemployed Americans back to work.

Mr. President, the simultaneous creation of unemployment and the refusal to relieve it, is only one of the schizophrenic aspects of this whole unsavory matter. For it turns out that the Chilean copper mines and smelters that $33 million World Bank loan is going to develop were expropriated from Kennecott and other U.S. copper producers whose losses in Chile now, crazy as this seems, make it cheaper for us to leave our domestic copper in the ground and buy it overseas.

It is indeed crazy, as if some threefaced Eve, or better still, a Sybil with three or four dozen different personalities, different values, different views and judgments of things were running administration affairs today. For we are treated to a continuing round of decisions that are against the best interests of the people of this country.

We see the appalling spectacle of administration decisions that counter and nullify work against the national interest, So we are compelled to believe that none of the heads of this administration talk to the others. The not-so-surprising result is that one hand of this administration does not know what the other hand is doing. And we thus have a government not just by veto but by ineptitude.

To illustrate this sorry state of affairs, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a copy of a report on the World Bank Loan to Chile by the distinguished business and financial news analyst Hobart Rowen, published in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other newspapers at that time.


THE WORLD BANK IN CHil,E

(By Hobart Rowen) The World Bank the other day approved a

$33 million copper development loan for Chile, thus endorsing the curious U.S. penchant for propping up dictatorial and oppressive governments.

My Washington Star colleague, Ma.ry McGrory, reported that an effort by a group of eight American citizens to talk World Bank President Robert S. McNamara out of the commitment was to no avail.

McNamara told the group that the loan was being made on "purely economic grounds," and that to refuse it would be a "political" act forbidden by the bank charter. But how, then does one explain the bank's cold shoulder to the Marxist Allende government?

The fact about this latest effort to stabilize the present authoritarian regime in Chile is that there 1s considerable noseholding in the bauk over it.

?vfany nations, it is true, fear a precedent

leading to politicization of the bank. "If this loan were to be barred on political grounds," says a high U.S. official, "then you could challenge a dozen World Bank loans on human rights issues."

However, in the Chilean loan case, countries with about 35 per cent of the bank's voting power abstained, and 4 per cent (representing the Nordic countries) voted against the loan. And the basic reason for most of this near 40 per cent opposition relates to serious doubts about the credit-worthiness of the Chilean military junta.

The most recent Chilean economic statistics published by the International Monetary Fund show an inflation rate so steep that it runs off the charts. On a base of 1970 equal to 100, the consumer price index ran up to 874 at the approximate time of the Allende assassination, Sept. 11, 1973.

In 1974, under the junta, the index number skyrocketed to 5,797, and in October 1975 hit an unbelievable 38,101. That's an increase of 38,000 per cent since 1970.

This correspondent can report that when the discussion of the loan came up at the bank's board of directors' meeting, McNamara had to admit that the present Chilean government is not in good shape.

But he argued that the bank could take the risk, in view of the much more extensive commitments made to Chile by the United States and other lenders. He then went on to deplore the opposition to the loan, which he said would demonstrate a division in the board "harmful" to the bank.

That there is political opposition to the Chilean junta-which the British have labeled "uncivilized"-can hardly be denied. One regrets only that the United States, which did all it could to bring down the Allen<:l.e regime, does not acknowledge officially the brutalities of the current junta.

But McNamara chose to ignore the concerns of a number of Western European countries. They pointed out that the current Chilean government had not unproved its balance of payments situation. Exports are falling and imports are rising. Chile has been forced, therefore, to ask other lenders to reschedule its debt payments.

Putting these considerations together, the opposing countries suggested McNamara should wonder whether Chile might not soon be forced to ask for a delay in repayment of existing World Bank loans.

McNamara's backers scoff at what they call e, rationalization by the political opposition.

But even the supporters of the loan privately admit that if the Chilean junta were not so blatantly vicious, the bank might be more generous. The $33 million, they stress, is just a drop in the bucket.

This very assessment, however, proves that political considerations already intrude. If the main worry is that any effort to protect human rights in Chile would force the bank to protect huma-n rights elsewhere, is that so bad? That shocks the banking instinct: It would transform the World Bank into a different institution. Well, if so, so be it.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my letter of February 20, 1976, to the President be printed in the RECORD.


The PRESIDENT, Washington, D .C.

FEBRUARY 20, 1976.

DEAR MR. PRESmENT: On January 28th approximately 500 Kennecott Copper Corporation employees in White Pine County, Nevada were informed they would lose their jobs by the Nevada Mines Division because worldwide copper prices fell below the cost of the Nevada Mines production.

Nevadans were to lose their jobs because it would be cheaper to buy foreign copper than our own, cheaper to leave our copper in the ground and buy it overseas.

On February 3rd, six days after Kennecott's announcement, the U.S. representative of the World Bank was instructed by your administration to approve a. $33 million copper development loan for Chile, which is not only a major exporting nation, but one which the OAS Human Rights Commission has found to be in overwhelming violation of basic human rights.

On February 13, Mr. President, you vetoed a federal jobs bill designed to provide public works jobs for 600,000-800,000 Americans.

It appears that while the people of White Pine County are losing the one industry they are so vitally dependent upon, while seven million Americans can't find jobs, the U.S. Government has voted to prop up a repressive, reactionary regime and subsidize our own competition in copper mining.

The American people have traditionally been generous to less fortunate peoples than our own, but it stretches generosity and credulity to ask people who are out of work due to worldwide econoxnics, and who can't get work due to an indifferent administration, to grant loans at favorable rates to worldwide competition.

I fail to see why this particular loan was extended and why the needs of an entire coxnmunity and 7 million jobless Americans were completely ignored. It is this kind of federal indifference to our own people which turns off so many Americans about our governxnent.

The Administration owes the American people not only an explanation, but an economic program designed to help our own people first.

Sincerely, HOWARD W. CANNON.

Mr. CANNON. And finally, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of an editorial of last February 25, appearing in the Ely Daily Times, the newspaper of that community in my State threatened with extinction by the ineptitude of . this administration, be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

LOAN HURTS WP COUNTY

Senator Howard Cannon is appalled. We share his sentiinent. Tuesday's front page carried a story dealing

with $33 million World Bank Loan to Chile to modernize their copper mines.

Though the World Bank is an arm of the United Nations, it is overseen by Robert McNamara and does have U.S. members who have the right to vote either approval or disapproval of a loan.

Cannon bitterly denounced the actions of the U.S. representatives, who gave their okay to the loan, which demonstrated a gross negligence to the plight of the copper industry in this nation and the people affected.

We cannot understand why people in positions of responsibility suddenly lose all sense of allegiance to their country when it comes to shelling out other people's money.

What possible motive would American representatives have for trying to further undercut the copper industry in this nation by lending their support to improve that of Chile's?

Surely these representatives are not so ignorant of the facts, nor so short of memory, they have forgotten Chile got into the copper business by stealing their mining operations from U.S. firxns.

And the sad part of it is-knowing the operation and financial structure of the United

March 9, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 5715 Nations-we ha.ve to believe many of those dollars going to Chile came out of the pockets of American taxpayers.

We hope Cannon's immediate and vociferous expression of outrage will get the a.tten tion of President Gerald Ford, at whom it was directed.

We would hope the representatives of other copper mining a.rea.s in this nation would join with Nevada's senior senator a.nd demand something be done to curb such indiscretions by our delegates to the World Bank.

It appears to us, as we write from the heart of a community which is threatened with disaster if it loses its copper industry, that ma.ny in positions of responsibllity-whose actions do have a direct hearing on the future of this nation and its people-have a perverted sense of humanitarianism.

They seem to espouse a. double set of standards-promoting actions, which give relief to other countries and their inhabitants at the expense of their own country and countrymen.

At some point in time-and we think it might be right now-this nation is going to have to adopt an attitude of looking first toward the welfare of our own economic well being and the betterment of our own people, before trying to be a Florence Nightingale to the rest of the world.

We think the people of this community should be very concerned. We think they should let President Ford know, in this election year, that this country doesn't have to go to Chile to find a copper industry which needs modernization and copper workers who are out of work.

The action of the U.S. representatives on the World Bank will further jeopardize the plight of the copper industry in this nation and specifically in White Pine County.

If Chile improves their mining and smelting operations with this money, they will be able to deliver more copper on the glutted world market at a cheaper price.

This will work to the detriment of the U.S. copper industry, which must finance ~heir own modernization from profits generated within their own operations, which must contend with the unreasonable demands of the · Environmental Protection Agency and which, if they stumble and fall, will bring a. section of our shakey economy down with them.

Sena.tor Cannon has good cause to call this action "shocking" and "unconscionable."

We support the senator's denunciation and his efforts to prevent such transgressions from occurring.

As we think of the high unemployment here, the investments people have made in this community and the possible consequences 1f Kennecott is forced to close their operation, we can't help but think of this old saying: "Charity begins at home."

We only wish those American representatives on the World Bank had thought of the same adage.

Mr. CANNON. Beyond the mere acknowledgement that my letter was received at the White House, I have had no response on this matter, Mr. President. I cannot imagine what their answer or explanation might be. There is none, I suspect, that can make much sense.

Mr. President, it may be possible that this administration, faced as it is with self-imposed disasters in many areas, is now indeed talking to itself while its still uncoordinated feet trip over each other on the steps of the World Bank, the U.N., the State Department and the Treasury; not to mention the Pentagon and other· institutions of our Government. But this administration is not talk-

1ng to-because it does not listen to-the people of the United States.

If there were any meaningful dialog going on between the people of this country and this administration in this Bicentennial year, it would not, under the guise of foreign policy, so ineptly deprive so many American workers of their jobs, or deprive them and their families in turn of the means and the wherewithall for the pursuit of happiness.

When they have disentangled from their telephone cords, Mr. President, we have been told by this administration's economic thinkers that unemployment is the only answer to inflation, that we can live only with the unemployment rates we have. Well, we are seeing the sad results of that economic schizophrenia at work at Ely, Nev., today. And I say it is high time to call a halt to these follies and give this Government back to the sanity of the American people.

SOLAR ENERGY Mr. FANNIN. Mr. President, to those

of us who anxiously await the development of our solar energy potential in this country, good pubhcity is never too frequent.

A most comprehensive treatment of the solar subject was included in the March issue of National Geographic. In "Solar Energy, the Ultimate Powerhouse," John L. Wilhelm gives an objective report on the development of sun power, indicating presently available utilizations and long-term activities. Since we are currently in the process of reviewing the President's budget request for fiscal year 1977, I think this overview is most helpful in establishing what is

. now occurring, and what future possibilities exist.

I encourage my colleagues who are not yet familiar with solar development to read the Wilhelm assessment, which I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: SOLAR ENERGY, THE ULTIMATE POWERHOUSE

(By John L. Wilhelm) "The heat of the universe is produced by

the sun."-LEONARDO DA VINCI

"Daddy, it's so hot," cries my 4-yea.r-old son, snapping his hand back from the small magnifying glass. He has grown impatient

_ with burning holes in dead leaves by focusing rays of the sun through the magnifier. Brushing warnings a.side, he tries concentratirig the miniature beam directly onto his hand. Immediately he learns the essence of Leonardo's dictum.

This experiment should be mandatory in every classroom in the country, insists Dr. A. I. Mlavsky, executive vice-president of the Mobil Tyco Solar Energy Corporation near Boston. Dr. Mlavsky urgently believes that people must become aware of the sun's enormous potential to help solve the threatened energy shortage.

"If we want to have solar energy in our society by the year 2000, we've got to teach energy technology, energy economics, energy management-and we've got to begin today; otherwise we'll never have a solar revolution." . Since the legendary Prometheus first stole

the fire of heaven, virtually all energy consumed by man has been fathered by the sun. Coal, oil, and gas are residues of plants and animals once fired to life by the warm rays of our nearest star. Solar heat also drives the earth's rain cycle, powering modern hydroelectric generators. Windmills that pump water or produce electricity turn because of solar-heated currents of air .1

Even the wood with which I stoke my fireplace is a. form of solar energy. Like oil and coal, wood ls merely solar power captured in convenient packaging.

But the earth is fa.st running out of these precious reserves of "stored sunshine." At our current pace, we will consume in the next 25 years a.lone an amount eq,ual to all the energy used by man in recorded history. If such consumption continues, obviously alternative sources must be found. And the majority of experts wit h whom I have talked agree that mankind must look to the sun to help solve ou r en ergy needs.

SUN'S ENERGY IS BOUNDLESS

"The solar energy that falls upon the Arabian Peninsula in one year ls greater than twice the oil reserves of this entire globe," declares Dr. George C. Szego of Inter Technology Corporation ln Warrenton, Virginia. Put another way, the sunshine falling onto Connecticut roughly equals the total energy used in all 50 states. Harvesting this diffuse energy is clearly possible, but doing it economically remains the major problem.

As Dr. Robert C. Seamans, Jr. head of the Energy Research and Development Admin istration (ERDA), says: "Solar en ergy is, in many ways, the 'white h at' 0f energy sources, clean and boundless. We're accelerating its development, in all its man y forms. Bu t to make solar energy economically competit ive will require good, hard-nosed e~gineering."

This year a. record 90 million dollars or more will be spent -seeking wayr: t o convert sunshine into economical energy. By the end of this century solar technology could fill a.bout 10 percent of the United St ates ' energy needs. If this seems a distant prospect, con sider that it has been SO years since the en thusiasts of nuclear energy promised utopian solutions through the power of the atom. Yet atomic energy today accounts for only about 2 percent of U.S. electrical consumption. · Already the sun's energy is being put to

limited use in homes and buildings around the world. The most common examples are rooftop solar heaters that provide cheap hot water for washing and bathing. Estimates vary, but certainly more than a million of these simple heaters are now in use worldwide, in such countries as the Soviet Union, Israel, Japan, and Australia, and in such states as Florida and California.

In the United States alone, more than 200 houses and buildings are, or soon will be, partially heated (and some partially cooled) by solar energy. Solar-heated government buildings and schools a.re being built in half a dozen states; sun-heated condominiums a.re going up in Vermont and Colorado.

During the winter in Florida, I tested one of the several thousand solar-heated swimming pools in this country. Even though a. chill norther was rattling the palms, the water was warm. Electric heating for the same pool would be prohibitive in cost.

Today the sun's roaring hydrogen-fueled furnace powers education-television sets in Africa., offshore Coast Guard buoys, -and navigation lights on Gulf of Mexico oil rigs. Even the crucial warning bell and lights of a Georgia railroad crossing rely on the sun to

1 See "Can We Harness the Wind?" by Roger Hamilton in the December 1975 NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, and Kenneth F. Weaver's "The Search for Tomorrow's Power'' 1n the November 1972 issue.

5716 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE March 9, 1976 power them. So do emergency call boxes on the Washington, D.C., beltway. And nearly every spacecraft that has ever rocketed skyward has depended on purple-l'lue panels of solar cells.

By the year 2000 today's dawning solar technologies may have become a 25-bllliondollar-a-year industry (roughly equivalent to the size of today's electrical-machinery industry in the United States). This is the prediction of Walter Morrow, associate director of the Lincoln Laboratory of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

NEW INTEREST !"OSTERS NEW FmMs

No wonder that a solar conference I attended was jammed with scientists from as far away as Australia, Japan, India, and Israel. Basement tinkerers traded schemes with corporation executives, while a host of newly formed entrepreneurial firms with catchy names like Solaron and Solarex recruited eager ecologically minded engineers who, in previous years, would have signed on with major aerospace companies.

"Solar energy is where the action is," declared one beared applicant.

Indeed. And here are some ways scientists hope to switch on to the solar powerhouse:

Heating and cooling-Typical solar-heating systems collect the sun's energy with rooftop arrays of piping and flat metal sheets painted black to absorb as much radiation as possible. They are encased in glass or plastic and angled southward to catch maximum sunshine. The collectors act as miniature greenhouses, trapping heat under their glass plates. Because solar radiation is so diffuse, the collectors must cover a large area.

Air or water in the piping distributes the heat through standard ducts or radiators. Or it can be stored in an insulated water tank or a bin of rocks.

Solar cooling systems operate on much the same principle as gas refrigerators-the removal of heat by circulating a coolant.

SUN POWER CUTS FUEL BILLS

'·I am utterly unaware of this being a solar house," says !\frs. George Lof, describing what it is like to live in a sun-heated home for 18 years. The five-bedroom Lof home in Denver has 600 square feet of rooftop solar collectors designed by her husband. "In winter they supply about a third of the heat requirements and some of the hot water," explains Dr. Lof, who heads solar research at Colorado State University. "In summer they supply all our hot-water needs.

Two 18-foot-high cylinders, filled with 12 tons of egg-size rocks, trap the heat as the air from the collectors is passed through them. The red-painted columns rise from basement to roof just inside the Lof entrancewayunique totems to today's solar technology.

This $10,000 prototype system cannot yet compete with Denver's cheap natural gas, says Dr. Lof. "But if the alternate source of heat in our house were electricity, we would have paid for the collectors long ago."

Solar energy of this type has a number of social as well as technical obstacles to overcome. For example: Even if an economical system were available for homes, who would install and maintain it? Sheet-metal workers? Roofers? Plumbers? Electricians? It is not clear which group would have jurisdiction.

Another concern is the fact that no single private builder in the U.S. puts up more than one percent of the new homes. Therefore, for serious impact, thousands of architects and contractors in this country would need to begin installing solar equipment. But the building trades have been traditionally resistant to innovative changes.

Standards of equipment performance also have to be set. Building codes needs adapting. The concept of "sun rights" has to be incorporated into city zoning laws (may a tall building shadow a lower one?). Tax legisla-

tion may be needed to allow homeowners credit for solar investments. So far, only a few states have voted such an incentive, even though today's price tag of $6,000 to $8,000 for a typical solar-heating system is far too steep for most homeowners.

However, the experts whom I have polled agree that costs should drop significantly within three to five years. And when homeowners average initial costs over the lifetime of a solar installation, solar energy can compete economically with other kinds of energy. In several sections of the country where fuel costs are high, such as Boston, solar already is cheaper than electric heating.

A WORD OF WARNING FOR THE EAGER

Dr. Peter Glaser, a solar engineer at the Arthur D. Little research :firm in Cambridge, Massachusetts, urges caution for those who would rush out to be the :first on their block to install solar heating and cooling systems.

Glaser's advice: "Wait-unless you want to pay the extra money-or build it yourself. It will be at least three to five years before they are readily available."

After this brief waiting period, while efficient designs are refined and mass production begins to lower costs, solar-heated and cooled buildings should become widely accepted.

Farmers and manufacturers will also benefit from the sun's energy. "We feel that a major opportunity exists for industrial use," says William R. Cherry of ERDA's Solar Energy Division. "We can dry or dehydrate foods using solar energy, or heat water into steam for mineral processing or other industrial applications. All these will have a major impact on future energy requirements."

Most estimates agree that in 25 years solar systems could save more barrels of oil than will be flowing through the Alaskan pipeline -or about a third of all our current imports. That amounts to several billion dollars a year in balance-of-payments savings. And, as one lawmaker recently noted, "Sunshine cannot be embargoed."

Solar-thermal electric power.-Steam boilers used in generating electricity require temperatures of about 1,000 ° F. By comparison, a conventional flat-plate solar collector seldom gets above 200 ° F. To put sunshine to work producing electricity on a large scale, it is necessary to find new techniques.

The technical solution to this problem is centuries old: Concentrate the sun's rays, just as my son did with his magnifying glass.

In ancient times the Sacred Greek temple fires at Delphi were lighted by concave mirrors. The Greek scientist Archimedes supposedly burned a Roman fleet at Syracuse with polished shields that concentrated the sun. In more modern times a steerable parabolic concentrator, aimed at the sun, powered a steam-driven printing press at the 1878 Paris Exposition.

SCIENTISTS REFINE OLD METHODS

High-temperature solar-power plants of the future will require similar concentration techniques, such as palstic lenses imitating the eye of the horseshoe crab ( an ideal concentrator of light), or special reflective coatings on curved mirrors.

At the laboratories of Honeywell, Inc., in Minneapolis, I saw a heliostat that resembles silvered venetian blinds. Mounted on a turntable, it tilts and rotates to follow the sun, while focusing the reflected beam on a tall water tank about half a mile away.

Honeywell has a plan in which 74,000 such hellostats, each 10 by 20 feet in size, would reflect their searing beams onto a boiler at the top of a 1,500-foot-high concrete tower. The cluster of hellostats would cover more than a square mile, and could generate temperatures well above 1,000° F., sufficient to produce power for 40,000 homes.

Raising crops for fuel.-Imagine one of those 01·dinary tracts of pulp-mill forest-

but growing cottonwood, poplar, or eucalyptus for energy instead of pine for paper. Place in the center a conventional steampower plant, fed by a continuous conveyor belt of hardwood from the surrounding trees. Such "energy plantations" are considered by many to be a serious alternative to fossilfuel power.

InterTechnology Corporation's Dr. Szego believes that certain fast-growing trees and grasses, called "BTU bushes," could be bred for high-energy output and grown in energy plantations. BTU stands for British thermal unit, a measure of heat energy.

Another strong contender for such "bioma...c:s" fuel is kelp, which can be fermented to produce methane or alcohol. This giant seaweed is the fastest growing plant known sometimes spurting two feet in a single day'.

Further in the future looms the possibility of generating power by actually using the mechanisms of photosynthesis, the process by which all plants live and grow. In Melvin Calbin's Laboratory of Chemical Biodynamics at the University of California at Berkeley, I was shown a crude experimental device that converts sunlight into minute electric currents.

Energy from the ocean.-French physicist Jacques d'Arsonval predicted as far back as 1881 that man someday would use heat from the sea. It soon may be true. The concept involves using small temperature differences between the sun-heated upper ocean layers and the colder, deeper water.

A typical ocean thermal-power plant (page 388) would be anchored off Florida. Heat from the constantly flowing warm Gulf Stream surface water, with a temperature of about 80° F., would vaporize a working fluid such as ammonia, and the vapor would drive a low-pressure turbine to generate electricity. The ammonia would then be recondensed to a liquid by cold water pumped from depths of 1,500 feet. The process would be continuous, since ocean temperature differences are constant, whether the sun shines or not.

The electricity produced by the offshore plant could also be used to break down seawater into hydrogen and oxygen by the process called electrolysis. The hydrogen could be stored in large container ships for transport, or piped ashore to be used for fuel or for synthesizing hy<irocarbons.

This scheme seems like science fiction. Yet Carnegie-Mellon Professor Clarence Zener declares that "the probability of economic feas~ ib111ty of ocean thermal power stations is so high that they will make obsolete today's advanced nuclear reactors before the reactors' development is completed."

Solar cells.-The unusual photovoltaic effect by which light can stimulate the flow of electricity in certain materials was discovered in the past century. The effect remained a largely undeveloped scientific curiosity until 1964, when Bell Laboratories scientists successfully created the first silicon semiconductor solar cells capable of producing a useful current. An entire new industry was born.

A typical solar cell is an ultra.thin wafer about the diameter of an average political campaign button. It is sliced from an ingot of pure silicon crystal into which has been mixed a minuscule amount of impurity, such as boron. This impurity allows the crystal to conduct positive electric charges. Another impurity, such as phosphorus, is diffused into the top of the wafer, allowing that section to conduct negative charges. In essence the two sections behave like the oppositely charged poles of an ordinary car battery.

When photons of light strike the cell, they create positive and negative charges and start a current :flowing. The negative charges, or electrons, are drawn off' through a metallic grid at the top of the wafer, then returned through a metal film at the bottom after flowing through an electric light, a motor, or whatever else is being powered.

1t,1arch 9, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 5717

Many people have used solar cells without knowing it. For example, light meters in some cameras-those not requiring batteries for the meter-use a tiny solar cell to measure light levels and energize the indicator.

SOLAR CELLS ESSENTIAL FOR SPACECRAFT

The first totally solar-powered residence in the world-NASA's Skylab space stationran on solar cells. Though crippled after losing one wing of cells at launch, Skylab sustained nine astronauts for 171 days in orbit. The output of the remaining 840-square-foot solar-cell array kept the mission going. When the array was in ea1·th shadow, Skylab ran on batteries, which were recharged when the craft retm·ned to sunlight.2

The total cost of this sunlit energy was more than $300,000 a kilowatt-1,000 watts, only enough to light ten 100-watt bulbs. Less sophisticated cells intended for earthbound use now cost a.bout $20,000 a kilowatt, still prohibitive except in remote places like offshore oil rigs and isolated radio relay stations.

But many experts predict that solar-cell costs will spiral downward to a competitive $600 a kilowatt or less in the next ten years. And considering how fast the cost of electronic hand calculators (ma.de from similar silicon circuitry) has dropped in just three years, such hopes do not seem um·easonable.

At the headquarters of Spectrolab, Inc., north of Los Angeles, I saw a solar array undergoing tests. From a distance the multifaceted panel of solar cells, mounted at the end of a 20-foot pole, looked like a gigantic sun.flower waving on its stalk in the breeze.

Close up, I could hear the buzz of a small electric motor that kept the 12-by-20-foot array tilted toward the sun. Plastic lenses on top of each round cell concentrated the sunlight so that each disk "saw" the equivalent of ten suns. The array was capable of generating one kilowatt of electricity.

The Shah of Iran may soon become a big Spectrolab customer. He has announced plans to bring electricity by the end of this decade to the 70,000 remote villages scattered throughout his land. Each hamlet will be equipped with electric pumps for well water, medical refrigerators, even educational-TV sets receiving signals from a broadcast satellite Iran proposes to put in space.

And the answer to Iran's near-instantaneous ru1,al electrification lies with solar-cell arrays such as the kilowatt prototype I sawnot, ironically, with petroleum. Thus may come a true socio-technological revolution.

NEW PROCESS PROMISES CHEAPER CELLS

At the Mobil Tyco Solar Energy Corporation near Boston, Dr. A. I. Mlavsky showed me one of the most promising experiments for ma.ss production of solar cells. So far solar cells have been made by hand in limited quantities. Tyco has developed a precision machine that pulls a thin silicon strip in a continuous ribbon. Already the process has produced ribbon more than 75 feet long; Dr. Mlavsky expects the automated machines will eventually wind out spools of solar-cell silicon several hundred feet Iona "Within three years we should know if it i~ possible," be says.

The day may arrive when solar cells are delivered to a house like rolls of roofing paper, tacked on, and plugged into the wiring, making the home its own power station.

The imaginative brain of Arthur D. Little's energy expert, Peter Glaser, has conceived what he considers the ultimate solut ion to the world's energy needs-a solar power station orbiting in space.

SATELLITE WOULD KNOW NO NIGHT

At his Ca~1.bridge, Massachusetts, office, Dr. Glaser showed me a design for such futuristic satellites. They look like gigantic

: A three-part ~kyla'l? presentation appeared in the October 1974 NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC.

butterflies, with solar-panel wings 6 by 7Y:z Iniles in size. A single one of these power stations in synchronous orbit 22,300 Iniles above earth Inight provide as much as 5,000 megawatts, half the present capacity of New York City's generating plants.

The direct-current electricity produced by the satellite's cells would be converted at the space station into microwaves and beamed, much as by a standard radar transinitter, to a gi·ound-based receiving antenna some five miles in diameter. There the Inicrowave energy would be converted directly into alternating-current elect ricity and distributed for use.

The great advantage of having the solar cells in orbit is that they remain in total sunlight 99 percent of the time; only eclipses darken them. Consequently, they are far more efficient than earthbound systems. Glaser estimates that the cost of the energy delivered to transinission lines would be less than twice that of a nuclear power plant.

Transportation costs for the station, lifted from earth in stages, would be very high. But a Princeton physics professor, Gerard K. O'Nelll, thinks he has figured a way around the price for getting the components into space. His idea is to have space colonists build the orbiting stations, using materials from the moon.

I spent a day with O'Neill recently, sitting in on discussions with aerospace scientists in Los Angeles. Referring frequently to a stack of intricate calculations that he has compiled over the past five years, O'Neill fended off every criticism, while defending his advocacy of immediate space colonization.

Using only present-day technology, O'Neill has worked out the basic design of a permanent space station that could hold 10,000 residents. He estimates it can be built for about four times the cost of NASA's Project Apollo moon program--0r about 10 to 20 percent of what conventional power-plant costs would be in the U.S. during the next 26 years.

O'Neill is no wild-eyed dreamer. He is the respected inventor of the particle-storaae ring upon which are based the latest atomi~particle accelerators. He told me that the space colonies would be able to construct 5,000-megawatt satellite stations-and their ground receivers-for less than ten billion dollars each, to produce electricity for slightly less than two cents a kilowatt-hour. Electric rates in New York City now cost the average consumer eight cents a kilowatthour.

"~he U.S. market for satellite powe1 3tat10ns should be in the 50-to-100-billiondolla.r-a-year range by the year 2000," predicts O'Neill. "This may be one of the more powerful reasons for the early development of spa~e colonies." Glaser adds: "That means we could become a different civilization;" , ,

TIME TO SWITCH ON THE SUN

This visionary concept has been well expressed by physicist Freeman Dyson: total utilization of the sun to power an advanced civilization.

"The only limits to the technological growth of a society are internal," argues Dyson, a resident of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. "A society has a~ways the option of limiting its growth, either by conscious decision or by stagnation or by disinterest. A society in which these internal limits are absent may continue its growth forever."

Farfetched? Perhaps, not, if we learn to switch on more of the sunshine that warms us all, and make the sun a productive furnace for all mankind.

YOUNG FARMERS HOMESTEAD ACT CITED IN PARADE MAGAZINE

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President I have had printed iri the RECORD seve;al edi-

torials and other press comments supporting the Young Farmers Homestead Act. I was pleased to note in the Sunday, March 7, 1976, edition of Parade magazine a short article describing the act in that section of the magazine entitled, "Keeping Up With Youth."

Because of the tremendous nationwide circulation of this publication and to bring to the attention of other Senators the growing acceptance of this concept throughout the Nation, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the article be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD as follows: '

YOUNG FARMERS

Young people can no longer afford to start a farm in America. The "s tart-up" cost of a farm _now runs as much as $250,000, which explams why the average age of an American farmer is 50.3 years. . Sen. George McGovern (D., S. Dak.) would

llke to see more young people become independent farmers. Accordingly, he's introduced The Young Farmer's Homestead Act providing for a branch of government t~ purchase farmland and lease it to young farmers for five to seven years.

Under McGovern's plan, at the end of the lease period, the young farmer would purchase t1;1-e farm on a 20-year plan, during which time he or she would repay half the purchase price, interest and t axes. When the ~O years expired, the farmer would be r~qmred to refinance the balance commercially.

THE B-1

Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President in anticipation of the debate I expect ~vill occur this year on the B-1, I wrote to ~en. ~ussell E. Dougherty, commander m chief, ~tra~gic Air Command. I asked for his views on the requirement for the _B-1, why SAC does not support the various alternatives to the B-1 that ~ave been suggested, the value of keepmg_ a mann~d system as part of the strategic. equation, and any other points he considered to be relevant. I believe the Congress and the American public should have the benefit of the judgment of the one professional airman that has the re?ponsibility to assure that our s~r:_ategic ~or~_e _ c~n accomplish its assigned mission if ever . required. As CINCSAC, General Dougherty com~ands al~ of our strategic bombers and mtercontmental ballistic missiles which re~resents two-thirds of our strategic triad.

Mr. President, I was most interested to note that General Dougherty considers _the requirements for the B-1 as subordID:ate to-and flowing from-a more gen~me and fundamental U.S. strategic reqmrerrl:ent for a fully modern manned penetrating bomber. He stated that the man~1ed bomber provides the broadest possible spectrum of required military capabilities and offers an overall flexibility of choice and application unmatched by any other weapons system.

For example, the manned bomber can: Carry a larger number of weapons than any other system, achieve unequalled accuracies, provide a highly visible deterrent force, adapt rapidly to · negate or avoid unanticipated defenses and other

5718 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE. March 9, 1976 threats, provide the most effective and economical way to redress the already serious-and worsening-imbalance in deliverable megatonnage vis-a-vis the Soviet Union, be used repeatedly, exploit superior U.S. technology and capability, and survive blunting attacks.

Most importantly, General Dougherty reiterated the point that we know what we can do with a manned delivery system.

Mr. President, as regards the requirement for the B-1, General Dougherty views it as the best candidate vehicle reasonably available to satisfy the future requirement for a modern manned penetrating bomber. It will provide the United States with the diversified characteristics that are and will be needed in our complementary mix of strategic delivery systems. He also makes the point that the B-1 development represents a caref uI blend of operational requirements, modem technical feasibility, fiscal constraints, and life-cycle support considerations. Also, because it is a system that has been conceived, developed, and tested as it has, he has confidence that it will perform the future requirements for such a delivery system and provide a viable system mix.

Mr. President, General Dougherty addresses the alternatives to the B-1 question better than I have ever seen it done. The essence of his position is that the alternatives. do not measure up with those of us who must maintain and operate our deterrent forces. I urge my colleagues to especially review this aspect of his letter.

In summary, I would remind my colleagues in the Congress and the American publlo that the judgments of General Dougherty represent those of a professional military officer. The country has placed a very heavy responsibility on this dedicated and extremely capable officer, but I am confident he can handle that responsibility, provided his prof essional judgments are followed.

Therefore, it is inconceivable to me that we would want to use anything less than the best judgment available on this matter. Just as we cannot afford to be second best in our strategic military capability, we cannot afford to use a second best judgment about what is required for our strategic forces.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my letter to General Dougherty and his reply be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows~

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, D.C., January 31, 1975.

Gen. RUSSELL E. DOUGHERTY, CINC Strategic Air Command, Offutt Ai r Force Base, Nebr.

DEAR Russ: As in past years, I anticipate the B-1 will again be a big issue in the Congress as we consider this FY '77 Defense budget. With the first three production aircraft requested, the anti B-1 arguments will be especially strong in an attempt to preclude any production whatsoever. I am sure it will also be argued that the Congress, by approving the B-1 procurement request, would, in effect, be making the production decision scheduled to be made by the Secre1.ary of Defense next November. The op-

ponents, having made that point, might then argue that approval of production funds should, therefore, come only after the Secretary of Defense decision, or more properly in the FY '78 budget.

Primarily, though, I think the debate will center on the requirement, the cost, and to some extent, on the total number of B-l's in the program. Others will question whether the B-1 ls meeting required performance specifications and point out that a considerable portion of the flight test program remains to be completed. prior to the production declsion and that we should wait and see how that turns out. Still others, as in the past, will suggest alternatives to the B-1, presumably cheaper and better, that should be studied prior to any production decision. To me. these are merely delaying tactics, and none of the anti B-1 arguments will be new. We have heard them all before.

Nevertheless, as we move into this debate, it will be helpful to have your views as CINCSAC on the requirement for the B-1 and why the command does not support the various alternatives that have been suggested. In addition, you might include your views as to the value of keeping a manned system as part of the strategic equation. Also, please add any other comments that you feel I should bring to the attention of the Armed Services Committee and the Senate. Please keep your remarks unclassified since I want them to be able to have the widest possible distribution.

I look forward to your response at your earliest convenience.

With best wishes, Sincerely,

BARRY GOLDWATER.

DEPARTMENT OF THE Am FORCE, HEADQUARTERS STRATEGIC AD COMMAND,

Offutt Air Force Base, Nebr., Febru-ary 23, 1976.

Hon. BARRY GOLDWATER, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR GOLDWATER: In your letter of 31 January 1976 you outlined the nature of the principal Issues you foresee 1n Congressional consideration of the FY77 Defense budget, with focus on those associated with the B-1 procurement request in the President's budget. You indicated that it would be helpful in your deliberations within the Armed Services Committee and the Senate to have my views, as Commander in Chief, Strategic Air Command, on: (1) the requirement for the B-1; (2) why Strategic Air Command does not support the various alternatives to the B-1 that have been suggested; ( 3) the value of keeping a manned system as part of the strategic equation; and (4) any other matters that I consider relevant to your deliberations.

I appreciate the opportunity to be heard on these important issues and am pleased to provide my views as requested-views that you should feel to use as you and your colleagues in the Senate see fit.

If you would indulge me in a reordering of the questions you have posed, I would first like to address the "value of keeping a manned system as part of the strategic equation"-for I consider the "requirement for the B-1" as subordinate to (and flowing from) a. more generic and fundamental U.S. Strategic Requirement for a fully modern manned penetraltng bomber:

If deterrence of attempted coercion, int imidation, or direct attack on the sovereignty of the United States (and those allies w& choose to associate with our vital national interests) is to remain the basic tenet of our national security policy, U.S. authorities must cont inue t o have the assurance of a panoply of relevant and diversified military capabilities t hat can support them in any and all

actions necessary to preserve that sovereignty •.. no matter what the circumstances of confrontation.

A hardened, long-range, manned penetrating bomber offers a uniquely capable and dependable strategic delivery system that spreads itself reliably and capably across the broadest possible spectrum of those required military capabilities. When completely modernized and manned with skilled, ingenious military crews, such a penetrating bomber offers the United States an overall flexibility of choice and application that is unmatched by any other weapons system. It can;

Carry a larger number of weapons ( con ventional or nuclear) than any other strategic dellvery system-to any fixed targets, anywhere, under a wide variety of circumstances.

Achieve unequalled accuracies in longrange delivery under all circumstances; and, through self-contained sensorg, offers our only long-range capability against mobile or imprecisely located targets.

Provide a highly visible deterrent f.orce, one can be used as a recognizable expression of national determination and resolve in either preplanned or ad hoc contingency situations.

Accommodate ( or readily be adapted to ) the delivery of multiple types of conven tional and nuclear weapons-highly accura te gravity delivered, standoff-launched cruise, ballistic, semt-balllstic, or defensive weapons--in large quantities, for multiple or selective delivery.

Through design growth characteristics, adapt rapidly in tactics and/ or avionics t o negate or avoid ut1anticipated defenses a n d other threats.

Drive an enemy requirement for extensh,e diversion of his resources to defensive (vice offensive) systems-but still can be designed With the flexibility oo penetrate those defenses if penetration is required for assurance.

Provide us the most effective and econ omical way oo redress the already serious ( and worsentn,g) Imbalance in deliverable megatonnage vis-a-vis the Soviet Union.

Provide a simultaneous capability for longrange, real (or near real) time strike assessment deep within enemy territory with the flexibility of striking alternate planned targets or withholding unnecessary attacks and retaining weapons.

Be launched. as a visible expression of active deterrence, yet be recalled Without expenditure of ordnance, even after launch, should the deterrent objectives be achieved.

Provide our nation an assured capability to extract severe penalties on an enemy society, regardless of any unexpected degradation or blunting of our SLBM or ICBM force; thus providing insurance against unexpected defenses or failure of any aspect of our strategic ballistic missile systems.

Be used repeatedly. Depending on the nature of conflict, substantial recovery can be anticipated-thus enabling rearming and reuse for any required strategic purpose in subsequent warflghting or war terminating activities.

Exploit superior U.S. technology and capability; for we can build, maintain and operate a flexible, modern delivery system of this type better than any potential adversary.

Be applied across the spectrum of military capabilities--and ls uniqely useful for an infinite number of lesser contingency missions; without loss of ultimate capability as a major delivery system for large nuclear payloads.

Survive blunting attacks and reliably be protected from destruction on the ground through tried, proven launch procedures of Strategic Air Command, adapted to reasonable expectations of our modern detection and warning systems.

We know what we can do with a manned delivery system. With a modernized manned


penetrating delivery system in our mix of major strategic weapons systems, we are confident of our ab111ty to continue to provide our National Authorities assurance of a viable deterrent posture, under all circumstances of threat or attack. Without it, we are not confident that we can provide such assurances in the future.

Turning now to my views on the requirement for the B-1 ( and I will not repeat the statistics and details of program characteristics, costs, etc. which are matters of record with the Congress):

Simply stated, I view the B-1 as the best candidate vehicle reasonably available to satisfy the future requirement for a modern manned penetrating bomber-and to provide the U.S. with the diversified characteristics that are and will be needed in our complementary mix of strategic delivery systems. Not only do I view it as the best, I do not see any other comparable system that can reasonably be expected to do this job as I think it must be done for assurance--or for long-term economics.

We are satisfied that the B-1, as it has evolved, will provide our nation with the most efficient and effective manned penetrating weapons system ever conceived. It will accomplish the varied missions that could be required of it with an assurance we do not believe possible in other alternatives that have been proposed and considered.

Strategic weapons planning is dynamic, complex, and demanding. In the thirty year experience of Strategic Air Command with such planning and with the analyses of the plans for efficiency and completeness, SAC achieved a measure of expertise in applying strategic weapons systems to the jobs to be done that is unparalleled. When that expertise is applied to the future problems of maintaining a credible strategic deterrent force, the performance characteristics of such a force containing the B-1 clearly exceed those of a force mix of other, alternative weapons systems. These expert ana-lyses support our individual judgments that no other system reasonably available to us will do the job as well, as efficiently, or as long Into the future as will the B-1.

As we now have it, the B-1 development represents a careful blend of operational requirements, modern technological fea-aibllity, fiscal constraints and life-cycle support considerations. It is a real thing-a modern manned penetrating bomber that has been conceived, developed and tested to the point that we are confident that it will perform the future requirements for such a delivery system and give us a viable weapon system mix. It is not a paper study or a theoretical analysis of what might be or what might satisfy future requirements. The B-1 is here, it is timely, and it is competent-postulated alternatives meet none of those criteria.

Your third question is "Why Strategic Air Command does not support the various alternatives to the B-1 that have been suggested?" You are correct, we have not supported those alternatives for the overall reason that none of them has stood the tests of long-term sufficiency, cost effectiveness, or supportability over the years ahead. They may have superficial or analytical appeal to some, but they don't measure up with those of us who must maintain and operate our deterrent forces.

To some degree, all the alternatives suggested are either an upgrading of existing equipment that offers expensive short-term improvement without long-term sufficiency, or inadequate performance to remain viable under anticipated high threat situations.

The various models of the B-52 have provided us a magnificent penetrating bomber; its design has given us the inherent growth potential to adapt to changed penetration tactics, offensive and defensive avionics enhancement, and to accommodate to improved types of air-launched missiles and bombs. But the operational B- 52 has carried

a primary deterrent load for over 20 yea.rs, and its ability to adapt to change and modifi.cation is not infinite-regardless of its sterling performance throughout those two decades. The basic B-52 technology is that of the 1950s. The aircraft is soft to blast effects; its launch and escape time is relatively long; its radar reflectivity is great; it has no supersonic capability; it cannot penetrate at extremely low altitudes; it is expensive to man and maintain; its design characteristics preclude flexibility in dispersal and deployment. Importantly, even though modified and upgraded, it would be perceived as "nothing new" in the dynamics of deterrence.

Our serious study of the major B-52 modifications proposed as an alternative to the B-1 procurement (e.g., larger engines, redesigned wing, fuselage extension, etc.) leads us to the reasoned conclusion that these improvements will not provide the modern characteristics needed for the future and are, in sum, expensive stopgap measures that would provide neither an adequate nor a cost effective, long-term vehicle to do what we see as required. While I could support these B-52 modifications as desirable to upgrade its viability during the remaining time it is pa.rt of our strategic for"e, they do not offset or obviate the requirement for the B-1. Also, such an extensive modification program would cause a protracted reduction in our operational bomber inventory when the need for these delivery systems is increasing.

One of the principal alternatives that has been advanced is an improved and enlarged version of the FB-111. This alternative has the initial appeal of offering a more modern and higher performance penetrator since the FB-111 is basically a hard and fast aircraft with low radar reflectivity. However, our continuing analysis of the various proposals for FB-111 upgrade has led to the conclusion that the extensive modification required to make the FB-111 comparable to the B-1 would be, in effect, an entirely new aircraft with all the expense, time, and testing required. The basic FB-111 design is already an adaptation of a fighter/bomber aircraft; and it does not have the growth potential to compete, efficiently, with the B-1 without such a major redesign that, in effect, it is a new aircraft.

In our view, the redesign suggestions that have been advanced leave us with an aircraft that lacks growth potential, does not have the desired low-level range and payload characteristics; and, in order to do the job required, would have to be procured, manned, and supported in such JP,rge numbers that it is neither an economical nor efficient long-term alternative to the pro· posed B-1 force.

As respected as the FB-111 is within Strategic Air Command's manned penetrating bomber force, we have a pragmatic recognition of its limitations in size and range, neither of which can adequately be overcome by modification. In fact, and in perception, such an alternative is considered inadequate for the future requirements of our manned bomber force.

The other alternative that seems to have attracted the attention and support of some analysts is a large, "stand-off" aircraft armed with air launched cruise missiles. Standing alone as an alternative for the B-1, I think this approach to solving our complex future problems of deterrence would be extremely dangerous, if not ineffective and grossly deficient. The concept of an air launched cruise missile does have appeal to us, however, as a secondary and lesser included mode of attack for use within our overall strategic force mix. This weapons development offers the possibility in the future for compensating an inability to attack an expanding enemy target system with a limited number of delivery vehicles through the extended us of obsolescing

penetrating bombers (e.g., the early models of the B-52) that in future years may no longer have a high probability of being able successfully to penetrate in depth. Such weapons could be useful in low threat areas and contingency situations to degrade peripheral defenses and attack shallow targets, provide interdiction support in land or sea areas, thereby augmenting the potential firepower of our primary manned penetrating forces.

As an alternative for the B-1, the concept suffers from serious inflexibility since the stand-off aircraft are, by design, unable to penetrate under any circumstances; the result is a serious erosion of flexibility and overall capability in our manned bomber force. A penetrating bomber can always be adapted to utilize and exploit any advantages of a stand-off air launched cruise missile, while still retaining the important advantage of not being limited to a stand-off role and being able to extract high levels of damage against deep targets, including those requiring a high order of accuracy and yield to achieve reasonable damage levels.

The question of vulnerability of a large stand-off missile launching aircraft is, in itself, sufficient for us to discount this as a primary weapons delivery mode for our strategic forces. Its patent lack of credibility in future years would seriously (if not totally) degrade its deterrent value.

The air launched cruise missile is viewed by us as a potentially valuable adjunct to our total force flexibility to ha.nde a constantly expanding threat and target system and, possibly, as an economical, efficient way to challenge an enemy to maintain expensive area and terminal defenses--thus diverting resource allocation from his offensive capabilities against us. It is not yet tested; its operational utility, accuracy, cost and efficiency stand as important unknowns.

I would advise those in positions of responsibility for our overall deterrent and defensive capabilities not to pursue this alternative except as an additive capability for possible use in future years-it is not adequate as a primary weapons system for deterrence.

You have courteously offered me an opportunity to present "any other comments" that I consider relevant to you and your colleagues' determinations on the B-1 issue. I would like to accept this invitation to address the issue of relative cost of the B-1; for I, as any responsible American, recognize the impact of such an expensive weapons system on our national budget and our nation's fiscal resources.

At the outset, I am reminded that much of the cost of t his long-term production program will be returned to our nation's economy (and our Treasury) in the form of wages, goods, services and tax receipts generated through classic economic multiplier effects. Notwithstanding these economic realities, however, I think the overall cost of the program, which is the rallying cry of many opponents, must be placed in perspective in order to be understood; i.e.,

In describing the critical role of our nation's strategic forces, Secretary Rumsfeld said (in his 1977 Defense Report) : "Without the foundation of adequat e strategic nuclear forces, the United States and its Allies cannot hope to deter aggression and contribute to some semblance of international stability .... " Within the context of that critical, central role for our strategic forces, the cost of those forces (Air Force, Navy, Armyoffensive and defensive-procurement, O&M, personnel, RDT&E, and military construction) is seen in perspective as but a small fraction of our present and projected total obligational authority (in constant FY77 dollars) in the DOD budgets for 1977-1980 (i.e., 1977-9.1 %; 1978-9.5%; 1979-9.5 %; 1980-10.5 % ) . These projections include the anticipated B-1 procurement requests.

5720 CONGRES IONAL RECORD-SENATE Ma:rch 9, 1976 In my view. there is no weapons delivery

system program that is more important, more critical, or ofl:em more deterrent utility within the total mix of our strategic forces than the B-1. Without such a capable, flexible, and visible strategic weapons delivery system, our deterrent forces would be seriously deficient across the potential spectrum of confrontation and/ or conflict. Yet, the widely publicized "20 billion dollar" B-1 program appean3 in far better perspective if it is viewed a.s a percentage of the DOD budget requests in those years: i.e., 1977-l.4 ~c ; 1978-1.7('~ ; 1979-2.1 % ; 1980-2.6 % .

In the context of its central import ance to our nation's future security-and as an average of 1.95 % of our expected DOD budget requests during these years-the "20 billion dollar B-1 program" appears far more understandable to me . . . and, I hope, to the Congress and the nation.

In sum, I see no real alternative to the B-1 from among the suggestions that have been advanced. If we are denied timely production of this aircraft and rapid introduction of the B-1 into our operational inventory, it is my opinion that the nation's deterrent force mix soon will be seriously deficient in its ability to maintain an essential balance-real or perceived-with the strategic forces of the So·viet Union.

Respectfully, RUSSELL E. DOUGHERTY,

General, USAFJ Commander in Ch ief .

COST OF WHITE HOUSE CONSUMER CONFERENCES AND HEARINGS

Mr. DURKIN. Mr. President. in an effort to head off public support for the Consumer Protection Agency which Congress wants to establish, President Ford has instituted his own consumer representation plans in 1 7 Federal departments and agencies.

Two months ago, I criticized the President for those plans, which I called an eyewash and a fraud on the consumer. I also complained that the President was spending too much Federal money to sell his program through a series of consumer road shows which began in Chicago in mid-January.

At my request, the General Accounting Office has now calculated the exact cost of the 15 public hearings at $585.591.

Now $585,000 will not break the Federal budget, I realize, Mr. President. We probably spend more each year just to keep the generals at the Pentagon in golf balls. But at a time when the White House, without any backup data, is labeling the Consumer Protection Agency as an extravagance, one wonders how he can justify such an expense.

The facts are clear. The Consumer Protection Agency will save the taxpayers money by reducing the number of Government-sanctioned ripoffs perpetrated on all consumers, and thus all taxpayers. In the long run, I am sure the American public will come to look on the CPA the way it looks upon any effective Government agency actively engaged in the protection of its economic interests and physical wellbeing.

Good lawyers, including some expensive ones, can save their clients a bundle of money, and most people who can af· ford good legal representation know that their legal fees are a smart investment. The same would apply to the Consumer Protection Agency-designed to be an

aggressive, effective, well-staffed consumer advocate in a government which has lost touch with the average American household.

The Ford consumer plan will not do that, Mr. President, because the 17 consumer advocates will not have a free hand to represent the public, and because many of the most important regulatory agencies have been excluded from the plan. The lawyer analogy I think can be extended: If you are not willing to pay for effective representation, you are probably going to lose in court, lose out of court, and lose money in the long run. In this case, the loser will be the American consumer.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the GAO cost breakdown be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the cost breakdown was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: Cosr OF WHITE HOUSE CONSUMER CONFER·

ENCES AND HEARINGS, JANUARY AND FEBRUARY 1976

OFFICE OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, OCA DEPART

MENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFA.REHEW

OCA, in addition to advising the Secretary of HEW on consumer related policies and programs, constitut.es the staff of the Special Assistant to the President for Consumer Affairs. OCA did most of the central plannlng and administrative work for the conferences. To pay for the common expenses of the conferences such as printing postage, travel of Whlte House staff', and the rental of facilities, OCA requested 15 of the agencies to transfer $15,000 each to a. fund maintained by HEW, one agency was requested to transfer $11,000 and one to transfer $20,000. All of the agencies except one (Justice) made the transfers as requested to aEW. The funds transferred were deposited in the appropriation account 7563901, Consolidated Working Fund, Health, Education, and Welfai-e Office of the Secretary, fiscal year 1976. As of February 20, 1976, this account had been charged with actual costs or about $32,000 and estimated costs of about $157,000 or a total of a.bout $189 000. We were advlsed by OCA that these costs do not include costs that may be incurred for the Washington, D.C., hearings. COSTS INCURRED BY FIELD ORGANIZATIONS FOR

THE NINE REGIONAL CONFERENCES

In addition to the common expenses discussed above, the agencies also incurred costs for salaries, travel. and some other expenses in connection with the regional conferences. The Fedei-al Executive Boards composed of the heads of Federal :field offices, in each of the cities in which a conference was held assisted in organizing the conferences and provided OCA with t:r.e following information on the costs incurred by the field organizations in connection with these conferences.

location Salaries

Travel and

trans· porta·

tion Other

Atlanta, Ga __ ______ ___ ___ $11, 429 $612 ~7 Boston, Mass____ ________ 14, 149 330 214 Chicago, IIL______ ______ 20, 044 904 6, 660 Denver, Colo _______ _____ 15,968 - ------ - 271 Houston, Tex__ __________ 12, 005 533 l, 369 t<ansas City, Mo_________ 5, 347 - ---- - ----------los Angeles, CaliL •. ____ 27, 986 2., 07& 280 Philadelphia. Pa_________ 16, 965 360 12 San Francisco, Calif___ ___ 27, 13o l, 729 3, 226

TotaL __ _________ 151, 029 6, 546 lZ. 639

Total

ll2, 648 14.£93 27, 608 16, 239 13, 907 5,347

30, 344 17,337 3l,,091

170,214

COSTS INCURRED BY HEADQUARTERS' ORGA·

NIZATIONS FOR THE NINE REGIOl'iAL CONFERENCES

The participating agencies provided us with the following information on the cost s incurred by their headquarters• organizations in connection with the regional con-

.ferenees.

Agency Salary

Tra vel and

transporta

tion Other Total

Ylhi_te House ____________ $16,334 ---------- - --- -- $16,334 Agriculture _______ _______ 7,407 ~ , 347 $1,752 17,506 Commerce ______________ 5,298 5, 686 1,520 12, 504

~~:;f Research-anif ____ 2, 904 2, 476 1, 201 s, 581

Development Adminis-

Eot!fr~~:;eiitaiProtecfio~-4'470 3

'062

- ---- -- 7, 532

Agency_____________ __ 9, 350 2, 500 2, 500 14, 450 federal Energy Ge:~~in~~:;~: 5, 204 4, m 354 10, 010

Administration______ __ 3, 427 1, 731 2,H2 7, 300 Health, Education, and

Welfare_____ __________ 42,840 4, 057 1,343 48, 745 Housing and Urban

OevelopmenL ________ _ Jnterior ___ ____________ _ _ Justice ... -- · -- -----·---labor ___ --- ------- ____ _ SmaJJ Business

Ad.ministration'--· --- · Slate __ ------------_. __ _ Transportation ___ --- ---. Treasury _________ ______ _ Veterans' Administration_

1, 471 4,265

11, 311 3,556

2,238 2.010 3,551 2,366

624

2, 904 ------- -3, 677 357 1, 807 425 4, 768 406

4, 375 8, 299

13, 543 8, 730

2, 183 - - - - - -- - 4, 421 3,665 ·------· 5,675 2, 917 2, 008 8, 576 5,883 ------ - · 8,249 l, 422 5,422 7, 468

TolaL ____ ____ ___ 128. 726 61, 537 20, 035 210,298

• information for this agency obtained by phone. confirming letter to be sent.

WASHINGTON, D.C., PUBLIC HEARINGS

The agencies provided us with the following information on the estimated costs of the February hearings.

Agency Salaries other

White House·-·-·--·-- -.. ---- ·- - -Agriculture ______ _________ __ . ____ _ Defense_ •• ___ _____ • _________ ___ _ Energy Research and oevetopment Administration ________________ _ Environmental Protection Agency __ _ Federa1 Energy Administratit,n ___ _ General Service, Administration. __ • Health, Education. and Welfare ____ _ Housing and Urban DevelopmenL •• Interior _____ . ___ ··--... ___ .... __ _ Ju1tice _________ ·- ________ ___ ___ _ labor __ •. ____ _ . __ _ . ----·- ____ . __ state ______ • __ .. _______ ·---- ____ _ Transportation.··--- -·-- _----- - - -Treasury. _______ ---·_--- --- _____ _ Veterans' Administration.-- ·----·-

~250 --------180 $196 301 l,0-«

436 218 2,000 500

949 500 527 100 465 --·----· 309 --------284 3 ii25 1, 275 376 869 145 900 491 750 110 200

1, 717 359

Total

;250 376

1,345

654 2,500 l,449

627 465 309 287

1{900 1,245 1,045 i.m 2,076

Total'---- - - - -- - -- - - ------- 9, 165 6,914 16,019

t Department of Commerce and the Small Business Admin· stration have not as yet fvmished the information requested

SUMMARY

The follo\\<1ng table summarizes the information provided. to us to date on the actual or estimated costs incurred for the consumer conferences and hearings. Comn.on expenses ________________ $189,000 Field organizations for regional

conferences-------------------- 170, 214 Headquarters organizations for re-

gional conferences______________ 210, 298 Public hearings Washington. D.c__ 16. 079

Total --------------------- 585,591

TOWARD A NATIONAL FORESTRY POLICY

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, this past Friday, Senator HUMPHREY, a nwnber of other Senators, and I introduced Senate

March 9, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENA TE 5721 bill 3091. to amend the Forest and Ra~eland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974.

This much-needed legislation calla uPon the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a modem, scientifically sound national forestry policy within the framework of the congressional act. And. pending the Secretary's action, it would provide a temporary legislative substitute for several very unfortunate Fed· eral court decisions respecting our national fores ts.

Needless to say, the wise management and conservation of our country's valuable forest resources are matters of great importance and concern to all Americans. And, it is for this reason that I wish to express my strong support for Senate bill 3091. No Senator wants to encourage irresponsible management of our country's beautiful and highly productive fores ts. On the other hand all of us should be mindful that, as a result of a recent Federal court decision, the forest resources of this land are burdened with hopefully outdated Federal legislation which ingores 80 years of forest research and which is blind to the development of forest management as a science.

The absence of a sound national forestry policy which takes into consideration modem advances in silvicultural technology poses a direct threat not only to this country's forests and woodlands, but will cause an increasingly heavY burden to fall upon the already hardpressed consumers all across this land.

The controversial curtailment of sales of timber from a nwnber of our national forests mandated by the Federal courts threaten to create economic disruptions which will adversely impact upon every American-including those tens of thousands who are employed in the conservation and management of our forests and the additional hundreds of thousands who eam their livings in the manufacture and merchandising of wood fiber products. These are citizens who are striving in the face of continued inflation and economic uncertainty to provide a livelihood for their families and to educate their children so that the next generation may have a better life.

Mr. President, in addition to affecting the hundreds of thousands employed in the fores try and wood products industries, the absence of sound forestry policy threatens each and every American with the additional burden of massive shortages and sph·aling prices for wood, housing, paper and the thousands of other products of the forest which we all use every day.

The resulting timber shortage will mean higher prices and greater pressures to use substitute materials for home construction and other products such as steel and plastics which are not renewable resources of this country. There is evidence of increasing scarity of minerals and sources of energy such as natural gas and petroleum that are needed to convert minerals into usable products. Thus, the long period of relative pl'ice stability that has characterized many of the materials that compete with timber could come to an end.

In a rising demand market such as we are beginning to experience, the compe-

CXXII--362-Pa.rt 5

tition for standing timber is great. Bidding for available stumpage wll1 escalate, raising prices for all fiber product& Therefore, a resulting increase ln the prices of all product.s made from wood is inevitable. In the Appalachians alone, the elimination of the sawtimber from the nine national forest.s in North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia is approxmately 200 million boa.rd feet annually.

The environmental impact is also unacceptable. Increasingly heavy demand on private forest lands will result in premature cutting and overcutting on all available lands.

Indeed, without prompt cong1·esslonal action. this Nation will suffer a timber supply crisis fully as disruptive as the fuel and energy crisis whose effects we still feel. It simply makes no sense for the Congress to permit and condone artificial and needless scarcities of products which are in such high demand by the consuming public. Until the Congress enacts legislation to ensure a comprehensive and responsible forestry Polley, every American will llve under the threat that the court decision which has already caused so much economic disruption will be extended to all of the Nation's 155 national forests. These lands currently provide one-fourth of all the timber consumed annually in the United States and fifty percent of that amount would be permanently eliminated from use. This means that we can expect a reduction of 25 to 30 percent in the Nation's total yearly supply of timber.

Mr. President, the calamity facing the country is the direct 1·esult of a court action which has come to be known as the Monongahela decision. on May 14, 1973, a suit was filed in the Federal District Court at Elkins, W. Va., by a coalition of environmental organizations against the Department of Agriculture contending that three timber sales on the Monongahela. National Forest were not made in acco1·dance with the provisions of the 1897 Organic Act of the Forest Service.

This law, which was obsolete within just a few years after enactment because of advances made in the fores try science, compelled the Forest Service to hru:vest only dead or physiologically mature trees and that all trees to be cut had to be mar1~ed.

As to the Monongahela National Forest. the Forest Service was enjoined from further contracting such sales and to revise its regulations to conform to the 1897 Organic Act. Subsequently, the fourth circuit court of appeals upheld the lower court's decision, adopting a strict interpretation of the law, ~ven though the court pointed out that the Organic Act might be an "anachronism" in the light of modern forest science.

The court suggested that if this were the case, Congress should change the law. I might add here, Mr. President, that the word "anachronism" in its instance is the greatest of understatements. Forestry is a science, which like any other, is always being improved upon by new research and practical understanding of the workings of na.tw·e. To prescribe timber harvest practices in law is a most serious

error, if only because it does not permit the expansion and continual development of man's knowledge.

Subsequent to the decision of the appeals court, the Forest Service virtually halted all sales of timber In the fourth circuit, including my own State of North Carolina, and the Jusice Department has now decided that it will not appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. MQre recently there have been similar rulings in other States, and the problem ls becoming more acute every day.

The primary and most disruptive effect of the Monongahela decision has been to eliminate the practice of "clear-cutting,'' which is a term that has become synonymous, in some circles, with destructive and unwholesome forest practices. The fact is that "clear-cutting" is not a backward or evil practice-indeed, it is one of the most important and efficient conservation and reforestation tools we have.

The clear-cutting process is part of the practice of "even age" management. Even age management involves a series of improvement cuts in the rotation cycle of timber harvestnig which is culminated by a clear cut for regeneration purposes. Through decades of scientific observation and experimentation, forest managers and conservationists have found that· this timber harvesting practiceand it is only one of several techniques used today-is usually the best one for insuring maximum regeneration of some of our most valuable commercial tree species such as Douglas fir, southern pine, and lodge polepine.

These trees require a lot of sunshine to grow well. Foresters call them shadeintolerant. In areas where the trees were planted at the same time, and therefore are the same age, clear-cutting is usually the least costly, most efficient harvesting method. It also disturbs the environment the lea-st, for it requires fewer roads. With this technique, lumber production costs are cheaper and so are reforestation costs, and the clear-cut areas .quickly grow new ground cover. providing browsing for wildlife.

Indeed, nature was the original clearcutter. Overgrown, overmature forests were cleared out by fire, landslides, wind, and insect invasion. Today, man does a better job by systematic rotation of his harvests and by cleaning up his logging debris and replanting the forests for a new harvest later on.

The opponents of clear-cutting and even age management are well-intended. if not always well-informed. However, the facts are that forest management has used these practices as silvicultural tools in ways that are completely responsible and environmentally sound. Opposition t-o these practices is not founded upon sound theory and often amount to emotional and uninformed outbursts against the forest industry.

Mr. President, until this matter is resolved, the annual timber harvest from Federal lands in my State alone will drop from 55-60 million board feet to zero. At current rates of utilization, it requires approximately 15,000 board feet of lumber to build an average 6-room home. If all the timber sold from North Carolina forests each :rear were con-

5722 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 9, 1976 verted to lumber-which, of course it is not-then each million board feet of timber could produce approximately 66 homes. This means. Mr. President. that almost 4,000 families who might have been a:ble to purchase decent housing for themselves next year will have to go without. It means that the thousands of persons employed in the construction of those homes will be thrown out of work. It is il:responsible for the courts to suddenly curtail the availability of so much timber and to force such extensive hardship upon the consuming public.

I might reiterate, Mr. President, that the economic hardship caused by the implementation of these cow·t decisions reaches much further than those who may need to purchase a new home. It extends to many other areas as well. Among those hardest hit in my State are the approximately 300 small timber operators who depend upon small sales of National Forest timber for their livelihoods. 'There are approximately 33 mills in North Carolina that depend, in part, on National Forest timber for their supplies. If they are unable to meet their needs from privately owned land and become unable to meet their commitments to other forest-product industries, including our furniture manufacturers and the home builders, certainly many would be forced out of business. We are speaking here of small independent businesses run by people who must endure hardships and danger to earn their livings. The wood products industry is highly independent and competitive. Nationwide there are more than 25,000 such companies, and the largest five of these control only 10 percent of total sales. Should the Congress !ail to proyide for sound forest management policy, 1t will be the smaller operators who will be wiped out and whose lives will be shattered.

Mr. President, the bill we introduce h~e today will go a long way toward prov1dmg a long-term solution to the very real problems I have just described. I cannot emphasize strongly enough that the approach we take here is predicated upon the belief that it is necessary to address the broad spectrum of thinking which exists among all of those interested in the advancement of sound forestry practices. Most thoughtful Americans recognize the forests for the perishable treasure that they are. Environmentalists and timber users alike can join in support of the concepts contained in this bill.

The bill addresses the immediate problems created by the West Virginia and Alaska Federal court decisions which have precipitated the immediate crisis. For the long term, it provides for specific dil:ection in the planning and application of silvicultw·al practices which are compatible with the most advanced conservation, management, and resource de-velopment techniques. For the short term, the bill authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to implement interim measures and procedures to guide forestry p01icies so as to effectively fill the gap created by the court decisions. Also, it averts the threatened application of

the Monongahela decision on a nationwide basis and will thus save the country from a serious disruption of its timber supply.

As we proceed fu1·ther with the hearings and other c·ommittee activities preparatory to reporting the legislation for consideration by the Senate, there will be ample opportunity for further discussion regarding the specific features of the bill. Perhaps we will be able to improve upon it by addressing problems relating to the practices necessary to effectively manage forest resources which may come under special categories such as different ages and varieties of trees, and perhaps identifying specific primary and secondary uses of our forest resources compatible with the multiuse concept and the identification of other problems which have not yet been addressed. satisfactorily.

But the fact remains that we urgently need to begin to develop a sound national policy which will provide long-term direction to improved timbe1ing, reforestation, and conservation in a manner consistent with protecting our Nation's forests as great national resources of life and beauty for future generations of Americans.

WHAT IS AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, too often we tend to take for granted our enormous capacity to produce food for the Nation's and the world's ever increasing demands in terms of better diets and growing populations.

One step behind the producti'on process is the Agricultural Research System. Fortunately for our Nation's needs, we have wisely placed high emphasis on the quantity and quality of agriculture research at USDA and in the academic community throughout the country principally at the land grant colleges and universities. Other areas of the globe lacked this foresight or overemphasized priorities for national security or industrial development. These mistakes mean that we must continue the burden and shoulder the responsibility for providing the technology to feed the 2 to 3 billion more mouths which will populate the world in the next 25 years.

To call attention to the work of our scientists and laboratory technicians, I ask unanimous consent that an editorial appearing in the February 1976 issue of Science, by J.B. Kendrick of the University of California entitled, "What Is Agricultural Research?", be printed in the RECORD.


WHAT IS AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH?

The continual cacophony about agricultural research and its leadership voiced by persons outside the community of agricul-tural scientists and specialists leads those of us inside that community to wonder where our critics get their facts. One wonders l! these critics have taken a close look at what is going on these days in the laboratories, greenhouses, and field plots of our presentday agricultural scientists. While pesticide critics capture most of today's media spot-

lights by suggesting there is a preoccupation With chemical pesticide research, much more is under way in the agricultural sciences.

Critics suggest that agricultural research lacks leaders and accuse agricultural scientist.s of being "hired hands" of agricultural business. Before publicizing that theme, they should look into the laboratories of our leading agricultural scientists to see firsthand what is going on. To cite only a few examples, a group of scientists here at the University of California ls trying to unravel the mysteries of nitrogen fixation in order to improve the production of plant protein in cereal and forage crops and utilize solar energy and nitrogen in the atmosphere to replace the chemical fertilizers on which we are so heavily dependent. Another large group of researchers_is studying the ecological relationships between insects both harmful and beneficial to plant.s and animals. Their hope is to define and establish natural conditions that will hold populations of the harmful pests to nondestructive levels, thus leading to a reduction of the present pesticide load in our environment.

Still other scientists are seeking ways to reduce and alleviate waste matters of agricultural production which accumulate in ground water systems and in prime agricultural land. Food scientists are engaged in research to improve the nutritional quality of processed food and are studying the problems of inadequate nutrition in the less fortunate segments of our society. Social scientists and agriculturists a.re working with rural communities and with farm workers to help them develop more economically viable communities and occupations. Our extension activities are directed toward improving knowledge about nutritional wellbeing and about how to get the most benefit from home gardens and home-canned fruits and vegetables.

Basic research into the causes and nature of plant and animal diseases is under way, with discoveries regularly being ma.de which contribute to a better understanding of the nature and ultimate control of human diseases. For example, last year our agricultural scientists identified a new disease causal a.gent, the viroid, which may well be a causative agent for some of the mysterious human and animal diseases.

Work of this type absorbs a large part of the total resources available for research in agriculture. The scientists involved a.re motivated by their own creative interest, and its expression in these new research directions has been abetted and supported by the agricultural leadership that critics find so inooequate.

No disagreement should be found with the suggestion that the academic community accept its responsibilities with respect to the world food and job situations, and a review of recent literature and of world and national conferences will demonstrate the strong effort being exerted in this direction. The aim is to assure that expenditures of public funds on food and agricultural research are one of the soundest investments in the future welfare of mankind that can be made. With a projected increase of 2 to 3 billion mouths to feed in this world in the next 25 years, peace wlll be in the balance unless hunger and starvation can be overcome. Developing countries will need to place food development as high or higher than national security and industrial development in their national priorities if they are to achieve economic stability. We are fortunate that the past leaders of our nation placed food and agricultural development in such an important place among our national goals. As the world's population rapidly expands, we will have a renewed challenge to meet the need for food. We hope t-his challenge will be met with the help of our "nonagri-

Iii arch 9, 19, 6 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SE.I: ATE 5723 cultural" colleagues, who perhaps have a greater understanding of the political and cultural barriers to the fulfillment of thai goal.

THE WORLD IMAGE OF THE A..1\1ERICAN FRONTIER

Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, last summer some 1,500 professional historians from 60 countries gathered in San Francisco for the 14th session of the International Congress of Historical Sciences. This Congress meets every 10 years and in 1970 it met in Moscow. In 1980 the session will be in Romania. The San Francisco meeting was the first ever held in the United States, and it was especially significant because of the enthusiastic response to the keynote address by Dr. Ray A. Billington on the global significance of the American frontier. Demand of delegates for the text-in English, French, Spanish, Italian, German, and Russian-quickly necessitated 1·erW1S. Dr. Billington is widely known as author of many historical works and as the foremost exponent of the Frederick Jackson Tmner thesis on the importance of the frontier in America's development. He has taught at Northwestern and Oxford Universities and currently is senior research associate at Huntington Library in San Marino, Calif. His professional peers have bestowed many honors on him. including the first presidency of the Western History Association. He is now president of Westerners International, a unique organization blending fellowship with scholarship. It has upward of a hundred local units, commonly called Corrals, in the United States, Mexico, and Europe with headquarters in Tucson, Ariz. Dr. Billington·s speech is a clear and sometimes humorous look at the impact of the American western frontier on our national conscience. I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Billington's speech be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the speech was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: COWBOYS, INDIANS, AND THE LAND OF PROMISE:

THE WORLD IMAGE OF THE AMERICAN

FRONTIER

I am sure that most of you will agree when I say that the "Wild, Wild West" is alive and well in much of the world today, nearly a century after the last cowboy blazed a path of virtue across the Great Plains with his six-shooters, and the last Apache unleased his arrows against the encircled wagon train. For the myth of the American frontier as a land of romance, violence, and personal justice has persisted and grown, to influence popular attitudes toward the United States and its policies down to the present.

The persuasive influence of the frontier image is nowhere better exhibited than by the cultists of other nations who try to recapture life in that never-never land of the past. In Paris western addicts buy "outfits" at a store near the Arch of Triumph called "The Western House," spend week ends a.t "camp Indien'' clad in Comanche headdre ses and moccasins, or don cowboy som -breros and spurred boots to gallop through the Bois de Boulogne-on Vespa.s. Frontier buffs have brought affluence to the late George Fronval, a novelist who has written nearly six hundred "westerns," fifty-four of them about "Buffalo Bill" Cody, under such

improbable titles as "The Cavern of the M mmotbs" and "The Prisoner of the Ku Klux Klan."

In Austria children play •·cowboys and Indian," or walk "Indian File" through the cobbled streets, their ma.keshtft costumes contrasting strangely with half-timbered houses. In West Germany enthusiasts buy "Rodeo After Shave" and a deodorant called "Lasso," purchase western clothes from two thriving chain stores (some buffs refuse to watch "we terns" on television unless properly garbed), and belong to one of the slxtythree societies in the "Western Clubs Federation" whose members spend week ends in log houses, dress as Sioux Indians or cowboys, and carry realism to the uncomfortable extreme of using saddles for pillows and barring Indian impersonators from the club saloon. In Norway a "western" author, Morgan Kane, is a national hero among the young; in Japan "Frontier" restaurants vie for customers, and a Frontier magazine ha.s recently appeared.

So irresistible is the compulsion to imitate western heroes that a Glasgow health officer not long ago lamented that Scottish lads were becoming round shouldered and hollow chested from copying the slouching stride of cowboys. Blue jeans transcend international boundaries in their appeal, even though, as in the Soviet Union they cost a full month's pay and authentic Levis even more. Nor do elders set a different example; when Party Leader Leonid I. Brezhnev visited former President Nixon in 1973 the one person he greeted with bear-hug enthusiasm was Chuck Connors, the hero of a television series called "The Rifleman."

All are responding to the image of the • merican West projected by twentieth-century films, novels, and television programs: a sun-drenched land of distant horizons, peopled largely by scowling bad men in black shirts, villainous Indians, and those Galahads of the Plains, the cowboys, glomorous in hip-hugging Levis and embroidered shirts, a pair of Colt revolvers worn lqw about the waist. A land, too, of the shoot-out, individual justice, and sudden death at the hand of lynch mobs. A few months ago an Israeli army psychologist, pleased that his country's soldiers did not use their guns when on leave, expressed delight that "There is no shooting like in the Wild West."

That such a.n image should be popular today is easy to understand. To empathize with a make-believe land of masculinity and self-realization is to forget momentarily the monotony of a routinized machine civilization. -co escape the uncertainties of a turbulent world, and to recapture an unregimented past. The vogue of a "Western" cult demonstrates a universal urge to lessen the controls necessary in today's societies.

To understand that vogue is relatively easy; to trace the genesis of the frontier image demands a more extended analysis. Images do not emerge overnight, nor are they unrelated to the experiences of their holders. Instead they customarily define the past in terms of today•s values, and evolve in directions governed by the psychological needs of the present. How, then, has the frontier image now current been shaped by prior experiences and modified to meet modern emo-r:ional needs?

The modern concept of the American West blends two di.1ferent images that emerged during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. One pictured the frontier as lawless brutal. and repelling, molded by a savage environment that reduced the frontiersmen to semi-barbarism. The other painted the West as a transplanted Eden, overflowing with the bounties of nature, and beckoning the dispossessed to a new life of abundance and freedom. How and why did these conflicting images emerge and blend during the 11ineteenth century?

The myth of the frontier as a land of violence and lawlessness was the invention primarily of imaginative novelists and prejudiced travelers. The travelers who visited the West during the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries can be counted by the hundreds; more than fifty of their accounts were published in Germany in the thirty yea.rs after 1815, over two hundred in England, nearly forty in Japan after 1868, dozens in France and Italy, eight in Hungary. The picture they painted was shaped by political bla ; conservatives exaggerted the brutalizing impact of frontier democracy on men and institutions, while liberals overstressed the virtues of manhood suffrage and social equality. Both, however, were shocked by the crudities of western life, and the contrast between the cultural sophistication of their homelands and the primitive societies they encountered on the borderlands.

Even more influential than travelers as image-makers were novelists. James Fenimore Cooper set the example; his "Leatherstocking Tales" about the New York frontier took Europe by storm; they were translated into a dozen languages, sold hundreds of thousands of copies, and continue to be read today; in Russia alone thirty-four editions of Cooper's collected works have been published, two of them since 1917. Such popularity inspired imitation and in Cooper's wake a host of novelists turned to the American West as a scene for their adventures.

To single out a few of the giants of the trade is to do an injustice to dozens more: in England, Mayne Reid and Percy St. John; in France, Gustave Alma.rd and Gabriel Ferry; in Italy, Emilio Saljari; in Germany, Charles Sealsfleld, Friedrich Gerstacker, and Balduin Mollhausen. All were prolific writers (Balduin Mollhausen wrote more than 150 books and most of the others as many as thirty), and all were translated widely. Their school of literature (if it may be thus called) was climaxed at the end of the century when Karl May introduced the ultimate Westma.nn, "Old Shatterhand," and his faithful Indian companion, "Winnetou,'• to the German public. May's seventy novels have sold thirty million copies in over twenty languages, and still sell a million copies yearly. An annual "Karl May Festival" in West Germany attracts some 150,000 of the dedicated; Karl May films, and Karl :May plays, and Karl May toys have captivated, and still captivate, a sizable portion of Europe's population.

The American West pictured by these sensation peddlers was an unbelievable fantasy land where savage animals and equally savage Indians lurked in tropical forests, where fights with daggers and revolvers were part of the dally routine, and where life was of uncertain duration for all not prepared to kill an opponent before he could whip his bowie knife from its sheath or his "fortyfive" from its holster. Certainly this Wild West bore not the faintest resemblance to the West that was: a West of sweating farmers, cowboys who more often worked in derby hats than sombreros (and many of whom were Negroes or Mexican Americans). and law-abiding citizens whose principal objective was to reproduce the orderly societies of the East as rapid!y as possible. Why this distortion? .

Ignorance was not always the answer. Karl May did not visit the United States until just before his death, but other novelists knew the frontier well; Charles Sealsfield lived for years in the Southwest, much of Gustave Aimard's youth was spent beyond the Mississippi, and Baldwin Mollhausen gained his first fame accompanying exploring expeditions into the Rocky Mountain country. Yet truth cramped their writing but slightly. Instead their imaginative creations were molded to the tastes of their sensation-seeking audiences, who then, as now, thirsted for vicarious thrills. A Texan visiting in London during the 1840s realized

5724 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 9, 1976 this when he met some of England's mosii eminent intellectuals. "They listened with deference to all that I said," he reported, "but ••. with delight to the accounts of our Indian fights, Prairie life, and buffalo hunts." The temptation to cater to the whims of readers demanding even more excitement was too profitable to be resisted.

Some of the exaggerations of novelists and travelers can be forgiven as typical-and delightful-tall tales. No reader could possibly believe that the soil in Arkansas was so rich that settlers made candles by dipping wicks in mud puddles, or that land in Kansas was so fertile that it produced fifty bushels of maize to the acre when none had been planted. Nor could the most gullible take seriously the account of a buffalo hunt in which an Indian was caught in the middle of a stampeding herd but escaped by leaping from back to back of the charging beasts, pausing in his flight. to lance some of the fattest cows.

But less excusable were fantasies only slightly less unbelievable: the Gila. River Valley (actually an arid desert) teeming with alligators, monstrous boa. constrictors, and giant basilisks "crawllng silent and sinister beneath the leaves"; an Apache heroine, "White Gazelle," dressed in "loose Turkish trowsers, ma.de of India-n cashmere, fastened at the knees with diamond garters • • • while a packet of violet velvet, buttoned over the bosom with a profusion of diamonds, displayed her exquisite bust;" an earthquake that sloshed the Colorado River over its banks to quench a. forest fi1·e that threatened the hero; an ostrich hunt staged by the Blackfeet Indians of Montana. that ended with a. grea.t feast "for the ostrich is excellent eating, and the Indians prepare, chiefly from the meat on the breast, a di_sh renowned for its delicacy and exquisite flavor."

Novelists and travelers paid only slightly more tribute to actuality when they described the frontiersmen who peopled these wilds. Three types were identified: "Hunters" who roamed far ahead of the settlements; "Squatters" who made the first assault on the wilderness; and "Pioneers" who extended their clearings and hearlded the first coming of civllization. Actually there was little to distinguish these stereotypes; all three 1·epresented stages in the degradation of civilized man. Yet the image-makers elevated the "Hunter," who was actually the least savory of the lot, to a role as hero, picturing him as a godlike superman ennobled spiritually by dally contacts with nature. Conversely they painted the "Squatters" as barbarous social outcasts, and the "Pioneers" as not much better-crude, unmannerly illiterates unworthy of the company of cultured men.

These distinctions, both false and artificial as they were, demonstrate the persistence of traditionalism in myth making. The "Hunter" was a type long familiar to readers and hence demanded by them-a reincarnation of the "Child of Nature" so glorified in eighteenth-century romanticism. Reared in the forests' haunting silence, these "primitivestrong" (as a German writer named them) blended the best of primitivism and civilization. Cruel they were, for they must kill the Indians who blocked their countrymen's path westward, but their cruelty was transcended by an inner nobility. This was God-given, the gift of intimacy with the Creator through His creations. "Among them," wrote a German novelist, "I have observed a genius which would have done honor to the greatest philosophers of ancient and modern times." He was speaking, mind you, of semibarbarians, most of them illiterate, who had traded civilization's restraints for savagery's brutal freedom.

The "Squatters," by contrast, were depicted as near animals who had rejected civiliza-

tion without acquiring any of nature's blessings. "The very outcasts of society," they were called; "the scum and the dregs." Sunk in sloth and laziness, they were destined to flee forever from normal humans. The "Pioneers" were little better. They were pictured as crude, boastful, ill-mannered braggarts, living slovenly lives, and distainful of the higher values that distinguished civilized men from barbarians.

Image-makers delighted in isolating traits of the "pioneers" that they found especially annoying. One was their eternal boasting. Travelers reported listening to an incessant litany of self-praise: "The Americans were more learned, more powerful, and together more extraordinary than any other people in the world." The United States had the most fertile soils, the strongest armies, the biggest cities, the largest rivers, the noisiest thunder, and (according to one traveler) the longest history of any nation on the globe. Conversely the rest of the world was a decaying ruin. Asia was a heathen backwash doomed to perpetual misrule; Europe was sunk in despotism and poverty-"A heap of medieval feudal states • • • that have not enough vitality to rise from the abyss of misery and corruption in to which they have fallen as a result of centuries of ignorance and despotism'.' The New World was outstripping the Old; soon England would be known only as the mother of the United States.

Just as annoying as the constant "puffing" (to use the language of the day) were the abominable manners of the "Squatters" and "Pioneers." Their principal offense against good taste was their constant tobacco chewing. Along the frontiers, said the imagemakers, all men's jaws were perpetually in motion as they chewed and spit, chewed and spit, for all the world (to quote a Polish observer) "as though they were some species of ruminating animal." The entire West, indoors and out, was carpeted with dried tobacco juice, while spitters were a constant menace even though most were good shots; "when you are surrounded with shooters," as one traveler wrote feelingly, "you feel nervous." So universal was the habit that the twang noticeable in western speech was ascribed to the fact that westerners' mouths were always so full of juice that they could not be opened without overflowing, forcing the "Pioneers" to speak through their noses.

Above all, the frontier was a Babylon of Barbarism. On the Mississippi Valley frontier rough-and-tumble fights occurred daily, with each battler striving to bite off the nose, claw off the ears, or gouge out the eyes of his opponent. Eye gouging particularly lent itself to gory descriptions; travelers devoted page after page to imaginary battles that ended with one fighter plunging his thumbs into an enemy's eye, or rising from the fray with the symbol of victory-his opponent's eye ball-held in his hand. west of the Mississippi lethal battles with bowie knives and six-shooters became the stock-intrade of the image-makers, for in that Wild West of their creation every man was armed and the code of honor demanded instant retaliation for every insult, real or imagined. An English visitor, inquiring whether a revolver was necessary, was told: "Well, you mout not need one for a month, and you mout not need one for three months, but ef you ever did want one, you kin bet you'll want it mighty sudden." Legal justice was totally lacking in this make-believe land.

The image projected by novelists and travelers-of crude, ill-mannered frontiersmen and a lawless society-was a forbidding one, and hence hardly pleasing to another group of ima.ge-makers. These were promoters whose purpose was to attract immigrants tlo tl1.e West: guide-book authors, agents for land-grant railroads eager to sell their excess holdings, propagandists for land and immigration companies, and particu-

larly successful immigrants hoping to lure their former countrymen to the land they found so rewarding. The immigrant letters home-the "America Letters" as they are called-were particularly effective, for they were believed to be utterly trustworthy. "America Letters" spanned the oceans by the thousands during the nineteenth century, were read in village churches, published in local newspapers, and played a major role in picturing frontier life to the rest of the world.

The image that they projected differed so markedly from that of novelists and travelers that those who read were forced to make a difficult decision. Should they believe that the frontier was a brutalizing wasteland, or a new Canaan assuring prosperity and freedom to all? Faced with this dilemma, some simply rejected what they disliked hearing; others accepted both images as valid, but ranked one above the other on their own value scale. A Norwegian folk ballad pictured a would-be emigrant as he pondered this decision:

"I know the venture will cost me dear in the hardships of exposure to sun and storm, in fierce battles with scorpions and serpents and wild beasts, in deadly duels with drawn daggers. But that is better than to fight one's own people and get nothing for it."

That millions of Europeans and Asians decided to migrate testified to that effectiveness of the image-makers who sang of the American West as a land of promise.

And what a promising land they pictured. A farm of one's own-an impossibility in most of the world-was assured all. A penniless immigrant could hire out as a farm worker at a dollar a day, for there was work for all in the labor-hungry West. He could live on two dollars a week, saving enough each fortnight to purchase ten acres of land so fertile that it had only to be scratched to produce abundant crops. With a farm of his own he was assured perpetual freedom from want or care. On the frontier all ate meat three times a day, and wood was so plentiful that cabins were never cold. More food was thrown to the dogs in a week in a frontier home than a European peasant consumed in a year. Imagine the longings of a German who seldom tasted meat reading of a frontiersman in a western inn filling his plate twice with beef, pork, venison, chicken, turkey, and fish, then ordering a large bowl of soup because "soup trickles down . . . where beef and ham try in vain to enter." He might agree with an Irish slogan: "The only place in Ireland where a man can make a fortune is America."

Such exaggerations might be questioned, but who could doubt the testimony of former neighbors when their "America Letters" recited their success stories in simple prose: "We sold our farm last winter for $800"; "\Ve have five horses, seventeen cattle, thirteen sheep, and twenty-four hogs"; "I have deposited $800 in the bank"; "Our farm is worth five or six thousand dollars"; "I have 140 acres of land fenced, and nearly 30 under a good state of improvement." "After five or sixe years," a Japanese guidebook promised, "the person having no pennies will become a -very rich man."

The universality of this image of frontier prosperity was attested by ballad makers who carried the promises of the image-makers into the realm of absurdity. In the West of their creation lay a new Eden where "the hedges consist of sides of bacon and tobacco, so that you may lie in the shade of the bacon and smoke the tobacco"; where "tea and coffee and clotted cream fairly drown the settlers, pork and wheat are one's daily bread, and everyone lolls on the lap of fortune." Throughout Scandinavia peasants sang-and sti~· sing-t he interminable verses o:r "Oleana":

1~.la1rch 9, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 5725

They give you land for nothing in jolly Olea.na

And grain comes leaping from the ground in floods of golden manna.

The grain it does the threshing, it pours into the sack, Sir,

So you can take a quiet nap, a-stretching on your back, Sir.

The little roasted piggies, with manners quite demure, Sir,

They ask, "Will you have some?" and then you say, "Why sure, Sir."

To reach that land of promise was the "collective utopian dream" of thousands.

Particularly when the frontier offered something even more alluring than abundance the promise of equality and freedom. If any phrase appeared more often in "America Letters" than "We eat meat three times a day," it was "Here we tip our ha.ts to no one." In a new land where men were few and necessary tasks many, all who worked were respected, no matter how menial their duties. The manual laborer contributed to society no less than the merchant or lawyer, and deserved to be treated in the same way. "Here," wrote a recent immigrant, "workingmen are not afraid of their masters; the are seen as equals."

Such class distinctions as did exist, all agreed, were based on wealth rather than lineage. What a man was, not what his family had been, determined bis place in society. "Out West," a British visitor reported, "the one question asked is 'what can you do?' not 'Who was your father?'" Another who mentioned ancestors to a frontiersman was told: "We don't vally those things in this country; it's what's above ground, not what's under, that we think on." Given these standards, a place in the upper crust of society awaited all who were enterprising. Gentlemen could be made of the coarsest stuff where a fortunate speculation could overnight transform the village pauper into community's richest-and hence most respected-citizen. "In Europe," Germans were told, "a man works to live; here he works to become rich."

With equality went liberty-the liberty to think and a.ct as one chose. "Here," a recent arrival wrote his old neighbors, "No emperor and no king has the right to command us to do anything." Where all were equal, all governed; a. common citizen bad the right to slander and damn his government, abuse public officials to their faces, and call the President of the United States a. fool without calling down the wrath of his fellows or the firm hand of the law. "Here I am free," was a repeated phrase in "America. Letters."

Personal independence was so venerated that it was sometimes asserted in extreme form. A traveler who objected to the off-key singing of a boatman who told that "he was in a land of liberty," and had no right to interfere. A lad on the Illinois frontier, scolded by his mother for appropriating a piece of cake, answered: "Why, Mother, aren't we in a free country now?" Another, ordered by his father to fetch some wood was heard to say: "Go get it yourself, you old son of a bitch." The father turned to the witness, his face aglow with satisfaction. "A sturdy republican, sir," he said. Absurdities, perhaps, but they mirrored the outlawing of subserviency on the frontier.

Such were the mores of republicanism reported by image-makers that any social distinctions were vigorously opposed by frontiersmen. This seemed logical; in a land where abundance was within the reach of the most humble, there could be no humble. Travelers soon learned that they risked in,. suit, if not injury, if they forgot that simple fact. One titled Englishman, hunting in Colorado asked his guide to fill the tub in

which he bathed. The guide suggested that he take a swim in the Platte River, then exploded: "You ain't quite the top-shelter you think you is. You ain't even got a sbowerba.th for cooling your swelled head. But I'll make you a present of one, boss!" And, pulling his revolver, he shot the tub full of holes. Often told were tales of the traveler who sent for a tailor to be measured for a coat and was told that such a procedure was not republican, of the serving maid who refused to allow her mistress to ring for her unless she could ring for the mistress whenever "she desired to have speech with her," of the hostler requested to call a guest in the morning shouting, "Call yourself and be damned."

Titles were taboo in that egalital"ian society. All men were "Mr." and referred to each other as "Gentlemen"; all women were "Madam" or "Miss" and were universally called "Ladies." Travelers from less democratic lands never tired of listing examples of frontier usage: the coachman who asked his passenger, "Are you the man going to Portland because if you are, I'm the gentleman that's goinng to drive you"; the frontier landlord who asked a group of stagecoach drivers, "Which is the gentleman who brought this man here?" The court defendant who testified that "he and another gentleman had been shoveling mud"; the newspaper report of "two gentlemen who were convicted and sentenced to six month's imprisonment for horse stealing."

Personal relationships were as democratized as forms of address, according to the image-makers. This was particularly true in frontier inns where la.borers and judges, drovers and merchants, magistrates and stagecoach drivers, dined side by side, waited on by "helps" (the word servant was never used) who addressed them by their first names, l«mned over chairs to take pa.rt in the conversation, and shed their coats to join in a game of cards when the meal was over. This was offensive enough to class-conscious visitors, but worse was the application of democratic principles to sleeping arrangements. Guests were assigned to beds in the order of their arrival, with two, three or four in each bed. Judges snored next to teamsters, legislators beside wagoners, bankers with hog drivers as their partners. "A most almighty beautiful democratic amalgam" one westerner was heard to call it. But hardly pleasing to the fastidious, for guests were changed more often than the sheets. One who objected was rudely reminded that "since Gentlemen are a.11 alike, people do not see why they should not sleep in the same sheets."

The image-makers who pictured the American frontier for their readers performed their task well. By the 1890s, wrote a Czech publlcist, "the most illiterate peasant in the Balkans, who did not even know the name of his county-seat, knew about America, about its free land and the absence of landlords." That peasant knew, as did others throughout much of the world, that the American West was a land of abundance and opportunity, of equality and freedom, where land was assured the industrious and where the upper ranks of society were open to the humble. "A nation of sovereigns," an Irish newspaper called it with some reason.

The projection of this image played a role, no matter how minor, in stirring the spirit of rebellion that underlay many of the economic, social, and political reforms of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Peasant farmers in Europe who learned of a land where all ate meat three times daily and tipped their hats to no one would no longer accept their subservient role with the same docile humility. Their horizons had been widened, their ambitions stin·ed by visions of a better life. "This people," wrote a Swedish publicist, "which has for so many years been satisfied with its

meagre lot, has begun to reason with itself, and has found that things could be better than they are." The seeds of discontent had been planted, and only domestic reforms could keep them in check.

These remade many of the Old World's institutions, but nowhere did the frontier image play a more important role than in the debate over the right of men-all mento govern themselves. Liberals and conservatives agreed that the lot of the poor in the American West was better than in the Old World. They disagreed on why. Liberals, favoring reform, insisted that the higher living standards there were the product of democratic institutions; the frontier was a paradise for small farmers because small farmers shaped its policies. Liberalize government in the Old World, they said, and it will reward the liberalizers by the same affluence enjoyed by the New.

Conservatives answered that American prosperity and equality were the products solely of cheap western lands, and hence beyond the grasp of settled nations. Manhood suffrage succeeded simply because the frontier drained workers from the East, thus intensifying competition for jobs and elevating the wages of those who remained, a.t the same time syphoning off the discontented who posed the greatest threat to the social system. Cheap lands also equalized the ownership of property, allowing the majority a stake in society, and with it the sense of social responsibllity necessary for a stable electorate. Older nations, with no reservoir of occupiable land, were unsuited to democracy. Wrote the editor of England's Quarterly Re· view: "The inexhaustible fund of unoccupfed land ... exempts the great body of the lower classes from what in other countries is the most usual and fruitful source of popular discontent and tumult, namely, the pressure of want."

The effectiveness of this argument was demonstrated by reformers in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Prussia when they acknowledged the validity of the frontier as a "safety-valve" by trying to create artificial frontiers to drain away excess workers and raise the living standard of the remainder. In Denmark this ambition helps explain the "Husmand Movement" designed to parcel great estates among small holders; in Norway and Sweden it underlay an effort to drain swamp lands and open hitherto unoccupied northern territories to peasants; in Prussia it was directed toward dividing the giant Junker holdings. These moves failed, but their popularity suggests that the image of the American frontier as a land of promise was not lost on social c1·itics in older countries.

No one would suggest that the frontier image was solely or even largely responsible for the social, economic, and political changes that altered Old World institutions during the dawning years of the present century. Yet there seems little question that that image bred discontent among the least advantaged classes in Europe ( and to a lesser degree in Asia), and helped set in motion the alterations that eventually bettered their lot. The image-makers, whether exuberant guidebook writers, land promoters, imaginative novelists, travelers, or the homespun authors of "America Letters," helped shape the course of history, and deserve a. larger place in its annals than they have been accorded.

RAY ALLEN BILLINGTON. THE HUNTINGTON LmRARY, April 1975.

WHO CONTROLS THE COMPTROLLER?

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, a recent editorial in the Washington Post, March 5, 1976, lends strong support to the consolidation of Federal bank regula-

5726 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 9, 1976 tion into a single agency along the lines encompassed ins. 2298, the Federal Banlt Commission Act. The editorial points with particularity to the failure of the Office of the Comptroller of the eun·ency to comprehend the scope and depth of the malaise in the banking industry. Comptroller Smith is criticized for reacting to recent large failures of national banks by def ending and protecting the bankers.

In my view. Mr. President, the editorial notes a problem which is symptomatic of the present fragmented regulatory structure. While the Comptroller's Office has been mismanaged and protective of bankers at the expense of the public, there is a tendency among all regulators to regulate with one eye on their constituency. The result has been a competition in laxity among the regulators and regulation at the lowest common denominator level. Only a substantial restructuring of the agencies holds out hope of altering this unfortunate state of affairs.

Mr. President, I commend this thoughtful editorial to my colleagues for consideration of the urgent need to reform the bank regulatory structure at the Federal level, and I ask unanimous consent that it be reprinted in the RECORD.


WHO CONTROLS THE COMPTROLLER?

A few questions about bank regulation: Does It serve the publlc Interest to have the nation's principal regulator spend weeks ever year at expensive resorts "communicating" with the bankers whom he regulates? What signal does he ~nvey when he calls regional meetings of his bank examiners In places like Las Vegas? What atmosphere is created when this official raises the banks' fees to cover regulatory costs like his own $3000 expense account for eight days at a bankers' convention In Honolulu?

The present U.S. Comptroller of the Currency, Mr. James E. Smith, ls responsible for the regulation of the 4700 national banks. He is a former lobbyist for the banking industry and, by all accounts, a pleasant and grega.rlous man. He is the sort of person to whom it is important always t.o tra.vel first class. The details of his travels, and his expense accounts. are sign1fl.cant because they indicate the air of genial complaisance in which he conducts his office.

The federal supervision of the banks is divided among three authorities. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation oversees most of the state ban.ks, and the Federal Reserve Board the rest of them; but the national banks are the largest and most influential pa.rt of the system. Of the three regulators, Mr. Smith is markedly the most permissive.

It is a bad time for weak regulation of banks. Things are not going smoothly behind all of those marble facades. It ls useful to recall that the three largest bank failures in American history have taken place within the past three years-all of them national banks, all in the period since Mr. Smith became comptroller. The failures are not, certainly, exclusively the regulators' fault. The chief r~ons Ile in the banks' excessive ambitions over the years to promote their own growth, and in their failure to foresee that the great boom of the 1960's might suddenly break. But there is a lesson contained in these failures. Dangerous practices crept Into the operations of many ban.ks during the fat yea.rs, and they are now going to have to be wrung painfully out. It ls

had to believe that Mr. Smith, cheerily gladhandlng his way through private bankers' meetings 1n places like Sea Island and Boca Raton, is the man for that assignment.

The job a.head of the bank regulators is, in all truth, as delicate as it is difllcult. As the teha.irman of the Federal Reserve Board, Arthur Burns, has observed, it is exceedingly important just now not to force the ban.ks to start calling In all their dubious loans. If the banks were suddenly required to apply sharply more stringent credit standards, the efi'ect on business-and the unemployment rate-would be dire. Without curtailing the flow of credit to business, the regulators are going to have to find a way to impose a higher standard of acceptable risk. Because the economic recovery is still in a decidedly fragile state, the regulators are trying to avoid frightening bankers, or borrowers, or depositors.

But there could hardly be any more dismaying prospect than the possibility that the federal government's principal bank regulator had failed to comprehend the meaning of those recent failures. To each successive disclosure of trouble in the ban.king system, Mr. Smith's reaction has been to try to defend and protect the bankers. He had given llttle 1ndlcation that he understands the scale of the malfunction, or the urgent need for remedy.

The case for consolidating federal bank regulation under one agency is Increasingly clear. It ls evldent that some banks have become adept at playing off one set of regulators against another. It Is particularly unfortunate that under the present arbitrary division, the largest banks are under the least forceful regulator. The Senate and House Ban.king Committees are now considering legislation to reorganize this whole process of supervision. The present confusion of jurisdictions and policies ls a dangerous anachronism.

It is a secondary matter whether l\.lr. Smith himself ls the right kind of person to fill the comptroller's office. The larger question is whether the comptroller's office, as it currently operates, is the right kind of agency to regulate the national banks. Mr. Smith's own explanations draw a portrait of an office that is not, as a practical matter, greatly answerable to any other authority. The style is free-wheeling and high UVing. It has no constraints on its budget. It does not answer to Congress. It writes its own rules, for both its own conduct and the banks'-a.nd it ls obviously vulnerable, In the unhappiest tradition of federal regulatory agencies, to capture by the people whom it is supposed to oversee.

THE REPUBLICAN ENTERS ITS CENTENNIAL YEAR

Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. President, Maryland's westernmost county, Garrett County, is normally, at this time of year, under several feet of snow. Residents of Garrett County, and thousands of visitors who join them every winter for skiing and other outdoor activities, take the weather in their stride. There has been an additional happening this winter, however, that serves to draw further attention to Garrett County.

The Republican, a weekly newspaper published in Oakland, the county seat, has begun its lOOth year of publication and of public service. That is worthy of note, because the Republican is as much a part of life in Garrett County as the winter snows. The Garrett County commissioners proclaimed March 4 to be "The Republican Newspaper Day" in Garrett County and the paper, in its edi-

tion that day, contained an appropriate report. I am sure that my colleagues join me in wishing the Republican a. good centennial year, with many more to come, and I ask unanimous consent that the article in the March 4 edition be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD , as follows:

REPUBLICAN NEWSPAPER DAY PROCLAIMED

Today, Thursday, March 4, was proclaimed "The Republican Newspaper Day" by the County Commissioners in a special proclamation signed this week by the three commissioners.

Attending the signing of the proclamation were Donald R. Sincell, publisher, and George H. Hanst, editor, which took place Monday morning In the commissioners' office in the court house. Signing the document were George C. Edwards, chairman; Wayne B. Hamilton and Don S. Bender, members.

The Republican is officially beglnnlng its one hundredth year today, the newspaper having been established March 4, 1877. Today's issue is volume 100, number 1, and ls being noted by a special edition which is Included In this week's issue.

The proclamation reads In part: The Republican newspaper has consistently provided a conscientious, thorough and responsible service to the citizens of Garrett County by provlding a timely and accurate reporting of news events and advertising. The pa.per then proceeded to proclaim March 4 as "The Republican Newspaper Day". Both Mr. Sincell and Mr. Hanst were associate editors until 1947, when at the death of Benj. H. Sincell, editor, the former became publisher and the latter editor. In the photo, left to right, a.re Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Sincell, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Han.st and Mr. Bender. Mr. Sincell began work in the printing office around 1911, While Mr. Hanst became associate editor after graduation from West Virginia University In 1927. He had also worked in the printing office since 1922.

THE ASSASSINATION OF PRF.sIDENT KENNEDY

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, for the past dozen years or more the Nation has agonized over the mystery and controversy of why President Kennedy was killed.

The Warren Commission report was accepted by many, but doubts lingered on and, in fact, persist over the years. It seems that many Americans cannot accept that Lee Harvey Oswnld acted alone and conspired with no one.

Now the editor of the Las Vegas Sun, Hank Greenspun, has written a new version of what transpired in Dallas on November 22, 1963. There seems enough substance to his article to merit the attention of the authorities who periodically reexamine the strange circumstances surrounding the attack on the President. The copyrighted article is all the more intriguing since the Nation has spent an estimated $30 million in seeking to set the facts in order. · I ask unanimous consent that the ar·

ticle from the Las Vegas Sun be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, a-s follows: FIDEL CASTRO ORDERED JACK KENNEDY'S DEATH

(By Hank Greenspun) Strong evidence exists leading mexorably

to the conclusion that Cuban Communist

March 9, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 5727 dictator Fidel Castro was the prime mover in the killing of President John F. Kennedy and very probably the assassination of his brother, Robert.

Some of the evidence here revealed for the first time ls circumstantial, but when fortified with additional information now documented, it supplies the motive for the death of the nation's 35th chief executive, providing the important missing link to the otherwise senseless killing of a man who had captured the imagination of the entire world with his style and his grin.

The most emotional event of this generation was the quick succession of rifle shots from a sixth story window of the Texas School Book Depository building in Dallas, Tex., on Nov. 22, 1963.

The official version of the event was that three shots were fired, and the first and third snuffed out the life of the dashing young President-the "Prince of America's Camelot."

America had a love affair with the handsome, grinning Jack, and his assassination left a nation torn with grief and sorrowin which much of the world joined-demanding to know why this shining star of the political firmament was struck down in the full flower of life.

Many theories, some sinister, some ridiculous and some quite plausible, were advanced as to motives and the cause of death.

The country had been told by law enforcement investigators that an improbable young man by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald had pulled the trigger which sent a bullet crashing through the brain of the first U.S. President to be born in the 20th Century.

Momentarily, it seemed certain that the truth behind the killing would surely be developed through Oswald. Following captiue, however, Oswald himself, before he had an opportunity to reveal anything, was slain in the Dallas Municipal Building by a seamy nightclub operator named Jack Ruby.

Public indignation cried out for the truth, and the demand was quickly answered by the new President Lyndon Baines Johnson with the appointment of a blue ribbon panel headed by Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Earl Warren. Among the members was Gerald Ford, a congressman at the time and presently the President of the United States.

For many weeks, this illustrious panel, interrogated witnesses, sifted through all available evidence and finally rendered a 296,000-word report which in effect said that President Kennedy was killed by Oswald, acting alone, with no plausible determination of his motives.

The American public accepted this report with varying degrees of reservation. Even though the investigating panel was above reproach and appeared thorough, it was impossible to accept all the findings at face value, with no skepticism.

This reporter also had doubts as to the conclusions of the Warren Report and like many others in the newspaper business, steadfastly sought to dete1·mine if Oswald acted alone or was part of a gigantic conspiracy.

The many books on the subjec t with their manifold theories were not nearly as impressive as information which came to my attention in early 1967. From unimpeachable sources of unquestioned knowledge and integrity, I learned the Central Intelligence Agency had conceived a plot to assassinate Fidel Castro, whom it regarded as a danger to our nation's security. Castro, a dedicated Communist, was now heading Cuba, which was once a friendly nation only 30 miles from our shores.

The killing of Castro was viewed as an urgent need, coming in the aftern1ath of the national humiliation attending the debacle of the Bay of Pigs invasion financed by the CIA with the approval of the White House.

A further motivation for the killing of the bearded Cuban leader was the desire of President Kennedy to counteract the catastrophically adverse implication of his political career occasioned by the slaughter of freedom-loving Cubans assisted by U.S. advisors in the swamp waters of the Bay of Pigs.

So great was the President's concern that his brother, Robert Kennedy, the attorney general, actually departed his offices at the Department of Justice and physically located his headquarters at the CIA in order to personally direct the counter mea.sures he deemed necessary to offset the harmful blow to the Kennedy political fortunes-a. blow that was spelled "Bay of Pigs." A significant part of Robert Kennedy's strategy resolved a.bout the plan to kill Castro.

Investigation revealed it was a. coldlycalculated plot to be carried out through the enlistment of underworld figures who had been active in Havana gambling operations prior to Castro's overthrow of the Batista government and who still had contacts in Havana.

The CIA arranged the enlistment of these organized crime figures and financed their operations. The hired killers first set about reviving contacts in Havana that were close to the Castro regime; secured firearms and poison, supplied by the CIA; and then zeroed-in on liquidating Castro by a bullet or poison.

Investigation shows that five separate and distinct assassination attempts were made on the Cuban leader's life-three by gunfire and two by poison.

All five failed and in the course of the last attempt, made in 1963, Castro agents captured the CIA assassin and tortured him into revealing to Castro personally, the entire plot to k111 him.

Intelligence relayed to me in 1967 was to the effect that Castro was enraged and stated in substance that the business of killing heads of state could and would work both ways.

Because of the high-placed source of the information I was sworn to strict secrecy unless I could develop independent intelligence, other than the "plants" within the Castro inner circle.

It wasn't easy in coming but there is now credible evidence of Castro's purpose to respond to the attempts on his life by ordering the assassination of President Kennedy.

Shortly following the tortured confession of the CIA agent, Castro met with officials from South and La.tin American states at which meeting he loudly revealed in its entirety th,a CIA efforts to assassinate him.

He boldly told the assembly "the Kennedys have sought to kill me; I shall mete out the same justice to them!"

Information which I have developed proves that shortly after this meeting, a Brazilian representative sent a confidential report to Washington recounting Castro's threat-and more, this report, which was never revealed to t he Warren Commission, still rests in Washington.

What is most significant ls t-hat Castro's threat was to the "Kennedys" and not to the President alone. This becomes even more meaningful in light of the subsequent assassinations of bot!l. Jack and Robert Kennedy, logical motivation for which has been wholly lacking in both instances.

Evidence in my possession, coupled with documents in the hands of congressional intelligence agency oversight committees, provides a clearly marked trail leading to logical conclusions as to why the Kennedy brothers were killed. That path leads straight to the door of a vengeful Castro.

It is information that was withheld from the Warren Commission, which made its report without knowledge of Castro's threat and which therefore exhausted every other theory, without coming up with a motive that could be sensibly defended, on why the President was killed.

My investigation has definitely established that Chief Justice Earl Warren, while still sitting on the Supreme Court, was advised by a person of unquestioned integrity and patriotism, that there had been five assassination attempts upon the life of Fidel Castro, instigated and implemented by the CIA. And that the last unsuccessful attempt occurred in the time frame not long before the Dallas killing of John Kennedy. He also heard, that Castro, upon learning of the "Kennedy attempt to kill him," as he viewed it, vowed to respond in kind.

The aging Chief Justice was stunned by this information, well knowing that it undermined the integrity of the Wan·en Commission Report, his reputation as chah'man, and that of every other member of that Commission.

I can now reveal that the Chief Justice immediately summoned James J. Rowley, head of the U.S. secret Service to his office in the Supreme Court Building.

He informed Rowley of everything he had learned and demanded that even though the commission had concluded its work, the truth must be told to the American people.

What then developed is an e.lmost unbelievable story of bureaucratic self preservation.

The head of the Secret Service, the agency charged with protecting the life of the President, determined that "jurisdiction" in the matter rested in the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He thereupon communicated to J. Edgar Roover everything that the chief justice had told him and concluded his communique with the information that his agency would take no further action.

The matter rested there, however, with Hoover apparently doing nothing until he received a call from President Johnson. LBJ, of notoriously short fuse, said the White House had received reports of an abortive attempt by the CIA to kill Castro shortly before the Dallas assassination. The President demanded to know what the FBI knew about such rumors.

The reply of Hoover to the President of the U.S. read, "We have received reports of such rumors; but we have investigated them and have found that they are without substance."

However, despite this report to President Johnson, the Church Committee of the U.S. senate has now fully documented the plot on Castro's life.

What must be told to the American people is that J. Edgar Hoover, who had advised his President that the alleged plot had been fully investigated and there was nothing to it, had previously certified to the Warren Commission that the FBI's "exhaustive" investigation had established that "Oswald, acting alone and for undetermined motives, asssassinated President John Kennedy."

In light of the information furnished the late head of the FBI by the chief of the secret Service at that time, the conclusion is inescapable that Hoover, as a matter of self-preservation, took President Johnson off the trail for fear the truth would reveal the monumental error in his report to the Warren commission.

Information since uncovered by me proves that at the time Earl Warren received the informat ion of the Castro assassination plot, another man sitting with him while the intelligence was being relayed, leaked the information to the White House so the President would be aware of it if the different agencies attempted to cover-up.

What is most significant is the time frame between the last attempt on Castro's life, which was in late spring of 1963, and the assassination of the President which oc 0

curred on Nov. 22, 1963. Despite potential significance neither the head of the Secret Service nor the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation saw flt to inform the Warren Commission of the proximity o f the events.

5728 CO~GRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 9, 1976 Further, official investigators of the Presi

dent's death seemingly weren't too impressed by the pattern of Oswald's travels. Information was 1n the hands of the Warren Commission that Oswald had visited Moscow and had ma.de several trips to Cuba.

Other reports linked him with Pro-Castro revolutionary groups in both New Orleans and Texas, but clear signs of involvement o! the Cuban dictator in a death plot were ignored.

A most obvious fl.aw in the Warren Commission Report is the absence of any relevant distinctions and conslderatlons between the assassination of President Kennedy and the a.ssassina.tion of other American Presidents.

The assassins of Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, and James Garfield and those who made attempts on the lives of other Presidents like Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and even Gerald Ford all carried out their nefarious crimes in the most publlc places and in close prox.lm.ity to their victims.

They acted in an emotional context with no effort to disguise their bloody work or provide an avenue of escape.

Th1s pattern is absent 1n the case of Oswald. H1s crime was coldly planned, down to a remarkably calculated determination of the parade route of President Kennedy and Its relationship to the upper window of the Texas Book Depository from which he fired h1s rifle. He also felt he had provided an escape route for himself which he deemed foolproof. Perhaps it was, because Oswald was only trapped after committing another crime. killing a Dallas policeman.

All of thls suggests that Oswald. unlike all other presidential assassln.s or would be assas.51ns, proceeded from long and careful planning Inspired by forces beyond h1s own capabllities.

There is one other aspect of thls horrendous crime against one of the nation's most loved of Presidents, which requires study 1n view of the circumstances immediately following the assassination. The attorney general brother, Robert Kennedy, went into a deep-almost catatonic state of depression which continued for such a long period that his family and friends despaired that he would not recover. There were even reports that when he learned of the death of his brother, he cried, .. My God, I have killed my brother."

Hls mental attitude and long sustained depression was inconsistent with any normal reaction of grief at the loss of a loved one.

What might have been eating at the vitals of Robert Kennedy was the certain knowledge that the CIA plot to klll Castro of which he was a part, led unerringly to the death of his brother, the President of the United States. And possibly to his own death.

The motives of Fidel Castro, the words he uttered, documents in the hands of the Church Committee which are a pa.rt of a still-hidden record, and information in my files lead overwhelmingly to the conclusion that a charge of murder against Fidel Castro for the killing of John F. Kennedy can be supported.

I so charge and may God have some-but not too much-mercy on his soul.

GOVERNMENT'S HARASSMENT OF SMALL BUSINESS

Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, scarcely a day goes by that some new example of Government's hara.ssment of small business does not come to light in a way that reflects sel"ious questions on not only the wisdom, but the prudence of the bureaucra~ involved.

It may be significant that the ones hardest hit by these regulatory invasions of prlvalte business are the little fellows

and those least able to resist unreasonable demands.

Mr. President, a recent letter to the editor of the Easton, Md., Star Democrat illustrates my point exactly. The letter was from the proPrletor of a small grocery store who receives periodic visi~ from the Government's Department of Health. He asked to remain anonymous and this paper honored h:ls request, but it also published the conten~ of his letter in an editorial entitled, "Why Don't You Bother Someone Else?" Mr. President, because this editorial reflects the f ee1ing of so many of our Nation's small businessmen, I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD.


WHY DoN'T You BOTHER SOMEONE ELsE?

Our policy of not printing unsigned letters prevents us from publlshlng a letter received last week in response to a news story about the health department stepping up inspections of small grocery stores in Talbot.

The letter writer asked to remain anonymous but macte some very significant points about the government vs. small business that we feel should be a.ired. Among the points mentioned were:

"Every time a health inspector walks in the store it costs me money."

"I comply with the findings and the next time the Inspector digs a little deeper to find other problems."

"It appears to me that the inspectors must find problems to justify their salaries and gain promotions within the department."

"I -ean assure you that I am much more concerned about the quality and cleanliness of the store than the health department. The thing that troubles me most is that it is impossible to meet every regulation. If the Inspectors really wanted to they could close or cause heavy expenditures in every food operation in the county."

"Bigger questions remain. Number one is the cost of furnishing them with ca.rs and salary. To do an even better Job it is stated that more Inspectors are needed which means increasing the budget."

"We need more llttle guys with heart and less big guys with computers to keep this country and more important, the Shore, strong. We have survived thousands of years without the health department."

These opinions from thls anonymous letter summarize quite well, we think, the feelings of most small businessmen who are finding themselves being ha.rrassed by OSHA. the health department, and dozens of regulatory agencies of the state and federal government.

Government will, if given the chance, feed on itself and the victim of this over-eating will be the "llttle guys" who can't afford the time or expense in keeping up with the thousands of senseless government regulations.

We agree with the letter writer. The small grocery store tsn 't killlng people or doing anything that would Justify the amount of money and attention being paid by the health depa,rtment. We suggest the health department stop bothering the little man and go after the real health violators.

THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I address the Senate today once more on the subject of the United States delinquency in ratifying the Genocide Convention. I have spoken on this mater many times in the past, and its urgency has not diminished. The need for ratiflcation of the Genocide Convention has rarely been

better expressed than by the late Chilean poet, Gabriela Mistral, who won the Nobel Prize for literature in 1945. Her thoughts on the Genocide Convention are well worth quoting here:

With amazing regularity genocide has repeated itself throughout history. Despite all advances in our civilization the twentieth century must unfortunately be considered as one of those most guilty of the crime of genocide. Losses of life and culture have been staggering. But deep in h1s heart man cherishes a fervent yearning for Justice and love; among small nations and minorities the craving for security is particularly alive. The success of the Genocide Convention today and its greater success tomorrow can be traced to the fact that it responds to necessities and desires of a universal nature. The word genocide carries in itself a moral Judgment over an evil in which every feeling man and woman concurs.

Mr. President. we must realize the importance and vital necessity of ratifying the Genocide Convention. It guarantees one of the most basic of all human rights, and the basis of its support transcends religious beliefs and crosses political lines. We have neglected this action for too many years, and it is now time to heed the thoughts of Gabriela Mistral and ratify the Genocide Convention as soon as possible.

IS ABORTION A CATHOLIC ISSUE?

Mr. HA TF'IELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article from the·January 16, 1976, issue of Christianity Today be printed in the RECORD. This editorial helps to correct the myth that those who oppose the 1973 Supreme Court decision on abortion are only from the Catholic faith. Many individuals and groups whose affiliations are Protestant and Jewish have been actively supporting the effort to amend the Constitution in reference to abortion and this editorial points out the breadth of this movement.


Is ABORTION A CATHOLIC lsSUE?

The anti-abortion drive recently launched by the National Conference of catholic Bishops stirred up a new wave of concern that the Vatican seeks to impose a tenet peculiar to itself upon all Americans. The origin of this concern can be traced to the strong negative reaction of the American Catholic community to the Supreme Court decision that struck down anti-abortion laws three years ago this month.

Catholics do wield considerable political power and have indeed been in the forefront of the fight to overturn the decision through a constitutional am.endment. But the question that needs answering ls this: is abortion a moral question extending beyond Catholic moral philosophy? If there is no significant reservation about abortion in Protestant, Orthodox, and Jewish thinking, then obviously the government should not attempt to regulate it simply to please Catholics.

Interestingly enough, Mormons also oppose abortion, and in states where they exercise political clout the charge has often been made that abortion is a "Mormon" issue.

The Reverend Bob Holbrook, national coordinator of "Baptists for Life", argues that the anti-abortion laws struck clown by the court had been enacted with a broad base ot popular support quite irrespective of sectarian divisions. The test case itself came out of Texas, where Protestants have always pre-

l1rlarch 9, 1976 CO GRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 5729 dominated in great numbers. North Dakota., said to be more than 75 per cent nonCatholic, voted 1n a public referendum against liberalized abortion the year before the court decision.

Holbrook points out that before the passage o! the first relaxed abortion laws 1n 1965, forty-six states and the District of Columbia explicitly permitted abortion to sa,·e the mother's life but prohibited it on most other grounds. Inasmuch as Cathollc traditional teaching does not allow abortion to save the life of the mother, it seems reasonable to assume that the rationale for the laws lay elsewhere. "It ls certain," Hol· brook contends, "that if the Cathollc Church had political power enough to enact antiabortion laws, forty-six of the states would not have passed legislation reflecting a nonCatholic exception."

The permissive attitudes toward abortion prevalent in Protestant circles today represent a clear break with the past. What is yet undetermined is whether this change has taken place at the grass roots as well as among professional churchmen.

In the last three years a growing number o! Protestant lay persons have become active in anti-abortion efforts, and through their involvement they have tried to show that permissive attitudes toward abortion are not as prevalent among Protestants as "Catholic issue" protesters claim. The Christian Action Council, organized last summer, is specifically trying "to remind non-Roman CathoUc Christians that virtually all Christians from the beginning have been a.gainst permissive abortion and for the protection of all human life, and to make clear to lawmakers that abortion and related problems are not merely sectarian or •doctrinal' issues but of fundamental importance to the whole of Western civilization." Some groups, most notably the American Citizens Concerned for Life, have tried to emphasize educational programs on alternatives to abortion, rather than simply lobbying for a constitutional amendment.

The ethical questions posed by abortion focus on the most fundamental of human rights, the right to life. It is a principle that is even more basic and important than the right to food currently being championed by Bread for the World.

There are, of course, other considerations, such as the rights of the parents and the much-debated question of when life begins. These are terribly urgent subjects to which Americans need to give much more attention. It wm aid discussion and increase the possibllity of a consensus solution if irrelevant and invalid these a.re avoided. The argument that abortion is a Catholic issue is one of these. Whether brought on by sincere misu11;derstanding or bad motivation, it ends up being a smokescreen.

RICHARD B. RUSSELL FOUNDATION Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, for

myself and in behalf of my colleague (Mr. NUNN), I bring to the attention of the Senate a resolution adopted by the Richard B. Russell Foundation, urging that a commemorative postage stamp be issued to honor the memory of the late U.S. Senator Richard Brevard Russell.

Dick Russell served in the Senate for 38 years, and at the time of his death in January 1971, he was President pro tempore of the Senate. Senators cherish the memory of our departed colleague and he is regarded as one of the Nation's most outstanding U.S. Senators of all time. He served his Nation and his State with a distinction that has been unmatched in modern times.

A postage stamp bearing his likeness and issued in his honor would certainly

be an appropriate tribute to the statesmanship and service of Dick Russell. Senator NUNN and I will contact the Postmaster General and Mr. Steven Dohanos, chairman of the Citizens Stamp Adviso1-y Committee of the U.S. Postal Service to request the Postal Service to issue a Russell commemorative stamp at the earliest possible and practicable time.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution of the Russell Foundation, whose chairman is the Honorable PHIL LANDRUM, U.S. Representative of the 9th District of Georgia, be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the resolution was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

A RESOLUTION

Whereas Richard Brevard Russell served without interruption in the United States Senate from January of 1933 to the date of his death on January 21, 1971, during such time holding with great distinction the Chairmanship o! the Armed Services Committee for 16 years, embracing both World War II and the Korean War, then the Chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee and was also elected President Pro Tempore of the Senate, which office he held at the time of his death; and

Whereas Senator Russell was deeply loved by his colleagues in the senate, had the admiration and respect of the members of the House of Representatives, was the friend and confidant of many of the Presidents who held office during his tenure in the Senate; and

Whereas prior to his election to the senate, Senator Russell served his native State of Georgia as Speaker of it.s House of Representatives and as Governor, and was greatly loved and highly respected by his fellow Georgians; and

Whereas Georgians chartered the Richard B. Russell Foundation to honor his memory and provide it with funds sufficient to endow the Richard B. Russell Chair in American History, with supporting fellowships, at the University of Georgia, his alma mater, and arranged for Senator Russell's papers covering a half century of public serve to be lodged in the Richard B. Russell Memorial Library on the campus of the University of Georgia, where they will be available for serious study and which Russell papers are recognized as the greatest collection of its kind in our country"; and

Whereas it would be fit and proper that this great American be honored during this Bicentennial Year by having his likeness placed on a commemorative postage stamp, now therefore-

Be it Resolved by th& Richard B. Russell Foundation in meeting assembled that the Honorable Herman E. Talmadge and the. Honorable Sam Nunn be requested to visl"t the Honorable Benjamin F. Ballar, Postmaster-General of the United States, and ask tha.t he arrange for the likeness of the late Senator Richard Brevard Russell to be placed on a United States postage stamp during the Bicentennial year 1976, and that Mr. Ba.lla.r be further requested to permit this Foundation in collaboration with the United States Post Office to arrange appropriate ceremonies to commemorate the issuance o! the stamp at the Richard B. Russell Memorial Library at the University of Georgia.

THE 75TH ANNIVERSARY OF DOUGLAS, ARIZ.

Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, as the Nation celebrates its Bicentennial, it is important to the people of Arizona to

note that the celebration o! this Nation·s 200th birthday coincides with a very important anniversary in our great State.

Mr. President, my reference is to the 75th anniversary of the founding of the city of Douglas, Ariz. Douglas received official status 75 years ago when it got a post office. Primarily a copper town, Douglas is the original homesite for Phelps Dodge Corp., and has the oldest operating smelter in Arizona.

The celebration this year also marked the occasion of the Douglas Municipal Airport being placed on the National Register of Historic Places. It might be of interest to my colleagues to know that the Douglas Airport is the first international airport, dedicated by Eleanor Roosevelt. Douglas also saw the first mot-el in the United States built within its city limits.

This past weekend's program included Mexican fiestas, displays by local merchants, and presentations of traditional Southwestern activities. It was culminated by an anniversary ball which highlighted the celebration of Douglas' 75th birthday,

Mr. President, I am proud and happy to inform the Members of the Congress that the proud citizens of Douglas made their anniversary celebration as memorable locally as the Nation hopes to make its celebration memorable nationally. I know my colleagues will join me in extending our best wishes to the people o! Douglas.

MARY DAY A..~ THE WASHINGTON BALLET

Mr. McGEE. ?vir. President, I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues the dedicated efforts of one individual and a small group of young artists to revive the art of ballet in the city of Washington.

Since the demise of the National Ballet, this city has been lacking in local ballet productions and performances. Mary Day, a dominant, long-standing voice in Washington dance, has taken some positive and dynamic steps to correct this situation. On her own initiative, she has organized a small group of young, preprof essional artists and has scheduled a series of public performances which opened at Marvin Theater this past weekend. In addition to utilizing this young ballet ta.Jent, Miss Day has engaged the services of young choreographers from throughout the world to produce this series. This promises to be a most interesting, innovative, and entertaining series of ballet performances.

Many of us are aware that Ma1-y Day and her dancers have become a Washington holiday tradition with annual performances of "The Nutcracker," during the Christmas season. The Christmas season and Mary Day's "Nutcracker" have become closely associated in the eyes of many Washingtonians over past years. My family and I had the pleasure of attending the opening performance of "The Nutcracker," last December at Lisner Auditorium, and it was indeed a most entertaining and rewarding evening.

5730 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 9, 1976 I ask unanimous consent that at the

conclusion of my remarks there may be printed in the RECORD a review of the opening performance of "The Nutcracker," at Lisner Auditorium on December 12, 1975. This review, entitled "Blithe Nutcracker," by Alan M. Kriegsman, appeared in the December 15, 1975, issue of the Washington Post.


(See exhibit 1.) Mr. McGEE. Mary Day's latest en

deavor involving this spring's series, however, is quite different from "The Nutcracker;" and it is, no doubt, more challenging. She is plowing new ground. She is developing new talent and giving these young artists the chance to pursue their careers in the challenging field of ballet. She is giving young and promising choreographers the opportunity to express themselves and further their promising careers.

This is an ambitious undertaking on her part. It is new. It is innovative. And it is promising. But new ideas of this nature are needed to revive interest and support for local ballet in Washington; and I want to take this opportunity to commend Mary Day for her efforts in this regard. It is but further reflection of her long-recognized leadership and dedication to ballet and her support for and faith in her students.

In closing, Mr. President, I would remind my colleagues that no one expects the Washington Ballet to blossom into a major ballet company overnight. That is not what was planned or envisioned. It does, however, provide--in its own modest way-an opportunity for young and promising artists to appear locally and, at the same time, to develop opportunities for Washingtonians to see and enjoy local ballet.

This is a modest start; but it is a start. An oft-quoted Chinese proverb reminds us that a journey of a thousand miles is begun with one step. Mary Day has taken that one step, and I am certain that other steps will follow.

Finally, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the RECORD following my remarks a recent news article by Noel Gillespie which discusses the series of ballet performances to which I ref erred earlier, and a review of the opening performance of the Washington Ballet's spring series on March 7. This review was written by Alan M. Kriegsman and appeared in the March 8, Washington Post. It appears that Washington Ballet is off to a good start and I wish them well.


(See exhibits 2 and 3.)

EXHIBIT 1 BLITHE "NUTCRACKER"

(By Alan l\'f. Kriegsman) By accident rather than design I arrived

late at the Washington Ballet's ''The Nutcracker" Friday night for the first of 29 performances at Lisner Auditorium, and in so doing chanced upon one of the production's most enchanting moments. It was the pas de deux of the Snow Queen and her prince, and was danced with delightful buoyancy and refinement by young Julie Miles and Craig

Williams, their attractiveness summing up the improved look of the production this year.

With a cast ranging from experienced professionals to novices, this is inevitably a rather motley "Nutcracker" mixing but not fusing elements of a school pageant, a family holiday and traditional choreography modestly scaled down.

The production is makeshift in some respects, wholly charming in others. But the important thing is that the opening night performance, far more this year than last, captured the blithe spiJ:it of Tchaikovsky's hardy score.

As the Sugar Plum Fah·y and her cavalier, Lydia Diaz-Cruz and Jeremy Blanton looked relatively dry and labored. But Hiller Huhn was wonderfully dashing in the Arabian variation, and in such other numbers as the Mirlitons and the Waltz of the Flowers the dancing by younger members of the company was both lively and stylish.

EXHIBIT 2 B .,\LLET BLOOM S ANEW IN DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA

(By Noel Gillespie) For the first time since the demise of the

National Ballet a new full-scale subscription series of ballet performances is returning to Washington, March 7 and 12, The Washington Ballet ( of the Washington School of Ballet) will present its premiere performances at the Marvin Theater. The indomitable Mary Day (director of both the company and the school) who is behind more of the area's dance activity than many realize hopes to fill some of the gap left by the National's lamentable 1974 collapse.

The new series is expected to mount professional style dance events with mostly preprofessional dancers whose average age is 17. The repertoire will showcase the efforts of promising new choreographers from here and abroad, including many premieres.

Feature attraction in the first of the upcoming series (other dates in April and May) are the world premieres of two works by Choo San Goh, a twenty-seven year old choreographer from Singapore who has been a dancer in the National Ballet of the Netherlands since 1971. Choo heard of the Washington school from Americans (including two of Day's former students) in his company and was delighted to accept the offer to come to D.C. to set his ballets.

Both pieces to be seen in March ("Impressions Pa.st" and "Octet 4"-1975 works) are set to piano concerto movements. "Impressions" is a romantic pas de trois to be danced by Madelyn Berdes, Brian Jameson and Philip Rosemond-all of whom had solo parts in tile Washington Ballet "Nutcrackers," perf"ormed last Christmas time. "Octet,'' a more abstract ballet, is performed by four trios of two girls and a boy.

Also on the March programs will be the company premiere of a modern dance piece by Rudy Pere entitled "New Annual" which incorporates chance elements in a highly ingenious context for two boys and five girls. In strong contrast, the company will revive i ts version of Act II of "Swan Lake" with Pat Miller as the Swan Queen. This mounting dates back to the early days of the company.

Those with more in-depth knowledge than some Johnny-come-lately journalists hereabouts will remember the Washington Ballet for its distinguished past (beyond its recent activities with "Nutcracker" and summer Washington Cathedral performances-praiseworthy though those have been) . During the SO's and early 60's the company-the performing arm of the school-appeared regularly at Listner, Carter Barron and Constitution Hall usually accompanied by members of the National Symphony. The roster of dancers was headed by the partnership ot

Marcia Barrett and Robert Davis and included Mimi Paul, Lill Cockerllle and others who have since achieved a measure of attention.

Resident choreographer, regisseur and occasional performer for much of the period was Frederic Franklin (who partnered Alexandra. Danilova. in her farewell ballet appearances with the company) and guest soloists included Maria Tallchief and Erik Bruhn.

There were world premieres of choreography by Day, Davis and Franklin, important revivals such as the "Prince Igor" dances and mountings of standard classics like "Giselle" and the "Swan Lake". Such is the past which the bright youngsters can consider a part of their roots and possible guide to t he future.

EXHIBIT 3 [From t he Washington Post, Mar. 8, 1976} A DOUBLE-BARRELED SHOWCASE FOR BALLET

(By Alan M. Kriegsm.an) The Washington Ballet launched an am

bitious new project Sunday, with three performances of the same program at the Marvin Theater (another repea.t is slated for Friday evening). It was an auspicious start for an eminently worthwhile undertaking.

The company makes no pretense at being a professional troupe. The dancers, students at Mary Day's well-known school, are relatively inexperienced teen-agers. The new series is intended as a double-barreled showcase-to give these "preprofessionals" a chance to try their wings under professional circumstances, and to give younger choreographers an opportunity to display their works. These are praiseworthy aims, and Sunday's program gave evidence that both will be effectively fulfilled.

The program included the American premieres of two pieces by Choo San Goh, a 28-year-old dancer with the Netherlands National Ballet. "Octet Plus Four," set to Prokofiev, is a breezy, geometric ensemble work in a neoclassic vein. "Impressions Passed," to Ravel, is a nostalgic pas de trois somewhat in the manner of Jotrrey's "Remembrances." In vivid contrast was Rudy Perez' "New Annual," a jeans-clad, irreverent romp in a conspicuously nontraditional idiom. Also on the program was a version of "Swan Lake, Act II,'' tastefully scaled to the troupe's size and abilities by Mary Day.

It is just this kind of stylistic diversity which young dancers--no less than audiences-need, to equip them for the eclectic world of contemporary dance. As it was, the performances reflected both exacting training and an enthusiasm for novelty. Particularly notable contributions came from Patricia Miller in "Swan Lake" and Madelyn Berdes in "Impressions Passed." The series will introduce works by four other choreographers in programs scheduled for mid- and late-April.

KGB AGENTS MASQUERADING AS DIPLOMATS

M1·. HELMS. Mr. President, it is indeed unfortunate that some of our citizens seem to believe that the CIA is no longer essential to the conduct of our foreign policy. Because of the close scrutiny of our intelligence operations by Congress, many in the general public have received a distorted view of the CIA's operations and purposes. This is perhaps the inevitable result of sensationalizing certaµi incidents and operations, leaving the impression that the particular event in question was typical of all operations.

The plain fact is that we cannot do without a well-coordinated intelligence

March 9, 19 76 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 5731

operation, including one that engages in covert action. I myself could raise many questions a.bout the policies and strategies of the CIA; but they are, in the main, the same questions I would raise about the national policies which the CIA was merely implementing. It appears to me that many of those who are engaged in criticizing the CIA are more interested in exposing and destroying our intelligence capability than in strengthening our national policies.

Yet we know full well that, however c1ippled our own intelligence apparatus might be. the Soviet espionage apparatus continues to operate in high gear. The KGB has its agents everywhere, often hiding under the cloak of diplomatic immunity. And, of course, it is not only in Soviet diplomatic missions that the KGB i to be found. The Soviet secret police operations are found throughout the missions of the members of the Warsaw pact. The recent hearings of the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee detailed the operations of KGB Czech intelligence agents and their espionage against the United States.

However, we must not forget that the presence of the United Nations in New York City doubles the opportunities for KGB infiltration, with most countries maintaining two complete diplomatic missions, one in ·washington, and one in New York. Moreover, more often than not, agents are not living in diplomatic compounds, but are allowed to live outside in the American communities. The Communists only trust highly trained and disciplined KGB agents to live in separate quarters.

Thus the liberation group Free Poland, has been performing a notable public service by identifying and publishing the names and addresses of known KGB agents who are living in the midst of U.S. communities, but are actually posing as diplomatic personnel. The American people have a right to know whether the distinguished diplomat living next door or in the next apartment is really an agent of the most 1·uthless secret police operation in the world. By exposing such agents, Free Poland not only puts Americans on guard against the individuals so named, but reminds the whole world of the insidiousness of the KGB operations.

I do not know how Free Poland has been able to obtain this information. Suffice it to say that the liberation exile groups have very close contacts in the enslaved countries, and we know that information of this sort is hard to suppress. The first names were revealed last month, and to date, despite extensive media coverage in New York, the information has not been denied, nor has it been shown to be incorrect. I hope that Free Poland will continue to cultivate its sources, and that other liberation groups will be able to publicize similar information about the diplomats of other countries under the Communist yoke.

Such operations can have a powerful effect toward reminding Americans about the value of freedom. Not long ago, it will be recalled, Ambassador Daniel P. Moyni ... han spoke to the Yugoslav Ambassador to the U.N .. about Communist efforts to

give observer status at the U.N. tc the Communist-inspired "Puerto Rican Lib .. eration Movement." Moynihan later wrote as follows:

In the most placatory way I suggested that he certainly would not like the United States to start supporting some Croation Liberation Movement at the United Nations. Well he sure wouldn't. He turned purple and started raving about Fascism. In no time our embassy in Belgrade was being asked for an explanation of this outrageous provocation.

If the very mention of anti-Communist liberation movements can send Communist:s into a fury, it is clear that selforganized liberation movements can do much to keep alive the hope of freedom and the thought that one day freedom might be restored in Communist lands.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the statements published by Free Poland be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: [News release from the Combat Organiza~

tion, Free Poland, Feb. 13, 1976] LETTERS OF PROTEST

Today letters protesting the activities of five KGB agents attached to the Soviet Mission to the United Nations was sent by fom allied revolutionary organizations from Eastern Europe to the Ambassadors to the United Nations of all non-Soviet controlled countries. The National Liberation Movements, the Combat Organization Free Poland, the Cossack Defense Department (OKO) Free Cossackia, the Slovak Revolutionary Army (SRA) Free Slovakia, and the Croatian Lib· eration Army (HOV) Free Croatia, through their spokesman Dr. Konstanty z. Hanff of Free Poland, state they have decided to dis· close the names, private addresses and tele· phone numbers of five top KGB operatives at the 'C"nited Nations because of the hand of the KGB in publishing details about CIA agents which led to the death of Richard Welch, CIA station chief in Athens, because they wish to warn the Soviets against suppressing the Croatian National Movement inside Yugoslavia after the expected death of the seriously ill Tito within the next few months, and in order to warn the United Nations Missions of all non-Soviet controlled countries of the danger of subversion against their governments by these particular alleged diplomats.

The organizations, according to Dr. Hanff, neither conduct nOT condone any violence on the territory of the United States, but wish to make it clear that the deaths of nine of their people at the hands of Communist assassins in Western Europe In recent months does not go without retribution.

Following is a reprint of our letter mailed on February 13th, 1976.

FREE POLAND, New York, N.Y., February 13, 1976.

YOUR EXCELLENCY: The Joint Staff of the Combat Organization (OB WP) Free Poland, the Cossack Defense Department (OKO) Free Cossackia, the Slovak Revolutionary Army (SRA) Free Slovakia, and the Croatian Liberation Army (HOV) Free Croatia, represented by the undersigned on the bMis of joint agreement between all four National Liberation Movements, request your taking immediate approp1iate steps to demand the expulsion from the United Nations of the following KGB (Soviet Secret Police) agents attached to the Soviet United Nations Mlssion:

(1) Dr. Richard Sergeevich Ovinnikov Adviser and Envoy. Extraordinary and l\firtister

Plenipotentiary, 250 East 87 Street, New York, N.Y. 10028; telephone: 831-8574.

(2) Vadim Pavlovich Kovalenko, Adviser and Senior Counsellor, 353 East 83 Street, New York, N.Y. 10028; telephone: 794-8903.

(3) Vladimir Gri.gorlevlch Krasovsky, Adviser and Senior Counsellor, 1520 York Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10028; telephone 249-1672.

( 4) Vladimir Borlsovich Tulinov, Adviser and Senior Counsellor, 250 East 87 Street, New York, N.Y. 10028; telephone: 369-4911.

(5) Your! M. Matseiko, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, 1385 York Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10021; telephone: 535-1167.

The activities of the above KGB agents clandestinely conducted in their private apartments are directed against the secmrtty ot your government.

Yours very truly, FREE POLAND, KONSTANTY Z. HANFF,

Chief of Political Coordination. FREE SLOVAKIA, JAN BUKOVEC,

Chief of Political Coordination. FREE COSSACKll, Gen. VASn.Y G. GLAZK.ov,

Chief of Political Coordination. FREE CROATIA, STIPE BUNJEVAC,

Chief of Political Coordination.

REPORT No. 16 The Combat Organization Free Poland,

hereby, gives to the public knowledge that Janusz Kuczawskl, holding a position of viceconsul in the "Polish People's Republic" Consulate General in New York, residing at 30 Waterside Plaza., New York, New York 10010, telephone 212 889-9339 ls a resident of intel· ligence (chief of the espionage net) on behalf of the SB MSW (Security Service of the Ministry for Internal Affairs). Formerly he resided at 4 Park Avenue, NYC, where still some of his co-workers are residing now. Janusz Kuczawski is also using alias Jan, instead of Janusz. He uses diplomatic immunity privileges.

Chief of the intelligence unit attached to the "Polish People's Republic" Mission to the United Nations Organization is Zenon Milik, engineer from formal education, residing at 10 West 66th Street, New York, New York 10023, telephone 212 787-1955. It is not clear, if Milik ls a chief of a separate espionage net on behalf of the military intelligence (so called Information Service of the Armed Forces of the "Polish People's Republic"), or similar to Kuczawski, on behalf of the SB MSW, or maybe on behalf of both. He also uses the privileges of diplomatic immunity.

At the same time, the Combat Organization Free Poland informs that it has data concerning much larger number of intelligence agents acting against the USA and the Free World.

• In the future we shall publish more infor-

1nation on this subject. Col. JAN WALCZAK, FREE POLAND,

Chief of Combat Action.

BLACK LIST DISTRmUTED BY AVENGElt

A group of young people 1n Chicago (not associated with us in any way) dlstribute<l a black list of six SB MSW agents, residing in Chicago. Below is the reproduction of that black list.

Few days before it was widely distributed, RC priest Michal Pawelek suddenly left Chicago. As far as we believe, he ts on his usual trip to Poland where he reports and receives further instructions. Sorry, he ls a us citizen.

We had checked this list and accordingly to our best knowledge and belief, we ma:, be certain that this list is true.

5732 CONGRESSIONAL . RECORD- SENATE March 9, 1976 BLACK LIST

A black list of KGB and MSW a.gents employed. by Polish Consulate General ( 1530 N Lake Shore Drive, Chica.go, Ill. 60610) and other business firms. ·

Name, address, telephone number, and employed by:

1. Krol Zenon, 1415 N Dearborn, Chica.go, Ill. 60610, 944-2194, Polish Consulate General.

2. Kropiniewicz Tadeusz, 1221 N Dearborn, Chicago, Ill. 60610, 266-1095, Pekao Trading Corp.

3. Mickiewicz Wieslaw, 5415 N Sheridan, Chicago, Ill. 60640, 334-2052, Polish Consulate General.

4. Rev. 5. Szymanski Stanislaw, 1560 N Sandburg

Terr., Chicago, Ill. 60610, 337-0109, Polish Consulate General.

6. Wegla.rczyk Stanislaw, 1445 N State Pkwy., Chicago, Ill. 60610, 787-9586, Polish Consulate General.

THE NUTRITION OF WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, the Department of Agriculture has once again acted in a manner designed to frustrate and distort the intent of Congress as expressed in Public Law 94-105, the School Lunch and Child Nutrition Act Amendments of 1975.

Currently under attack are those lowincome women, infants, and children who participate in the special supplemental food program for women, infants, and children-WIC.

USDA intends to impound approximately $33 million in unspent funds from fiscal year 1975 and $62.5 million which we intended for the transition period between the fiscal years.

In addition, the Department has decided to spend newly appropriated WIC funds not in those areas most in need, as Congress specified in the act, but in areas wishing to phase out supplemental and pilot certificate food programs. Of course, the Department is simultaneously doing everything it can to encourage the phaseout of these programs.

These policies and actions have been advanced despite the clear legislative history of this program.

The effect of USDA's actions will be to keep WIC at an unexpended minimum level of participation. We, however, voted to expand food benefits to the tens of thousands who are now eligible, and waiting to participate.

Yesterday, a law suit designed to release these funds was filed by the Food Research Action Center. This organization has filed and won similar law suits in other years.

There is something fundamentally wrong with an administration which must be constantly sued by low-income people before it will implement the programs Congress has passed. Where is their respect for the law? Where is their compassion?

As chairman of the Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs and as a long-time supporter of this and other child nutrition programs, I protest this most recent affront to Congress and the public. The committee staff is presently circulating a letter, which many Senators have already signed, to Secretary Butz outlining these objections.

I think it is important that Mr. Butz fully understands how strongly this Chamber feels about the WIC program. Therefore, the select committee will hold hearings during the week· of March 22, 1976, to clear the air, and to force the administration to justify their current position.

I think that these hearings will be very useful in our continuing effort to insure the nutritional safety of the hundreds of thousands of women, infants, and children who are now waiting for funds to be granted to their neighborhood clinics.

Finally, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD the previously mentioned letter and two fine articles from newspapers of March 3, which describe the problems now facing the VvIC program. The first, written by Austin Scott of the Washington Post, describes the personal plight of needy individuals in North Carolina who are being denied benefits due to USDA's decisions. The second, by Nancy Hicks of the New York Times, discusses the law suit and the circumstances surrounding this issue. Both are helpful in understanding the serious implications of this situation.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Hon. EARL L. BUTZ, FEBRUARY 24, 1976,

Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.O.

DEAR MR. SECRETARY: Current spending plans, the President's Requested Budget for fiscal year 1977, and recent regulations contradict and undermine Congressional intent as embodied in the School Lunch and Child Nutrition Act Amendments of 1975 (P.L. 94-106).

We believe many of the actions taken are in direct violation of the purpose of this Act, which has been overwhelmingly embraced by a bipartisan majority of Congress.

First, the Department does not plan to carry over $34-$50 million of unspent Special Supplemental Food Program (WIC) funds from fiscal year 1976, despite a clear and contrary specific legislative and judicial mandate to carry over unspent funds.

In addition, the Department has estimated their maximum current expenditures for this fiscal year to be approximately $189 million, not $250 million as required by law. In fact, they may spend much less than $189 million this year.

In short, the refusal to carry over funds and the expenditure ceiling for this fiscal year amount to an impoundment of approximately $95-$135 million.

Two years ago similar action by the Department wa.s successfully challenged and reversed in court. It should not again be necessary to rely on the Judiciary to compel the spending of funds in a manner and degree consistent with the desires of Congress.

Finally, Section 246.3(a) (6) of the proposed regulations for WIC totally subverts new legislative language which requires any new WIC funds to be channeled to those areas most in need, by defining such areas as "areas which wish to terminate Supplemental Food Programs or Pilot Food Certificate Programs."

This, Mr. Secretary, is not what we meant, nor would even the most lax of interpretations permit such an understanding. Those areas which ah·eady have the Commodity Supplemental or Pilot Food Certificate Programs are going to be more advanced in the critical measures of infant mortality rates and birthweights than. are those areas o!

equal or worse poverty with no such program.

By aflh·mat ively seeking to ca.use areas to switch over fro~ the Commodity Supplemental Food Program to the WIC Program, and by refusing to act on all other WIC Program applications until the switch-over applicat ions have been granted, USDA is in direct violation of the law, which clear ly states that the Secretary shall "take affirmat ive action to insure that WIC programs begin in areas most in need."

The result of this proposed regulation will be to eliminate any funds for new WIC participants, and result in the elimination of the Supplemental and Pilot Food Certificate Programs. This is exactly the opposite of what Congress intended. Taken in isolation or as a whole, these impoundments and regulatory irregularities unjustly and illegally restrict the proper functioning and expansion of the WIC Program.

Mr. Secretary, WIC is extremely popular, and for good reason. It is an excellent preventive health program, and has brought to the communities of America. a low-cost mechanism for breaking the cycle of poverty when it can be broken, at the earliest stages of growth of development.

Each of us share the hope, as I'm sure you do, that t he problems outlined above will soon be reconciled, that the Department will administer this program as the law intended, that a law suit can be avoided, tlla.t new legislation will not be required, and that the low-income women and children of this country can receive the uninterrupted nutrition support they need and deserve.

Looking forward to your response, we remain,

Sincerely, George McGovern, Chairman, Abra

ham Ribicoff, Hubert H. Humphrey, Warren G. Magnuson, Jennings W. Randolph, Stuart Symington, William D. Hathaway, Edward M. Kennedy, Philip A. Hart, Lowell P. Weicker, Walter D. Huddleston, Robert T. Stafford, Clifford P. Case, Mark 0. Hatfield, Thomas F. Eagleton, Ernest F. Hollings, Dale Bumpers, Dick Clark, James Abourezk, Floyd K. Haskell, Richard Stone, Harrison A. Williams, Wendell H. Ford, Gaylord Nelson, Alan Cranston, and Gary Ha.rt.

MALNOURISHED NORTH CAROLINA FAMILIES SEEKFOoDAm

(By Austin Scott) OXFORD, N.C.-The weather-ravaged, four

room shack could have materialized from a 40-year-old photo of the Great Depression. Nine members of the Jones family live within its ragged wooden walls, sharing the dark confines with a makeshift collection of junk furniture jammed into nearly every available open space on the sagging, bare-board floor.

Ed Jones, one of the two family members who has regular work, said the family has only $20 a. week to spend on food for everyone, including a year-old infant and five other young children. His mother Lessie, 65, who does the shopping and cooking, said they eat "a lot of beans ... We eat meat on Saturday."

Several months ago Lessie Jones, who has a ready sn.1.ile and a quick laugh despite the problems, traveled 45 miles to the Duke University Clinic in Durham because her legs kept swelling badly.

"The doctor gave me three prescriptions," she said. "He said I got to take the medicine if I want t o live, but I ain't had 'em filled 'cause I ain't had no money."

The circumstances in which the Joneses live-with no indoor toilet and only a. front room wood stove for heat and a wood cook stove-are similar· to the living circumstances

Ma'r-ch 9, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 5733

of Robbie Elliott, who is 14, pregnant and suffering from malnutrition.

County nutritionist Linda Stout is worried that malnutrition will stunt the mental and physical growth not only of the Jones children and Robbie Elliott's unborn child, but also of some 1,600 other low-income children and pregnant mothers in surrounding Granville and Vance counties in North Carolina..

Stout believes all 1,600 eligible for a special federal program called WIC (Women, Infants, Children), which combines $26 worth of e pecially nutritious food a month with regular medical screenings for pregnant women and children up to age 5.

Congress authorized the program. in late 1972 in an attempt to stop the severe brain and growth damage malnutrition is known to cause in infants and young children.

But Stout's application to begln the program in Granville and Vance counties has been on file since last June, with no word from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers the program, as to whenor if-a program will be authorized.

Twenty-nine North Carolina counties have applied for WIC,-and received no answers.

A 1971 state nutrition study found 23 percent of North Carolina households were in need of food, and more than half the state's pre-school children had inadequate diets.

A public interest law firm, the Food Research and Action Center in New York City (FRAC), filed a class action suit yesterday against the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Office of Management and Budget on behalf of an estimated 500,000 pregnant women and young children across the country, all of them represented in applications for WIC that, like those in North Carolina, have not been acted on by the USDA.

The suit, compiled with the help of The Childrens Foundation, a. nonprofit, antihunger organization in Washington, D.C., claims that the Agriculture Department's failure to authorize any new wrc programs since last July amounts to an illegal impoundment of $84 million to $104 million in WIC funds that Congress had ordered be spent in the fiscal year ending June 30.

According to papers filed in federal district court in Washington, Congress intended that up to $300 million be spent on WIC in fiscal 1976, but the USDA may spend as little as $160 mlllion.

The suit names plaintiffs in 10 states, including "an 18-month old North Carolina child who was diagnosed as suffering from a borderline case of kwashiorkor, a protein deficiency disease normally found only in bordering countries," and "children whose height and weight are so stunned by malnutrition that they are below the first percentile of growth development."

It accuses the USDA of violating the 1976 Child Nutrition Act, which was passed in October over President Ford's veto. One section of that act says any eligible agency that applies to operate a WIC program " •.. immediately shall be provided with the necessary funds to carry out the program."

The Food Research center first sued the Agriculture Department over delays in the WIC program in 1973, and has won each time it went to court, obtaining four separate court orders for the department to stop delaying the program.

Agriculture Secretary Earl L. Butz, named as a defendant in the suits, has said he does not think programs such a.s WIC and food stamps should be administered by his department. They belong in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, he said.

Harold McLean, director of WIC for USDA, said the program currently has an authorized caseload of 750,000. The la.test figures from the department, however, show it is serving 550,000.

McLean said the department plans to begin making decisions on pending WIC applications "very shortly after 1\1:arch 31."

Barbara Ann Hughes, state WIC director for North Carolina., said she and other state directors were told late in January by a USDA regional official that new programs might not be authorized at all.

"He said something like you may not get any new programs this year. We thought he was kidding us," she said, "until the next day when we met with Stefan Harvey of the Childrens Foundation and she showed us copies of the memos that bad been written to the regional offices."

Those memos said the USDA had decided to suspend authorizations of any new WIC programs until March 31 to give time for counties operating the Supplemental Food Program (SFP) which is similar to WIC, time to decide whether they wished to switch over to WIC.

Asked why the USDA is giving priority to areas that already have a food program when the Child Nutrition Act specifically says priority should be given to areas of greatest need, McLean said that people on SFP "should get the additional benefits WIC offers." Those benefits, he said, a.re more thorough medical examinations and a larger share of the administrative costs paid by the federal government.

The argument over millions of dollars misses the point, a.s far as the Rev. Charles Cobb of Oxford, N.C., is concerned. The Jones family is in his parish, as are many of the town's poor families.

"It's sickening that you see your people need food," he said. "It would make all the difference in the world if they could get the food and the health care they need ..• It's not the system that's hurting, it's the kids I see whose bellies are swollen for lack of food, that's what I'm concerned a.bout."

Suu SAYS UNITED STATES HOLDS UP FuNDS TO FEED MOTHERS AND CHILDREN

(By Nancy Hicks) WASHINGTON, March 3.-A public interest

law firm and a children's advocacy group filed a class action suit today charging the Department of Agriculture with illegally impounding $90 million to $140 million in funds to feed pregnant women nad nursing mothers and their infants.

The suit, filed in United States District Court here on behalf of 46 individuals and six health agencies in 10 states, charged that the Ford Administration had purposefully slowed the growth of the special supplemental food program for women, infants, and children.

The refusal to approve additional participants has resulted in services being refused to 500,000 women and infants who need food supplements, the suit charged. Lawyers content that one of the plaintiffs, 18-month-old George Durham of Henderson, N.C., has a borderline case of a nutritional deficiency called kwashiorkor, usually found in underdeveloped countries.

The suit is the second charging the Ford Administration with unlawfully withholding funds appropriated by Congress since the Budget Reform Act of 1974, which requires agencies to get Congressional approval before they may delay spending or not spend funds for authorized programs.

TWO GROUPS BRING CHARGES The suit was filed here before United States

District Judge Oliver Gasch by the Food Research and Action Center, a New York-based public interest law firm, and by the Children's Foundation, a Washington-based advocacy group.

The supplemental food program provides poor pregnant women or new mothers and their infants with vouchers redeemable for specific food needed for growth-infant formulas, milk and similar high protein foods.

Some 550,000 people are enrolled in programs all over the country. The program has a budget of $250 million.

The program became law in 1972, but has never been a favorite plan of the Department of Agriculture. In 1973, a court order made the department issue regulations and spend money on the program as enacted by Congress. The court ordered the agency to spend its current budget plus all monies left unspent from previous years.

La.st October, President Ford vetoed the legislation authorizing the program, but the veto was overridden by Congress.

A FORD PROPOSAL President Ford included the program in his

block grant proposal for feeding programs in his 1977 budget, which would have lowered its priority and its goals.

"As part of the Administration's attempt to counter the Reagan threat and appease the extreme right, the U.S.D.A. has flagrantly abused its power by taking the same steps to undermine the program, which the Federal courts voided as illegal two years ago," said Senator George McGovern, Democrat of South Dakota who is chairman of the Select Committee on Nutritional and Human Needs, in a statement.

"Hundreds of thousands of women, children and infants-including the unborn, for whom the President otherwise professes so much concern-will be deprived of essential nutrition by the impoundment of funds and the misregulations proposed by U.S.D.A. in violation of the letter and spirit of the law," he said.

Royal Shipp, assistant administrator of the Agriculture Department's Food and Nutrition Service, denied that the agency was imponding funds, although he conceded that the department was not spending at authorized levels.

He said the department was giving states the option of participating in the program or in a similar commodities distribution and would send a request to defer spending to Congress to carry out this plan shortly.

ROBERT S. INGERSOLL Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, Deputy

Secretary of State Robert S. Ingersoll will soon return to Chicago after 3 years of distinguished service in the Department of State. Those of us who work closely with the Department on foreign affairs issues know how outstanding Bob Ingersoll performed as Ambassador to Japan, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, and finally as Deputy Secretary.

I have known Bob Ingersoll personally for over 25 years. I hold him in high regard as a friend, as an enlightened business executive, and as a public servant. He is a man of great character as well as magnificent accomplishment. I wish he and his wonderful wife Ellie the happiness and future fulfillment they both deserve.

The Chicago Tribune editorial "Mr. Ingersoll's Contribution,'' which appeared on February 29, 1976, will be of special interest to his many friends in the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD as follows: '

MR. INGERSOLL'S CONTRIBUTION Chicago soon will welcome home Robert S.

Ingersoll, who is completing more than three years of service in the State Depa1·tment--service in which he advanced to the department's second-highest post, deputy secretary of state.

5734 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE March 9, 1976 Mr. Ingersoll will return to the Borg-War

ner Corp., at which he was the chief executive officer when named ambassador to Japan in 1972. More than a year ago he had expressed the hope that he might return soon to private industry. . The hig}l. quality of his government service

was recognized by Secretary Kissinger, who twice promoted Mr. Ingersoll-to assistant secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs in 1973 and to the deputy secretaryship in 1974. In this sensitive position he served during a delicate period in our internal affairs and our international relations. Those who observed Mr. Ingersoll considered him to have brought high competence and distir:ction to the task.

Mr. Ingersoll is an example of the public spirited businessman who finds time and energy in a successful industrial career to serve his community and country in myriad ways. His service as a trustee of the University of Chicago, the California Institute of Technology, the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, and to the Museum of Science and Industry testiftes to his interest 1n contributing to educational and public betterment. His diploma.tic service, however, overshadows these other contributions, in that it represented a full-time activity of a demanding sort and brought a complete interruption to his business career.

We can all rejoice that men of Mr. Ingersoll's caliber are willing thus to serve in government positions both demanding and important.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: AN EFFECTIVE ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF OLDER AMERICANS

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, in recent years older Americans have made major advances on several fronts.

The growth of the senior citizen movement has undoubtedly been a vital force in these victories.

In addition, legislative advocates for the elderly at the Federal, State, and local levels of government have been instrumental in guiding through important new programs to benefit aged and aging Americans.

One noteworthy example .is Senator HARRISON WILLIAMS who-as immediate past chairman of the Senate Committee on Aging and now the chairman of the Labor and Public Welfare Committeehas been one of the most effective and forceful spokesmen for older Americans.

Senator WJI.I.LUrS occupies several key committee assignments for the elderly. He has always been vigilant in assuring that their interests are appropriately considered when the Senate acts on measures a:ifecting older Americans.

But more importantly, Senator WILLIAMS has been an effective legislator for the elderly.

As chairman of the Senate Committee on Aging, I have had an opportunity to work with him on several bills. In ~very case he has demonstrated a fundamental grasp of the key issues, a deep concern for the everyday needs of the elderly, and superb legislative skills.

Senator WILLIAMS has sponsored or co-sponsored several proposals of direct importance to older Americans. Among the achievements to which he has made important contributions:

Enactment of the 20-pei-cent Social Security tnerease in 19'12, the largest dollar raise ill the history of the program.

Passage of the Older Americans Amendmenui of 1975, which extended and strengthened the Older Americans Act, the Older American Community Service Employment Act, RSVP (the Retired Senior Volunteer Program) and Foster Grandparents.

Establishment of a co.st-of-living adjustment mechanism to protect the -elderly from inflation.

Increased Social Security benefits for nearly 3 mlllion aged widows in 1973.

An increase in the earnings limitation for Social Security beneficiaries under age 72.

Enactment of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act which provides mini· mum standards for vesting, insurance to protect wo-rkers and their familles if a pension plan becomes bankrupt, and other improvements.

Continuation and expansion of section 202, the most successful housing program ever enacted for older Americans. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing for the Elderly, he is continua.Uy exploring new areas of possible action, such as congregate housing.

Creation of a new national hot meals program for elderly persons in senior citizen centers, schools, and other nonprofit settings. Nearly 245,000 older Americans now participate in this program.

Establishment of a national senior citizens corps to convert the Mainstream pilot projects-such as Green Thumb and Senior AIDES-into permanent, ongoing programs.

Enactment of a. 10:.:pereent Social Security increase in 1971.

Passage of a two-step, 11-percent Social Security increase in 1974.

These are impressive accomplishments by any yardstick. Leading national aging organizations-including the National Association of Retired Federal Employees, the National Council of Senior Citizens, and the National Retired Teachers Association-American Association of Retired Persons-have singled out Senat.or WILLIAMS for special commendation for his efforts on behalf of aged and aging Americans. And, I join with them in paying tribute to him now.

DECLINE IN WHOLESALE PRICES

Mr. HUGH SCOT!". Mr. President, I was very pleased recently to note the drop in wholesale prices-an indicator of a strengthening economy. In announcing the 0..5 percent decline in February's wholesale prices, the Labor Departmeit said this reflect.e<l the fourth consecutive monthly drop in food prices and an easing of inflationary pressures on industrial goods.

Mr. President, while it may be a bit premature to assume that tWs drop signifies a trend, I will venture to remain optimistic and to hope that this drop in wholesale prices continues and will rep.resent a foreshadowing of a drop in consumer prices.

AMERICAN FILM INSTITUTE SALUTES WILLIAM WYLER

Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President. William Wyler's career spans half .a century. The remarkable Hollywood fllmmaker is being honored this month with the American Film Institute•s Life Achievement Award for outstanding contributions to our Nation's film heritage. In particular, two elements of -Mr. Wyler's distinguished career stand out.

First is the diversity and .scope of his work. The films William Wyler produced or directed include screen adaptations of literary classics: Wuthering Heights,

· Carrie and Dodsworth; historical epics: Ben Hur; musicals: Funny Girl; slices of Americana: Friendly Persuasion, plus that American staple, the cowboy movie: The Westerner, The Big Country, and more than 20 early two reelers. In addition, Mr. Wyler has made movies exploring personalities and contemporary society: Jezebel, The Children's Hour, and The Collector, to name just three. To many of us the impressions we h~ ve cf life during and after World War II include images which William Wyler presented us in two of his Academy Award winning films: Mrs. Miniver and The Best Years of Our Lives.

The second aspect of William Wyler's background is the classic story of the hard-working immigrant. Born in a Swiss village, he grew up speaking French and German. When he came to America shortly after the First World War. he worked for $25 a week as a messenger boy in New York for a new movie company. Later he moved to California where he became a stuntman, did odd jobs and finally began directing short Westerns in the mid-1920's. By the 1930's Mr. Wyler was working with the greatest stars of HollyWood's golden era. And throughout the 1940's, 1950's, and up to 1970, he remained tremendously active in making movies America and the world have loved.

In the making of more than four dozen films, Mr. Wyler was recognized by his peers with 13 Academy Award nominations for directing and three for producing-a total achieved by no other filmmaker. Equally important, Mr. Wyler drew many of his performers into Oscar-winning performances. The list reads like a HollyWood honor roll~ Audrey Hepbm·n, Charlton Heston, Greer Garson, Olivia de Havllland, Frederic March, Barbra Streisand, Walter Brennan, Bette Davis.

Throughout his celebrated career, Mr. Wyler has been honored many times by his colleagues and the mm industry. Now the American Film Institute has saluted Mr. Wyler with its iourth annual Life Achievement Award. The goals of AFI, which was established by the National Endowment for the Arts, include preservation oi America's :film heritage and advancement of the arts of film and television. As part of this objective, AF!, each year recognizes a leading American filmmaker whose talent has advanced the film art and whose accomplishments have been acknowledged by scholars, professional peers, critics and the general public. An equally important criteria is that the filmmaker's work has "stood the test of time.'' The films of William Wyler certainly qualify. "Ben Hur" won eleven Academy Awards, a record never equaled. His film "Jezebel" with Bette Davis and Henry Fonda remains a classic as does Mr. Wyler•s movie version of "The Little Foxes," by Lillian Hellman.

More than 1,200 of Mr. Wyler's friends, associates and admirers will join him at a dinner Jn Los Angeles tonight. The entire Nation will be able to see


highlights of the tribute on a prime-time television program, to be shown on CBSTV, Sunday, March 14.

I am pleased that my constituent William Wyler ls to be honored for his impressive• contributions to our uniquely American art form-the movies. I know that my colleagues join me in congratulating Mr. Wyler a.s he receives this award from the American Film Institute and on his lifelong work in bringing so much significant entertainment to the American public.

JOHN SIMON Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, during the

November 13, 1975, hearing of the Subcommittee on Long-Term Care of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, dealing with fraud and abuse in the medicare and medicaid programs, I engaged in the following exchange with Mr. John Goff, former section chief, quality control division, Illinois Department of Public Aid.

Sena.tor PERCY. The head of the (Illinois Medical Payments) task force was John Simon. You indicated that bis father was a judge and bis name was what?

Mr. GOFF. I do not know his father's name. His la.st name is Simon. I believe he's a judge in the Chicago area.

Senator PERCY. That would be Seymour Simon then?

Mr. GOFF. Possibly. Sena.tor PERCY. Yes ... the judges in

Cook County are sometimes different from those in Utah or Tennessee . . . (both Senator Moss of Utah and Senator Brock of Tennessee were in attendance) . . . this iS his son John so therefore he is not too far removed from politics.

My intent was to identify John Simon as the member of a politically prominent family and to indicate that the head of the Illinois Medical Payments Task Force had therefore a political background.

The Honorable Seymour F. Simon, judge of the Illinois Appellate Court, wrote me to express his concern about possible inferences which could be drawn regarding his son and himself.

To set the record straight, I did not intend to impugn the integrity, ability or qualifications of either Judge Simon or John Simon. No inferences to the contrary should be drawn from my remarks of November 13. John Simon served as an assistant U.S. attorney from his graduation from law school in 1967 until he resigned immediately prior to undertaking work for the Illinois Department of Public Aid in the latter part of 1974, and I am satisfied that while an assistant U.S. attorney be neither engaged in political activity nor was politically motivated.

So far as I am concerned, both Judge Simon and his son, John, are fully qualified to hold responsible positions in public life. They have been fine public officials and I admire both of them.

NUTRITION EDUCATION THROUGH FOOD LABELING

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, over the past few years the importance of food labeling to help consumers make

better food value choices and thereby to improve the nutritional status of the U.S. population has received a great deal of attention.

A very thoughtful article on this subject has been written by Mr. Colin Norman, in which he tries to show that food labeling might become a useful ingredient for an effective nutrition education program. Mr. Norman is careful to point out that there are many obstacles and many pitfalls along the path to making nutrition labeling a viable tool to help overcome the consumers' lack of knowledge about nutrition and the scientific communities' inability to convey nutrition information in layman terms.

There remain nany unknowns in terms of what information should be conveyed to the consumer, what is the best way of getting information across to the consumer and how the consumer can be educated to use the information. In short, as Mr. Norman concludes, the future for nutrition labeling and related activities seems to be somewhat clouded and perhaps many years away before they will have a significant effect on consumer preferences and consumer uses.

However, it is time we begin to focus on the various alternative tools that might help the consumer to choose foods for a proper, adequate, nutritious, and safe diet. The final form in which our farm products reach the consumer is changing so rapidly that the public needs to know more about the contents of each product.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Norman's article be printed in the RECORD.


WASHINGTON REPORT ON FOOD LABELING

Nutrition labeling is becoming the vehicle for an effective nutrition education program by the Food and Drug Administration. A seasoned Washington observer surveys the obstacles in the road a.head.

In the pa.st few years a sheaf of reports , surveys and best-selling booklets have drummed out the message that large numbers of people in the United States are getting inadequate amounts of nutrients in their daily diets. As the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. A. M. Schmidt, put it in a speech at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science last year, "the incidence of nutritional deficiencies in the United States is provable, and numbers in the millions. And these millions are not counted among the poor alone. It is a problem crossing all social and economic boundaries."

Such emphatic assertions have provided ample grist for the advertising mills of the health food industry, they have raised a hue and cry about "junk" foods filling the shelves of supermarkets and they have helped the trend toward massive fortification of some kinds of food with vitamins and mineralsaccompanied, of course, wit h a blast of publicity.

More important, they have caused the federal government in general and the Food and Drug Administ ration in particular to take a close look at ways to improve the nutritional quality of the average American diet. But as FDA has discovered during the pas t ten yea.rs, that is no easy task. The Federal Trade Commission, which has joined the effort m or e recent ly, has made the sa1ne di covery.

Schmidt told t he AAAS meet ing that "the solution, as we see it, will come through individual consumers ma.king better choices based on better information a.bout the nutritional values in the foods they buy." To help achieve that laudable goal, FDA has embarked on a far reaching program to alter the labeling of various types of foods, and it has recently proposed a number of regulations designed to bring some rationality to the fortificat ion of foodstuffs with vitamins and minerals. Meanwhile, the Federal Trade Commission has proposed a host of regulations which would force the food industry to include nutritional information in some of its advertisements.

All t hese actions a.re closely related, and all have drawn considerable criticiSm from a variety of sources. FDA, in fact, has been taken to court by the health food industry and numerous bills in the hoppers on Capitol Hill could drastically alter its program. But, since opposition has been expressed by consumer groups who believe the agency has not gone far enough in its recommendations, and by the food industry which believes it has gone too far, FDA officials feel they are probably on the right course.

Stated simply, the intent of the proposed food labeling and advertising regulations is to provide consumers with understandable and consistent nutritional information on various foods so that they can make a wise choice from the 8,000 or so selections that line the shelves of the average supermarket. Another goal of FDA's proposals is to circumvent what Schmidt calls a "nutrition horsepower race" in which food companies beef up their products with irrational a.mounts or combinations of nutrients in order to promote them as being highly nutritious.

The first batch of FDA's nutrition labeling regulations came into effect on July 1 of this year, although many companies had implemented them earlier. They require, in short, that any food which contains added nutrients, or for which a nutritional claim is made-for example, and advertisement stating that "this product is full of Vitamin C"must bear a label also stating the number of calories, the amounts of protein, carbohydrate and fat, and the percentage of the U.S. Recommended Daily Allowance (U.S. RDA) of seven specific nutrients. The nutrients which must be listed are Vitamin A, Vita.min C, thiamine, riboflavin, niacin, calcium and iron, although others may also be listed if the manufacturer so wishes.

To help consumers compare different brands and different types of food, the regulations specify that the nutrition information must be presented in a standard format and in a standard position on the label. Moreover, in an effort to ensure that new types of processed food are nutritionally equivalent to the foods they are meant to replace, FDA is requiring that the word "imit ation" be prominently displayed on the label if the new food is nutritionally inferior.

If the objective of the program is to help consumers choose nutritious diets, the immediate question is whether or not the consumer reads the food label. The evidence is sketchy, at best, but surprisingly enough, the chief benefits of the program in the short term are likely to derive from the impact on the food industry rather than on the consumer.

In an attempt to determine what use consumers make of food labels , FDA conducted a survey of shoppers in 1973. It turned up the following facts. When buying a. packaged food for the first time, two thirds of the shoppers said that they are motivated by factors such as price and weight, one third look a.t the label for a listing of ingredients, and only 5 % look for nutritional content such as vitamins, minerals, fats and carboh ydrat es. Ano riher su r vey conducted late in

573 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 9, 1976 1973 by the Response Analysis Corporation found that although nutritional awareness ls reasonably high among shoppers, only about half the respondents said they understood everything on a sample nutrition label. The survey found, however, that halt of all shoppers believe they will benefit considerably from nutrition labeling.

Consumer comprehension is clearly an insecure foundation for a. labeling program designed to influence food buying habits; consequently an important part of FDA's effort is a widespread nutrition education campaign. Launched in May last year, the campaign includes a film, pamphlets, meetings with industry and consumer groups, and short radio and television announcements. But in a report published in January of 1975, the General Accounting Office-the fiscal watchdog of the U.S. Congress-stated that "FDA's efforts to develop and implement a nutritional education program ... have not kept pace with its regulations concerning nutritional labeling."

The GAO report said that the education program started too late because by the time it got underway a large number of food products were already bearing nutrition labels. Moreover, the multimedia campaign has not been very effective because FDA has no funding to pay stations for its television and radio announcements. In fact, they are carried as public service announcements, u sually in otfpeak hours. FDA officials concede that such cr iticisms are valid. But they also point out that the education program is a long-term effort which could not be expected to bear much fruit for five or ten years.

The impact on the food indust ry has been much more dramatic. According to Dr. Allan Forbes, who is in charge of the labeling progTam in FDA, It has already had the "massive benefit" of raising the nutrition consciousness of much of the food industry. "As some companies embark on the program they start thinking nutrition for the first time since they have been in existence," Forbes said in an interview. A spokesman for the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), the food industry's chief trade association, added that the program has prompted a good deal of competition in the industry.

Although such assertions a.re difficult to verify, it is certainly clear that after some initial uneasiness about the program, the vast majority of food. manufacturers are now supporting it readily enough. A survey accomplished last year by the GMA found, for example, that 85% of the manufacturers who responded were intending to label their products with nutritional information, even in the case of products which do not fall under the provisions of FDA regulations. Of course, the fact that companies which intend to move voluntarily to nutrition labeling were more likely to respond to GMA's questionnaire may have inflated the figure, nevertheless it is supported by FDA surveys.

But that ls not to say that there a.re no complaints about the program. A number of consumerists have said that the program is commendable, but essentially inadequate. They have argued that the program will be effective in providing consumers with nutritional choices only when it is extended to all foods on a mandatory basis. FDA officials argue, however, that it is better to see how the present program develops on a voluntary basis before making it mandatory for all foods.

As for the food industry, there was considerable initial opposition to the program because of suggestions that it would be inordinately expensive. For a long time, an estimate of $100 million was bandied about as the initial cost of complying with the regulations, but nobody knows quite how that figure was derived. It began to look a little false when exactly the same estimate sur• faced in Canad.a where discussions were going on about switching to nutrition label·

ing. Since Canada's food industry ls a good deal smaller than that of the United States, there was clearly something wrong with the estimate.

Although there are still no really accurate cost estimates, perhaps the best one was derived from GMA's survey. On the basis of replies from companies which have already adopted nutrition labeling, or are planning to do so, GMA estimated that lt will cost a.bout $0.0040 per dollar of retail sales to initiate the program ( the costs come from analytical facilities, label printing et cetera) and $0.0016 per dollar or sales to maintain it. If those estim11.tes are at all accurate, early suggestions that nutrition labeling would greatly increase food costs seem to be unfounded-in fact, in relation to general inflation, the program will have negligible effect, and the costs are infl.nitestimal when compared to the food industry's adverti5ing expenditures.

One problem with the program ls that there seems to ha- c been some sharp practice in the food bdust ry in the calcu~ation of serving sizes for a few products. Since nutrition information is exoressed in relation to serving size, the larger -th serving, the more nutritious the product appears to be. A survey cond u :::ted recently by FDA revealed evidence thv.t Eome of the serving sizes quoted on nutrition labels are in fact double what they v,rere before nutrition labeling was introduced. There is, for exa.m~le, a move to esteblish one cup as the standard serving of canned vegetables, such as green beans, peas and tomatoes, but for Many years before nutrition labeling, the standard serving was reckoned to be half a cup. Moreover, FDA found that one brand of frozen peas claimed a serving size of six-and-two-thirds ounces, providing one-and-a-half servings per package, while the package also noted that it contained four two-and-a-half ounce servings. Such practices clearly do not add much to the clarity of food labels, nor are they much help to consumers who want to make nutritional comparisons between different foods. FDA is therefore working out a means for e::;tablishing uniform serving slzes, but that is proving to be a difficult task.

The FDA's nutritiot_ labeling regulations are only a part of the program for improving the nutritional quality of the average American diet. The agency also wants to ensure that vitamins a.nd minerals a.re added to foods in rational amounts and c;:i:rrbinations, that consumers are not deceived by excessive and unproven claims for the efficacy of some health food products, and that its nutrition labeling program does not itself lead to a race between food companies to fortify foods with excessive amounts of nutrients.

In this regard, the a~ency has issued a set of regulations governing vitamin and mineral products, and last year it published a set of proposals designed to esta.bl:sh guidelines for the fortification of various kinds of food. Those moves have, however, annoyed many people. The vitamin and mineral regulations have been challenged in court and bills are under consideration in Congress which would severely restl:ict FDA's authority to set regulations in that area, while the fortification guidelines have, according to one FDA official, generated a "room full of comments."

To govern the vitamins and minerals, FDA has issued regulations specifying that only those fortified foods which contain less than 50 % of U.S. RDA of various vitamins and minerals could be marketed as foods, those containing between 50% and 150% should be marketed as dietary supplements, and products containing more than 150 % of U.S. RDA's should be sold as over-the-counter drugs and labeled as such. The latter class would also have t.o meet c';andards of efficacy established for all dr~· ~· In other words, a breakfast cereal such as Total, which ls

heavily advertised as containing 100 % of the U.S. RDA for various vitamins and minerals in every serving, would have to be marketed as a dietary supplement, and clearly labeled as such.

Those regulations, which were to have "m?come effective at the same time as tho=:e covering nutrition labeliJ:g, have, howe, er, run Into massive opposition (N.T. S / 0 73 p 20) and they have been suspended by an appeals court. Although the court generally upheld FDA's authority to regulate dietary supplements of vitamins and minerals, it ruled that FDA had not presented an adequate ca i::e for regarding supplements as drugs, simply bec3.use they contain more than 150 % of U.S. RDA's. FDA has since deleted t h at p rovision from its proposed regulations and intends t o re-open public hearings later t his year befor e putting the proposals into final form.

Most of the opposition to the vitamin and mineral regulations has come from the health foods industry, which bas challenged FDA's authority to set regulations for products for which there is no proven safety problem and similar concerns last year led the U.S. 8 .}nate to pass a measure which would h ave prevented FDA from regulating vitamins a n d minerals on grounds other than safety. An amendment to that effect was added to a health manpower bill at the insistence of Senator William Proxmrre, t h e Wisconsin Democrat whose keep-fit n.ctivities have received widespread publicity. Although the bill was not taken up by the House of Representatives last year, Proxmire and ReI)resentative Paul Rogers, chairman of the House health subcommittee, reached agreeme:it on a compromise bill which they both introduced in May. The bill, which would prevent FDA from limiting the potency or the combinations of vitamins and minerals is likely to be attached to another bill dealing with heart research, and its chances of being passed b y Congress are generally considered to be good. If so, it will have a i::evere impact on FDA's proposed fortification guidelin~s.

The FDA proposals, issued in June last year, were described by Com.missioner Schmidt as being designed to ensure "that nutrition labeling is not exploited or abused by those who would seek to gain unfair promotional advantage or promote a. worthless food as something it is not." In short, the regulations would define how a.nd when nutrients should be added to foods. Five different methods were proposed.

First, standards would be set for some types of food, such as enriched fl.our and enriched bread, which would be mandatory. This procedure is, in fact, already being used to some extent.

Second, nutritional guidelines would be set for some classes of fortified foods, such a.s ready-to-eat breakfast cereals, when it is considered unnecessary to establish all the parameters. Those products fortified at the recommended levels would then be eligible to bear a notice on the label stating that "This product provides nutrients in amounts appropriate for this class of food as determined by the U-8. Government."

Third, for some processed foods, nutrients should be added to make those !oods nutritionally equivalent to the food they are designed to replace. For example, FDA has suggested that breakfast beverages should be fortified with Vitamin C at the level of 60 mg per six-ounce serving, whlch is a.bout the same a.s natural orange juice.

Fourth, 1! 2% or more of the U.S. RDA of any nutrient is lost in processing, it can be replaced.

Fina.Uy, FDA has proposed that for foods which are not nutritionally equivalent to any existing food, nutrients should be added in proportion to the calor1c content of the food. This suggestion is designed to provide a balanced addition of nutrients and to prevent overfortiflcation.


Noting that those proposals will "set the stage !or m.any years to come" in the regulation of processed foods, Dr. Forbes said that FDA ls moving "very carefully and slowly'' in reviewing the comments which they have engendered. He added that it will take many months before they are final. But in the meantime, 11 Congress passes the Proxmire/Rogers bill, which essentially states that FDA shall not regulate vitamins and minerals except on grounds of safety. Forbes pointed out that it "would remove the rationale that underlies nutritional labellng." Nutrients could then be added to foods in unlimited amounts, thereby opening the door to a nutrition horsepower race.

Be that as it may, it ts clear that until FDA's nutrition education program has begun to produce results, most consumers will continue to have their choices shaped to a. large extent by the advertising industry. An FDA survey carried out in 1973, for example concluded that ••adverttsing through the various media ts the largest source from which consumers obtain information about packaged foods they buy for the first time; nearly three out of five consumers cited advertising as a source." And that ts where the Federal Trade Commission's proposals are pertinent.

Although James Cohen, an FTC official concerned with developing the food advertising regulations, points out that "the rat.son d'etre ls not to change purchasing habits, but to prevent deception in food advertiSlng," the proposals could have a large effect in shaping consumer selections.

PubliShed in November of last year, the proposals are divided into two parts. The first part iS a set of proposals endorsed by the Commission proper, while the second part consists of recommendations drawn up by the FTC staff which the Commission published without its endorsement in order to receive public comments on them.

The Commission's proposals would impose certain restrictions on particular types of food advertising. If a nutritional claim ts made for a product-such as "pa.eked with Vitamin C"-the identity of the nutrient and the percentage of the U.S. RDA per serving must be prominently displayed 1.n the advertisement. Moreover, no such claim could be made unless the nutrient were present at levels of at least 35% of the U.S. RDA per serving.

If comparative nutritional claims are made, equal serving sizes would have to be established. Claims that one product contains more of a specific nutrient than another would be ruled out if the second product contained higher levels of two or more other nutrients. Moreover, foods could not be advertised as replacements for other foods unless they were at least nutritionally equivalent.

The Comm.1s.s1on has also suggested that no food could be advertised as being "wholesome," "nourishing," or "nutritious" unless it contains at least four nutrients present at levels of at least 10% of the U.S. RDA per 100 calories. The proposed regulations would also require that such claims as "provides lots of energy" clearly state that energy is supplied by calories, and the number of calories per serving would also have to be disclosed.

The staff proposals would go considerably beyond the recommendations of the Commisslon. In brief, they would require that 11.dvertisements for any food which contains added nutrients or !or which a. nutritional claim is made-in other words, those foods which come under FDA's nutrition labeling requirements-should always include a variety of nutritional information. Advertisements for products which do not fall under FDA regulations would also automatically have to carry certain information, such as the number of calories per serving. Moreover, 1f the product contained no nutrients at levels greater

CXXII--363-Part 5

than 10% of the U.S. RDA, the advertisement would have to state that .. this !ood. does not contain 10% or more of the U.S. RDA of any vita.min. mineral, or protein."

Both the Commission's proposals and those of the FTC staff pose a host of fundamental questions about the extent of the FTC's authority to regulate the advertising industry. a.nd they also raise many specific nutritional Lssues--such as why the figure of 35 % of U.S. RDA was chosen as the minimum on which a. nutritional claim could be based. Not surpriSingly, the food industry has vigorously responded to the proposals, and comments have been pouring into the FTC offices.

The proposals will soon be republished in revised form, and public hearings are likely to be held ln the fall, so lt will be many months, 11 not years. before they are fl.naJ. Moreover, one may assume that the basis of the proposals will at some stage be challenged 1n the courts.

In short, the future for FDA's nutritional labeling program and for the ancillary FTC regulations ts clouded by the prospect of court actions and unpredictable developments 1n Congress. It ls likely to be many years before they will have a marked effect on consumer preferences. In any case, the FDA efforts, especially, will ln time certainly raise the level of the public's nutrition consciousness.

THE PROPOSED CLOSING OF THIRD AND FOURTH CLASS POST OFFICES

Mr. HUGH SCOTT. Mr. President, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues the great concern voiced by many Pennsylvanians regarding the proposed closing of their third or fourth class post office. At this time, 18 post offices are being studied in the Commonwealth for possible closing. I am concerned that the postal customers affected are not being informed adequately by the U.S. Postal Service on the criteria used to arrive at a decision to close.

After examining this situation in depth, I have introduced S. 2962 which would require the Postal Service to consider certain crit.eria before closing a third and fourth class Post office. This legislation has received a broad base of support and I am actively working for its early passage.

On January 20. 1976, I sent a letter to Postmaster General Ballar urging him to clarify this policy and e:xplain what impact it would have on the Commonwealth. I ask unanimous consent that my letter to Postmaster General Ballar and his reply of February 19 be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Hon. BENJAMIN BAILAR, Postmaster General, U.S. Postal Service, Washington, D.C.

JANUARY 20, 1976.

DEAR BEN: I understand that the Postal Service will begin the ca.se-by-case closing of third and fourth-class post offices this week. As you know, the General Accounting Office has suggested that 12,000 of these post offices be closed and estimates that $100 million will be saved as a result of this action.

Pennsylvania presently has 972 such post offices, the second largest number in the country. With this 1n mind, I would be very interested in knowing your estimate of the Impact this action will have on Pennsyl-

va.nia. For Instance, how many offices were closed in the last twelve months, how many offices are projected for closing, and what factors will be considered fn the decision to close these offices.

I would appreciate a response at your earliest convenience, since many Pennsylvania.ns have an intense interest in this matter.

With best wishes, Sincerely,

HUGH SCOT'!', U.S. Senator.

THE POSTMASTER GE?-.TERAL, Washington, D .C., Febrnary 19, 1976.

Hon. HUGH SCO'IT, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.O.

DEAR SENATOR ScO'rr: Thank you for your January 21 letter concerning potential post office closings with reference to recent adjustments in the policy governing such closings.

The new policy comprises no radical change from past policy. The following two arbitrary past restrictions have been eliminated: (1) that, regardless of a ease's individual merits, a postmaster vacancy was necessary before a discontinuance could be considered, and (2) that 25 families or fewer be served by an office considered for discontinuance. As required by law, no office has been or will be closed solely for economic reasons.

There will be no changes in the status of any office prior to a survey of the affected comm.unity and an opportunity for the customers involved to review alternatives. Whenever a decision is reached after this process to effect a closing in your State, your office will be notified.

In response to your Inquiry, during fiscal 1975, four Pennsylvania post offices were closed. During the first six months of fiscal 1976, there have been three such closings.

Sincerely, BENJAMIN F. BAILAR.

PORTUGAL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, the New York Times of February 29 and the Washington Post on March 6 ran very perceptive editorials on recent events in Portugal. In praising Portugal's civilian and military leaders for their skill and statesmanship in leading Portugal toward its first democratic election in 48 years, the editors of the Times and the Post reached many of the same optimistic conclusions which I did as a result of a trip which I made to Portugal in early February of this year. A report on my trip will be printed soon.

In my view, the deep pessimism about the prospects for democracy in Portugal was never justifleu, and recent events in that country have borne out my early confidence expressed in a statement on the :floor of the Senate on Aplil 18, 19175, that the Portuguese because of their innate good sense, conservatism, and religious nature would find a way back from the precipice of Communist dictatorship. While the continuing Communist threat must not be underestimated, the Communists and the other Marxist parties of the extreme left are clearly on the defensive and the democratic pa1·ties have the upper hand.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times and Washington Post editorials on Portugal be printed In the RECORD.

5738 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE Mai·ch 9, 1976 There being no objection, the material

was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: (From the New York Times, Feb. 29, 1976]

l.\fiLESTONE IN PORTUGAL

By concluding with the five major parties a. pact that will drastically diminish the political power of the armed forces, Portugal's mllitary leaders have rendered their greatest service to the country since they overthrew the forty-year-old authoritarian regime in 1974. The agreement points the way t.oward civili,an government, with power shared between a President and a Parliament, both popularly elected.

The military•s Council of the Revolution, which h-a.s held supreme power under an agreement forced on the parties prior to the constituent assembly elections last April, Will now become largely a consultative body and guardian of Portugal's new democratic institutions. The Parliament will be freely elected April 25-second anniversary of the overthrow of fascism----a.nd the President will be elected a few months later.

Portugal's mllita.ry leaders deserve enormous credit for he.ving perceived-especially after the abortive left-wing putsch of la.st November, which threatened t.o split the armed forces irrevocably-that they could best serve the country by getting out of politics and assuming the modest constitutional role traditional in parliamentary democracies. It is significant that only the Oommunists and their allies, painfully a.ware that they cannot win an election, wa.nted the military to retain political power.

Credit is also due t.o the civilian democratic leaders-especially those in the Socia.list and Popular Democratic Parties--who never gave up the struggle t.o establish a democratic system, even when it seemed that a combination of military revolutionaries and left-wing parties might carry the day for a bogus dictatorship of the "proletariat."

Portugal's elected leaders must confront staggering problems after two years of political convulsion and economic dislocation. But the agreement between the fl ve parties and the military ought to provide the best possible insurance against either another leftward lurch or a reversion t.o right-wing authoritarianism. It should also issue a. warm weloome for Portugal in the European Community, which already has done much t.o assist the country's democrats in their struggle.

(From the Washington Post, Mar. 6, 1976] THE PORTUGUESE MmACLE

Portugal seems on the way to achieving a. true political miracle: transformation from West Europe's most benighted dictatorship to one of its shinier if wobblier democracies in barely two years' time. The result is not yet signed and sealed. Even after parliamentary and presidential elections are held in April and June, respectively, the chances of slippage won't be gone. Still, when one considers not just the distance moved, but the perils averted so far--civil war, mass bloodshed, coup of the left, countercoup of the right, foreign intervention, outright economic collapse---the dimensions of the Portuguese miracle are plain.

Events are still unfolding; history will have its own judgments. Contemporary observers cannot fail to give first credit, however, to Portugal's armed forces. They made and sustained the revolution of April 25, 1974, in which the Salazar-Caetano dictatorship fell. They terminated the colonial empire in Africa, lifting the single burden most responsible for Portugal's 20th century backwardness. And if in their political inexperience they subsequently brought their country near chaos, they redeemed themselves handsomely late last month by formally agreeing to restrict their own political power

and to turn rule over to the legislature (and president) to be elected in the spring. The armed forces did this, moreover, while keeping Portugal within the orbit of the Western alliance.

The civilian politicians have made their own contribution. Democratic political activity had been painfully limited for most of this century. The conditions under which the pa1·ties had to organize after the April 25 revolution could not have been more difficult. Yet the principal democratic partiesSocialists, Popular Democrats, Christian Democrats-fought ceaselessly against the twin dangers of pretorian rule and Communist dictatorship, and they carried the great majority of the Portuguese people with them. At least two gifted leaders emerged in Ltsbon in this period, Socialist Mario Soares and Popular Democrat Francisco Sa Carneiro. One of them is likely to be the new democratically chosen prime minister. They have their political differences and their differences in program. But both combine t.oughness with idealism, both a.re worldly, Western-and proven in fire.

In a sense, democratic Portugal is a European creation, the most important European political project of recent years. The socialists of West Europe in particular have given invaluable political, organizational and financial help to the struggling Portuguese polity, and the Common Market has offered significant assistance t.o the Portuguese economy. Europeans well recognize their own stake in Portugal-and for that matter in Spain. Here one must say, however, that the ostensible leader of the West has done far less than it could and should. For too long a time, American policy was hostage t.o the peculiar hist.orical pessimism of the Secretary of State, who seemed to think in effect that Portugal was a poor bet, a pushover for Communism, the first "Mediterranean domino." A more tempered view seems since to have penetrated the State Department's seventh floor but it has yet to be reflected in the specific program-most of all, economic credits-which are essential now to Portugal's stability and welfare.

Everything suggests that the parliamentary elections of April Will be a success in that the democratic parties wlll win big, the Communists will be further discredited, and the military will honor the results. That should put an end to any American doubts, official and otherwise, about whether Portugal is a good bet or not.

FOUNDATIONS: A CHALLENGE FOR THE FUTURE

Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, on February 5, I had the privilege of speaking at a luncheon meeting of the Washington Non-Profit Tax Conference at the Washington Hilton. My remarks were directed toward the private philanthropic institutions in our society. As chairman of the Foundations Subcommittee of the Senate Finance Committee, I am sincerely interested in assuring the fullest use of foundations dollars, for both the institutions involved, and for the public it serves.

As such, I ask unanimous consent that my remarks before this well-kno rn group be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the remarks were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

REMARKS BY SENATOR VANCE HARTKE

There is probably no one in the world by now, certainly no one in the United States, who is not aware that this is our bicenten-

nial year. But awareness and enthusiasm are two different things. Despite the great expectations five years or a decade ago, the fact is that not many Americans are very excited about the celebration of our Bicentennial. Part of the reason for this disinterest is the overcommercialization of our 200th birthday which began well over a year ago. Our society seems addicted to the habit of using every important event-from the death of a president, to Christmas, to the Bicentennial-as an occasion to peddle a new wave of cheap trinketry.

But a more fundamental reason for the general disinterest in the celebration of our nation's anniversary is that the Bicentennial has the historical misfortune of occurring at a time when the American people are undergoing a period of profound and fundamental questioning of American traditions, institutions, goals and attitudes. We have just come through an era in which we fought a decade long war which ended in neither honor nor victory. We have just seen our political system-the very process by which we govern ourselves and the bedrock of our democratic society-perverted for personal gain, and we have experienced the lengthy, t.ortuous process of removing that evil. We have discovered our most prestigious and respected institutions of law and order using police-state tactics for illegal purposes. We have devised great programs to accomplish man's most noble goals-to feed the hungry, clothe the poor, house the homeless, teach the uneducated, and care for the sick and the elderlyonly to witness the failure of these programs and the continuation of the problems.

We convinced om·selves that we had mastered the art of controlling our economy so as never t.o suffer another great economic reversal, only to face half a. decade emu·ing simultaneous high levels of both unemploymient and inflation.

From all this, Americans are numb. They are stunned from the rapid cHstruction of what they believed and believed in. And they are withdrawing into their own spheres, first to seek solace and then to reexamine their beliefs.

Some observers ha.~ characterized this behavior as a questioning of traditional values, but I do not believe this is accurate. Americans have not discarded their values, but they are questioning the old means of purchasing those values. They are questioning the institutions and the procedures of the past, and slowly devising new approaches for the future.

This questioning of attitudes and of institutions is affecting all segments of our society: no area is exempt. It is affecting individual behavior patterns, family size, social moves, and the way people relate to institutions: Government, business, the church, schools. It is also affecting attitudes toward the so-called "third sector" of ou1· economy-The private non-profit sectorand particularly affected within that sector are private foundations.

The very existence and continuation of private foundations runs counter to three of the most strongly emerging attitudes in our Nation today. One of these attitudes can b'e characterized as anti-institutionalism. Americans have become disaffected with institutions in general. They have discovered their institutions, from the universities to big government and big business are no longer serving their purposes. The institutions have become cumbersome, meddleson1e, and burdensome. They are no longer the engines of social change and progress, but more often the preservers of the status quo. They are no longer responsive to the n:eeds of the people, but more often reflect the priorities of the bureaucrats who run them. For these reasons Americans have become suF<picious of ini,titutions and are &eeking

March 9, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 5739 ways to reform them, reduce them, or a.void them.

A second emerging attitude, which has lts roots deep 1n our history, but 1s strengthening even more today, 1s distrust of large concentrations ot wealth. The power that wealth possesses to corrupt the process of government and private institutions, and the general power of wealth to shape the course of human events for the benefit of the wealthy, have been amply demonstrated by recent history. The result is renewed vigor in opposition to institutions an!l practices benefitting the wealthy, and a new rise of egalitarianism.

A third emerging attitude, which is less fundamental in nature and is partially an outgrowth of the distrust of wealth, is the strengthening belief that our tax system should be rid of the multitudinous benefits for special interests-especially those provisions of primary benefit to the wealthy. For those tax provisions which serve worthy purposes but glve tax concessions principally to the rich, the search is on for alternative methods of achieving the goal without providing tax shelters to high incomes. The examination of the possibility of Federal subsidies to State and local bond issues in lieu of the current Federal tax exemption is a case in point.

The existence and continuation of private foundations is contrary to all three of these emerging and strengthening American attitudes. Private foundations are institutions (and rather conservative ones at that!) presiding over large concentrations of wealth which owe their very existence to tax deductions which primarily benefit the wealthy. The question, then, is inescapable as to whether foundations have outlived their usefulness and should be abolished as inconsistent with emerging American beliefs. I believe this question must be answered affirmatively unless foundations can demonstrate two things: One, that they are institutions with the fiexibfilty, the ope"'lD.ess, and the dedication to relate to people and their needs on a personal and responsive basis and: Two, that they continue to serve important public purposes which a.re not being met and cannot presently be met '>y alternative means.

Some foundations can legitimately claim they meet this test, but unfortunately, many, and probably most founda.tlons, ca.nnot. Far too many foundations are conservative institutions to which access is dJ.m.cult and which exist primarily to pursue the goals of their founders rather than the needs of the public they serve. And foundations have been reluctant to be innovative and far sighted in the programs and projects they support, preferring instead to cling to the old and the familiar.

On these and other subjects we have bene:fltted from he recent publication of the Commission on "Privat.e Philanthropy and Public Needs," the so-called Filer Com.m.ission. However, while the work of this Commission is to be commended for amassing a large body of information where knowledge had been scant, the Commlssion report falls to address the most fundamental issues and in its basic attitudes indeed contributes to the problem. DespUe earlier indications to the contrary, the Com.mission obviously began its task with a fundamental commitment that privat.e philanthropy, and specifically, private foundations were fundamentally and inherently good and beneficial elements of American society which should be prot.ected and encouraged. The report Is absent of any searching examination of the role private philanthropy should play in our society, the desirable relationships among the privat.e nonprofit sector and the Government and business sectors, the new and emerging public needs, and how well philanthropic instituti~ns are relating to those needs.

Because of this falling, the study is much less useful than it might have been. The study provides some insight into how to improve and expand private philanthropy on~ we decide the more fundamental issues of whether it should be maintained and in what form. But the report is of little help answering these more fundamental questions. It could have taken the initiative in defining the necessary and desirable role of philanthropy in society, providing examples of philanthropic activity which should be encouraged, and that which does not meet the necessary criteria, and providing guidance for the development of policy which fosters the desirable and discourage or eliminates the undesirable.

Furthermore, the underlying philosophy of the Filer report is contrary to what must, of necessity, be the guiding prlnciples of private philanthropy if lt ls to survive in its present institutional forms. The report is conservative in tone, regarding certain traditional functions as the rightful province of private philanthropy and lamenting, even resenting, the encroachment of Government into these areas. The report is obviously critical and suspicious of Government•s ability to address major social problems with workable solutions. It argues the virtue of a pluralistic approach to social problems and the value of alternatives to the "Government solution."

Pluralism is desirable, but lt is most needed in searching for ·solutions to new problems or problems of which society is newly a.ware. If prlvate phllanthorpy, and particularly private foundations are reluctant to move into these areas, their contribution ls diminished. It is only natural as time passes that some areas which have in the past been the domain of philanthropy will be incorporated into governmental programs. There was a time some fifty years a.go when foundations spent more money on education than the Federal Government: now the Federal Government spends far more on education than foundations spend in all grants for all purposes. Rather than being viewed with fear and apprehension, however, this should be welcomed by the philanthropic community. In these instances the priva.t.e nonprofit sector can take pride in having led the way: pluralistic experimentation is of little value if it does not lead to program implementation. Furthermore, government involvement usually means the benefits philanthropy has been able to provide to only a few now wlll be available to the many philanthropic resources, though considerable, are still dwarfed by the economic resources of government. And finally, government involvement in an area which has previously benefltted from charitable contributions, frees those private resources for even newer, more innovative programs In areas of new development and rlslng social consciousness.

I believe that philanthropy, and specifically private foundations should be the cutting edge of innovation and experimentation, that they should be probing our resources and our talents to ra.lse the quality of llfe for all Americans. Each and every one of the thousands of privat.e foundations and charities must understand that it exists to do charitable work which cannot be done as effectively by any other available source o! money. Once the full meaning of that premise is fully understood every foundation should take .a close look at the unmet needs of the community it serves and decide how its available money can best be used to meet one or more of those needs .

Seen in this way, private foundations cannot afford to be conservative. They can not afford to cling to the pa.st and loathe the future. They cannot isolate themselves from the changes and upheavals which occur in our society; indeed they must regard them a.s special opportunities for constructive inno-

va.tion which they may help support. Nor can they isolate themselves from public discussion and examination.

For this reason, I am in accord with the basic thrust, although perhaps not the specific recommendations, of both the Commission and the Donee group in regard to opening up control of private foundations and information about their functions. I have for several years called for broader membership on the boards-of-directors of private foundations and for improved reporting to the public and to government on foundation activities. The annual reports of all too many foundations simply list grant after grant, program after program. All that says is "we gave," but that does not explain the rationale ot giving, nor convince the reviewer that something was accomplished which could not have been achieved otherwise.

The fact is that many charities and private foundations are not doing an effective Job. Most foundations do not have adequate professional staffs to evaluate grant appllcatlons. And most have not engaged in the kind of innovative programs which a.re truly responsive to the most urgent needs of the American people. No one could expect ea.ch and every grant to be a shln1ng example of creativity and uniqueness, but there is considerable ground for improvement.

In addition to performance requirements incumbent upon foundations if they are to prove themselves valuable American institutions worthy of continuation in the face of growing anti-institutionalism. there are also responsibilities imposed on foundations by their great wealth. The grant of true benefits to that wealth imposes a responsibility of public stewardship on foundation managers. This stewardship encompasses not only the obligation to use the foundations assets to support the most socially desirable Donee programs, but it also includes the duty for responsible fiduciary conduct ln regard to the charity's assets. The issue of charitable solicitation and allowable expense levels and items, demands careful review as does the issue of allowable overhead costs for philanthropic institutions, to assure the assets are being used for the intended purpose and not bled away for private benefit. In addition. one cannot read about the financla.l losses sustained by many of our foundations in the la.st market downturn without won- • derlng whether :fiduciary responsiblllty in managing the :financial assets of foundations is being prudently fulfilled. We may need to explore the desirability of applying fiduciary standards, perhaps similar to those contained in the 1974 pension reform legislation, to private foundations to assure such prudent financial management.

Let me say t.o you that I believe in private philanthropy and private foundations. They are the embodiment of one o! man's most noble inclinations-that of charity. Tile history of private foundations in this Nation is a resume of significant accomplishment and contribution to the welfare of mankind. This record of achievement deserves to be enhanced and enriched in the future. But I am also concerned about the future of privat.e foundations. In the 1969 tax reform leglslatlon we corrected the most flagrant and obvious abuses which had caused wide public concern. While there remain some abuses which may necessitate furthe!' legislative attention, I believe the 1969 effort has largely been successful. My concern now is more fundamental. It goes to the very essence of the nature of private foundations.

I believe that ptlvate foundations should be strengthened and their vital role 1n society preserved. To this end I have a bill now pending before the Senate to reduce the excise tax on private foundations from 4 per cent to 2 per cent, and I have previously expressed my concern about the payout requirement formula.. The current plan is for

5740 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 9, 1976 the Senate Subcommittee on Foundations, of which I am chairman. to hold hearings on these and other issues in the near future. But I am here to tell you that Congress is not going to pass legislation granting further benefits to institutions which are unsure of their own role in society. It ls c1·ucial that the foundation community realistically appraise the evolving national sentiment and legislative climate and develop vigorous self-generated efforts to assure that all foundations and philanthropic institutions reflect the ftexiblllty and responsiveness that w1ll justify their support in an anti-institional era. Foundations also need to be mindful of the unique role they can and should play in our society. That role, of funding and supporting innovative and creative programs which would be impossible without foundation support, ls both the intended purpose of foundations and their best justification for the future. If foundations are willing to assume this posture and fulfill the great potential which exists for their further development and increased beneficence. Then I foresee a bright future. In addition to the other changes I have mentioned, I foresee legislative changes designed to broaden the donor community and involve middle and lower income groups more proportionately in the philanthropic process.

I want to continue to work with you and anyone else who is dedicated to gua1·anteeing that foundations have a vigorous and vital future. I hope that you wm write to me and visit wJt.h me, as well as encourage any foundations with which you may be associated to contact me or their own elected representatives so they can help us understand their concerns.

There ls a bright future for private foundations in this country so long as they continue to meet the pressing needs of our people with programs which are dynamic and creative. I intend to do all that I can to challenge foundations to fulfill their potentials and to work with them to insure that those potentials become reality.

SECURITIES IN BLIND TRUST Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, at the end

of last year, by notification in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, I indicated my intention to terminate the blind trust in which my securities were maintained and gave the reasons for so doing.

I have now received a list of securities that were in such blind trust as of January 1, 1976. A few of the investment decisions were made by me prior to entering into the blind trust some years ago. For the most part, however, the investment decisions were made by my investment counsel, Stein Roe & Farnham of Chicago, who will continue as investment counsel and who have been instructed to avoid investments that would present any probability of conflict of interest with my duties as a U.S. Senator. The securities as of January 1, 1976 were as follows: LIST OF SECURITIES IN CHARLES H. PERCY

BLIND TRUST ACCOUNT AS OF JANUARY 1, 1976 U.S. Treasury bills. U.S. Treasury notes. Ontario Province Canada Note . Twelve Federal Land Banks Bonds. Michigan Wisconsin Pipeline Company

Bonds. Araneo Steel Corp. debentures. Ashland 011 Inc. debentures. Bendix Corporation debentures. Marathon on Co. debentures Duquesne Light Company 1st Mortgage

bonds. Crown Zellerbach Corp. debentu res.

Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Co. debentures.

Crossett Ark. Industrial Develop. Revenue Bonds.

Oklahoma State Turnpike Auth. Revenue Bonds.

Florida Power and Light Company common stock.

Montana Power Company common stock. Citicorp common stock. Harris Bankcorp common stock. Nortrust Corporation common stock. Alexander & Alexander Services Inc. com-

mon stock. Corroon & Black Corp. coanmon stock. Farmers Group Inc. common stock. Great West Life Assurance Co. common

stock. Esmark Inc. common stock. J. C. Penney Company common st ock. Sears Roebuck and Company common

stock. Crown Zellerbach Corporation common

stock. Caterpillar Tractor Company common

stock. Donaldson Inc. common stock. Outboard Marine corporation common

stock. Signode Corporation common stock. Mapco Incorl_)orated common stock. Continental Oil Co. common stock. Marathon Oil Company common stock. Dow Chemical Company common stock. H. B. Fuller Company common stock. Nalco Chemical Company common stock. Baxter Laboratories Inc. common stock. AMP Incorporated common stock. General Electric Company common stock. Motorola Inc. common stock. Burroughs Corporation common stock. IBM Corporation common stock. Xerox Corporation common stock. Bell & Howell Company common stock. Houghton Mifflin Company common stock. Jostens Incorporated common stock. Rollins Incorporated common stock. Scott Foresman and Company common

stock. Times-Mirror Company common stock. Sullalr corporation common stock. Envirotech Corporation common stock. Haag Drug Inc. common stock. Material Systems Corporation common

stock. OEM Medical common stock. REA Holding Corporation common stock. Videorecord Corporation of Amer. common

stock.

LOBBYING AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, the Government Operations Committee is presently considering major changes in the area of lobby 1·eform. Reform of the present act by Congress is long overdue. The ·existing statute, the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946, is incumbered by numerous ambiguities and almost totally unenforced.

Interestingly enough, although there has been no major reform of the 1946 act in the almost 20 years that the act has been in effect, the States have been busily reforming their lobbying statutes. Presently, all 50 States have enacted some lobbying provisions and more than half have made substantial changes in their lobbying laws to make them statutorily more effective.

Clifton Leonhardt, deputy secretary of the State of Connecticut, has written an article in the Connecticut Bar Journal in which he discusses deficiencies in the present Connecticut lobbying statute and

recommends numerous improvements. It is a thoughtful article for those of my colleagues who share my concern that lobby reform legislation both at the State and Federal levels must be enacted, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD.


THE CHANNELING OF LOBBYING INTO THE PuBLIC INTEREST

(By Clifton Leonhardt, Deputy Secretary o! the State of Connecticut. Mr. Leonhardt ls also a member of the Connecticut Bar)

HARTFORD, JUNE 24, 1768. Mr. PRINTER,-! wish you would put this

into your newspaper for the complaintant. Sir,-1 was at Hartford a little while ago,

and I see folks running about streets after the gentleman that belonged to the General Assembly; and I asked what it was for, and an old woman told me that they come a great way, matter of forty miles easterly, to :find fault with what the Assembly was a going to do. And what I want of you is, to complain of it; for it does not seem clever to have them gentlemen pestered so by ca.ts-paws, when we have got them to do all our business for us by themselves. And you know when folks have folks t alking to them au the while, it will pester them. I wonder people will act so; if what I once read in a book is true, "Know, villains, when such paltry slaves

presume To mix in treason; if the plot succeeds, They're thrown neglected by."

New London Gaz. June 24th, 1768. No. 241. I. THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND GENERAL

PRINCIPLES OF LOBBYING LEGISLATION The problems posed by lobbying are as old

as, and endemic to, representative democracy. At the outset of the American democratic experiment, James Madison clearly foresaw these problems when he wrote: "The regulation of various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation." 1 And throughout American history, the channeling of lobbying into the public interest has presented an evolving challenge.

During the first half of the 1800's, lobbyists were often themselves members of the legislature,2 a practice which in Connecticut was only completely outlawed in 1907.3 In the latter part of the 19th centm·y, lobbyists often gave substantial gifts to legislator s. prompting Mark Twain to comment: "I think I can say, and say with pride, that we have legislatm·es that bring higher prices than any in the world." 4 The chief lobbyist for Connecticut's Samuel Colt distributed expensive pistols to key legislators at c1·ucial points in the legislative process.5 I t was recognition of the abuses inherent in such gifts that resulted in Connecticut penal stat utes in 1895 outlawing bribery of executive and legislative officers, as well as attempts improperly to influence legislation.0 Because the abuses connected with lobbying were blatant and extreme in the 19th century, reformist legislation was likewise basic and simple.

However, a familiar historical dialectic of action-reaction was at work. In the twentiet;h century, lobbyists and the special interests they represented learned to give campaign contributions to friendly legislators as well as to the opponents of legislators not conforming to desired views. And George Washington Plunkitt's concept of "honest graft" 7

was refined, with lobbyists giving in return for little or no professional services a legal fee to a legislator's private law practice or a premium to his insurance agency.8 Later, "grassroots" lobbying was developed, where well financed campaigns were mounted to

Foot notes at end of article.

March 9, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 5741 have citizens contact legislators generating what seemed to be a spontaneous groundswell of public opinion.

As the forms of lobbying misconduct grew increasingly subtle, remedial legislation likewise became more sophisticated and complete. The focus of reform shifted from necessary but crude criminal provisions · to the concept of disclosure. Finally, in 1937, the General Assembly passed a disclosure bill 9

which has not been amended since, except for two minor revisions dealing only with fl.ling fees.10 By the 1975 session of the General Assembly, lobbyists registered under the 1937 statute on behalf of 502 employers who reported lobbying expenditures in the amount of $466,848.68.u Lobbying has become a big business in Connecticut with every group imaginable represented, ranging from insurance companies to labor unions, from tobacco growers to religious organizations, and from thoroughbred owners to psychiatrists. Unfortunately however, as we shall see, the 1937 law does not generate sufficiently precise data to permit an accurate comparison of the financial resources expended by the various groups retaining lobbyists.

The operative principle underlying required registration and discolsure of expenditures in connection with lobbying has been the deterrence concept of Brandies' famous dictum: "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.'' 12 And the basic theoretical problem of disclosure has been to balance two fundamental, contradictory values: the right of legislators, other government officials, and the people to know of private interest group pressures in the governmental process versus the First Amendment right of citizens "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." 13 On the one hand, the legislators and the people must know the source of interest group pressures in order to compensate judgmentally where there is unequal access to the system. Given proper information, public officials can thereby avoid an overrepresentation of private interest at public expense. While sustaining the general power to regulate lobbying in United States v. Harriss, Chief Justice Earl Warren elaborated: "full realization of the American ideal of government by elected representatives depends to no small extent on their ability to properly evaluate [such] pressures. Otherwise, the voice of the people may all too easily be drowned out by the voice of special interest groups seeking favored treatment while masquerading as proponents of the public weal." u But at the same time, so-called "lobbying reform legislation must not be so overbroad, burdensome or vague as to exercise a "chilling effect" on First Amendment freedoms. Communications between the governors and the governed must not be stifled. II. THE PRESENT CONNECTICUT LOBBYING LAW

The present Connecticut lobbying statute requires the following:

( 1) Every person retained or employed for compensation to influence legislation or executive approval of legislation (hereinafter a "lobbyist") must sign and file with the Secretary of the State a registration statement setting forth the name of the party employing him together with a brief description of the legislation which he seeks to influence; the registration statement must be accompanied by a reasonable fl.ling fee as set by the Secretary of the State;

(2) All registrations shall lapse thirty days after the adjournment of the session of the General Assembly for which they were filed;

(3) The Secretary of the State must compile this registration information into a "docket of legislative appea1·ances" which is open to public inspection;

(4) Termination of the employment of a

Footnotes at end of article.

lobbyist is noted on the registration statement by the Secretary of the State upon receipt of written notification from either the lobbyist or the employer;

(5) No compensation to a lobbyist may be conditioned upon the actual passage or def eat of legislation;

(6) Each party employing a lobbyist must file with the Secretary of the State within two months of the end of each legislative session an itemized, verified statement of all expenses (including the names of payees and the amount paid to each); the statement must also specify the lobbyists who were retained and be accompanied by a reasonable filing fee as set by the Secretary of the State;

(7) Exempted from the coverage of the Act are municipal corporations, pulic boards and institutions, and their agents, as well as those, presumably lawyers, who provide professional services in drafting bills and advising clients as to the effect of proposed legislation;

(8) Violators may be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than one year or both; in addition, a late filing fee for expense statements of ten dollars per day may be recovered by the Attorney General; the Secretary of the State must notify the Attorney General of any violation of the statute of which he has knowledge.

The only case law dealing with the lobbying statute ls the 1973 case, Moffett v. Killian,1.5 At the time, the statute required a thirty-five dollar registration fl.ling fee and an additional thirty-five dollar expense statement filing fee. While affirming the constitutionality of the statute's requirements that information be supplied about lobbying activities, a three judge District Court found that any fee equal to more than the cost to the state of administering the statue "iS an unco11situtional tax on the exercise of First Amendment rights which may not be imposed." 10 Thereafter, the 1975 session of the General Assembly passed P.A. 75-272 which authorized the Secretary of the State to set a reasonable filing fee not in excess of the cost of administering the lobbying statute. The Secretary of the State has determined, based upon the 1975 session, that the cost to the state is $6.58 per filing, and has set by regulation for the 1976 legislative session a fee of $6.00 for each statement fi.led.17

Although commenting favorably in dicta, the Court in Moffet v. Killian did not reach the further question of whether even a nominal fee required to exercise the First Amendment right of petition deprives persons, corporate or otherwise, who are unable to pay it of the equal protection of the laws. This question, however, is more theoretical than real, because oruy paid lobbyists must register, and if a party can afford to pay a lobbyist, a six dollar fee should not impose any hardship that would result in a "ch111-ing effect" on the right to petition.

III, SHORTCOMINGS OF THE PRESENT STATUTE

In the continuing historical dialectic of action-reaction, the 1937 lobbying statute has become outmoded and incomplete in conception for the needs of the contemporary period.

One basic problem surrounding the question of who must file involves the definition of a lobbyist. At present, the statute can be read to require registration only by those who are retained or employed by a given party solely or primarily for lobbying. Regular employees are not clearly required to register where lobbying represents only a portion of their assigned duties and no extra compensation is received especially for lobbying efforts. Nor does the present statute require registration and filing by an individual who, although not employed by another, himself spends a significant sum for lobbying. Finally, persons who are employed to influence policymaking, administrative action by state depa1·tments, agencies, boards,

or commissions, or who themselves spend significant sums to do so, are not required to register under the present statute. The creation in this century of many state administrative and regulatory agencies to deal with nearly every problem of modern society has brought into being a new arena for lobbying. The public and other members of government have just as much an interest and right to know of efforts to influence important governmental decisions in the st ate administrative and regulatory agencies, as in the legislative branch.

Under the present law, there is a second serious inadequacy concerning the matter of who must file. The statute requires an expense statement only from the party on whose behalf a person has been employed or authorized to promote or oppose legislation. The lobbyist himself is not, under the present Connecticut law, required to report the expenditures he makes in his lobbying efforts. Of the thirty-four states which at present require registration and expense statements, over half require separate expense statements from the lobbyist and the employer.15 There is a serious loophole where, as in Connecticut, lobbyists can themselves make significant unreported expenditures on behalf of their employers out of their ofte!l sizable fees.

Another shortcoming of the present law lies in the question of what must be reported in the expense statements. In the situation where a regular employee performs lobbying functions in addition to other duties, the employer is not clearly obliged to diSclose the portion of the regular employee's salary that is allocable to lobbying efforts. Nor does the present statute clearly require the itemized statements filed by the lobbyist's employer to detail which legislative measure each expenditure sought to effect. Comprehensive reporting must reveal the linkage between expenditures and the legislation or administrative action which the expenditure was intended to influence. Such an itemized linkage should be required in the expense statement of the lobbyist as well as that of the lobbyist's employer.

The present statute has yet another weakness in that it does not require the identification of public officials who engage in substantial financial transactions or receive gifts of more than nominal value from lobbyists and their employers. A substantial financial transaction on favorable terms with a public official may be an attempt to buy influence. And while gifts may be short of bribery or an atte~pt to improperly influence legislation, pubhc scrutiny should be focused on them because they are calculated to generate th~ g-0odwill necessary to guarantee access to public officials in their decision-making.

The lobbying law's present efficacy is further limited by its provisions concerning when expense statements must be filed. An expense statement filed two months after the legislature has adjourned is an expense statement after the fact. Citizens and public officials must be able to judge special interest pressures before action is taken on the matters concerning which the pressures are applied. In 1974, the principle of periodic reporting was adopted by th General Asembly in the area of campaign financing, through the institution of committee reports before elections and on a year round basis.in It should be accepted that lobbying is also a year round activity, and that timely, periodic reporting is a prerequisite to effective reporting.

Finally, the present statute has weak enforcement provisions. The Secretary of the State has no power to return for correction or amplification a statement which does not adequately disclose information required to be filed. While the Secretary of the State has the duty to refer known violations to the

5742 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 1.v.larch 9, 1916 Attorney General, the Office of the Secretary alone has been given little practical means of detecting Violations that have taken place. Nor do Attorneys General or state's Attorneys initiate investigations on their own. Since 1937, not one prosecution (except to collect late filing fees) has taken place under the present lobbying registration law,!!'i

IV. A NEW CONNECTICUT LOBBYING LAW

These deficiencies in the lobbying statute could be rectified through enactment of the following new statute which builds upon the concepts and language of the present lav:.!!l

An Act Concerning the Regulation of Lobbyists

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

Section 1. (New) As used in this act the term:

(a) "person" means any individual, partnership, association, corporation or a.ny other legal entity and any group of persons who join together, whether organized or not, to promote, advocate, oppose or influence any legislation, executive approval thereof or any administrative action, except that the term "person" shall not be construed to include:

(1) any officer or employee of the state in his official ca.pa.city.

(2) any candidate for public office. (3) any political party organization. (4) any municipal corporation, public

board or institution, or its duly accredited counsel or agent.

(5) any individual rendering professional services in drafting bills or giving opinions regarding the construction and effect of proposed or pending legislation or administrative action, where such professional services are not otherwise connected with legislation or administrative action.

(6) any individual who limits his activity to appearances before public sessions of committees of the legislature or public sessions of any department, agency, board or commission of the state with respect to any pending or proposed legislation, rule, rule of practice, guideline, adjudication, r~gulatlon, determination, hearing, invest1gat10n, contract, grant or license.

(b) "legislation" means all bills, resolutions, and all proposals of every kind, character or description considered by the Iegisla ture or any committee thereof.

(c) "administrative action" means any discretionary, act in the course of state business by any officer or employee of any department, agency, board or commission of the state with respect to any pending or proposed legislation, rule, rule of practice, guideline, adjudication, 1·egulation, deternunation, hea.ring, investigation, contract, grant or license.

(d) "agent" means: < 1) any person who engages himself, either

directly or indirectly, for compensation or who accepts, either directly or indirectly, compensation to promote, advocate, oppose or influence legislation, executive approval thereof, or any administrative action; the term, "agent", shall include persons who, as part of their regular employment, attempt, through fifteen or more oral or written communications to any officer or employee of the state in any calendar quarter, to promote, advocate, oppose or influence any legislation, executive approval thereof or any administrative action, whether or not any compensation in addition to the salary for that regular employment is received for such services, except that no newspaper or magazine article, or book or radio or television broadcast which 1~ a~a.ilable to the general public in the normal course of business shall be considered


such a communication: the term "agent" shall also include persons who for compensation, or as part of their regular employment, orally or otherwise solicit other persons to communtcate with any officer or employee of the state in an a.ttempt to promote, advocate, oppose or influence any legislation. executive approval thereof, or any administrative action, where such solicitation reaches or with reasonable certainty may be expected to reach at least 100 persons, except that no newspaper or magazine article. or book, or radio or television broadcast which is available to the general public in the normal course of business shall be considered such a solicitation.

(2) a.ny person who expends $100 or more in any calendar quarter to promote, advocate, oppose or influence any legislation, executive approval thereof, or any administrative action, including persons who make such expenditures in order to orally or otherwise solicit other persons to communtcate with any officer or employee of the state in any attempt to promote, advocate, oppose or influence any legislation, executive approval thereof, or any administrative action.

Explanation of the Proposed Section: The above proposed section of definitions

bas no analogue in the present statute, but it would give greater clarity to the concept o! an agent or lobbyist. The proposed definition still relies basically on the principal-agent relationship, although an expenditure test is also included in section (d). subsection (2), in order to cover the loophole where a. person, though not employed by another, spends significant sums to influence legislation or administrative action.

The proposed section would extend coverage to those who lobby to influence the administrative actions of any state department, agency, board, or com.mission,22 although only discretionary acts are covered so that routine requests for documents or information Will not make someone a covered "lobbyist". And instead of the present ambiguity surrounding the regular corporate employee who has other duties but also lobbies, the proposed section would substitute a clear communications test to determine which employees are subject to the statute's requirements. The potential problem of unconstitutionality due to vagueness in a statute can·ying criminal sanctions is minimized by the communications test. This test is a more precise tool in the context of the corporate employee problem than a "substantial purpose·• test 2:i

or an income test 2t which inevitably incorporate difficult questions of allc,ca.tion. The proposed section would also clarify the socalled "grassroots lobbying" situation, explicitly covering such activities when they reach a defined, substantial extent.

However, under the propooed communications test, a corporate employee is not considered a lobbyist when he makes just one or two phone calls to legislators, or discusses a matter with his own representatives in the General Assembly. Nor, under the proposed solicitations tests, is a person covered who, for no compensation, urges neighbors at the "grassroots" level to contact legislators in regard to some piece of legislation. The propo ed section rejects any overboard, pure communications or solicitations test,:;;; such as has been proposed at the federal leveI,:.>e where anv person (whether compensated for the purpose or not) would have to register and :file if he or she had a given number of communications with a member of the government or made a q;iven number of "grassroots'' solicitations.

Exemptions from the definition of ''person" generally follows the concepts of the present statute, except for the addition of state employees acting in their official capacity, candidates for public office, political party organizations, and persons who limit their activity to appearances before public hearing of legislative committees -,r public ad-

ministrative proceedings of state agencies. Lawyers who advise clients on legislation but do not themselves lobby continue to be exempted,

To conclude on the matter of defining a lobbyist, no definition can incorporate every potential actiVity which it might be desirable to cover without genera.ting onerous, and perhaps unconstitutional, burdens. The proposed definition attempts to strike a balance, avoiding such extreme burdens but considerably extending the present, inadequate coverage.

Sectiou 2 (New) (a) Before any service is entered upon in

promoting, advocating, opposing or influencing legislation, executive approval thereof or 8.dministrative action, each a.gent shall file with the Secretary of the State a sworn statement which shall include:

( 1) his name, business address and regular occupation.

(2) the name, business address and cccupation of the person by whom he is retained or employed to serve as an agent.

(3) the name, business address and occupation of the person in whose interest he ls retained or employed, if someone other than the person by whom he is retained or employed.

(4) the amount paid for such employment or, if the agent is a regular employee of the person retaining him to influence legislation, executive approval thereof or administrative action, the amount of the agent's regular salary which is allocable to such activities.

( 5) the type of legislation or administrative action to which the employment relates in sufficient detail to identi!y the specific areas of interest of such a.gent.

The Secretary of the State shall make available appropriate forms for such filing. No notice filed shall be valid for longer than one year. In addition, each agent who registers under this section and is retained or employed on behalf of another party shall submit to the Secretary of the State at the time of registration a writing, signed by his employer, authorizing him to act as an agent on the employer's behalf.

(b) If an agent is in the employment of more than one person, he shall file a separate statement pursuant to subsection (a1 of tMs section for each of his employers.

(c) Upon the termination or modification of any employment covered by this act, the agent shall within thirty days amend the writing filed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section to reflect such termination or the nature of such modification and the date of its effectiveness.

( d) Each person employing an age11t shall see that the agent complies with subsection (a) through (c) of this section.

(e) At the time of filing such registration statement, each agent shall pay for such filing a reasonable fee, not in excess of the estimated cost of collecting, filing, copying and distributing the information filed. as fixed by regulation by the Secretary of the State.

Explanation oj the Proposed Section: Where a lobbyist is paid by one part? but

is working, pursuant to an oral or written understanding, to promote the interests of another, both parties must be disclosed under proposed Section 2. Thus, lobbying activities for a given party cannot be concealed through some arrangement to have another party pay the fee. When a lobbyist is a regular employee of his principal, the portion of his salary allocable and paid for lobbying (but not his total salary) n1ust be clearly shown. Likewise, the type of legislation or administrative action which the lobbyist seeks to influence must be specifically listed. Because the statute's scope has been expanded to cover the lobbying of administrative agencies which goes on continually, a regh;rration will remain valid for an entire

Ma1~ch 9, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENA TE 5743

year. But the recording of terminated or modified lobbying relationships is now required because current information will be more accurate for anyone ma.king reference to these public files.

A number of states which have recently reformed their lobbying legislation have required the employer of a lobbyist as well as the lobbyist himself to register.27 But the authorization signed by the employer at the time a lobbyist registers plus the duty of employers to see that the agents file combine to render superfluous the additional paperwork which an employer registration would entail. Finally, as in the present statute, the filing fee is set through regulation by the Secretary of the State, so that the fee can be readily adjusted should administrative costs change.

Section 3. (New) Upon the filing of the registration and payment of the filing fee pursuant to section 2 of this act, each agent shall be issued a certificate of registration by the Secretary of the State. Such certificate of registration shall be suitable for wearing in clear view upon the clothing of each agent. Such certificate shall be issued only when the Secretary is satisfied that the requirements of section 2 of this act have been met, and no person shall be considered registered pursuant to subsection (a) of section 2 until such certificate has been issued. The certificate of registration shall be worn in clear view upon the clothing of ea.ch agent whenever he ls on the grounds of the state Capitol or other state office building, and is engaged in an attempt to promote, advocate, oppose or influence legislation, executive approval thereof or administrative action. Explanation of the Proposed Section:

This proposed section gives the Secretary of the State limited initial enforcement powers. It also allows legislators, and state officers and employees, who are in many ways the key to enforcing the statute, to identify immediately properly registered lobbyists as well as potential violators. During the 1976 legislative session, the Office of the Secretary ot the State will, in exercise of its administrative discretion, issue identification badges to registered lobbyists. However, until the above section becomes law, lobbyists are under no duty to wear the badges.

Section 4. (New) (a) Each agent and every person who em

ploys an agent shall file with the Secretary of the State an itemized statement, showing in detail all expenses of fifteen dollars or more paid, incurred or promised, directly or indirectly, in connection with pending legislation or administrative action, including the names of the payees, the amount paid to each, the purpose of the payment, and the legislation or administrative action which the payment was intended to influence. Each agent and each person employing an agent who has any financial transaction valued at one thousand dollars or more or who bestows a gift valued at twenty-five dollars or more with or upon any legislator or officer or employee of the state, shall disclose in his itemized, sworn statement the name of the legislator or other officer or employee, and the nature of the financial transaction or gift.

(b) The statements required by subsection (a) of this section must be filed by the tenth day of each month following a month in which the legislature was in session, the statement covering expenses incurred or promised during that month. When any month of a calendar quarter is not covered by the statements required when the legislature is in session, a statement must be filed by the tenth day of April, July, October and January, the statement covering expenses incurred or promised during the previous calendar quarter and not covered in a previous statement.

(c) In the case of employers of agents, the statement required by subsection (a) of sec-


tion 3 of this act shall include compensation paid to agents for work in connection with pending legislation or administrative action. When such compensation is included as part of a regular salary or retainer, the statement shall specify the amount of the regular salary of the agent which is allocable to attempts to influence legislation or administrative action. If no such allocation is possible, the statement shall indicate such impossibility and disclose the full salary or retainer.

(d) The Secretary of the State may return for correction or amplification any expense statement filed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section when in his opinion the statement does not adequately disclose the information required to be filed.

( e) The Secretary of the State shall by registered mail notify of such fact any person who fails to timely file an expense statement required under subsection (a) of this section.

Explanation of the Proposed Section: Three important changes are embodied in

this proposed section. Lobbyists as well as their principals are required to file expense statements. Year-round reporting is Instituted, though reports are required only on a q,uarterly basis when the legislature is not in session. And further, lobbyists and their employers must disclose the existence of all financial transactions valued at one thousand dollars or more, and all gifts valued at twenty-five dollars or more which are consummated with or bestowed upon a legislator or other state officer or employee. In order to protect to the extent possible the privacy of public officials, dollar amounts of the transactions need not be indicated. The mere existence of a substantial transaction or gift is the essential fact which should be publicly disclosed. And, the name of the legislator or other state officer or employee must be shown. Beyond these three major changes, the proposed section clearly requires disclosw·e of the legislation or administrative action which each payment of fifteen dollars or more was intended to infl.uence, and the employer is also required to show, where possible, the portion of a regular employee's salary which is allocable to lobbying.

However, this proposed section rejects any provision, such as has been suggested in bills pending before the U.S. Congress,28 that would require lobbyists to record and file au contacts and communications with government employees which are intended to infl.uence official action (in addition to all expenditures incurred). Such a provision at the state level would impose burdens on the exercise of First Amendment freedoms that outweigh the benefits of disclosure. Likewise, the section rejects the placing of any limit on the value of gifts which a lobbyist or his employer may give to a public official or which a public official may receive from lobbyists. These limits a.re eschewed on the theory that disclosure is the best regulation, and on the additional practical ground that sophisticated graft by public officials no longer need take the form of outright gifts. Where a public official accepts in return for little or no services a legal fee for his private law practice or an Insurance premium for his private agency, a statute outlawing gifts above a certain value is a blunt, improper tool with which to define wrongdoing. Disclosure combined with criminal sanctions against bribery and improper influence are the proper deterrents. Finally, following the lessons learned from the experience of regulating campaign financing in Connecticut,29

expenses below fifteen dollars are considered to be de minimus and need not be reported.

Section 5. (New) No person shall retain or employ anyone to promote, advocate, oppose or influence legislation, executive approval thereof, or administrative action for compensation contingent in whole or in part upon the passage or defeat of that legislation or upon the disposition of that ad-

minlstra.tive action. No person shall accept any employment or render any service for compensation contingent upon the passage or defeat of any legislation . or upon the disposition of any administrative action.

Explanation of the Proposed Section: This pr-0posed section is carried over from

the present law in order to discourage the excesses that might result from a lobbyist who is overzealous in the pursuit of financial reward.

Section 6. (New) (a) The Secretary of the State shall com

pile and keep on file the registration statements required by subsection (a) of section 2 and the expense statements required by subsection (a) of section 4 of this act. This informa.iton shall be open to public inspection.

(b) The Secretary of the State shall publish the name and address of each agent, the name and address of his employer, the legislation or administrative action with which the employment ls concerned and the expenditures made by the employer and the agent in furtherance of the employment. Such published material shall be distributed at the beginning of the legislative session to each legislator, to all elected state officials, to all heads of departments, agencies, boards and commissions of the state, and to the members of the press assigned to cover the legislature. Cumulative issues shall be published and distributed to the same parties on the twentieth day of every month during the legislative session and on the twentieth day of every other month after the legislature adjourns. Such published information shall also be distributed on request to the general public.

Explanation of the Proposed Section: This proposed section expands somewhat

on the basic concept of the present law, making the distribution of filed information broader and more frequent.

Section 7. (New) (a) Any person violating any provision of

this act shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than one year or both. In addition to such penalties, any person failing to timely file a statement of registration or expenses shall pay a late filing fee of twenty-five dollars.

(b) The Secretary of the State and any legislator shall notify the Chief State's Attorney of any alleged violation of this act of which said Secretary or legislator may have knowledge. The Chief State's Attorney shall investigate any alleged violation called to his attention by the Secretary of the State or any legislator, and where no prosecution is brought as a result of said investigation, a report on the investigation by the Chief State's Attorney shall be filed with the Secretary of the State.

(c) Annually after the legislative session, the Chief State's Attorney shall examine for violations a.II the information filed under this act during the previous year with the Secretary of the State.

Explanation of the Proposed Section: The proposed penalties and enforcement

section transfers investigatory and prosecutorial responsibilities from the Attorney General to the Chief State's Attorney, who is now required to examine annually the information filed with the Secretary of the State. The duty to notify the prosectuor of known alleged violations is extended to legislators, and where no prosecution is brought as a result of a complaint by the Secretary of the State or a legislator, the Chief State's Attorney must file a report on his investigation with the Secretary of the State.

These extensions of the enforcement provisions will hopefully result in a strict but measured application of the law by preserving the discretion of the Chief State's Attorney to waive prosecution in certain cases such as good faith, technical violations.

3744 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE ill arch 9, 19 '?'6 Section 8. (New) If any provision of thls

act, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, ls held by a court of competent Jurisdiction to be unconstLtutional, the validity of the remainder of this act and the application of such provisions to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

Explanation of the Proposed Section: Section 8 would preserve the remainder of

the act ln the event that after passage a court found a portion of it to be Invalid.

Section 9. (New) Section 2-45 of the general statutes is repealed.

Explanation of the Proposed Section: Section 9 would repeal the 1937 statute

which is currently in force. Section 10. (New) This act shall take effect

on January 1, 1977. Explanation of the Proposed Section: Section 10 would provide a clear effective

date for the new lobbying law. V. CONCLUSIONS

The American public presently feels a low level of confidence ln 1~ government. While there has traditionally been some cynlclsm. towards American ruling institutions, lack of trust 1n the political p1·ocess has, for many reasons, broadened. and deepened significantly in the recent past. Pollster Louis Harris has found that 74% of the people believe that "special interests get more from Government than the people do" 30 and that 85% of the people believe that "most government leaders are afraid to tell it the way it is".31

Concurrently, state government, through its regula.tory functions and its provision of public goods and services, ls capable of bestowing large financial rewards to those able to secure a desired public policy. Special interest groups can be counted upon 1n the Madisonian calculus to seek preferred treatment, not necessarily equivalent to the interest of the broader public.112 The question then ts: What procedural rules should we have to guarantee that special interests will be made to conftlct so as to serve the public interest and restore popular confidence 1n government?

This article has proceeded on the theory that full and timely disclosure is the most suitable "regulation" of special interests in their lobbying activities. However, certain guldlng principles must inform lobbying reform legislation. Particula.rly in the postWatergate period, we must guard against extreme, unworkable or unconstitutional lobbying ''reform" legislation which could result from a desire by political figures to capitalize on the passions of the moment 1n order to receive favorable treatment 1n the popular press. We must also guard again.st the creation of yet another expanded government program which has little result other than to expend taxpayers• dollars and create a larger budget for the bureaucrat's delight. We must remember the limits of effective government action and the principle that simplicity ls beauty. Properly understood lobbying reform must move forward within these principles which could even describe the rudiments of a model for action in other areas of public concern.

Finally, lobbying reform legislation must be seen as part of a larger triad. The registering and filing requirements for lobbyists, campaign financing regulation, and the disclosure of personal income and assets by certain government officials together form a three-way network to reveal improper inftuence and deter conflict of interest. No one of the three sides of the triad is effective alone because the three areas of disclosure are mutually reinforcing. Thus, lobbying disclosure ln Connecticut need not show campaign contributions by lobbyists because the campaign financing statute requires more complete disclosure. But also because the disclosure pur-

suant to statute of the sources of personal income and the nature of assets held by state officials • is only to the Legislative Ethics Committee and not to the General Assembly publicly, the proposed lobbying legislation requires that lobbyists and their employers disclose the existence, but not the dollar amount, of substantial :financial transactions with state officials.

At present 1n Connecticut, lobbying disclosure ls the weakest side of this lobbyingcampaign financing-personal income and assets triad. But through enactment of the statute proposed herein, the many deficiencies of the present lobbying statute will be cured, and we will be able to take even greater pride in the conduct of our public affairs in Connecticut.

FOOTNOTES THE FEDERALIST No. 10, at 79 (C. Rossiter

ed. 1961) (J. Madison). !l Note, Pztblic Disclosure oj LobbJJi..~ts' .Jc

tivities, 38 FORDHAM LAW REVIEW 524, 525 (19-70).

:: Connecticut Public Act 1907, Chapter 196 at 744; C.G.S.A. § 53-151.

4. G. THAYER, WHO SHAKES THE MONEY TREE? 41 (1'973).

r, J. DEAKIN, THE LOBBYISTS 58 (1966), 6 C.G.S.A. §§ 53-149 and 150. 1 W. RIORDON, PLUNKlTT OF TA.LU.NY HALL

3 (1963). 8 For a masterful treatment of how this

system worked in neighboring New York, see R. CARO, THE POWER BROKER (1974).

l>C.G.S.A. § 2-45. ir, P.A. 69-197 revising the filing fee~ from

five dollars to thirty-five dollars vras followed by P.A. 75-272 which authorized the Secretary of the State to set a. reasonable filing fee not to exceed costs ( after the thirty-five dollar fee had been declared unconstitutional).

11 Statistics compiled from the public records of the Secretary of the State o! Connecticut.

lJI L. BRANDEIS, OTHER PEOPLE'S i lONEY 92 (1914 ed.).

1a U.S. CONST. Amend. I. 1.1 347 U.S. 612, 625 (1953). lS 360 F.Supp. 228 (D.Conn. 1973). "Id. at 232. 17 Regulation and supporting documents

on file with the Secretary of the State. 16 Common Cause, Lobbying La.w. Reform

in the States 6 (November 1974). lll C.G.S.A. § 9-341. !!O Conversations by members of the Office

of the Secretary of the State with representatives of the Office of the Chief State's Attorney and the Office of the Attorney General. (September 1975).

::i. While the proposed new statute set fcrth herein is a product of his own thinking, the author wishes to acknowledge a debt for certain concepts and language to: Note, A Model New York Lobbying Statute, 4 COLUM. JOURNAL OF LAW & SocIAL PROBLEMS 69 (March 1968), as well as to the present Connecticut statute.

22 At present, eight states including neighboring :Massachusetts have· lobbying laws which cover attempts to influence executive branch decision-making. Common Cause, supra note 18, at 6.

:::i Many bills proposed. over the years to reform the federal lobbying law have pivoted around a "substantial purpose" test. Supra note 2, at 535.

24 For one bill proposing an income test at the federal level, see S. 81:5, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975).

2u In the proposed statute, the communications test is used only to define which fulltiine, salaried corporate employees a.re covered. lobbyists. The communications test proposed does not stand on its own outside the context of corporate employees as an independent test of who ls a. lobbyist.

::,, See S. 815, supra note 24. nnd S. 2167,

94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975), for federal proposals wherein simply a given number of communications, qUlte apart from any principal-agent relationship, would trigger registration and filing requirements.

,n Note, supra note 21, at 78. !l8 S. 815, supra note 24, and S. 2167, supra

note 26. !!9 P.A. 75-571, Sec. 18. ::o Hearing on a Survey of Public Attitudes

Before the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations of the Senate Committee on Governmer t Operations, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. at 7 (1973). '

:u Louis Harris, Add.res to the 43rd Convention of the Edison Electric Institute Jul:v 1975. ' .

:i,,: Supra note 1. :i;; CONN. GEN. STaT. 1-76, 77, (1958, Rev. to

1975). In addition to this disclosure required by statute, Governor Grasso instituted. in 1975 the laudable policy of requiring all state commissioners and deputy commissioners to make a disclosure of income and assets. Of course, this policy does not extend to legislators and others not appointed by the Go,·ernor, and it could easily be discontiimed in the event of a new administration.

POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES :Mr. HUGH SCO'IT. Mr. President,

during the Rules Committee's consideration of S. 3065, the Federal Election Campaign Act amendments bill, a great deal of discussion centered on the rights of so-called political action committees to engage in fundraising. These committees were sanctioned by law 2 years ago and were recently given final permission by the Federal Election Commission to organize and participate in this year's campaigns.

In the interest of greater understanding of the nature and extent of these political action committees, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a compilation of corporate, association, and labor union groups which seek to raise funds for candidates in 1976.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be p1inted in the RECORD,

as follows: CORPORATE POLITICAL AC"rION Co:Ml\lll'TE:ES

AFFILIATED WITH SINGLE COMPANIF.s FEDERAL CANDIDATES CONTRIBUTED TO IN 197S

( HOUSE, SE...~,\TE, PRESIDENTIAL)

Affiliated company-, committee name and address:

Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. (shipping, agriculture, and land development) R. H. Cox, Chairman, A & B Employees Voluntary Political Committee, 822 Bishop St., P.O. Box 3440, Honolulu, Hawaii 96801, House and Senate.

Alaska Airlines, Inc., 0. F. Benecke, Chairman, Alaskan Skies Assoc.-National, % Alaska Airlines, Ine., Seattle-Tacoma. International Airport, Seattle, Washington 98188, House and Presidential.

American Export Lines, Inc., Nicholas D. Pasco, Chairman, American Export Lines Polltica.l Action Committee, 2000 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006, House.

Allegheny Airlines, Inc., G. J. King, Chairman, Allegheny Political Action Committee, Ha.ngar 12, Washington National Airport, Washington, D.C. 20001.

Aluminum Company ot America, James A. Knight, Jr., Chairman, Alcoa. Employees Political Fund, 1501 Alcoa Building, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219.

American Express Oompa.ny, Harry L. Freeman, Chairman, American Express Officers Committee for Responsible Government, 1701 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006.

American Cyanamid Company, Don A.


Goodall, Chairman, Citizen Action Committee, c/o American Cyanamid Company, Wayne, New Jersey 07470.

Anaconda. Corporation, D. D. Geary, Jr., Chairman, Anaconda Concerned Citizens Fund, c/o the Anaconda Company, 25 Broadway, New York, New York 10004.

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad, F. N. Grossman, Chairman, Civic Trust 80-Sante Fe Employees Good Government Fund, 80 East Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, House.

Bell Aerospace, Charles F. Kreiner, Presi-dent, Bipartisan Assistance to Local a.nd National Candidates' Elections, P.O. Box 141, Lesane Street, Niagara Falls, New York 14304, House and Senate.

Black & Veatch (Construction/engineering) Harry A. Wilber, Treasurer, Black & Veatch Good Government Fund, P.O. Box 8405, Kansas City, Missouri 64114, House and Presidential.

Boise-Cascade Corp., John E. Clute, Chairman, Boise Cascade Corporation, Employees Good Government Fund, One Jefferson Square, Boise, Ida.ho 83728.

Brown & Root, Inc., Foster Parker, Chairman, Brownbullders Political Action Committee, P.O. Box 3, Houston, Texas 77001.

Burlington Northern Railroad, Robert F. Garland, Treasurer, Burlington Northern Officers Voluntary Good Government Fund, 176 East 5th Street, St. Paul, Minnesota. 55101, senate.

California. Community Television Association, Eugene A. Ia.cop!, Chairman, California. cable TV Political Action Committee, St. 8, 3636 Castro Valley Blvd., Castro Valley, California 94546, House.

California. Telephone Co., J. H. Strait, Chairman, General Telephone Employees' Good Government Club, P.O. Box 5012, Santa Monica., California 90405, Senate.

Chevron (Standard OU of California.), George T. Ballou, Chairman, Chevron Committee for Political Participation, 225 Bush Street, San Francisco, California 94104.

Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad, Rosemary Rodgers, Treasurer, Milwaukee Officers Trust Account, 2111 Enco Drive, St. N-301, Oak Brook, Illinois 60521, House.

Chicago & Northwestern Transportation Company, Robert S. Smith, Treasurer, Northwestern Officers Trust Account, 400 West Madison Street, Room 616, Chicago, Illinois 60606, Senate.

coca-Cola Company, John J. McGoutry, Treasurer, Nonpartisan Committee for Good Government, c/o Coca-Cola Oompa.ny, P.O. Drawer 1734, Atlanta., Georgia 30301, Senate.

Columbus & Southern Ohio Electric Company, Robert E. Sisinger, Chairman, Hickory Street Fund, 215 North Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215.

Consolidated Natural Gas, R. P. Froelich, Treasurer, CONPAC, P.O. Box 2545, Pitts• burgh, Pennsylvania 15230, senate.

Mark W. Houston, Treasurer, 445 West Main Street, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26301, Senate.

William E. Reap, Treasurer, 2 Frasco Lane, Norwood, New Jersey 07648, Senate.

Continental Can Corporation, Donald V. Earnshaw, Chairman, Continental Can Civic Assoc., 633 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10017.

Crown Zellerbach Corp., Dwight D. Taylor, Chairman, Crown Employees Political Fund, One Bush Street, San Francisco, Callfornia 94119, House.

Deere & Company, Robert W. Weeks, Chairman, Illinois Fund, % Deere & Company, John Deere Road, Moline, Illinois 61265, House.

Del Monte Corporation (food processors), Michael P. Roudnev, Chairman, Del Monte Voluntary Nonpartisan Good Government Fund, P.O. Box 3575, San Francisco, California. 94119, House and Senate.

Dow Chemical USA, John Serak, Jr., Treasurer, Health & Consumer Products, Employees Political Action Committee, P.O. Box 68511, Indianapolis, Indiana 46268.

L. c. Friedrich, Chairman, Dow Eastern Employees Polltlcal Action Committee, P.O. Box 36000, Strongsville, Ohio 44136.

Byron J. Chanter, Treasurer, Midwest Area Political Action Committee, Dow Chemical USA, Michigan Division, 47 Building, Midland, Michigan 48640.

Jack Jones, Chairman, Western Dow Employees Committee for Free Enterprise, P.O. Box 1398, Pittsburgh, California 94565.

D,R, & B, Inc., Bruce E. Hanson, Chairman, D,R, & B, Political Funds A, B, C, 1500 First National Bank Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101.

East Ohio Gas Company, Parry Keller, Chairman, The East Ohio Gas Employees Voluntary Good Government Association, St. 810, 75 Public Square, Cleveland, Ohio 44113, Senate.

Fort Vancouver Plywood Co., Larry Malloy, President, Fort Vancouver Plywood Company Employees Political Action committee, P.O. Box 289, Vancouver, Washington 98660, House.

General American Transportation Corp. (railroad cars), Henry J. Nord, Treasurer, Riverside Civic Association, P.O. Box 6874, Chicago, Illinois 60680, House.

General Electric Co., Mark J. D'Areangelo, Chairman, Non-Partisan Political support Committee, 3135 Eastern Turnpike, Fairfield, Connecticut 06431, House and Senate.

Paul N. Martin, Chairman, Non-Partisan Political Committee, 7 Larch Road, Lynn, Massachusetts 01904, Senate.

Edward E. Fuller, Chairman, P.O. Box 3001, Grand Central Station, New York, New York 10017, Senate.

General Portland Cement, James B. Lendrum, Treasurer, Citizens for Representative Government, 4400 Republic National Bank Tower, Dallas, Texas 75201, House ;uid Senate.

General Telephone & Electronics, Glenn W. Anderson, Chairman, GTE Stanford Employees Good Government Club, One Stamford Forum, Stamford, Connecticut 06904.

General Telephone Company of IDinols, Willa.rd Fulkerson, Chairman, General Telephone Company of Illinois Employees Good Government Club, 1312 Ea.st Empire Street, Bloomington, IDinois 61701.

General Telephone Company of Indiana., Daniel E. Worley, Chairman, General Telephone Employees Good Government Club, 3108 Starda.le Drive, Ft. Wayne, Indiana. 46816.

Georgia Pacific (pa.per industry), William J. Moshofsky, Chairman, G-P Employees Fund, St. 2700, 900 S.W. Fifth Ave., Portland, Oregon 97204, House and Senate.

Gerber Products Company, Lyle Littlefield, Chairman, Gerber Political Action Committee, 445 State Street, Fremont, Michigan 49412.

Gould, Inc. (electronics, auto parts), W. H. Hanley, Chairman, Responsible Government Assoc., 10 Gould Center, Rolling Meadows, Illinois 60631, House and Senate.

W.R. Grace Company, Robert M. Coqulllette, Chairman, Grace Good Government Committee, 1114 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10036.

Handy Andy, Inc., Charles B. Skipper, Chairman, Handy Andy Political Action Comm., P.O. Box 1161, San Antonio, Texas 78294.

Harrah's Club, Lloyd T. Dyer, Chairman, Harrah's Republican Political Action Committee, House and Senate.

Charles G. Munson, Chairman, Harrah's Democratic Political Action Committee, 206 North Virginia Street, Reno, Nevada 89501, House and Sen.ate.

Hawe.Han Telephone Company, Donald S. Bourman III, Chairman, Hawaiian Telephone

Employees Good Government Club, P.O. Box 2200, Honolulu, Ha.wall~ 96841, senate.

Houston Natural Gas, James H. Chandler, Chairman, Political Support Assoc., P.O. Box 1188, 1200 Travis Street, Houston, Texas 77001, House and Senate. ·

Hughes Aircraft Corp. (aerospace), Barton Evans, Chairman, Hughes Active Citizenship Fund, 6338¥2 W. 79th Street, Los Angeles , California 90045, House and Senate.

Illinois Central Gulf Railroad, P. W. Johnston, Chairman, ICG Good Government Fund, P .O. Box 19, 233 North ~chiga.n Ave., Chica.go, Illinois 60601, House and Senate.

Illinois Central Industries (railroad), John P. Fagan, Treasurer, Industries C~vlc Trust, 111 East Wacker Drive, 27th Floqr, Chicago, Illinois 60601, House and Senate.

Indiana Gas Company (gas industry), John W. Heiney, Chairman, Meridian Public Affairs Committee, 5933 Brendonridge Court, N. Drive, Indiana.polis, Indiana 46226, House and Senate.

John Graham Company, Wayne Gaffney, Chairman, John Graham Political Action Committee, 1110 Third Avenue, Seattle, Wa.sh.ington 98101.

Johnson & Johnson (pharmaceuticals}, John R. Mullen, Treasurer, Johnson & Johnson Employees' Good Government Fund, 501 George Street, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903, House and Senate.

Kennecott Copper Corp., Edward P . McGrath, Chairman, Kennecott Executives' Citizenship Assoc .• 161 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10017, House and Senate.

Kirby Lumber Company, Thomas M. Orth, Chairman, Pine Tree Political Committee, P.O. 1514, Houston, Texas 77001, House and Senate.

Krause Milling Company, B. L. Schwartz, Chairman, The East Wisconsin Club, P.O. Box 1156, 611 East Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201.

Lockheed Aircraft Company, Wllliam D. Perreault, Chairman, Lockheed Good Government Program, 2555 Hollywood Way, Burbank, California. 91520.

Louisville & Nashville Railroad, Alfred O. Nystrom, Chairman, Non-Partisan Voluntary Political Fund, Rm. 1014, 908 West Broadway, Loulsvllle, Kentucky 40201, House.

LTV Corp./Vought Corp. (joint committee) Lin Flanagan, Chairman, LTV Corp./ Vought Corp. Active campaign Fund, PO Box 5003, Dallas, Texas 75222.

Lykes-Youngstown Corp., Joseph T. Lykes, Chairman, Lykes-Youngstown Political Action Committee, Rm. 2207 Lykes Center, 300 Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana. 70130.

Ma.rear, Inc., Peter T. Jones, Treasurer, Marcor, Inc. Political Action Committee, 1 Montgomery Ward Plaza, Chica.go, Illinois 60671.

Marlon Labs, Arvld V. Zuber, Treasurer, Mid-America Committee for Sound Government, 10524 England Drive, Overland Park, Kansas 66212, House and Senate.

Martin Tractor Company, William W. Martin, Chairman, Kansas Economic Education Political Club, c/o Martin Tractor Company, 1737 S.W. 42nd St., P.O. Box 1698, Topeka, Kansas 66601.

Matson Navigation Company, James P. Gray, Chairman, Matson Employees Federal Government Committee, 100 Mission Street, San Francisco, California. 94105, House and Senate.

Meredith Corporation (publishing), Gerald D. Thornton, Treasurer, Meredith Corporation Employees Fund for Better Government, 1716 Locust Street, Des Moines, Iowa. 50336, House and Senate.

Metropolitan Contract Services, Inc., Ollie Crawford, Chairman, Concerned Citizens Political Action Committee, 9225 Katy Freeway, St. 110, Houst.on, Texas 77024.

Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., Peter T. Jones, Treasurer, Montgomery Ward & Co.,

5746 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 9, 1976 Inc. Political Action Committee, 1 Montgomery Ward Plaza, Chica.go, Illinois 60671.

Mountain Fir Lumber Company, Richard P. Cornish, Chairman, Mountain Fir Political Committee, St. 516, 3000 Market St., N.W., gomery Ward Plaza, Chica.go, Illinois 60671.

NL Industries, Richmond W. Unwin, Chairman, NL Executives Voluntary Nonpartisan Political Fund, 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10020.

Norgren Corporation (manufacturing/ pneumatic products), Milton E. Meyer, Jr., Treasurer, Littleton Committee for Political 100.ucation, P.O. Box 108, Littleton, Colorado 80120, House.

North Pacific Plywood Company (terminated PAC in 1975), Richard A. Johnson, President, North Pacific Plywood, Inc., Political Action Committee, 1549 Dock Street, Tacoma, Washington 98402, House.

Olin Corporation (chemical industry), William F. Leonard, Chairman, Olin Executives Voluntary Non-Partisan Political Fund, 120 Long Ridge Road, Stamford, Connecticut 06905, House and Senate.

Pacific Gas & Electric Co., D.Y. DeYoung, Chairman, Good Government Fund, Rm. 891, 77 Beale St., San Francisco, California 94106, House and Senate.

Pacific Lighting Corp., W.H. Landon, Chairman, Pacific Lighting Political Assistance Committee, 720 West 8th St., Los Angeles, California 90017, House and Senate.

Pan American World Airways, Stuart G. Tipton, Chairman, Pan Am Political Action Committee, 1800 K St., N.W., St. 900, Washington, D.C. 20006, House and Senate.

The Pillsbury Company, Earle G. Brooks, Treasurer, Active Citizenship Program, c/o The Pillsbury Company, 608 Second Avenue, South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402.

Producers Cotton Oil Co., Glen R. Stevens, Chairman, Producers Good Government Committee, P.O. Box 1832, Fresno, California 93717.

Pullman Inc., Donald J. Morfee, Chairman, Pullman Employees Good Government Fund, 200 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60604, House and Senate.

St. Louis & San Prancisco Railroads, George E. Bailey, Treasurer, Frisco Employees Com· mittee for Good Government, 1023 Frisco Building, 906 Olive Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63101, House and Senate.

Seaboard Coastline (railroad), H. W. Martens, Treasurer, Special Projects Group, 500 water Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202, House and Senate.

Smith Kline & French (pharmaceuticals), Clifford C. David, Treasurer, Smith Kline Voluntary Nonpartisan Political Fund, 1500 Spring Garden Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 19101, House and Senate.

Southern California. Edison Co., F. Fred Christie, Chairman, Federal Citizenship Responsibility Group, 2244 Walnut Grove Ave., Rosemead, California. 91770, House and Senate.

Southern Railway, Arnold B. McKinnon, Chairman, Southern Railway Tax Eligible Good Government Fund, House, Senate and Presidential.

Southern Railway Good Government Fund, 920 15th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005, House, Senate and Presidential.

Southwest Forest Industries, Inc., E.J. wren, Chairman, Southwest Better Govern· ment Committee, P.O. Box 7548, Phoenix, Arizona. 85001, House and Senate.

Sun Oil Company, Robert W. Donahue, Chairman, SunPAC, 240 Rad.nor-Chester Road, Si;. Davids, Pennsylvania 19087.

Texaco, Inc., Carl B. Davidson, Chairman, Texaco Employees Political Involvement committee, 135 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10017.

Texas Instruments (electronics), William J. Roche, Chairman, Constructive Citizenship Program, P.O. Box 155, Richardson, Texas 75080, House and Senate.

TRW, Inc., J. T. Gorman, Chairman, TRW Good Government Fund, 23555 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44117.

Union Oil Company of California, H. P. Shawlee, Chairman, Polltical Awareness Fund, Rm. M-01, 461 S. Boylston Street, Los Angeles, California 90017, House and Senate.

Union Pacific Railroad, F. E. Barnett, Chairman, The Fund for Effective Government, St. 3100-31st Floor, 345 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10022, House and Senate.

Union Planters Corp., William B. Rud.ner, Chairman, Union Planters Committee on Government Affairs, P.O. Box 3324, Memphis, Tennessee 38103.

United States Steel Corp., William G. Whyte, Chairman, U.S. Steel Employees Good Government Fund, 1625 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006.

Universal Oil Products, Robert Baratta, Chairman, Universal Oil Products Employees Political Action Fund, Ten UOP Plaza, Des Plaines, Illinois 60016.

Utah International (construction), Robert M. Haynie, Chairman, 1974 Committee for Responsible, Government (non-partisan), 220 Bush Street, Rm. 1016, San Francisco, California 94104, House and Senate.

Wellman Industries, Jack W. Belshaw, Chairman, Wellman Industries Tax Eligible Good Government Fund, P.O. Drawer 188, Johnsonville, South Carolina 29555.

Weyerhauser (forest products), W. John Driscoll, Chairman, The Hanson Fund, W-2191 First National Bank Bldg., St. Paul, Minnesota 55101, House and Senate.

Elsie Palo, Treasurer, The Tacoma Fund, 2525 South 336th, Federal Way, Washington 98002, House, Senate and Presidential.

Wheelabrator-Frye, Inc., Michael D. Dingman, Chairman, Committee for Sensible Government, c / o Wheelabrator-Frye, Inc., Liberty Lane, Hampton, New Hampshire 03842.

Wilson & Co., Inc., M. Lee Bishop, Chairman, Active Citizenship Company Fund, 4546 North Lincoln Blvd., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 73105, House and Senate.

Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., Theron H. Moss, Chairman, Southeastern Good Government Comm., P.O. Box B, Jacksonville, Florida 32203.

POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES AF'Fll.IATED WITH SINGLE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

FEDERAL CANDIDATES CONTRIBUTED TO IN 1975 (HOUSE, SENATE, PRESIDENTIAL)

Affi.Uated Institution, Committee Name and Address:

American Fletcher National Bank & Trust Company, Frank T. Millis, Chairman, Hoosier Good Government Committee, 101 Monument Circle, Indianapolis, Indiana 46277, House and Senate.

American General Insurance Company, George F. Reed, Chairman, American General Political Action Committee, 2727 Allen Parkway, Houston, Texas 77019, House and Senate.

Bank of Hawaii, F. Roy Doulton, Chairman, Special Political Education Committee, P.O. Box 2900, Honolulu, Hawaii 96846.

CB & T Bancshares, Inc., James F. Blanchard, Chairman, Committee for Quality Government-F, P.O. Box 120, 1148 Broadway, Columbus, Ohio 31902, Senate.

Chemical Bank, James P. Murphy, Treasurer, Fund for Good Government, 20 Pine Street, New York, New York 10005, House and Senate.

Citicorp, George Von Frank, Chairman, Citicorp Employees Voluntary Political Fund, 399 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10022, House and Senate.

Citizens Savings & Loan, Anthony M. Frank, Chairman, Citizens Savings Political Action Committee, 700 Market Street, San

Francisco, California 94102, House and Senate.

City Federal Savings & Loan Association, Gilbert G. Roessner, Chairman, City Federal Political Action Committee, 1141 East Jeri:ey Street, Elizabeth, New Jersey 07201.

CNA Financial Corp., William H. Perkins, Jr., Chairman, ONA Employee Civic Responsibility Committee, ONA Plaza, Chicago, Illinois 60685, Senate.

Crocker National Bank & Affiliates, John B. Warner, Chairman, Cracker's Individual Voluntary Investment in Citizenship (CIVIC), P.O. Box 54516, Los Angeles, California 90051.

Deposit Guaranty Corp., John P. Maloney, Chairman, Deposit Guaranty Employees Voluntary Political Committee, P.O. Box 1200, Jackson, Mississippi 39201, Senate.

Fidelity Bank, Frederick C. N. Littleton, Chairman, 1200 Committee, c/o The Fidelity Building, St. 1305, Broad and Walnut Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19109, House, Senate, and Presidential.

Financial Federation, Inc., Richard M. Desmet, Treasurer, Finance Federation Good Government Committee, 615 South Flower Street, Los Angeles, California 90017, House.

First Bank System, Lloyd L. Brandt, Treasurer, First Bank System of Minneapolis Good Government Committee, 1300 First National Bank Bldg., Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480, House and Senate.

Sidney Sieracki, Treasurer, First Bank System/North Dakota Good Government Program, c/o The First National Bank & •rrust Company, P.O. Box 1778, Bismarck. North Dakota 58501.

Nels D. Turnquist, Chairman, First Bank System/South Dakota Good Government Program, P.O. Box 1308, 141 N. Main, Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57101.

First City National Bank, Daniel E. Arnold, Chairman, The National Good Government Fund, ?.100 First City National Bank Bldg., Houston, Texas 77002.

First National Bank of Atlanta, S. D. Phillips III, Treasurer, Fund for Better Government, First National Bank Tower, Rm. 541, P.O. Box 4148, Atlanta, Georgia 30302.

First National Bank of Topeka, Maurice E. Fager, Chairman, Citizens for Good Government, P.O. Box 88, Topeka, Kansas 66001, Senate.

First Security Corporation, Harold J. Steele, Chairman, First Security Corp. Political Action Committee (First PAC), 79 South Main St., Salt Lake City, Utah 84111.

First Tennessee National Corp., Ralph Colley, Treasurer, Good Federal Government Committee, P.O. Box 84, Memphis, Tennessee 38101, House and Senate.

First Union National Bank, F. Lee Weaver, Chairman, Commonwealth Associates' "F" Fund, One Jefferson First Union Plaza, Charlotte, North Carolina 28288, House and Senate.

First Wisconsin Corp .• Leon Lauters, Chairman, First Wisconsin Civic Affairs Committee, 777 East Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202.

Indiana National Bank, C. 0. Alig, Jr., Treasurer, The R & A Committee, Agents, A Voluntary Political Comm., One Indiana Square, #501, Indianapolis, Indiana 46266, Senate.

Kansas City Life Insw·ance Company, William E. Tipton, President, Kansas City Life Employees' Political Action Committee, Kansas City Life Insurance Co., 3520 Broadway, Kansas City, Missouri.

Kemper Insurance Company, Harry A. Lansman, Chairman, Kemper Campaign Fund, Long Grove, Illinois 60049, House and Senate.

Long Island Trust Company, Willa.rd G. Hampton, Chairman, Litco Good Government Fund, c/o Long Island Trust Company, 1401 Franklin Avenue, Garden City, New York 11530, House.

March 9, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL .RECORD- SENATE 5747

Manufacturers Hanover Corp., John R. Price, Jr .• Chal.rman, Association for Responsible Government, 350 Park Avenue, New York New York 10022, House and Senate.

Ma~yla.nd Casualty Company (subdivision of American General Corp.), H. J. Bremerma.n, Jr., Chairman, Marco Committee for Effective Federal Government, Rm. 428, 3910 Keswick Road, Baltimore, Maryland 21211.

Mellon Bank, Charles B. Jarrett, Jr., Chairman, 514 Committee, P.O. Box 15629, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 15244, House and Senate.

Merchants National Bank & Trust Company, Donald W. Ta.nselle, Chairman, Merchants Committee for Campaign Contributions, 11 South Meridian Street, Indiana.polis, Indiana. 46204, House and Senate.

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., Charles Terrana, Chairman, Effective Government Assoc., c/o Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc .• 165 Broadway-One Liberty Plaza, New York, New York 10006, Senate.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Gerald Gldwitz, Chairman, Committee for Responsible Government.

Irving Koppel, Chairman, Committee for Effective Legislation, 111 East Wacker Drive, St. 2940, Chicago, Illinois 60601.

George L. White, Chairman, Metropolitan Employees, Poll'bical Participation Fund, 1 Madlson Avenue, New York, New York 10010.

Mitchell Hutchins, Inc., Michael C. Pastena, Treasurer, Mitchell Hutchins Voluntary Political Fund, c/o Mitchell Hutch.ins, Inc., One Battery Park Plaza, New York, New York 10004, House.

Paine, Webber, Inc., Michael A. Taylor, Secretary-Treasurer, Paine Webber Fund for Better Government, Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, 140 Broadway, New York, New York 10005, House and Senate.

Redwood Bancorp, Byron W. Leydecker, Chairman, Committee for Responsible Government, 735 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, California 94111, House and Senate.

Seattle First National Bank, J.E. Brennan, Treasurer, Flrst Associates-National, P.O. Box 3583, Seattle, Washington 98124, House, Senate and Presidential.

Security Pacific National Bank. John J. Duffy, Chairman, Security Pacific Active Citizenshlp Today Committee. P.O. 2097-TA (mall code H-29-1), Los Angeles, California 90051.

Smith Barney & Company, Jack L. Blllhardt, Treasurer, SB Better Government Committee, 1345 Avenue of the Americas, 49th Floor, New York, New York 10019, Senate and Presidential.

Southern Arizona. Bank & Trust, R. B. Venekue, Chairman, Good Government Club, 150 North Stone Avenue, Tucson, Arizona 85701, House.

Tl Corporation (PAC terminated in 1975), William J. Fitzpatrick, Treasurer, Ticor EJfecutives Fund, 433 South Spring Street, Los Angeles, California. 90013, Senate.

Trust Company or Georgia., Edward P. Gould, Chairman, Good Government Group, Trust Company of Georgia., P.O. Box 4418, Atlanta., Georgia 30302, House, Senate and Presidential.

Utica. Mutual Insurance Company, Victor T. Ehre, Chairman, Insurance Executive Pollt-1cal Action Committee, 179 Stafford Avenue, Watervllle, New York 13480, House and Senate.

Valley National Bank of Arizona, Gilbert F. Bradley, Chairman, VNB Good Government Committee, P.O. Box 71, Phoenix, Arizona 85001.

Waccamaw Bank & Trust Co., L. R. Bowers, Chairman, Waccamaw Bank & Trust Co. Public Affairs Fund, 806 S. Madison Street, Whiteville, North Carolina 28472.

Wells Fargo & Company, James K. Dobey, Chairman, Employees for Good Government, 420 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, Ca.11-fornia. 94104.

(PAC terminated In 1975), James K. Dobey, Chairman, Good Government Committee, 420 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, California 94104, Senate.

BUSINESS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES AFFILIATED WITH NATIONAL AssoCIATIONS

FEDERAL CANDIDATES CONTRmUTED TO IN 1975 (HOUSE, SENATE, PRESIDENTIAL)

Affiliated Association Committee Name and Address:

Alrllne Pilots Assoc. International, John J. O'Donnell, Chalrman, Airline Pilots Assoc. Political Action Committee, 1625 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Washlngton, D.C. 20036.

American Footwear Industries Assoc., John V. McDonald, Chairman, Footwear Indus~ry Political Action Committee, 1611 N. Kent St., Suite 900, Arlington, Virginia 22209.

American Gas Assoc., Endicott Peabod7, Chairman, Gas Employees Political Action Committee, P.O. Box 2702, Washington, D.C. 20013, House, Senate, and Presidential.

American Hotel and Motel Assoc., Karl Eitel, Vice Chairman, American Hotel Motel Political Action Committee, 888 Seventh Avenue, New York, New York 10019, House, Senate and Presidential.

American Imported Automobile Dealers Assoc., John Sadler, Chalrtna.n, American Imported Automobile Dealers Assoc., Political Action Committee, 1129 20th St., N.W., Suite 603, Washington, D.C. 20036, House and Senate.

American International Trade Assoc., Charles H. Dalldorf, Treas., Trade Political Affairs Committee, P.O. Box 5231, Grand Central Statlon, New York, New York 10017, House and Senate.

American Meat Institute, A. Dewey Bond, Chairman, The Meat Industry Political Action Committee, 1600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia. 22209, Senate.

American National Cattlemen's Assoc., J. Evan Goulding, Treasurer. Cattlemen's Action Legislative Fund, P.O. Box 284, Denver, Colorado 80201, House, Senate and Presidential.

American Optometric Assoc., W. Judd Chapman, O.D., Chairman, American Optometric Assoc. Political Action Comm., 1730 M Street, N.W., St. 206, Washington, D.C., 20036, House and Senate.

American Podiatry Assoc., Irvin O. Kanat, D.P.M., Treasurer, Podiatry Political Action Comm., 20 Chevy Chase Circle, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20015, House and Senate.

American Public Transit Assoc., Herbert Scheuer, Chairman, APTA-PAC, 1100 17th Street, N.vt., Washington, D.C. 20036, House aud Senate.

American Retail Federation, Lloyd Hackler, Secretary-Treasurer, Retail Political Action Comm., 1616 H St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006.

American Society of Executives, Mortimer B. Doyle, Co-Chairman, Effective Government Group, 1101 16th St., N.W., Washingt-0n, D.C. 20036, House and Senate.

American Trucking Assoc., M. M. Gordon, Chairman, Truck Operators' Non-Partisan Committee, P.O. Box 12006, Washington, D.C. 20005, House a.nd Senate.

Associated Builders and Contractors, Philip Abrams, President, Merit Shop Action Committee, 6482 Sligo Mlll Road, Takoma Park, Maryland 20012, House and Senate.

Associated Equipment Distributors, Robert G. Arnold, Chairman, Construction Equipment Political Action Committee, St. 1010, 1101 15th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005, House and Senate.

Associated General Contractors of America, Martin R. Matlch, Chairman, Committee for Action, P.O. Box 519, Bellevue, Washington 98009. House and Senate.

Raymond Van Buskirk, Treasurer, Construction Action Comm., P.O. Box 120, Des Moine , Iowa 50301, Hot~. e and senate.

A. M. Gallup, Treasurer, Construction Industry Political Education Committee, 144 Chas~-Park Plaza Hotel, st. Louis, Missouri 63108, House and Senate.

Donald D. Wood, Treasurer, Vermont Construction Industry, Political Action Comm., Box 428, St. Johnsbury, Vermont 05819, House and Senate.

J. Albert Riley, Chairman, Associated General Contractors of St. Louis Political Committee, 2301 Hampton Avenue, St. Louis, Missouri 63139.

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc., Frank K. Woolley, Chairman, Our United Republic Political Action Committee, 2111 Enco Drive, St. N-515, Oakbrook, IUinols 60521.

Association of American Publishers, Leo N. Albert, Treasurer, American Book Publishers Political Action Comm., St. 480, 1707 L St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, House a.nd Senate.

Association of Contract School Bus Operators, Blllie I. Reynolds, Treasurer, Non-Partisan Transportation Committee, P.O. Box 324, Fairfax, Vlrgln1a 22030, House and Senate.

Boating Information Council, Edward T. ~fitchell, Cha.irman, Boating Information Council Political Action Comm., 1200 17th St., N.W., Washington. D.C. 20036, House and Senate.

The Carpet and Rug Institute, Inc., F. E. Masland, III, Chairman, Carpet and Rug Industry Political Action Comm., P.O. Box 2048, Dalton, Georgia 30720.

Convenient Industries of America, Inc., Robert T. Johnson, Chalrman-Trustee, Food Operators Political Action Trust, 981 South Thlrd St., Louisville, Kentucky 40203, House and Senate.

Cotton Warehoure Assoc. of America, Sam Hollis, Co-Chairman, Committee of One Hundred, P.O. Box 1782, Memphis, Tennessee 38101, House and Senate.

Distllled Spirits Council of the U.S., Inc., Malcolm E. Harris, Chairman, Distilled Spirits Public Affairs Comm., 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., Washlngton, D.C. 20004.

Freight Forwarders Institute, David J. Supino, Chairman, Part IV Freight Forwarders Political Action Comm., 2000 K St., N.W., St. 552, Washington, D.C. 20006, House and Senate.

Frozen Food Institute, William E. Lamble, Chairman, Freezers Political Action Comm., 901 South Carey St., Baltimore, Maryland 21223, House and Senate.

General Aviation Manufacturers Assoc., Inc., Edward W. Stimpson, Chairman, General Aviation Political Action Comm., P.O. Box 19121, St. 1215, Washington, D.C. 20036, House and Senate.

Glass Bottle Blowers Assoc. of the U.S. and Canada, James E. Hatfield, Chairman, Glass Bottle Blowers Assoc., Political Education League, 608 E. Baltimore Pike, Media, Pennsylvania 19063, House and Senate.

ll.'Iachinery Dealers National Assoc., Richard L. Studley, Treas., Machinery Dealers Political Action Comm., 1400 20th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, House and Senate.

Menswear Retailers of America, Arthm· Coplon, Chairman, Menswear Public Affairs Comm., R.D. #1, New Hope, Pennsylvania 18938, House and Senate.

Metals Building Dealers Assoc., Dale Cannon, Chairman, Meta.I Building Industry Political Action Comm., 1406 Thlrd National Bldg., Dayton, Ohio 45402, House and Senate.

Mobile Home Manufacturers Assoc., John F. Trasle, Chairman, Moblle Home Action Comm .• P.O. Box 212, 14650 Lee Road, Chantilly, Vlrginla 22021, House and Senate.

National Assoc. of Broadcasting, Spencer Denison, Executive Dlrector, TV & Radio Political Action Comm., 1771 N St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, House and Senate.

National Assoc. of Chain Drugstores, Robert J. Bolger, Chairman, Chain Drugstores Political Action Comm., 1911 Jefferson Davis

5748 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE Ma1~ch 9, 1976 Highway, #504, Arlington, Virginia 22202, House and Senate.

National Assoc. of Chemical Distributors, William K. Lane, Chairman, Chemical Dlsti·ibutors Political Action Comm., 1406 Third National Bldg., Dayton, Ohio 45402, House and Senate.

National Assoc. of Home Builders, Leon B. Weiner, Chairman, Builders Political Campaign Comm., Box 6238, Northwest Station, Washington, D.C. 20015, House and Senate.

National Assoc. of Motor Bus Owners, V. L. Middleton, Chairman, Bus Industry Public A1fairs Comm., P.O. Box 2022, Washington, D.C. 20013, House and Senate.

National Assoc. of Realtors, Chestel' Sudbrack, Jr., Chairman, Realtors Political Action Comm., 155 East Superior St., Chicago, Illinois 60611, House and Senate.

Lonnie E. Martin, Secretary-Treasurer, Alabama. Realtors Political Education Comm., 660 Adams Ave., Montgomery, Alabama 36111, House and Senate.

Melvin L. Mould, Chairman, California Real Estate Political Action Comm., 605 Shatto Place, Los Angeles, Calif. 90020, House.

F1·ank K. Halley, Jr., Chairman, Real Estate Polltical Education Comm., P.O. Box 5830, Baltimore, Maryland 21208, House and Senate.

Russell Grinde, Treasurer, Minnesota. Real Estate Political Education Comm., 2911 East 42nd St., Minneapolis, Minn. 55405, House.

Stanley L. Protsche, Treasurer, Nebraska Real Estate Political Action Comm., 1620 M St., Suite 6, Lincoln, Nebraska. 68508, House and Senate.

B. C. Parker, Chairman, North Carolina Real Estate Political Action Comm., P.O. Box 8326, Greensboro, N.C. 27410, House and Senate.

Allen D. Herhold, Secretary-Treasurer, Oregon Real Estate Political Action Comm., 4089 Oakman St., South Salem, Oregon 97302, House and Senate.

Dale L. Miller, Campaign Coordinator, Virginia Real Estate Political Education Comm., P .O. Box 401, Richmond, Virginia 28203, House and Senate.

William Mudge, Executive Vice President, Real Estate Political Action Committee of Washington, P.O. Box 185, Olympia, Washington 98507.

National Assoc. of Retail Druggists, Kenneth G. Mehrle, Chairman, National Assoc. of Pharmacists Political Action Committee, P.O. Box 29, Park Ridge, Illinois 60068.

National Assoc. of Retail Grocers, Glenn J. Queen, Chairman, Retail Grocers Political Action Comm., 2000 Spring Road, Oak Brook, Illinois 60521.

National Automobile Dealers Assoc., Wil· liam E. Hancock, Jr., Chairman, Dealers Election Action Comm., 1640 Westpark Drive, McLean, Virginia 22101.

National Automotive Dealers Assoc., Sam H. White, Chairman, Comm. of Automotive Retailers, P.O. Box 19169, Washington, D.C. 20036, House and Senate.

National Cable Television Assoc., Alfred R. Stern, Chairman, National Cable Television, Political Action Comm., 918 16th St., N.W., Suite 800, Washington, D.C. 20006, House and Senate.

National Canners Assoc., Jerome R. Gula, Treasurer, Canners Public Affairs Comm., 15205 Rockport Drive, Silver Spring, Maryland 20904, House and Senate.

National Coal Assoc., Edward Glox, Chairman, Comm. on American Leadership, P.O. Box 19289, Washington, D.C. 20036, House and Senate.

National Confectioners Assoc. of the U.S., Richard L. Hoffman, Chairman, Government Improvement Group, P.O. Box 19094, Washington, D.C. 20036, House and Senate.

National Cotton Council of America, Michael Monas, Treasurer, Conun. for the Advancement of Cotton, P.O. Box 12292, Memphis, Tennessee 38112, House.

National Education Assoc., John Ryor, Chairman, National Education Assoc., Political Aotion Comm. (EPAO). 1201 16th St., N.W., Washington, D.O. 20036, House and Senate.

Don Pierce, Chairman, EPAC, Room 609. 225 East Broad St., Columbus, Ohio 43215, Senate.

Donna. Cobb, Chairperson, EPAC, 212 N.E. 19th St., Moore, Oklahoma. 73160, House and Senate.

National Forest Products Assoc., Russell J. Hogue, Chairman, Forest Products Political Action Comm., 1619 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Room 729, Washington, D.C. 20036, House and Senate.

National Home Furnishing Assoc., Sheldon I. London, Treas., Home Furnishing Political Action Comm., 1025 Vermont Ave., N.W., st. 1002, Washington, D.C., 20005, House and Senate.

National Realty Comm., Lane Meltzer, Chairman, National Realty Political Action Comm., 230 Park Ave., New York, New York 10017.

National Restaurant Assoc., Don A. Dianda, Chairman, California. Restaurant Information League, 448 South Hill Street, 612, Los Angeles, California 90013, House and Senate.

National Right to Work Committee, Andrew Hare, Chairman, Employees Right Campaign Oomm., 8316 Arlington Boulevard, St. 600, Fairfax, Virgln1a 22038.

National Rural Electric Coop Assoc., Robert D. Partridge, Treas., Action Comm. for Rural Electrification, P.O. Box 19066, Washington, D.C. 20036, House and Senate.

James Golden, Chairman, Colorado Advocates for Rural Electrification, P.O. Box 16427, Denver, Colo 80211, House and Senate.

Earl L. King, Treas., Iowa Action Comm. for Rural Electrification, 4101 73rd St., Urbandale, Iowa 50322, House and Senate.

Glenn 0. Lovig, Treas., Low Cost Electric Energy Comm., R.R. #1, Booneville, Iowa 50038, House and Senate.

John Stierwalt, Treas., Indiana Friends of Rural Electrification, R.R. #1, Gosport, Indiana 47433, House and Senate.

Kenneth L. Erickson, Treas., Kansas Action Committee for Rural Electrification, 509 Locust St., Wamego, Kansas 66547, House.

Wilson Palmer, Chairman, Speak Up for Rural Electrification, P.O. Box 18385, Louisville, Kentucky 40218, House and Senate.

Franklin R. Stork, Treas., Missouri Action Comm. for Rural Electrification, 2722 East McCarty St., Jefferson City, Missouri 65101, House.

Hobson Waits, Treas., Mississippi Action Comm. for Rural Electrification, P.O. Box 8101, Jackson, Mississippi 39804, House and Senate.

Ann S. Currew, Chairperson, Rural Electric Action Program, P.O. Box 1495--St. 911, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602, House and Senate.

Barbara. Jack, Assistant Secretary-Treas., Ohio Action Comm. for Rural Electrification, P.O. Box 3628, 4302 Indianola Ave., Columbus, Ohio 43214, House.

Margaret Schroeder, Treas., Wisconsin Action Comm. for Rural Electrification, P.O. Box 686, Madison, Wisconsin 53701, House and Senate.

National Telephone Co-op Assoc., David C. Fullarton, Treas., Telephone Education Comm. Organization, 14600 Cobblestone Drive, Silver Spring, Maryland 20904, House and Senate.

National Tool, Die and Machining Assoc., William G. Henzler, Chairman and Director, Tooling and Machining Industry, Political Action Comm., P.O. Box 6593, West Toledo sta.tion, Toledo, Ohio 43612, House and Senate.

Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Assoc., C. Joseph Stetler, Chairman, Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Assoc. for Better Government Comm., 1155 15th St., N.W., Washington. D.C. 20005, House and Senate.

Recording Industry Assoc. of America, Diana. Lee Greene, Treas., Recording Arts Political Action Comm., 1229 Nineteenth St., N.W.. Washington, D.C. 20036, House and Senate.

Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National Assoc., Inc., George Segal, Chairman, Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning Political Action Comm. (SMACPAC), 8224 Old Courthouse Road, Tysons Corner, Vienna, Va. 22180, House and Senate.

Tobacco Institute, Inc., Earle C. Clements, Chairman, Tobacco People's Public Affairs Comm., Room 1200, 1776 K St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 2006, House aud Senate.

U.S. Cane Sugar Refiners' Assoc., Gregg A. Potvin, Chairman, The Cane Sugar Refiners' Political Action Comm., 1001 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 610, Washington, D.C. 20036.

United Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Assoc., Copeland Newbern, Chairman, United Political Action Comm. (UNIPAC), 1019 19th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

U.S. Independent Telephone Assoc., Jack McCarthy, Chairman, Communications Political Action Comm., P.O. Box 83-Ben Franklin Station, Washington, D.C. 20044, House and Senate.

AMERICAN MEDICAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AMPAC)

FEDERAL CANDIDATES CONTRIBUTED TO IN 1975 (HOUSE, SENATE, PRESIDENTIAL)

American Medical Assoc., William L. Watson, Director and Treasurer, AMPAC, P.O. Box 449, Chicago, Illinois 60680, House and Senate.

Keith Brownsberger, M.D., Chairman, Alaska Medical Political Action Comm., 1135 West 8th Ave., St. 6, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, House and Senate.

Don V. Langston, M.D., Chairman, Arizona Medical Political Action Comm., 810 West Bethany Home Rd., Phoenix, Arizona 85013, House and Senate.

Kemal Kutait, M.D., Chairman, Arkansas Political Action Comm., P.O. Box 1208, Fort Smith, Arkansas 72901, House and Senate.

Sidney E. Foster, M.D., Treas., California Medical Political Action Comm., 731 Market St., San Francisco, California 94103, House and Senate.

Seymour Strongin, M.D., Treas., Committee for Government Improvement, 2300 Cedar St., Bakersfield, California 93301, Senate.

Ralph Milliken, M.D., Treas., Los Angeles County Physicians Comm., Box 30203, Terminal Annex, Los Angeles, California 90030, House.

Francis T. Candlin, Treas., Colorado Medical Political Action Comm., P.O. Box 18188, Denver, Colorado 80218, House and Senate.

John T. Mendillo, M.D., Treas., Connecticut Medical Political Action Comm., 160 St. Ronan Street, New Haven, Connecticut 06511, House, Presidential.

W111iam Chin-Lee, M.D., Secretary-Treas., District of Columbia Political Action Comm., c/o Diplomat National Bank, 2033 K St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006, House and Presidential.

Francis C. Coleman, M.D., Treas., Florida Medical Political Action Comm., 735 Riverside Ave., P.O. Box 2371, Jacksonville, Florida 32203, House and Senate.

Ernest C. Atkins, M.D., TreAS., Georgia Medical Political Action Comm., P.O. Box 7053, Station C, Atlanta, Georgia 30309, House and Senate.

A. Leslie Vasconcellos, M.D., Treas., Hawaii Medical Political Action Comm., 510 South Beretania St., Honolulu, Hawaii 96813, House and Senate.

Don W. Sower, Treas., Idaho Medical Political Action Comm., 407 West Bannock, Boise, Idaho 83702, House and Senate.

Paul Mahon, M.D., Treas., Illinois Medical Political Action Comm., 55 East Monroe St., St. 3510, Chica.go, Illinois 60603, House and Senate.

George l\.1. Haley, Treas., Indiana Medical


Political Action Comm., 220 Sherland Building, South Bend, Indiana 46601, House, Senate and Presidential.

Robert D. Whinery, M.D., Chairman, Iowa Medical Political Action Comm., P.O. Box 1030, Des Moines, Iowa 50311, House and Senate.

Thomas F. Taylor, M.D., Chairman, Kansas Medical Political Action Comm., 1300 Topeka, Topeka, Kansas 66612, House and Senate.

Carl Cooper, M.D., Chairman, Kentucky Educational Medical Political Action Comm., 3532 Ephraim McDowell Dr., Louisville, Kentucky 41n05, House and Senate.

D. H. Johnson, Jr., M.D., Treas., Louisiana Medical Political Action Comm., 1700 Josephine St., New Orleans, Louisiana. 70113, House and Presidential.

Joan Sy, Treas., Maine Medical Political Action Comm., Milford Avenue, Bingham, Maine 04920, House and Senate.

Francis c. Mayle, M.D., Chairman, Maryland Medical Political Action Comm., 1211 Cathedral St., Baltimore, Maryland 21201, House, Senate and Presidential.

Vivian M. Purdy, R.N., Treas., Bay State Physicians Political Action Comm., 1414 State St., Springfield, Mass. 01109, House and Presidential.

Thomas R. Berglund, M.D., Chairman, Michigan Doctors Political Action Comm., Box 769, East Lansing, Michigan 48823, House and Senate.

Richard L. Engwal, M.D., Chairman, Minnesota. Medical Political Action Comm., 825 South 8th St., Rm. 206, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404, House and Senate.

John R. Young, Treas., Mississippi Political Action Comm., P.O. Box 5229, Jackson, Mississippi 39216, House and Senate.

E. J. Cunningham, M.D., Treas., Missouri Medical Political Action Comm., 164 W. Clayton Road, Balwin, Missouri 63011, House and senate.

Donald R. Huard, M.D., Secretary-Treasurer, MONTPAC, 2 Poly Drive, Billings, Montana 59102, House and Senate.

Robert F. Shapred, M.D., Treas., Nebraska Medical Politica.I Action Comm., P.O. Box 80091, Lincoln, Nebraska 68501, House and Senate.

Richard 0. Pugh, Treas., Nevada Medical Political Action Comm., 3660 Baker Lane, Reno, Nevada 89502, House and Senate.

Joseph Jehl, M.D., Treas., New Jersey Medical Political Action Comm., RD Box 338B, Rm. 518, Hopewell, New Jersey 08525, House and Presidential.

Louise B. Rowdabaugh, Treas., New Mexico Medical Political Action Comm., 1601 Lafayette Driver, N.E., Albuquerque, New Mexico 87106, House and Senate.

Edward C. Rozek, M.D., Chairman, Empire Medical Political Action Comm., P.O. Box 16, Lake Success, New York 11040, House and senate.

Stephen C. Morrisette, Executive Director, North Carolina Medical and Political Action Comm., 222 N. Person St., Raleigh, North Carolina. 27611, House and Senate.

Robert L. Jennings, M.D., Treas., North Dakota Comm. on Medical Political Action, P.O. Box 978, Bismarck, North Dakota 58501, House and Senate.

Paul A. Jones, M.D., Treas., Ohio Medical Political Action Comm., P.O. Box 5617, Columbus, Ohio 43212, House and Presidential.

Barbara. Sta-0y, Treas., Oklahoma Medical Political Action Comm., P.O. Box 18759, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73318, House and Senate.

Gene V. Boga.rty, Chairman, Oregon Medical Political Action Comm., P.O. Box 394, Beaverton, Oregon 97005, House and Senate.

R. William Alexander, M.D., Chairman, Pennsylvania Medical Political Action Comm., P.O. Box 295, Lemoyne, Pennsylvania. 17043, House and Senate.

Richard Perry, M.D., Chairmanr Rhode Island Medical Political Action Comm., 106 Francis St., Providence, Rhode Island 02903, House and Senate.

C. Benton Burns, Treas., South Carolina Political Action Comm., 3325 Medical Park Road, Columbia, South Carolina 29203, House and Senate.

L. H. Willia.ms, Treas., Independent Medicine's Political Action Comm., P.O. Box 645, Nashville, Tennessee 37202, House and Senate.

Robert G. Mickey, Executive Director, Texas Medical Political Action Comm., 1905 North Lamar Blvd., Austin, Texas 78705, House and Senate.

Hoyt W. Brewster, Treas., Utah Medical Political Action Comm., 42 South 5th St., East Salt Lake City, Utah 84102, House and Senate.

Orien V. Johnson, Treas., Vermont Educational Medical Political Action Comm., 113 Russel St., Winooski, Vermont 05404, Senate and Presidential.

A. Epes Harris, Jr., M.D., Treas., Virginia Medical Political Action Comm., P.O. Box 2939, Richmond, Virginia 23235, House and Senate. •

Fred W. Reebs, Treas., American Medical Political Action Comm., State of Washington, 444 N.E. Ravenna Blvd. No. 108, Seattle, Washington 98115, House and Presidential.

Barbara. Werre, Chairman, Wisconsin Physicians Political Action Comm., P.O. Box 2595, Madison, Wisconsin 53701.

s. 0. Smith, Treas., Wyoming Political Action Comm., P.O. Drawer 4009, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001, House and Senate.

BUSINESS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES .AFFILIATED WITH REGIONAL ASSOCIATIONS

FEDERAL CANDIDATES CONTRmUTED TO IN 1975

(HOUSE, SENATE, PRESIDENTIAL)

Affiliated Association, Committee Na.me and Address:

Associated Builders and Contractors of Wisconsin, Inc., William LaFave, Chairman, Assoc. Builders and Contractors Political Action Comm., P.O. Box 2011, Appleton, Wisconsin 54911, House.

Arizona. Cotton Growers Association, Farmers Comm. for Political Action, 4139 Ea.st Broadway, Phoenix, Arizona 85040, c/o Howard Wuertz, Chairman.

Constructors Assoc. of Western Pennsylvania, Arthur J. Nicholson, Chairman, Assoc. for Political Education in Construction, 525 William Penn Place, Room 3018, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219, House and Senate.

Greater Houston Builders Association, Bernie Efrusy, Chairman, Big 50 Political Actron Comm., P.O. Box 25259, Houston, Texas 77005, House and Senate.

Kansas Cooperative Council, Marvin C. Esau, Chairman, Political Action for Cooperative Effectiveness of Kansas, P.O. Box 395, Hutchinson, Kansas 67051, Senate.

Mid-America. Dairymen, Inc., Lloyd Schaefer, Chairman, Agricultural & Dairy Educational Political Trust, P.O. Box 1837 S.S. Station, Springfield, Missouri 65805, House and Senate.

UNAFFILL-\TED BUSINESS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE

FEDERAL CANDIDATES CONTRmUTED TO IN 1975

(HOUSE, SENATE, PRESIDENTIAL)

Committee Name and Address: John M. Crabtree, Chairman, Affirmative

Political Action Comm., P.O. Box 2664, Palm Beach, Florida. 33~80, House.

Leona.rd M. Ring, Chairman, Attorneys Congressional Campaign Trust, 111 West Washington St., Chicago, Illinois 60602, House and Senate.

Charles Nash, Chairman, Automobile Dealers Political Action Comm. (AUTOPAC), P.O. Box 1028, Austin, Texas 78767.

Joseph J. Fanelli, President, BusinessIndustry Political Action Comm. (BIPAC), 1747 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006, House and Senate.

Milton 0. Rodewald, Chairman, Campaign Fund for Dealers Political Action Comm., 417

North Main St., Thiensville, Wisconsin, House and Senate.

Julian Garcia, Chairman, CAR of New Mexico, St. 202, Tower Building, 510 Second St., N.W., Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102.

J. M. B. Lewis; Jr., Treas., Coal Landowners Comm., P.O. Box 8384, Roanoke, Virginia 24014, House and Senate.

Richard C. Cunan, Treas., Comm. on Agricultural Policy, P.O. Box 3802, San Francisco, California., 94119, House and Senate.

Raymond S. Tapp, Chairman, Comm., Organized for the Trading of Cotton ( COTCO) , St. 460, 1707 L St., NW., Washington, D.C. 20036, House and Senate.

George M. Foster, Jr., Treas., Construction Industry Management Political Action Comm., 815 North Washington Ave., Lansing, Michigan 48906, House and Senate.

Waldo H. Burnside, Chairman, D.C. Comm. of Businessmen to Assist Congressional Candidates, 35 Wisconsin Circle, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20015, House and Senate.

Edward M. Donelan, Treas., D.C. Dentists for Effective Government, 110117th St., N.W., # 1006, Washington, D.C. 20036, House and Senate.

Frank T. Brumfield, Chairman, Delta Fund, P.O. Box 850, Cleveland, Mississippi 38732, House and Senate.

Edward T. Glanz, Chairman, Detroit Piping Industry, Political Action Comm., 14801 West 8 Mile Road, Detroit, Michigan 48235, House and Senate.

Herbert A. Holden, M.D., Chairman, Family Physicians Political Action Comm., 1740 West 92nd St., Kansas City, Missouri 64114, Senate.

Victor T. Ehre, Chairman, Insurance Executives Political Action Comm., 179 Stafford Ave., Waterville, New York, 13480, House and Senate.

Wylie A. Aitken, Chairman, Lawyers and Clients for Good Government of Orange County, 9750 Katella Ave., Anaheim, California 92804, House.

Thomas V. Patton, Treas., The Loose Group, P.O. Box 276, Doraville, Georgia 30340, House and Senate.

Donald W. Tanselle, Chairman, Merchants Comm. for Campaign Contributions, 11 South Meridian St., Indiana.polis, Indiana 46204, House, Senate and Presidential.

Robert F. Lederer, Treas., Nursery Industry Political Action Comm., 200 Southern Building, Washington, D.C. 20005, House and Sena.tee.

Robert H. Akers, Chairman, Ohio Contractors Political Action Comm., 150 East Broad St., St. 400, Columbus. Ohio 43215, House.

Paul Wesley, Chairman, Political Action Comm. of Central Florida, P.O. Box 6014, Orlando, Florida 32803, House.

George Kassabaum, Ohairman, Political Comm. for Design Professionals, P.O. Box 993, Washington, D.C. 20044, House and Senate.

Ralph Lewy, Treas., Restaurateurs Political Action Comm., Room 219, 228 North LaSalle St., Chica.go, Illinois 60601, House and Senate.

Fred Solen, Treas., Rosario Fund, P.O. Box 905, Portland Oregon 97207, House and Senate.

Otto Nasser, Chairman, Southern California Restaurant Information League, 448 South Mill St., St. 612, Los Angeles, California 90013, House and Senate.

C. F. Muehlbauer, Treas., Southwest Better Government Comm., P.O. Box 7548, Phoenix, Arizona 85011, House and Senate.

W. E. McKenzie, Chairman, Texans for Better Transportation Political Action Comm., 301 Vaughn Building, Austin, Texas 78701, House and Senate.

W. T. Kendall, Chairman, Texas Eastern Political Action Comm., Southern National Bank Bldg., Houston, Texas 77002.

Charles Goodnight, Trustee-Chairman, Texas Food Service Poltical Action Comm., P.O. Box 1651, Austin, Texas 78767, House. ·

Robert H. Nickerson, Chairman, Utah

5750 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SE! ATE March 9, 19,6 Council on Small Business Political Action Comm., 505 East 17th, Salt Lake City, Utah 84105, Senate.

POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES AFFILIATED WITH FINANCIAL INSTITUTION ASSOCIATIONS

FEDERAL CANDIDATES CONTRmUTEO TO IN 197 5 (HOUSE, SENATE, PRESIDENTIAL)

Affiliated Association, Committee Name and Address:

American Bankers Assoc., William A. Glassford, Treas., Banking Professional Political Action comm. (BANKPAC), 1611 North Kent St., St. 804, Arlington, Virginia 22209, House and Senate.

June Berkmeyer, Treas., Florida Bank Political Action Comm. 1215 East Amelia, P.O. Box 6943, Orlando, Florida 32803, House.

Gerald Shadwick, Chairman, Kansas Bank Political Action Comm., P.O. Box 1104 Salina, Kansas 67401, House and Senate.

Burton P. Allen, Jr., Treas., Minnesota Bankers Political Action Comm., P.O. Box 27233, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55427. House and Senate.

Nick V. Cavalieri, Treas., Bankers Action :Now Comm., 22 East Gay St., Columbus, Ohio 43215, House.

William P. White, Chairman, Pennsylvania Bankers Public Affairs Comm., P.O. Box 345, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 17108, House and Senate,

American Bankers Assoc., Russell O. Schlosstein, Treas., Action Comm. General Fund, 1218 Third Avenue, St. 505, Seattle, Washington 98101, House and Senate.

Associated Credit Bureaus, Inc., William J. Welsh, Jr., Chairman, Consumer Reporting and Collections Executives Political Action Comm., 1345 University Blvd., East Langley Park, Maryland 20783, Senate.

Consumer Bankers Assoc., Edward S. Anazeen, Jr., Chairman, Consumer Bankers Assoc. Political Action Comm., 1725 K St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006.

Credit Union National Assoc., Gary B. Wolter, Treas., Credit Union Legislative Action Council, P.O. Box 31206, Birmingham, Alabama 35222, House and Senate.

Richard V. Cleaver, Chairman, Indiana Credit Union Political Action Comm., P.O. Box 19229, Indianapolis, Indiana 46219, House and Senate.

John A. l\Iarble, Treas., MCU Legislative Action Fund, P.O. Box 1403, East Lansing Michigan 48823 House and Senate.

Independent Bankers Assoc. of America, Kenneth J. Benda, Chairman of Trustees, Independent Bankw-s Political Action Comm., P.O. Box 267, 8auk Centre, Minnesota 56378, House.

Mortgage Insurance Companies of Amer.tea, John Horne, Chairman, Mortgage Insurance Political Action Comm., 1730 Rhode Island Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, House and Senate.

National Assoc. of Casualty and Surety Agents, William G. Russell, Chairman, NACSA Political Action Comm., 5225 Wisconsin Ave., N.W., St. 302, Washington, D.C. 20015, House and Senate.

National Assoc. of Independent Insurers, Roy Pair, Chairman, Independent Insurance Agents, Political Action Comm., P.O. Box 3241, Birmingham, Alabama 35205, House and Senate.

Arthur W. Bishop, Chairman, Independent Insurance Agents Political Action Comm., P.O. Box 56454, Atlanta, Georgia 30343, House.

E. Robert Zenke, Chairman, Connecticut Agents Political Action Comm., Room 201, 38 Woodland St., Hartford, Connecticut 06105, House and Senate.

National Assoc. of Insurance Agents, Inc., Robert V. McGowan, Chairman, American Insurance Men's Political Action Comm., 1511 K St., N.W. St., 622, Washington, D.C. 20005, House and Senate.

National Assoc. of Life Underwriters, Austin Adkinson, Executive Director, Life Un<ierwriters Political Action Comm. (LUPAC),

K St., N.W., St. 622, Washington, D.C. 20005, House and Senate.

Richard H. Hill, Chairman, Life Underwriters Political Action Comm.-Texas, 404 San Jacinto Building, Austin, Texas 78701, Senate.

National Assoc. of Mutual Insurance Agents, George A. Kramer, Jr., Chairman, National Agents Political Action Comm., 425 13th st .. N.w .. Washington, D.C. 20004, House and Senate.

National Savings and Loan League, Richard C. Lawton, Treas., National League Political Action Comm., P.O. Box 643, McLean, Virginia 22101, House and Senate.

William B. Ross, Chairman, Century Club, 9800 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Los Angeles, California 90045, House, Senate and Presidential.

Robert E. Clark, Treas., Savings Assoc. Public Affairs Comm. of Michigan, Box 11124, LBnsing, Michigan 48902, House and Senate.

John W. Raser, Chairman, Savings Bankers Non-Partisan Political Action Comm., P.O. Box 3871, Grand Central Station, New York, New York 10017, House and Senate.

Carl C. Heister, Executive Trustee, Savings & Loan Political Action Comm. of Ohio, P.O. Box 8771, State St. Station, Columbus, Ohio 43215, House and Senate.

Robert B. Rosenberger, Secretary-Treas., Public Affairs Comm. of Savings Associations, P.O. Box 797, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108.

U.S. League of Savings Associations, John P. Farry, Treas., Savings Assoc. Political Elections Comm., P.O. Box 5601, Washington, D.C. 20016, House and Senate.

Warren Hill, Treas., Savings Assoc. Political Action Comm., P.O. Box 221, Fanwood, New Jersey 07023, Senate.

U.S. League of Savings Associations, Wesley J. Bahr, Treas., Savings Assoc. Political Action Comm., P.O. Box 531, Hemp tead, New York 11551, House and Senate.

UNAFFILIATED FINANCIAL INSTITUTION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES

Fr:DER.\L CANDIDATES CONTRmUTED TO I:X 1975 (HOUSE, SENATE, PRESIDENTIAL)

Committee name and address: D. W. Gilmore, Chairman, Insurance Public

Affairs Council, 175 W. Jackson Blvd., St. 1859A, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

A. E. Eshman & P. E. Pearce, Co-Chairmen, Securities Industry Campaign Comm., St. 900, Southern Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20005, House and Senate.

William J. McAuliffe, Jr., Treas., Title Industry Political Action Comm., 1828 L St., N.W., St. 303, Washington, D.C. 20036, House and Senate ..

L <1bor 1;oliticttl committees by name of committee <affiliated 11nion)

[Reported cas-h on hand December 31, 1975] INDUSTRIAL UNIONS (OTHER THAN TEAMSTERS)

AmA.lgamated Laundry Workers Joint Board Political Education Comm. (Amalgamated Clothing Workers, New York, - ew York, A1'"'L-CIO) ------- $3, 151. 60

Amalgamated Political & Education Comm. of Philadelphia (Amalgamatad Clothing Workers. Plliladelphia, Pa .. AFL-CIO) ----------------- 1, 456. 98

Amalgamated Political Edu-cation Comm. (national, Amalgamated Clothing Workers. AFL-CIO) --------- 44, 999. 86

Baltimore Regional Joint Board Political Education Comm. £ Anialgamated Clothing Workers, Baltimore, l\,'Id ..

~~IO) ----------------- 5,088.69 Boston Joint Board, Amalga

mat ed Political Education Comm. (Amalgamated Cloth-inJ Workers, AFL-CIO) _____ 1, -180.17

Chicago Joint Board Political Education Comm. (state, Amalgamated Clothing Workers, AFL-CIO) --------- o

Clothing Workers Political comm. for Eastern Pa. (state, Amalgamated Clothing Workers, AFL-CIO_________ 5, 253. 28

Colo. Machinists Non-partisan Political League {state, International Assoc. of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO) ----------------- 46.00

Comm. for Good Government (national, United Auto Workers)------------------ 296.253.il

COPE Comm. of the United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America (AFL-CIO) --------------- - 48, 879. 0-!

District Lodge No. 117 MNPL Comm., Mich. (Machinists Non-partisan Poiitical League, AFL-CIO) ---------- o

District 751 Machinists Nonpartisan Political League, Wash. (state Machinists Non-partisan Political Lea-gue, AFL-CIO) ------------ 2, 311. 82

Greater Flint Commtmity Action Council Voluntary Fund (International Union, United Auto Workers)-------------- 4, 761. oo

ILGWU Campaign Comm. (In-ternational Ladies Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO) __ 229. 672. 75

International Brotherhood of Electrics.I Workers Comm. on Political Education, IBEW ( In ternatlonal Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO) ---------------------- 23,940.62

Iron workers Political Action League (International Assoc. of Bridge Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO) ---------------------- 7,458.03

IUD Voluntary Fund (Indus-trial Union Dept., AFL-CIO) 36, 120. 16

IUE-AFL-CIO Comm. on Political Education (International Union of Electrical Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO) ----------------- 5,9-!4.47

Labor's Investment in Voter Education (International Chemical Workers Union, Akron, Ohio, AFL-CIO) _____ 9, 770. 62

Legislative Education Action Program-Campaign Ass!stance Fund {International Brotherhood of Boilerwork-ers, AFL-CIO)_____________ 16, 110.23

Local 2 Political Action Comm. Fund (local, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO) --------------------- 1,447. 18

Local 35 Political Comm.-Na-tional (local, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Conn., AFL-CIO) __ O

Local 302 Voluntary Political Fund (local, International Union of Qperating Engi-neers, Wash., AFL-CIO)____ 46, -103. 68

Machinists Bean Feed Comm., Minn. (state, International Assoc. of l\1:achinists, AFL-

CIO) --------------------- 4, 117. 75 Machinists District .;;:71 Non

partisan Political League, l\1:o. (state, Inte1·national Assoc. of Machinists, AFL-CIO) __ 492. 49

Machinists Non-partisan Political League (national, International As.soc. of Ma-chinists, AFL-CIO) - -------- -208, 413. 71

Mm~ch 9, 1976 Machinists Non-partisan Po

litical League, District 9, Mo. (state, International Assoc. of Machinists, AFL-CIO)

Machinists Non-partisan Political League, District 727, Calif. (state, International Assoc. of Machinists, AFL-

CIO) ---------------------Machinists Non-partisan Po-

litical League Local Lodge 15, Texas (state, International Assoc. of Machin1sts, AFL-CIO) ----------------

Machinists Non-partisan Po-litical League of Mich. (state, International Assoc. of Machinists, AFL-CIO)----

Machinists Non-partisan Political League of Oregon (state, International Assoc. of Machinists, AFL-CIO) ------

:M:achinists Non-partisan Political League of the Iowa State Council (state, International Assoc. of Machinists, AFL-CIO) ----------------

Midwest Regional Joint Board, Political Education Comm. (Amalgamated Clothing Workers, AFL-CIO) --------

Minn. Joint Board Political Education Comm. (Amalgamated Clothing Workers, AFL-CIO) ----------------

Minn. Machinists Non-partisan Political League (state, International Assoc. of Machinists, AFL-CIO) ------------

N.Y. Joint Board Political Action Fund (state, Amalgamated Clothing Workers. AFL-CIO) ----------------

0. E. Local 825 Political Ac-tion & Education Comm. (local. International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO) ---------------------

OCA W Political & Legislative League ( Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Interna-tional Union, AFL-CIO) ___ _

Ohio State Council of Machinists (State, International Assoc. of Machinists, AFL-CIO) ---------------------

Pa. State Council International Assoc. of Machinists (State, International Assoc. of Machinists, AFL-CIO) ---------

Political Support Assoc. (Hous-ton Natural Gas, Texas) ___ _

Sheet Metal Workers' International Assoc. Political Action League (Sheet Metal Workers International Assoc., AFL-CIO) ---------------------

Texas Airline District No. 146 Machinists Non-Partisan Political League (International Assoc. of Machinists)-------

Twin City Area Machinists Non-partisan Political League, Minn. (state, International Assoc. of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO) ---------------------

TWUA Political Fund (Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO) ----------------

UAW-V-CAP, United Auto Workers Voluntary Community Action Program (International Union of Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America) -----------------

United Pa.perworkers International Union Political Education Program (United Paperworkers International Union, AFL-CIO)----------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

~.338.06

68.60

4,960.11

0

514.06

5,235.73

0

2,725,30

3,927.79

27,600.35

no report

20,515.62

1,637.71

0

2,126.72

88,610. 17

827.21

7, 471.11

25, 381. 56

768,524.44

17, 117. 60

United Rubber Workers Local No. 154: Political Education Comm. Fund, Colo. (local, International United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO) --------------------- 815.33

United Steelworkers of Amer-ica Political Action Fund (United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO) -------- 465, 382. 60 ------

Total cash on hand of industrial union com-mittees ------------- 2,451,348.81

Total number of committees ------------

NON-INDUSTRIAL UNIONS (OTHER THAN TEAMSTERS)

49

Active Ballot Club, a Department of the Retail Clerks International Assoc. (Retail Clerks International Assoc., AFL-CIO) ---------------- $278,209.97

Active Ballot Club Local No. 692 (RetMl Clerks, Baltimore, Md., AFL-CIO) ------------- 2, 227. 37

Active Ballot Club of the Retail Clerks Interna,tional Assoc. Local No. 648 (Retail Clerks, San Francisco, Calif., AFL-CIO) ---------------------- 880.04

Active Ballot Club sponsored by RICA Local 400 ( Retail Store Employees Union, Local No. 400) ---------------------- no report

AFL-CIO Conn. COPE Political Contributions Comm. (state AFL-CIO COPE) ----------- 0

AFL-CIO COPE Political Con-tributions Comm. (national AFL-CIO) ----------------- 94,924.90

AMCOPE (Amalgamated Meat-cutters, AFL-CIO) ---------- 68, 898. 98

American Apparel Manufac-turers Political Action Comm. (Amerlca.n Apparel Manufac-turers Assoc.)-------------- 1,049.67

American Federation of Teach-ers Comm. on Political Edu-cation -------------------- 64, 566. 09

American Radio Assoc., AFL-CIO, COPE-PCC ( American Radio Assoc., AFL-CIO) ----- 612. 64

Ark. Comm. on Political Educa-tion (state, AFL-CIO COPE) -------------------- 624. 87

ATU COPE, National Ca.pltol Local Division 689 (Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-

CIO) ---------------------- 8,406.70 Bricklayers' Action Comm.

(Bricklayers, Masons & Plasterers International Union of America, AFL-010)--------- 2, 753. 90

Brooklyn Longshoremen Political Action and Education Comm. (Brooklyn Longshore-men AFL-010)------------- 81,307.68

Brotherhood Railway Ca1·men Lodge 886 Political Action Comm. Brotherhood of Railway Carmen of the U.S. and Canada ------------------- 4, 289. 92

Carpenters' Comm. on Political Action, Calif. (state, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO) ---------------------- 1,696.50

Carpenters' Legislative Im-provement Comm. (national, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO) --------- 89, 269. 96

Cleveland AFL-CIO Federation of Labor Comm. on Political Education (AFI.r--CIO) ------ 1, 060. 29

Coal Miners Political Action Contributions Comm. (United Mine Workers of America)-- 17, 486. 22

Colorado Comrtl. on Political Education, AFL-CIO (sta.te, COPE, AFL-CIO)-----------

Committee on Federal Employee Political Education (national, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO) ---------

Connecticut State AFL-CIO Senatorial campaign Committee (State, AFL-CIO)---

Committee on Political Education of Santa. Clara County, AFL-CIO (local, AFL-CIO COPE) --------------------

Committee on Political Education-Individual Contributions Acc01mt ( COPE, AFL-

CIO) ---------------------CWA District 4 Political Action

Committee (Communication Workers of America, AFL-CIO) ---------------------

CWA District 5 Political Action Committee (Communication Workers of America., AFL-

CIO) ---------------------CWA District 9 Political Action

Committee ( Communication Workers of America, AFL-

CIO) ---------------------CWA District 10 Political Ac-

tion Committee (Communication Workers of America., AFL-CIO) -----------------

CWA District 2 Political Ac-tion Committee (Communication Workers of America, AFL-CIO) -----------------

CWA District 12 Political Action Committee (Communication Workers of America, AFL-CIO) -----------------

CWA-COPE Political Contribu-tions Committee (national, Communications Workers of America., AFL-CIO) ---------

District 2 MEBA-AMO, AFLCIO Voluntary Political Action Fund (local, Marine Engineers Beneficial Association, AFL-CIO) ------------

District 65 Political Action Fund (local, Distributive Workers of America, AFL-

CIO) ----------------------Engineers' Political and Educa-

tion Committee, EPEC (national, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-

CIO) ----------------------Farm Workers Political Educa-

tion Fund, California (United Farm Workers of America)------------------

Fire Fighters Committee on Political Education (International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO) --------

GBBA Political Education League ( Glass Bottle Blowers A..c:,gociation, AFL-CIO) __

Government Employees Political Research Institute (National Association of Government Employees)-----------

Graphic Arts International Union Political Contributions Comm. (Graphic Arts International Union, AFL-CIO) __

H & RE & BIU-TIP (Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Union, "To Insure Progress," AFL-CIO) -----------------

International Brotherhood of Firemen & Oilers Political League (International Brotherhood of Firemen & Oilers, AFL-CIO) -------------

5751

no report

5,426.59

0

7,945.45

2, 117. 86

7,552. 14

10,950.67

1,330.33

588.79

10,034.21

34,049. 17

169,610.08

149, 461. 13

2,523.60

14,876.25

15,275.99

6,687.86

7, 250. 'l,7

241. 00

13,299.93

95,354.99

2,306.03

5752 International Molders & Al

lied Workers Union. AFLCIO CLO COPB Fund (International Molders & Al· lied Workers Union. AFL-

CIO) ---------------------Kentucky State AFL-CIO COPB Comm. (Comm. on Po· litical Educa.tlon, AFL-CIO,

Kentucky) ----------------L.A. County COPE-Voluntary

Political Contributions Comm. ( Comm. on Political Education. AFL-CIO, Oallf.) -

Labor Comm. for Political Action in New York State (Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, Local 1814 of International Long· shoremen's Assoc., Local 25 of Marine Div. of International Union of Operating Engineers, Seafarers International Union of North America) ------------------

Laborers Political League (Laborers' International Union of North America,

AFI.r-CIO) -----------------Maintenance o! Way Political

League '(national, Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, AFL-CIO) _____ _

Marine Firemen's Union Political Action Fund (Pacific Coast Marine Firemen, Oilers, Watertenders and Wipers Assoc., AFL-CIO) -------

Masters, Mates & Pilots Pensioners Action Fund (International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots) __

MEBA Political Action Fund, Marine (District No. 1, Pacific Coast District, Marine Engineers Beneficial Assoc., AFL-CIO) ----------------

}.lEBA Retirees' Group Fund (national, Marine Engineers' Beneficial Assoc., AFI.r-CIO) _

Mich. Carpenters' Political Action Comm. (Michigan State Carpenters Council, AFL-

CIO) ----------------------.. Iichiga.n State AFI.r-CIO COPE

Voluntary Fund (state, Comm. on Political Education, AFL-010)------------

:,.nnnesota Federation o! Teachers Politlca.1 Fund (COPE, AFL-010) _________ _

l\Iissour1 State Labor Council AFL-CIO ( state, Comm. on Polltica.l Education, AFL-

CIO) ---------------------Nashville - Edgecombe - Wilson

County Comm. on Politlca.1 Education (Nashville-Edgecombe-Wilson County Central Labor Union)----------

National Union of Hospital & Health Ca.re. ~mployees Political Action Fund (National Union of Hospital & Health Care Employees, RWDSU-

AFL-CIO) ----------------North Carolina State Comm.

on Political Education ( COPE, AFL-CIO, N01·th Carolina) -----------------

NMU Political & Legi la.tlve Organization on Watch (PLOW) (National Maritime Union of America, .AFL-

CIO) ---------------------Ohio AFL-CIO COPE (state,

Comm. on Political Education, AFL-OIO)--- -------- -

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE _March 9, 1976

5,326.33

1,637.84

9,797. 16

2,580. 19

218, 046. 11

26,319.38

7.359. 15

491,293.32

246,029.83

76,784.20

no report

32,084.57

8,797.93

3, 771. 00

no report

no report

no report

50,212.77

60.52

Ohio State Council of Carpenters Political Action Comm. (state. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO) ---------

OPETU, Local 153 "Vote .. comm., New York (Office & Professional Employees International Union, AFL-CIO) ---------------------

Oregon Comm. on Political Education - PCC--AFL-CIO (state, Committee on Polit-ical Education, AFL-CIO) __ _

Political Action CommltteeInternational Union, United Plant Guard Workers of America-------------------

Political Action Together-Political Comm. (International Brotherhood of Pa.inters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO) ----

Political F.ducational Fund o! the Building & Construction Trades Department (Building & Construction Trades Dept. o! AFL-CIO) ---------

Political Fund Comm. of the American Postal Workers Union ( American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO) _

Public Employees Organized to Promote Legislative Equality-PEOPLE ( American Federation of State County & Municipal Employees, AFL-

CIO) ---------------------Public Employees Organized to

Promote Legislative Equality Qualified Contributions Comm. (American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO) ------

Railway Clerks Political League (Brotherhood of Railway, Airline & Steamship Clerks. Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employees AFL-

CIO) ---------------------Railway Labor Executives• As-

soc. Political League (Railway Labor Executives Assoc.,

AFL-CIO) -----------------Reta.ti Food Clerks Local #1500

Ballot Club (local, International Assoc. of Retail Clerks,

AFL-CIO) -----------------Retail Store Employees Union

Local No. 880 Active Ballot Club (Local, International Assoc. of Retail Clerks, AFL-

CIO) ----------------------Retail Store Employees Union

Local 1262 Active Ballot Club (Local, International Assoc. of Retail Clerks, AFL-010)--

Sailors Political Fund (Sailors' Union of the Pacific, Seafarers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO) __

Schenectady Firefighters' Political Action · Comm. (local, International Assoc. of Fire-fighters, AFL-CIO) ________ _

Seafarers Political Activities Donation (Seafarers International Union o! North America, AFL-CIO, SPAD) __

SEIU-COPE-PCC (Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO) ----------------

Signalmen's Political League (Railroad Signalmen, AFL-

CIO) ----------------------Southern Piedmont Comm. on

Political Education (Southern Piedmont Central Labor Union) --------------------

17, 164. 75

7,184.27

6,902.99

1, ~no. 63

3,097.38

81,339.91

40,213. 97

3, 108.94

5, 613. 11

707. 15

25,300.00

6,195.69

4,016.36

16,3,3.30

77,907.24

no report

no report

48,086.45

3.257.83

no _report

Special Committee on PoU-tical Action (Rochester, New York, area labor groups)---------- i', 409. 01

Texas Comm. on Political Edcation (state, Comm. on Political Education, AFL-

CIO) ---------------------- 25,506.75 Transport Workers Union Polit-

ical Contributions Comm. (Transport Workers of Amer-ica, AFL-CIO) ______________ 99, 869. 12

Transportation Political Educa-tion League (United Trans-portation Union, Ohio) ____ ·_ 428, 869. 98

u .A. Political Education Comm. (United Assoc. of Journeyman & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting Ind. of the U.S. & Canada________ 9, 347. 00

UFWA-COPE Comm. (United Furniture Workers o! Amer-ica, AFL-CIO)------------- . 1, 294. 00

Utah State AFL-CIO (state, Comm. on Political Educa-tion, AFL-CIO) ------------ O

Utility Workers of America Political Contributions Comm. (Utility Workers of America) ------------------ no report

Voice of the Electorate (Office & Professional Employees International Union, AFL-

CIO) ---------------------- 3,396. 13 Volunteers for VLPEC (Los

Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO)----------- 2. 254. 20

Washington State Comm. on Political Education (state, Comm. on Political Educa-tion, AFL-CIO)------------- 1, 762. 30

West Virginia AFL-CIO COPE Voluntary Funds (state, Comm. on Political Educa-tion, AFL-CIO)------------- 2, 536. 65

Wisconsin state AFL-CIO Comm. on Political Education (state, Comm. on Polit-ical Education, AFL-CIO) __ 10, 332. 7-!

Total cash on hand of non-industrial union committees• -------- 3, 390, 906. 22

Total number of commit-tees-----------------

TEAMSTER UNION

Alaska Alive Voluntary Comm. (state, Teamsters) _________ _

Atlanta. DRIVE Chapter 1

(Teamsters) ------------- Carlonia DRIVE Chapter 1

(state, Teaimsters) ________ _ Chapter TJC 62 DRIVE (state,

Teamsters ----------------Chapter 557 DRIVE (local,

Teamsters) ---------------Democrat, Republican, Inde

pendent Voter Education Comm., Washington, D.C. (national, Teamsters) _____ _

Democrat-Republican Inde-pendent Voter Education Comm., Arkansas (state,

Teamsters) ----------------DRIVE Chapter 238, Iowa

(Teamsters) -------------DRIVE Chapter 592, Virginia

(Teamsters) -------------DRIVE Chapter 941, Texas

(Teamsters) -------------DRIVE Local 47, Texas (Team-

sters)---------------------DRIVE Political Fund Chapter

886, Oklahon;ia (Teamsters). ~Exclusive of Teamster Unions.

93

28,768.80

2,536.57

582.43

no report

13,6113.47

7.393.83

9,95tJ.26

376.00

5, 833. 19

614. 20

362.61

1,622.28

0 ,.GRESSIONAL .RtCORD -~ATE 5753

DRIVE 42, California (Team-sters)---------------------

Houston DRIVE Chapter No. 968 (local, Teamsters)-----

Independence Club Politl~l Comm. (local, Teamsters).

Local Union DRTVE No. 25 (Teamsters) --------------

Local 745 DRIVE (Teamsters, Texas---------------------

1\Iichigan DRIVE Political Fund (state, Teamsters)----------

l\rinnesota. DRIVE (state, Teamsters) --------------

New Jersey Teamsters DRIVE (state, Teamsters) _________ _

Ohio DRIVE (state, Teamsters) Sports Award, Iowa (DRIVE

Chapter #238, Teamsters)-Teamsters Joint Council No. 10

DRIVE, Mass. (State, Team-sters)---------------------

Teamsters .:;oint Council No. 13 Political Action Comm. (state, Teamsters)--------

Teamsters Joint Council No. 65 DRIVE, Illinois (state, Teamsters) ---------------

Teamster Local ~115 Political Action Fund, Pennsylvania (local, Teamsters)---------

Teamsters Local 340 DRIVE Comm., Maine (local, Team-sters) ___ . -----------------

Teamsters Local 559 DRIVE, Conn. (local, Teamsters) ___ _

Texas DRIVE (state, Team-sters) ---------------------

31,797.78 BrrmG THE NUCLEAR BULLET

(By JOHN GLENN)

503. 82 Secretary of State Kissinger will appear Tuesday before the Senate Government Op

O erations Committee on a subject on which he has never before testified and which has

7, 393. 83 received but a few paragraphs in occassional foreign policy addresses. The subject is the

49, 995. 32 spread of civilian nuclear energy and-along with it--atomic weapons capability, around

314. 96 the world. It invol'\"·es the prospect of dozens of nations, and possibly even terrorist groups,

18, 561. 78 having the atomic bomb before the end of the century. The Secretary's testimony,

459. 10 therefore. should be noteworthy, if not his-53, 459. 11 toric.

When considering the wisdom of spreading 73. 60 nucleai· technology throughout the world, the

benefit must be weighted again t the potential tragedy.

19, 684 . 39 The benefit takes the form of a new abun-dant energy source, which can help many nations substantially raise their standards of

6, 641 . 98 living with labor-saving devices and convenienceL, as well as increased food productioncritlcal items in the years ahead.

6, 885. 52 The greatest potential for tragedy lies in the destructive capacity of the weaponsgrade material associated with nuclear power

121. 732. 67 production. Unless lt is placed under adequate controls, this material can be converted to atomic weaponry by nations and terrorist

1, 081. 47 groups alike. It is the question of control, then, that

2, 708. 69 stands between nuclear power's serving as a boon to, or a plague on, mankind. The mag-

635. 54 nitude of the control problem is clear. The standard U.S .. power reactor, while generating

Total cash on hand of around a billion watts of electricity per year, Teamsters Union Com- also produces over 500 pounds of plutonium mittees ------------- 393, 586. 14 as a byproduct. The electricity is enough to

Total number of com- supply a city of one million people. The mittees ------------- 29 plutonium, after separation from spent fuel,

---- - ls enough to produce atomic bombs capable Grand total, cash on ______ - of ravaging several cities of that size-only

hand --------------- 6, 235, 841. 17 a.bout 10 pounds ls needed to produce an a.tomlo weapon. According to present pro-jections, by 1990 nuclear power plants in the Grand total, all com

mittees ------------171 less developed countries alone will be gen-

erating 30,000 pounds of plutonium annu

PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR CIVILIAN USES

Mr. McGEE. Mr. President in yesterday's edition of the Washi~gton Post, there appeared an excellent analytical piece written by the junior Senator from Ohio (Mr. GLENN). The article addresses the problem of proliferation of nuclear energy for civilian uses.

The focu.s of this Nation's attention and that of the global community ha~ been P?Marily on nuclear arms co~trol. Very little attention has been given to the problem and the serious implication for the entire global community, that JOHN GLENN outlines in his article.

Senator GLENN is to be commended for the serious and effective consideration he has given this problem area in general, and his recommendations for dealing with the dangers posed by uncontrolled civilian uses of nuclear energy in particular. I urge my colleagues

O

give careful consideration to what the able Senator has to say regarding this problem. He certainly has emerged as the most knowledgeable and effective spokesman in the Congress for positive action to deal with this highly clitical problem area.

I ask unanimous consent that the ar-ticle be printed in the RECORD.

There. being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,

a.s follows: CXXII--361-Part 5

ally, the equivalent of 3,000 Hiroshima-scale bombs a year.

Until very recently, nuclear proliferation and the responsibility !or controlling it have been uniquely American problems. No less than 70 per cent of the world's nuclear power plants and research reactors are of American origin, and many of the components and much of the technology in foreign-built reactol'S also originate in the United States.

But the virtual monopoly that the United States has enjoyed since the early years of the nuclear sciences has eroded and will continue to do so. Our technological dam was bound to break, since this science, like all science, cannot remain a secret for long. Yet our open society and willingness to work in concert with other nations, no doubt accelerated this development.

The result is that nuclear scientists and equipment are now available throughout the world. The nuclear suppllers group has rapidly expanded to seven nations-United States, U.S.S.R., France, West Germany, Japan, Canada and the United Klngdomincluding some quite wllllng to exploit the obvious benefits without adequa,tely considering the potential tragedy of this new energy option. As nuclear technology marches to the drummer of energy needs, nations such as France and West Germany utilize American technology and components to export their own reactors, and nations such as Pakistan and Brazil plan to utilize French and German technology to build their own facilities capable of producing material that can be used either as l'eactor fuel or for atomic bombs. To the extent that the United States has planted the technological seeds which have given rise to the spread of inadequately controlled nu-

clear equipment and material by other nations, we have a responsibility to do everything in our power to remedy the situation.

The most significant non-proliferation effort undertaken thus far has been the negotiation of the Treaty for the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) . While our efforts in support of the treaty have been well intentioned, by no stretch of the imagination could they be considered a major success. The heart of the problem is that the NPT does not upgrade international safeguards to the extent needed to lnsure that nuclear weapons cannot be deyeloped from civilian nuclear exports.

Since the NPT as currently implemented is not the answer to our proliferation problems, we must examine all possible alternatives. One that I would stress is to look long and hard at the Soviet Union a.nd attempt to develop cooperative non-proliferation arrangements that cut across our ideological differences with that country.

Unlike other problems in the world arena, nuclear proliferation has apparently been of just as much concern to the Soviet Union as it is to us. The U.S.S.R. has not contributed materially to the distribution of nuclear plants around the world, having limited its nuclear exports to only four of its satellites and Finland. Moreover, over the past months, the Russians have attended the meetings of nuclear supplier nations on a cooperative basis, in an effort to work out meaningfu11nternatlon~l monitoring a.nd control.

These recent indications of genuine Soviet concern would appear to provide us with an excellent opportunity to maximize U.S.-SOviet cooperative efforts in this area.

What could we, in concert with the Soviets and the other supplier nations achieve that we are not doing now? Any considerations in this regard should be broken down into c;hortand long-term objectives.

In the short term, there are things that can be done to buy time while we work out longer-term commitments. Joint U.S. and Soviet pressure might be brought to bear on all current nuclear suppliers to conclude agreements that will include at least the following:

A ban on the export of nuclear fuel production facllitles to, and the stockpiling of nuclear explosive material in, indlvidu.al nations, except possibly under strong ..safeguarded multi-national arrangements;

A requirement that recipients of nuclear exports first ratify the NPT or enter into an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to place all nuclear

· activitle_J under safeguards and to forswear nuclear explosions;

An international convention on physical security to protect nuclear facilities and transportation of nuclear materials from terrorist attack;

A commitment to .strengthen the safeguards inspection capability of the I.AEA a.nd to eliminate the secrecy that now surrounds IAEA verification and reporting procedures; and

A clear-cut commitment and specific procedures for IAEA-member nations to recover nuclear material diverted by nations or stolen by terrorists.

While we buy time with short-term actions, we must at the same time not depend solely on the above agreements to solve a longterm problem that demands different solutions.

New technologies 1n this field are develop-ing rapidly with fuel production based on laser isotope separation, centrifuge or uozzle techniques that may 1n the not-too-d1stan1; future make cheap weapons-grade fuel readily available to m.ost nations. Once again we will find the technological dam broken, with nuclear facilltles and the weapons potentlal that goes witih them available to an ever-increasing number of smaller and smaller na-

5754 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE March 9, 1976 tions. Agreements among the current nuclear suppliers, no matter how stringent, will then be inadequate to achieve our non-proliferation objectives.

Perhaps the only ultimate solution to this problem will come when the nations of the world fully realize the magnitude of the danger and agree to treat non-cooperating nations just as we treat criminal elements in our society today-by isolating them when apprehended. It may be necessary to seek commitments from all nations, suppliers or not, to impose drastic trade and even communications embargoes against any nation, signatory to the NPT or not, in the event of an unauthorized diversion of nuclear fuel for weapons purposes or a nuclear explosion of any sort.

Whatever shape such an agreement might ultimately assume, two things seem clear. First, the difficulties of negotiating any such arrangement are so serious that the effort will fail in the absence of strong u.s.Soviet cooperation. Second, unless some such pact is concluded, all the nations of the world will live with a frightening potential. We simply must learn to live together within such an arrangement or we may well stand the chance of perishing together.

When Secretary Kissinger appears before us, it is my sincere hope that he will address himself to these proposals as well as any others that may allow us to emerge from the t1·u1y awesome circumstances we face. The obstacles to promoting nuclear generated electricity without developing nuclear weaponry are formidable, but not insurmountable, unless we presume them to be.

As the major developer and supplier of the benefits of nuclear energy, it is also incumbent on us to provide critical leadership to prevent the tragedy that could occur.

GHANA'S 19TH ANNIVERSARY Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, 19 years

ago the people of Ghana found themselves in the singular position of being the first colonial territory in black Africa to achieve independence. This was a challenge to which the Ghanaian people responded with courage and sacrifice. History had imposed on Ghana the role of a pioneer and pacesetter.

Since independence the people of Ghana have never failed to realize the important responsibility they owe to themselves and the people of Africa to capitalize on their freedom and independence. All people of Ghana have worked hard and diligently to improve the quality of life in their country. This determined effort has never been more evident than during the past 4 years, when the entire nation was called upon to muster all available resources to meet the people's needs. This internal program has come to be known as Self-Reliance.

Through Self-Reliance, the people of Ghana have been able to produce enough food both for themselves and for export. Today, the nation is exporting maize, a grain previously imported from the United States to meet domestic Ghanaian needs. Neighboring African states have now become markets for Ghana's surplus maize production. Ghana has also become self-sufficient in rice production with large tracts of land having been brought under cultivation. The national government has placed great emphasis on agriculture as the main avenue for a rapid and orderly development. The government leaders have continually emphasized that a well-fed nation is a nation of stability and progress.

Ghana's struggle toward economic recovery has not been without difficulties. The recent worldwide inflation caused by the oil crisis dealt a devastating blow to their economy. Some development projects had to be curtailed. or completely halted as oil prices skyrocketed to four times the pre-1973 price. Yet, Ghana has remained. undeterred by these setbacks as the policy of SelfReliance continues to be the major focal point of government efforts to exploit the nation's agricultural and raw materials potential.

In recognition of the interdependence of all nations, Ghana encourages foreign investment for all countries. The investment climate is highly favorable to foreign capital. Already, as much as 50 percent of the manufacturing and mining sectors are in the hands of foreign investors who operate side-by-side with local entrepreneurs or in partnership with the state. A measure of the success of this policy is the free operation of such U.S. corporations as Kaiser Aluminum, Fh·estone, Union Carbide, and Star-Kist.

Ghana's leaders have made it clear they pref er fair trade to aid. They are 'determined not to be dependent on external aid resources. Although they welcome such assistance, they emphasize that aid, at best, can be only a marginal supplement to their own internal efforts. Ghana's leaders believe the nation can earn the means for its own development, if fair prices are paid for commodities produced in their country. It is, therefore, understandable that Ghana and her people are concerned that the United States has yet to subscribe to the recently negotiated International Cocoa Agreement.

Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to salute the people of Ghana who celebrated their 19th anniversary just this past Saturday.

EXPORTING REVOLUTION Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. Presi

dent, a recent editorial in the Farmville Herald, entitled "Exporting Revolution," offers a timely commentary on SovietCuban aggression.

As the editorial points out: Russia is canny. The Kremlin has the

knaclc of making others do her work in revolution. The Cubans in Angola are fighting the battles for Russia with Russian military equipment and Cuban men.

The editorial continues: We are now seeing the military procedure

for future civil wars in Africa, and possibly emerging nations in other areas .••. Ca.stro and Cuba have demonstrated the plan for exporting revolution. The balance of the world should take notice and develop offsetting strategy. The most important opposition is power, plain military power, the only force that is understood by the communist system of government. In this the Russians appear to be increasing and we, the free nations, to be decreasing. Peace at any price does not last long in a bellicose world.

Mr. President, I think this editorial from the Farmville Herald should serve us au as a reminder of Soviet global ambitions.

Mr. President, at this time I ask unan-

imous consent to have this editorial printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the edito1:ial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

EXPORTING REVOLUTION

Russia is canny. The Kremlin has t he knack of making others do her work in revolution. The Cubans in Angola are fighting the battles for Russia with Russian military equipment and Cuban men. It is difficult to replace human losses, especially if they have been trained to do the job of fighting. Cubans have only about 10,000 men in Angola, but it is a highly trained army, with modern equipment. We are now seeing the military procedure for future civil wars in Africa, and possibly emerging nations in other areas.

What about Panama? Would Castro pull his veteran expendables into Panama, if the U.S. would show a weakness and indecision. Only one condition would deter him, namely to lose his backing by the Soviet Union; which is not considered a present possibility. However, some reports coming out of Cuba indicate that the people are already becoming tired of Cuban conscriptions and the news of casualties among the Cuban troops, which were purported to have been sent to train the Angolan armies. Castro brags that the Cuban fighting force will stay as long as necessary to bring total success to the Soviet backed Popular Movement for Liberation of Angola (MPLA). Most of the fighting has been done by the Cuban troops, the untrained Angolan Communists held in support.

The anti-communist forces, the Union for Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) and National Liberation Front of Angola (FNLA), supported by the Union of South Africa, are not so well equipped and trained. U.S. supplies were furnished them prior to Congressional orders to withdraw all support. This action sealed the doom of Angola. at least for the present and assured Soviet domination, through the use of Cuban troops.

Castro boasts that "we are there and we are in other places . . . We are brothers of the Africans and we are disposed to struggle for the Africans. We will be there a-s long as the Popular Republic of Angola wants and nothing more."

They will be there as long as the Kremlin orders Castro to keep them there.

The Soviet plan reveals itself in dealing with the emerging African nations. Cubans will handle the expeditionary chores, with a cadre of highly trained striking force, which will be on the scene as military advisers even before the crisis is reached. Inexperienced civil and military leaders will have been brainwashed long ahead of time. Dissenters will be liquidated. Pure, unadulterated power, military and propaganda, are loose in the world today. The Soviet Union moves in secrecy and stealth to strategic points, while committees of the U.S. Congress investigate and debate.

Castro and Cuba have demonstrated the plan for exporting revolution. The balance of the world should take notice and develop offsetting strategy. The most important opposition is power, plain military power, the only force that is understood by the communist system of government. In this the Russians appear to be increasing and we, the free nations, to be decreasing. Peace at any price does not last long in a bellicose world.

SENATOR HRUSKA SPEAKS AT LAUNCHING OF THE U.S.S."OMAHA"

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, recently the nuclear powered attack submarine, Omaha, was launched at Groton. Conn. Victoria Hruska, the wife of the distinguished senior Senator from Nebraska,

March 9, 197_6 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 5755

christened the Omaha with the assistance of her daughter, Mrs. Charles R. Fagan.

Mrs. Hruska and Mrs. Fagan were introduced by Adm. Hyman G. Rickover, the "father" of the nuclear submarine, at the ceremonies on February 21.

Senator HRUSKA gave the address at the launching and his words about our national will were very appropriate. He said in part:

Today America st ands at the crossroads of its history. We wlll either continue to display the Willingness and determination to accept the responsibilities and sacrifices that our position demands or like the shooting star will have streaked brllliantly but quickly across the pages of history and then pass into oblivion.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Admiral Rickover's introduction of Mrs. Hruska and her daughter, Senator HRUSKA's remarks and an editorial, entitled "America's Will Being Tested" which appeared in the March 1, 1976, edition of the Omaha World-Herald, be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: INTRODUCTION OF MRS. ROMAN L. HRUSKA AND

MRs CHARLES R. FAGAN, BY ADM. H. G. RICKOVER, U.S. NAVY, ON THE 0cCASION OF THE LAUNCHING OF THE NUCLEAR POWERED

ATTACK SUBMARINE "0:r.tAHA" I am happy to introduce two charming

la.dies, 1.fi's. Roman L. Hruska, who Will chrLsten the Omaha; and Mrs. Charles R. Fagan, her daughter and matron of honor.

But first I would like to speak about Senator Hruska, a man for whom I have much admiration.

Senator Hruska ls a man who acts on knowledge and principle, not on personality. He has the qualities of courage, leadership, and determination. There Ls no affectation in him, no false humility. He knows his capaci· ties and takes pride in them. He is a prodigious worker who has gained the respect of his colleagues on the Senate Judiciary and Senate Appropriations Committees.

He has been a consistent supporter of a strong national defense. As he has stated in the Senate, "We want our military strength to be entirely equal to the challenges facing this Nation, so that our security and that of our allies can never be in doubt."

With sadness I note the Senator's plans to retire at the conclusion of this, the 94th Congress. It is fitting on this occasion to pay tribute to his outstanding service which he began as a member of the House of Representatives in 1953 and has continued as a Senator since 1955.

Mrs. Hruska, whose maiden name was Victoria Kuncl, is a native of Omaha. She was educated in the Omaha public schools and the University of Nebraska. The Hruskas celebrated their 45th wedding anniversary several months ago and are the parents of Roman Jr. in California, Quentin in New Jersey, and Jana, who is with us from Washingt-on today as matron of honor.

l\Irs. Hruska's years in Washington have been busy, exciting, and happy. In addition to helping the Senator in his election campaigns, this gracious lady has been active in the Congressional Club, the Republican Congressional Wives Club, and the Ladies of the Senate. She is also act ive in a garden club in Arlington, Virginia.

Mrs. Hruska is looking forward to returning to Omaha. She says: "We belong in Nebraska. That's where all our old friends t\re, that 's home."

Mrs. Charles R. Fagan, the former Jana Hruska, will assist her mother today. This attractive lady, who graduated from the University of Nebraska.. is another example of the contribution to public service this family has made. ~fi's. Fagan has an Important position in the executive branch of the government at the White House.

I present to you Mrs. Hruska, who with the assistance of Jana, will christen the Omaha.

REl\1ARKS BY SENATOR Ro:MAN L. HRUSKA AT THE LAUNCHING OF THE U.S.S. "OMAHA" It is a great honor for Mrs. Hruska and me

to participate in the launching of the nuclear powered attack submarine the USS Omaha. Mrs. Hruska and I grew up in Omaha, went to school in Omaha and maintain our residence in Omaha so we feel right at home on the USS Omaha. We are especlally pleased to see so many of our fellow Nebraskans who have traveled far to be with us today on this historic occasion.

That thLs launching should take place here in New England during the celebration of the two-hundredth anniversary of the birth of our nation has for me a special significance. For it was in New England that the spark of liberty was first struck. Nowhere in the 13 colonies did that flame burn brighter than here. Nowhere were more eloquent voices raised in support of the concepts that a people had the right to establish their own government, that an individual had the right to chart the course of hLs own destiny.

Two hundred years lat-er the names of Adams, Hancock, Allen and Hale, to recall but a few, still bring to mind those brave New Englanders who risked personal safety and fortune in order to give bh·th to the American nation.

For two centuries that nation, conceived in liberty, blessed by bountiful resources, inhabited by hard-working men and women, protected from foreign intervention by two huge oceans and guided by the wisdom of its founding fathers, has grown and prospered. Today, as we celebrate our Bicentennial, the United States represents the most powerful, dynamic, economic, political and military force ever recorded in the history of mankind.

With this position, however, has come responsibilities on a scale never before assumed by any people. Today, the United States stands as the guardian of Western Civilization. Our combined economic strength, military power and political leadership ls the most important single factor in holding in check the forces that would destroy everything that free men everywhere hold dear.

Given modern ma.n's capacity for unimaginable destruction, wise men follow a policy which, while resisting these forces of aggression, also seeks those areas of common concern where cooperation Ls possible in order to lessen the chances of mutual selfdestruction.

In so doing, however, we must remember that the process of fostering a climate to encourage ideological change and curb the ag· gressive nature of our antagonists is slow and fraught with pitfalls.

It ls only through the maintenance of a powerful defense system that we can provide an incentive for such change because without it the threat will surely become a horri fying reality.

Unfortunately, in recent times it has become fashionable to downplay that threat. Some Americans have become too sophisticated, too secm·e, and too compliant to recogmze the danger posed to our way of life. Instead, they seek to dism1ss and belittle those who point out these dangers as "cold war warriors", members of the industrialmilita.ry complex or 19th century thinkers. They ridicule the warnings of these vision-

aries, who, like Churchill in the 1930's, see the dark and foreboding storm clouds gathering in the distance.

They seek to shrink from the responsibilities attached to great power status; responsibll1tles which few of us sought but from which nevertheless we cannot escape unless we were to cease being a great power. These Americans regard the maintenance of the most powerful defense system and a vigorous foreign policy as outdated and unnecessary in this modern age. To them the bitter lessons of the past, replete with examples of once great nations slipping rapidly into a perm.anent decline, hold no meaning.

Tragically, this point of view, although not shared by the vast majority of the American people, currently has widespread support within the Congress. But it ls nevertheless erroneous.

Thus, today America stands at the crossroads of its history. We Will either continue to display the willingness and determination to accept the responsibilities and sacrlfies that our position demands or like the shooting star wlll have streaked brllllantly but quickly across the pages of history and then pass into oblivion.

Somerset l\faugham once wrote, "If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom and the irony of it is that if it ls comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that too."

For my part, however, I still firmly believe that the American people value their freedom above all else and Will accept any necessary hardships to maintain lt. Hopefully, those Americans who have lost faith with the traditional American values will once again hear the echoes from the past, New Englanders !rom John Adams to John Kennedy, calling upon America to continue its journey on her path of glory.

So my fellow Americans, let us view the USS Omaha and the brave, dedicated men who will maintain their lonely vigil on board her as living examples of the truth that Americans still have the ability and determination to protect the freedoms won for them by our founding fathers and safeguarded throughout the years by other great patriots.

As President Ford said in his State of the Union Message, "Like our forefathers we know that if we meet the challenges of our o,vn time with a common sense of purpose and conviction-If we remain true to our Constitution and our ideals-then we can know that the future will be better than the past."

Let it be in that sph·it that v.e launch the USS Omaha.

[From the Omaha World-Herald ] AMERICA'S Wn.L BEING TESTED

Somerset Maugham once wrote: "If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom and the irony of it Is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it Will lose that, too."

Sen. Roman Hruska recalled the quotation the other day while speaking at launching ceremonies for the nuclear submarine USS Omaha at Groton, Conn.

Hruska offered these words of advice: "Some Americans have become too sophis

ticated, too secure and too compliant to recognize the danger posed to our way of life. Instead, they seek to dismiss and belittle those who point out these dangers as 'cold war warriors,' members of the industrlalmilitary complex or 19th Century thinkers.

"They ridicule the warnings of these visionaries who, like Churchill in the 1930s, see the dark and foreboding storm clouds gathering in the distance. They seek to shrink from the responsibilities attached to great power status; responsibilities few of us sought but from which nevertheless we cannot escape unless we are to cease being a great power."

5756 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE March 9, 19, 6

The Nebraska. senator said that these people regard the maintenance of the most powerful defense system and a. vigorous foreign policy a-s outdated and unnecessary in thiS n1odern age.

"To them the bitter lessons of the past, replete with examples of once-great nations slipping rapidly into a permanent decline, hold no meaning," Hruska went 011.

"Tragically, this point of view, although not shared by the vast majority of the American people, currently has widespread support within the Congress."

Hruska said Americans must either "continue to display the willingness and determination to accept the responsibilities and sacrifices that our position demands or, like the shooting star, will have streaked brilliantly but quickly across the pages of history and then into oblivion."

Hruska said he firmly believes that the American people value their freedom above all else and will accept the hardships necessary to maintain it.

Hruska's words are timely. After Vietnam and Angola, other tests of the American will are sure to come.

APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN CLUB MARKS CENTENNIAL

Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. President, as our Nation celebrates this Bicentennial Year, it is entirely :fitting that we take a few moments to salute the first 100 years of the Appalachian Mountain Club.

Renowned for its "esprit de corps," the AMC is a remarkable organization comprised of citizens who recognize that our mountains and forests are a precious heritage which can truly elevate man's spirit.

While always respectful of nature's grandeur, AMC members recognize that changing times have bestowed upon all of us an ever mounting responsibility to protect and enhance the "hill country" for the use of future generations.

From its early beginnings AMC club members marveled at the beauty of sunrise or sunset from mountain ledges. But club members were also interested in mountain surveying and hikers today owe much to AMC explorers of the 19th century. We in New Hampshire, blessed with the expansive White Mountains region, can now trek trails and make use of a series of shelters which were only dreams of early AMC members. Moreover, hundreds and probably thousands of hikers have been rescued from mountain wilderness areas by AMC rescue teams. In this regard, I should note that the club initiated a mountain leadership workshop in 1959 which has been attended by hundreds of safety-minded hikers, camp counselors and others who lead group hikes.

Since its charter in 1876, AMC has welcomed many thousands of members whose activities through various chapters now off er a considerable management challenge. AMC president, Ruby Horwood, and Tom Deans, AMC's executive director, are now undertaking a series of membership surveys to help AMC in setting goals to guide the club's future in these challenging and changing times.

Whatever the outcome of those surveys, I am certain AMC will continue to be guided by the spirit embodied in the introductory paragraph of the preamble

to the charter of the Appalachian Mountain Club. As the club's founders noted, AMC was organized early in 1876 "for the advancement of the interests of those who visit the mountains of New England and adjacent regions, whether for the purpose of scientific research or summer recreation. The club will carry on a systematic exploration of the mountains of New England and adjacent regions, publishing its result-5 from time to time, and will collect books, maps, photographs, sketches and all available information of interest or advantage to frequenters of the mountains. It will encourage the opening of new paths, clearing of summits from which views may be obtained, and other improvements."

Certainly the club has succeeded far beyond the dreams of its founders. And its members face the new challenges of AMC's second century with a confidence unique to those who "betake themselves as early as may be to the hill-country, with eyes open to receive every inspiration of beauty and grandeur that can elevate the soul and make man himself grander and more beautiful."

Mr. President, to help my colleagues understand more of the efforts of AMC, I ask unanimous consent that two articles from the club's January bulletin "Appalachia" be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

IN THE NECK OF THE HOURGLASS

(By W. Kent Olson) His schedule looks something like this:

9 a.m. staff meeting at Pinkham Notch, New Hampshire; 12 P.M. meeting in Augusta, Maine, with the state's governor; 3:30 meeting in Portland, Maine, with the chairman of the Maine Chapter; 6 P.M. flight to Philadelphia for a business meeting with AMC President Ruby Horwood; 11: 30 P.M. checking into the howl; 6:30 A.M. rising for 8:30 flight to Washington for a day full of meetings with members of the New England Congressional Delegation; 4:30 flight to Boston to meet with staff at Joy Street, attend Land Use and Fundraising Committee meetings; 8:15 P.M. meeting to welcome 230 new members in the Boston area .••

The man who makes that schedule worlcsometimes smoothly, sometimes falteringlyis Thomas S. Deans, Executive Director of the 23,000 member Appalachian Mountain Club. At 35, Deans is possibly one of the youngest people ever to direct a major national conservation/outings organization. That's a responsibility he takes seriously, and one to which he has committed not only long hours and som'etimes superhuman dedication, but also one which seems the natural culmination of over 19 years avocational and professional contribution to the Club.

Deans is a Mainer-born, raised and educated in New England's largest--and certainly its wildest--state. He took his baccalaureate in History and Government in 1936 at the University of Maine at Orono. While there, he met Dorcas Hendershot, who later became Mrs. Penny Deans. The couple has two children, Nathaniel and Tabitha, and presently resides in Intervale, New Hampshire.

Throughout most of high school and college years, Deans worked in his neighboring state, New Hampshire, as an AMC hutman, starting as a crewman, working his way to Hutmaster at the MIC's Greenleaf Hut on Mt. Lafayette, and finally to the position of special assistant to the Huts Manager. After college graduation, he left the AMC briefly

to enter a Sears and Roebuck executive training program, but quickly decided that the potentially lucrative corporate world didn't interest him. He sought, rather, what he calls his "personal kind of high": seeing "the feel I have for the mountains and rivers develop in people." In 1964, then Executive Director C. Francis Belcher hired Deans as his assistant at the AMC's Joy Street office in Boston.

On January 1, 1975, Tom Deans became AMC Executive Director. As this Appalachia Bulletin is published, he has just finished his first year in the neck of the hourglass, that less than comfortable spot that requires its inhabitant to possess the skills of a manager, the acumen of a philosopher and the wile of a politician. Besides owning a pretty good mix of all three, he is a self-styled humanist who tends to inject--even into the tensest of business situations--that modicum of human concern without which no really good leader could maintain credibility, particularly in a constituency i::o varied as the AMC.

Recently, a New England regional magazine applauded the Club on its choice of chief executive, commenting tbat Deans is respected both by the older, more tenured AMCers, and the younger, recently initiated members. Indeed, as the Club membership swells, Deans sees himself in an increasingly critical position, having to meld an enormous legacy-"a record of amazing acoomplishment"-with a challenging future that has been gestating over the last half decade.

Deans is a. doer, a subtle revolutionary, an electric manager. As AMC Associate Executive Director, he conceived-guided by a volunteer advisory Board-the Club's first regional office, a move which assimilated the Hut System and Trails operation into the larger AMC, after decades of autonomy. In addition, Deans catalyzed the development of new fulltime education and planning programs, each based at the regional office. This move brought the Huts, Trails, Education and Planning sectors of the Club together, in smooth operation, within two years of the 1971 inception of the Northern New England Regional Office. The operational base built, he went on to broaden the AMC objectives to include on-going scientific research, a. higher profile in regional land use problems, increased participation in cooperative agreements with federal and state agencies, expanded support to Chapters and reorganization of the budgetary structure of the Club. (Until very recently, the AMC budget was never consolidated on one piece of paper!)

To a-0complish all this, Deans and hiS volunteer partners drew together the AMC's two strongest resources: other committed volunteers and a. corps of spirited professionals. The latter has been a. source of considerable controversy. Deans' detractors think he is "empire building"-the staff numbers nearly forty year-round, and inflates to approximately two hundred in the summer months-while his sympathizers think current professional support is insufficient. Maintenance o! present programs ls severely hampered by the dearth of professionals ( ea.ch of whom must contribute sizeable chunks of voluntary time to get most jobs done) , and additional programs are frequently squelched, even if they can be fully justified within the framework of existing AMC objectives.

On the whole, though, the volunteer-professional marriage has survived, even prevailed. And programs Deans has personally begun or been involved in setting up have become venerable endeavors. Some, like the AMC Carry-In Carry-Out program, have produced visible results; others, like the unique Yout h Opportunities Program and the Proposal for Dispersed Recre~tlon for the Delaware Valley have shown less palpable but perhaps more significant progress, and are particularly good examples of volunteer commitments supported by professional expertise.

.March 9, 19, 6 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENA TE 5757

But, the real job ahead for the new Executive Director is to provide professional direction for the AMC as it commences its Second Century. As Deans sees it, the organization's greatest p1·oblem is "knowing itself." He says "The Club needs to re-state and re-evaluate 1ts purposes." He agrees with former President William A. King's idea. that the AMC is "a. loosely knit federation" of different interests. There is, Deans continues, "a union of diversity. And no one has to feel he is giving up his particular interest in the Club . . . There are hundreds of special things that should be preserved, but which interrelate in the larger whole."

Effectively managing those interrelations"getting it together"-is the crux. Internally, that means collective rededication to Club purposes as articulated by the Founders, and a tangible movement in support of more contemporary objectives and future goals. (A formal set of goals is currently being framed by the Club's Long Range Planning Committee, chaired by Vice-President Norman Deans, we must confront several issues: 1) the Club's fiscal condition (There are many pulls on the AMC's million and a quarter dollar budget. 2) on-going volunteerism (While new members enter the Club at a rate of 3,000 a year, most of the 70 official AMC standing committees are having difficulty cultivating new participants; the problem is just as acute in committees within Chapters.) 3) allocation of dollars for competing Club needs. 4) membership admission (A sharp philosophical line separates those members who feel the two-sponsor system should be continued, and those who support "open" membership, even recruitment, to bring the Club to some perceived optimum size.)

In addition to the AMC's internal priorities, Deans feels the organization's outward posture-its public service aspect--needs equally ha.rdnosed management. "I want us to do a quality job, not to spread ourselves so thinly that we do a mediocre job in a lot of things, not letting down on past commitments unless it's by design."

Ironically, some staffers and volunteers a.like find Deans himself spread too thinly. He. evidences such a frenetic business style, coupled wtth an equally active personal 1·egimen, that key workers frequently wonder what new projects will befall them after a Deans excursion into Club hinterlands.

In quieter moments though, Deans is as demanding and critical of himself as he is of staff, conceding that he, his staff and the Club generally, must "concentrate resources on those things in which we're uniquely qualified to do the be-st job." Among those, he lists backcountry management, selfpropelled recreational opportunities, scientific research, publishing, public education, land use and conservation. The degree to which the AMC continues its historical commitment in these areas, and the success of each commitment will devolve to Deans' ability to manage tws growing ganglion of activity. The hard choices, he s~ys, will come in establishing priorities.

If it were not for this personal visionone which drew him into environmental work in the first place-much of the kinetic energy thrown out by the AMC might just dissipate uselessly. But, like other conservationists before him--John Muir most notably-Deans is able to discern interconnectedness, that thin thread which seems to tie together men to other men, issues to other issues, the AMC to the "real" world. While he acknowledges that mankind is "having trouble perceiving the bigness of conservation problems" he sees-and his close friends say they can see an idea almost ignite in his eyes-where the AMC can flt into this "com-plex scenario for true international conservation." Resource protection married to good management is the prime theme in his sermon, and the major plank in the AMC's pub-

lie service platform. He points out that among other organizations and agencies, de· mand for AMC consultations and services is increasing.

Under Deans, the AMC may very well fill an ecological niche that has not only gone unfilled, but unacknowledged on national and international levels, Former Appalachia editor Philip D. Levin calls that niche-Deans' vision-"second echelon environmentalism", or once-the-land-has-been-saved, how-doyou-keep-it-from-being-loved-to-death - by -its-saviors?

To fully develop the Club·s management objectives, Deans is looking toward a selfiess volunteer corps for direction, and toward a zealous, and largely young staff for support and follow through. Working together-and with a strong orientation toward management-we'll have what few other organizations can claim as they confront the enormous challenges of the seventies and beyond: "the element of reality."

Thomas Deans has been thrown into the breach at what is perhaps the AMC's most critical juncture. A hundred years has drawn to a close; a new Century lies ahead. The new Executive Director will probably have more to say-and do-about the next hundred years than any other AMCer. He knows full well that the strength of the Club must evolve from continuing its traditionally solid programs--0utings, huts, camps, membership activities and services. Yet he knows, too, that it is only from an enlightened, sometimes painful process of developing newer goals, that growth and maturity can finally come. Even for the oldest mountaineering Club in America.

"BETAKE YOURSELF TO THE HILL-COUNTRY"

(By Patricia. Neill) Piclccring, Scudder, Hench, Walling, Pour

tale, Hitchcock, Fay, Moose, Ragged, Deer, Hunchback, Frog Mt., Paugus, Great Bog, Grand Trunk Railroad. The mixed sounds of the early AMC crescendo as we enter our Centennial Year, and we're curious about that hundred years: the people who founded the Club, the places they explored, the phi· losophies they formulated as they gathered by brick fireplaces in Boston homes or on the ledges of some newly climbed peak.

Ia jamis, we'll try to unravel the story behind that nucleus of AMCers who committed themselves in 1876 to the glorification of New England's Natural History. The founders' farreaching ambitions are described with wonderful dignity, refreshing modesty and an of-course-we-can confidence in the AMC Charter and first Annual Report reprinted in this month's "Open Door." They aimed not just to study, but to explore the untamed frontiers of the Northeast. For motivation, they looked north, urging "all the fraternity to betake themselves as early as may be to the hill-country, with eyes open to receive every inspiration of beauty and grandeur thf!,t can elevate the soul and make man himself grander and more beautiful."

Today's members are descended from a highly unconventional breed of people. The first Appies puffed up unnamed mountains and crossed previously unknown rivers. They scoured rough valleys and camped in formidable terrain. Hearty pioneers, they charted much of the wild North Country of New England that intimidated nineteenth century society.

Traces of the old Club can be found amidst heaps of computerized dues bills and latex maps which now form a familiar backdrop for the Seventies' routine at Five Joy St. headquarters. One day we found some rusty tin cups with "A.M.C. ·• inscribed in the bottom, on the top shelf in the mailroom. The Joy St. master keys have rattled away in a fantastic old brass canister for years. (This canister, an old-time "summit register," in which climbers once tucked messages for each other, was left on mountain summits

for communication purposes.) A third floor office in the building hosts a huge wooden bureau that houses an unthinkaoly grand set of photographs by Vittorio Sella. The Club's mountaineering library has managed to keep up with the times, but glossy-covered paperbacks are still upstaged by old black volumes, scattered about, telling stories of bygone yea.rs. And pages of APPALACHIAS, like parchment, are often crinkled and yellowed by time, the book inscriptions in them still legible in old-fashioned curlycue script.

As we look at the broader base of Club history, we might ask what evidence our ancestors have left at the White Mountain Huts. And what souvenirs do the camps keep? The contrast between now and then is brilliant. Think of the challenge before a club President whose prime concern was that the mountains-where we've now planted trail transects, water bars and cribs, tent platforms and caretakers-be officially named! As we strive to balance the 1976 budget, can we imagine that Club dues was once only $2 per year? And what was conservation really like back when words like "backcountry management" and "National Wild and Scenic Rivers System" would have been meaningless, outrageous terms?

The Centennial Year is a time to realize how far the AMC has come. Through janus, we'll be Sherlocking our way into the AMC's past, comparing the colorful activities of the early Apples with current Club programs. We'll discover some of the magic in that public service program that has endured for 100 years, and become better acquainted with the strong, ambitious breed that conceived a remarkable organization, kept it alive, andin a complicated, progressive century-valid.

The AMC has blazed a mighty trail in a rugged frontier. There's a lot to celebrate, so get out your magnifying glasses-this ought to be fun.

RETffiED EXECUTIVES HELP SMALL FIRMS

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Aging and as its former chairman, I have long had a healthy respect for the energies and talents of older Americans.

In fact, my legislation for a "Senior Service Corps" led directly to the establishment of programs which now are enlisting tens of thousands of retirees as volunteers or part-time employees in community service programs.

Recently The Record of Hackensack, N.J., ran an article describing the valuable services being performed by members of the Bergen County, N.J., Service Corps of Retired Executives-SCORE. These members are retired businessmen who give free advice to small businesses and nonprofit organizations.

I would like to share this article; it describes the esprit of the participants, as well as the value of the services they perform. I ask unanimous consent to have the article printed in the RECORD.


[From the Hackensack (N.J.) Record, Feb. 5, 1976)

RETIRED EXECUTIVES OFFER ADVICE: HELPING

SMALL FIRMS

(By Ron Stepneski) Anthony Triolo says be used to be a soft

hearted boss and bad businessman who almost lost his Wallington trucking firm through his own ineptitude.

That changed, he says, when he was helped

5758 CONG~SSIONAL llECORD-.SENATE March 9, 1976 by the Bergen County chapter of the Service Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE), a. group ol retired businessmen who give free advice to small businesses and non-profit organizations.

"I was head over heels in debt, and a lot of people thought I wasn't going to survive," Triolo says. "I figured I'm a terrl1lc truck driver but a lousy businessman. That's the way it ls !or guys who come up fron:i the bottom.

"But SCORE showed me how to run a. business projection, how to pay bills that have to be paid, when to get or not to get financing. They went over my books and counseled me on the operation. I was a so.ftie type of boss, and they said I'd have. to get a little hard, which I did."

They also helped Triolo budget the repayment of a. $150,000 loan he received through the federal Small Business Adm.1nlstration. SCORE'S executives are actually the volunteer arm of the SBA.

"Fortunately, I'm on my feet now," Triolo said recently. "It's not a bed of roses, but I'm meeting my obligations."

MEET IN ENGLEWOOD

The 10-member SCORE chapter, which meets Tuesday mornings in the Englewood Urban League offices at 106 W. Palisade Ave., helps some 150 small businesses ea.ch year.

According to government statistics, nine out o! 10 small businesses !ail in their first ftve years. SCORE was founded in the mid-1960s in an attempt to reverse that trend.

Though they have yet to put a substantial dent in the statistic, the Bergen chapter, founded seven years a.go, claims to be successful about 50 per cent o! the time.

"We find that we're able with our long business experience to pinpoint problems and analyze them !or people who want to start their own business or are already in business," says Ted Ignall, 67, o! Hackensack. "Between the gang of us, we can usually come up with some answers."

The men gather around a conference table like a board of directors. They listen to the stories of those who seek counseling, such as Eno Salo, a Suffern subcontractor who had been waiting six months !or a $31,000 payment for one Job. The advice he got was tough and direct.

Charlie Cayten, 70, of Englewood, was general credit manager for the General Tire and Rubber Company for 35 years. He told Salo to go to the debtor's bank and pry out a financial statement.

"You go to the bank and say, 'Listen, me and two other creditors can drive this company into bankruptcy and we want to see what you know,'" Cayten said. "Since the bank doesn't want its account to go bankrupt, it will probably cooperate.

"If they don't pay in 90 days, take action," he said. "Go to an attorney or collection agency and get the thing done."

FOLLOW-UP VALUABLE

They're also happy to help a. new business get off the ground.

"The folloW'-up is the most valuable part of what they do when they come to the store," says Bea Weston of '!'he Bea. Hive craft gallery and gift shop in Teaneck.. "They projected, based on our first two months o! business, how much business we would do in the holiday season, and they were almost on target.

"They showed us how to mark labels, the percentage of gross to spend on advertising how to deal with inventory and turnover, when to reduce merchandise and more. Business is successful and terrific, and the things they told us were very valuable."

The executives say they derive tren1endous satisfaction from helping the small companies.

"It's intellectually stimulating because you don't feel as 1! you're on the shell' after retirement," said George Smith. "There's a

tremendous transition from daily activity to zero activity. and you've got to fill the time. It's nice 1.f the time you spend ts related to your business life. You could stagnate otherwise. As my wife says, 'I married you for better or worse. but not for lunch.'"

Mike Loebelson, 71, of Tea.neck says: "When you've been in business long enough, one of the pleasures you realize 1s bringing up people behind you. It's Just the feeling of doing something nice for someone."

One of the major problems with the program 1s the turnover of executive personnel because of seniors moving to warmer cllmates, or stepping down because of poor health.

But seniors in the program accept those occurrences as Just another part o! the overall experience of life.

"It's a matter of how you accept things," says Ted Ignall. "Some people fight old age from 40 years on. Others accept it gracefully.

"We who accept it gracefully, meet regularly, and help people get satisfaction out of that," he said. "We're the well-adjusted ones."

SCHOOL AID

Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. President, at the time that Executive budget requests were received by the Congress I expressed concern over the direction that seemed indicated by the character of the funding planned for the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. In an editorial on March 8 the editors of the New York Times expressed similar questions, particularly in respect to education. Although Ronald Reagan's threat to abolish the U.S. Office of Education seems to be receding, an equally unf ortunate fate may overtake the Nation's schoolchildren unless Congress thoroughly understands the nature of the budget proposals.

The Times editorial raises questions that need answers before Congress acts on the budget. I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the RECORD.


UNDERMINING SCHOOL Am In the now familiar jargon of the war

against Washington, President Ford has told Congress that his new school aid bill would "allow people at the state and local level to stop worrying about entangling Federal red tape and turn full attention to educating our youth."

The way this ls to be accomplished ls by consolidating 24 existing Federal aid programs into a single block grant to be used at the state's discretion. It 1s an educational adaptation of revenue sharing.

The benefits of that liberation from Washington, Mr. Ford suggests, would make up for the fact that, considering inflation, he ls proposing an actual reduction in aid dollars. Even the projected rise for each of the subsequent two years would barely bring the total back to last year's level in purchasing power.

The existing aid categories range from specific funds for the disadvantaged. which at present constitute almost two-thirds of the total aid package, to a variety of programs for the handicapped, adult education, library resources. work-study projects, etc.

While it is true that the President's proposal requires 75 percent of all Federal funds to be directed to the needs of the educationally deprived and handicapped, this would not prevent states and localities from eliminating entire categories which were de-

signed specifically to aid the disadvantaged. While the new legislation contains the threat- of a "flexible- penalty provision" to prevent states · from shortchanging the needy, this looks· like a merely pro forma warning as it 1s difficult to see how the new Federal monitoring apparatus would differ from the present inadequate one.-

The existing aid program 1s not sacrosanct. Specifl.c categories call for periodic review, modification or replacement by newly pertinent ones. Excessive red tape should obviously be eliminated.

But the fact remains that the categorical approach was rendered necessary in the first place by local and state insensitivity to the needs of the poor, the minorities and the urban centers a.s . well as by an inherent reluctance. to innovate. The prevailing mood of retreat from liberal social reforms suggests that this ls the wrong time to dlm1nish the Federal responsibility.

Ironically, the least defensible categorical subsidy-"impact aid" for school districts containing large numbers of children of Federal employees--would be retained as a sweetener for those in Congress who have always liked this largely obsolete pork barreL

• • • • .. As Congress considers the probable conse

quences of Mr. Ford's new federalism applied to education, it would do well to review a.n analysis of how "block grant" funds have been used since 1972, based on study o! some sixty communities throughout the South, and first published by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

The study reveals that newly won freedom from Washington has frequently been turned into an opportunity to .scuttle social programs. Contrary to the romantic picture painted by Mr. Ford, no-strings allocation of funds, instead of giving people greater options to run their local affairs, have (in the words o! the report) "helped insulate government from citizens." It has enabled local politicans to decide how to spend money without regard for public opinion.

Such disregard of social needs and responsibilities is deplorable in any area of public financing; it ls a matter of extreme concern in education, which remains indispensable to all efforts to erase injustice and alleviate poverty. The Nixon Admlnistration initiated and President Ford is trying to perpetuate the line that pin-pointe_d attack on the breeding places of discrimination and deprivation is a futile or improper Federal activity.

This 1s an ideological distortion contradicted by the evidence. It leaves the President's school aid proposal fiscally inadequate and strategically ill-conceived.

NORTH DAKOTA'S ABILITY COUNTS CONTEST FOCUSES ON THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE HANDICAPPED

Mr. BURDICK. Mr. President, each year the North Dakota Governor's Committee on Employment of the Handicapped sponsors an "Ability Counts" writing contest for high school students.

This year the winner is Ms. Karen Ann Rehwaldt of Grand Forks, N.D. She has written a very insightful article p1·ofili.ng the life and work of Ed Christensen, a blind vocational counselor in North Dakota. It is an inspiring essay and illustrates how much can be accomplished through determination and positive thinking. I commend this article to my colleagues, and i ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the article

~March 9, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 5759

was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,

as follows: ESSAY BY KAREN ANN REHWALDT

"I may have been able to do more things, better things, if I'd had my sight. But why wish? That's like saying if I was faster, I could win gold medals in the Olympics. If you want to play 'if,' you can do that all the 1·est of you life and while you're playing that game--nothing's getting done."

Ed Christensen is one man who has never played that game and has gone on to forge a profile of achievement. Ed, blinded 18 years ago in a hunting accident, is now a rehabilitation counselor for the blind and the first non-sighted administrator for a training program for adult blind in the state.

Ed has been named the state's outstanding employed handicapped citizen; he camps, swims and hikes as a Boy Scout leader; he's organized a Boy Scout troop for handicapped boys at the State School for the Blind and has received three of the highest scouting leadership awards in the nation; he has held all of the highest offices in both church and Disabled American Veteran's activities and chaired local, state and national rehabilitation organizations; Ed has received a personal call from Governor Art Link appointing him to the Governor's Committee on Employment for the Handicapped; and he has established a job bank for the blind as well as setting up a DAV scholarship program at a university.

Of the 18 people I interviewed who often come in contact with Ed, including, among others, his family, a university athletic director, DAV officials, civil leaders, Boy Scout leaders, and a pastor, all reached the same conclusion-that Ed has overcome a tremendous handicap, not so much from a. physical standpoint, but from the standpoint of conquering society's attitude toward the handicapped person's abillties.

Society, Ed explains, often pre-decides that handicapped people are nonfunctional. "This assumption means, if you can't see, you can't do a,b,c,d,e. . .-they've got a whole list! I 1·an into this problem when I was going through grade school. Two men, 'supposedly' educated men, both with PHD's, had made up their minds that a blind man shouldn't be attempting college and made things very difficult for me."

Ed also ra.n into such a barrier when for three straight years he wrote a total of 275 job applications and never got one reply. Ed describes his initial attitude as "lousy ... I had a pretty miserable outlook on life." But he broke that barrier along with the many other obstacles, and through his work as a counselor, civil leader, and public speaker has gone on to make the public aware that handicapped people ca.11 be productive.

This awareness has touched both of the local leaders of the Teamster and Laborer unions who commented that Ed has changed their perspectives concerning handicapped people's capabilities to make a living.1

Speaking for Governor Link, a key official, Colonel Gagnon, remarked, "Ed promotes others to hire the handicapped by his own example of gainful employment. He makes them aware that the handicapped can do more than just sell pencils.''

Still there are those handicapped individuals who portray a hopeless, helpless image. Ed feels it's these individuals who do more harm than good by reinforcing negative feelings in the public eye. "I know it gets discouraging. In fact, I'm the first one to admit that there are some jobs the handicapped just cant' do, but there are more vocations they can do than can't. Yet employers often hire the handicapped out of sy1npathy when instead they should be hiring and firing on the basis of qualification."

1 Arvin Kvasager and Jay Graba, respectively.

But Ed emphasized that proper training is necessary for the handicapped to become functional, as was pointed out by the local vocational rehabilitation director Ken VanBeek. "Ed is always concerned a.bout handicapped people. If he's knowledgeable about someone who is handicapped, even if it isn't in the area of visual impairments, he makes every effort he can to make sure that this individual does get rehabilitation training.''

In promoting this philosophy Ed has helped many handicapped individuals obtain thei1· goals. As Cora Como, one of the employees under Ed's program observed, "He motivates handicapped people to do things they think they can't.'' On the other hand she also pointed out that Ed is realistic. "It doesn't bother Ed to say, 'I know I can't do this because I can't see.' He'll try anything, but he doesn't do things foolishly.''

Supporting this data is Superintendent of the State School for the Blind Chuck Borchert who said, "The high school kids here sometimes get pretty discouraged with their potential. They ask 'What can I do, what's going to happen to me when I get through school and grow up?' All we have to do is point to people like Ed Christensen and say 'If he can do it why can't you?'"

One of Ed's .achievements which often serves as such an inspiration to blind students was pointed out by Dr. Edgar Hauntz, an internationally recognized diabetic specialist: "Ed has developed an outstanding program and has more or less attracted national attention for probably the best blind instruction program for diabetics in the country."

Yet in view of all his accomplishments Ed still likes to see himself as pretty much an ordinary person. "If you want to be knightin-shining-armourish you can always say that I'm an inspiration to people not handicapped. But I like to think of myself as just a guy-nothing fantastic."

Nevertheless, the people who come in contact with Ed don't think of him as an ordinary guy. Rod Ringbloom, a man blinded as an adult and then counseled and motivated by Ed to the point where he is now a rehabilitation counselor said, "It's the fact that Ed is Ed, the fact that he can be the epitome for some of us in our goals and in helping us obtain these goals that makes him so great. He has a tremendous inner sense of feeling toward people and goes out of his way to help others. All you can say is that Ed is all of the fine adjectives that anyone could pick."

Ed Christensen has not only adjusted to his own handicap but is helping other people to do the same. As vocational rehabilitation counselor Elaine Wallace remarked about Ed, "He's doing more things and more interesting things now that he's blind, he's gone places and done things he probably never would have done without being handicapped."

Ed's most outstanding achievement is more than just his important contributions to society. His real achievement is turning disabilities into assets. Whether you're handicapped or not, this is what a real "Profile of Achievement" is all about.

THE AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FUND

Mr. DOMENIC!. Mr. President, in om· consideration of H.R. 9721 concerning the replenishment of the Inter-American Development Bank and U.S. participation in the African Development Fund I intend to offer an amendment which would direct the U.S. Governor to the African Development Fund to cause the Executive Director representing the United States to vote against any loan, any extension of fina.ncial assistance, or any technical assistance to any country

which provides or which has consistently provided refuge for any individual who has committed an act of international terrorism, including the hijacking of an aircraft, or to any country which has consistently supported or encouraged groups or organizations advocating or engaging in international terrorism.

Mr. President, I recognize that the kind of aid contemplated under the African Development Fund is intended for the poorest nations of Africa. I also am aware that the U.S. contribution to the African Development Fund has been criticized in light of the anti-American sentiments of some African countries and because members of the African Bank retain 50 percent voting power in the African Development Fund while contributing slightly more than 5 percent of the funds. In spite of this, I believe that the cost of U.S. participation in the African Development Fund is relatively small when weighed against the potential benefits of a strengthened U.S. economic presence in an area of need and of growing importance and demonstration of U.S. concern and participation in the economic development of the continent. My amendment is intended to convey the concern of the Congress and provide policy direction for dealing with the difficult problem of international terrorism by preventing loans and assistance to countries which grant refuge to terrorists or which are sympathetic to terrorist groups or organizations.

We all know that all nations are vulnerable to terrorist violence as such attacks to disrupt international transportation, communications, commerce, and in some instances diplomatic relations. We all know that both preventive measures and the punishment of terrorists become complicated, if not impossible to achieve, when such attacks occur under the jurisdiction of third states or when terrorists are granted asylum by sympathetic states.

As I see it, there are two basic approaches to the problem of international terrorism: One has to do with unilateral improvement of internal security which requires striking a balance between reasonable protection and costs on the one hand, and individual freedom on the other. The second basic approach to the problem of terrorism involves international action to punish terrorists as a deterrent to future violence or to create the conditions which would discourage nations from providing refuge or from supporting individual terrorists or terrorist groups and organizations.

My amendment to H.R. 9721 will serve to put nations on notice that the U.S. representative to the African Development Fund will vote against making loans or providing assistance to nations which, by their individual actions, defy or undermine international efforts to deal with the growing danger of international terrorism.

I urge my colleagues to consider these issues carefully and support this amend .. ment at the proper time.

THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. President, one of

the most perceptive observers in America

5760 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE is Joseph Kraft, whose columns are syndicated in a large number of newspapers. In an article that appeared on Sunday, March 7, in the Washington Post, Mr. Kraft addressed the question of what is happening to the two party system in America. This has been a subject of great interest to me as I see the old system disintegrating without being able to see the development of any new system to replace it.

Mr. Kraft notes that--Voter turnout •.. is low and dropping.

He concludes that--What ls going on 1s a swirling process

which will perhaps. take years to resolve.

I agree with Mr. Kraft. I ask unanimous consent that the

article be printed in the REcORD. There being no objection, the article

was. ordered to be printed in the RECORD', as follows:

So FAR, THERE Is NOT A. NEW MAJORITY

(By Joseph Kraft) "We put together the grand old coalition

thwt elected. Roosevelt, Truma.n, Kennedy a.nd Lyndon Johnson, .. Sooop Jackson exulted after wlnning the Massach~ primary. In fa.ct. however. all the evidence shows that the component parts of the old Democratic major.tty are in more disarra.y tha.n ever.

But the Republicans seem to be rejecting the candidates who could exert a strong appeal on disappointed democra.ts in favor of President Ford. The upshot is tha.t American politics remains characterized by a.pa.thy, discontent. and an unemerging majority.

The core o! the old Democratic majority, as repeated. studies have shown, was ~ bluecollar white working class. Sen. Jackson, thanks to a. prodigious effort by the unions. did very well in working-class districts unaffected by the race issue.

He carried all the major towns outside Boston-Worcester, Springfield, Lynn a.nd Everett. f'or example. In Lowell, he won 3,182 votes with no other candidate golng above 2,000.

But in Boston itself, school busing made race a. hot issue in Irish and Italian neighborhoods that felt local cultures threa.tened. by black lncurslon. It a.va.lled Jackson almost nothing to favor a constitutional amendment against busing. George Wallace won In West Roxbury and Dorchester, on the edges of <the ghetto~ with 5. 766 votes against 2,656 !or Jack.son.

Precisely because he ca.me out against busing, Sen. Jackson did very poorly wtth blacks. He ra.n fifth in the Roxbury ghetto, way behind Jimmy Carter who won thanks to a strong endorsement from Marlin Luther King Sr.

Moreover, because of his well known hawkishness on Vietnam, Sen. Jackson did not do well with the educated professionals who provide many activists to the Democratic Party and show well in the middle-class suburbs. He lost Cambridge and Newton and carried Brookline thanks only to the large vote of an older Jewish community strong on Israel.

All this ls not to disparage Jackson. He is an experienced leader who could perhaps make a good President. He is a representative Democrat with a solid base among party regulars and the unions to which he adds a signiflcant contingent of Jewish liberals. He might well sweep New York and other industrial states and ta.ke the nom1na.tlon.

Even so, he 1s not soon going to build bridges back to th& white- llberals. Nor ls he apt to get. the black vote, and he may even have trouble winning over ethnic whites

threatened by what they think of as "the system."

At least two Republicans have a demonstrated capacity to pull over disaffected Democrats. Nelson Rockefeller is aces h1-gh with labor and also runs well with middle-class professionals unaware of his hawkish stands on Vietnam. But he has been put out of the running by conservative Republicans of the South.

Ronald Reagan exerts a strong appeal with disaffected blue-collar workers. But h1s attack on the system has run up against the dis· position of conservative Republicans to support an incumbent President, and the vested interest of older voters in Social Security. My guess 1s that he will go down this Tuesday in Florida, where pensioners make up more than 30 per cent of the Republican vote. If not Florida, then a week later in illinois where the President is running way ahead.

What this means ls that neither party ls truly positioning itself to absorb the vote of the growing number of dlsa.trected Americans. Voter turnout as a result is low and dropping.

In the New Hampshire primary, where there was a real contest on both the Democratic and Republican sides, turnout was 40 percent of the eligible vote-to per cent below the figure in 1972. when there was no Republican contest. In Massachusetts .. despite the hot Democratic race this year, turnout was only 29 per cent of the potential-a.bout the- same as in 1972 when George McGovern was a foregone conclusion.

This la.ck of intense public interest in politics may not beall that bad. A certain apathy quotient is necessary to make all institutions work, and things really go to pot when everybody is simultaneously pressing claims to the llmit.

But the withdrawal of so many voters shows, as Prof. Walter Dean Burnham of MIT has been saying, that there 1s no decisive shift yet in American politics. The claims for any emerging Republican or Democratle ma.tol'ity are both bogus. What 1s going on 1s a swirling process which will perhaps take years to resolve.

WHAT THE BICENTENNIAL MEANS TO FRED FORSTER

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, among the many statements that have been written about the Bicentennial Year, there is one which I feel captures the spirit of the 200th anniversary of our independence. It was written by Fred Forster, a fellow Hoosier from Anderson, Ind. Mr. Forster emigrated to America and became a naturalized citizen in 1928. His statement is an eloquent declaration of the Bicentennial's meaning to one American. I ask unanimous consent that Fred Forster's article on "What the Bicentennial Means to Me," be printed in the RECORD,


WK.AT THE BICENTENNIAL MEANS TO ME

The most powerful and most cherished Flag in the world, "The Stars and Stripes", to me is the biggest meaning of the Bicentennia.l. It tells a 200 year story of how we fought and toiled to keep it flying and how it helped so many immigrants to successfully help build this great country.

I was twenty years old in 1922 when most of us a.board "The George Washington ... went down on our knees and thanked God and the U.S.A. (United States of America)

!or letting us come to America as we passed the Statue of Liberty and all the Flags on all the ships.

In 1928 I had the privilege of becoming a naturalized American, a gUt from Uncle Sam I would not trade for all the money in the world.

I consider myself part of the Bicentennial, part of the Flag and part of its History. During World War Two, as a. volunteer, I fought and helped out 1n the Atlantic and thus pa.id back Uncle Sam in a humble way for what this country had done for me. I saw men :fighting and dying for our Bicentennial Flag.

I. always ha.d a flag in my pocket. It was my good luck charm when the going on the high seas became. rough and dangerous. I believed in this Flag.

All my fa.1th and hope was wrapped up in this flag. It saved me three times from being wiped out. Don't ask me how o? why but I saw 23 ships hitting the bottom o! the ocean.

So the Bicentennlal means to me the best years of my life. To me it means that we au have to work together as a "Nation Under God", and be thankful tor what we have accomplished the last 200 years. ''This is God's Country". many of us say, and as long as this spirit prevails there will be freedom and Liberty in America.

Let us keep our heads high and pray as a "Nation Under God" that he may give us the will power and strength needed to preserve our freedom, religion and liberty today and for our future generations..

"In God We Trust" is the most powerful expression and help us to keep up our Natlon 's Courage, Hope and Faith In defending and preserving all those things which we so chenshed and enjoyed the many many years behind us.

I sincerely hope that the few words I told you a.bout our Bicentennial and our 200 years of the American way of life, will always be with you in your hearts, and will help you to do your share in this great struggle to preserve "The United States of America and Its most glorious flag''.

LETTER PRAISES VETERANS' HOSPITALS

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, although we are certain that many people are well pleased with the care they receive from our Veterans' Administration hospital system, there is no denying that some centers have received adverse publicity.

Therefore, it is always a pleasant occasion when a veteran takes the time to wi'ite about the excellent care he has received.

Mr. Robe1-t W. Hellis of Estes Park, Colo., has informed me of the fine treatment and concern that he has received from the Cheyenne, Wyo., Veterans' Administration Center. I thought it would be of interest to my colleagues and all concerned to hear what he has to say.

I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the REcoRD.

There being no objection, the letter was orde1·ed to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Hon. CLIFFORD F. HANSEN, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

MARCH 4, 1976.

DEAR SENA.TOR HANSEN: Will take a few minutes out of a. busy day to pay a compliment. Recently I was a pa.tlent. at the V .A. Center in Cheyenne. Had heard from several other Vets that it was a.n excellent hospital.

'JJ!l arch 9, 19, 6 COrTGRESSIONAL RECORD-Sfa ATE 5761 Having been in that Hospital for 20 days I will agree 100 % • From the time I was admitted until discharged I was given excellent treatment. The food was good. The staff of the hospital from the top-Mr. John Horton, the Center Director right on "Down" if one must use that word, made me feel at home, that nothing was too good for the Vet patients. They are very busy but never too busy to be helpful, answer questions, in fact, they go out of their way to be of help. This was hard to believe. I have been in two other V.A. Hospitals and received good care but here there is a Homey feeling. You sometimes have to wait in line but only for a short time. Not the almost discouraging wait that one encounters in a large Hospital like the Denver V .A.

One reads from time to time of the complaints from Vets about the poor service or care they have received in some V .A. Hospitals. There may be some truth in these charges stemming from an understaffed overcrowded facility but not in Cheyenne. One thing that impressed me was the friendly attitude of almost everyone I had occasion to meet.

I was afforded excellent care. Help when needed from the Director of Volunteer Services Mrs. J. Mones. An excellent Dr. J. Havalda. Not time to give credit deserved to each person that extended a welcome hand while there-but l\Ir. Horton, Mr. Martin Land and Chief of Medical Administration Services and all the other hard working folks that make up the Center deserve a Well Done.

I sincerely hope that you will do everything possible to aid their hospital in .any way. I know you must have requests for funds from many many groups and organ.iza.tions. Some more worthy than others. But financial aid to a facility like the V.A. Center there in Cheyenne asst.U'es the men and women that gave of their time and services in one of the branches of the Military ... the best of care. They deserve it.

Although I am a resident of Colorado bot.mdaries are not important. The National Observer Newspaper ran a story of the Vets and their complaints. It did not paint a very pretty picture of conditions in some V .A. Hospitals. I hope that I never read that because of a lack of funds, the V .A. Center in Cheyenne has to give any deserving veteran the short end of the stick. This is one place where funds will be put to good use and not squandered or wasted as is true of many Government agencies.

I would hope that you pass this on to the Dept. in Washington that decides on what appropriations will go to the V .A. Hospitals.

Thank you for taking time out from a. busy day to read these words of praise. If I did not mean every word I would not have taken my time to write. Keep up your fine work.

Respectfully, ROBERT W. HFLLIS.

THE POSTAL SERVICE Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, there js

widespread concern in this countt'Y about the future of our traditional postal services in a changing society. Some knowledgeable observers are suggesting that there are limits to what we can reasonably expect, even while the Postal Service itself is reviewing a considerable number of small post offices to determine if service requirements mandate their continuance.

In small communities across America, the U.S. Post Office is a very important institution, at the very center of community life. Recently, I received a letter from Gale C. Hill of Fort Laramie,

Wyo., in which she noted that the post office in that community serves a lot of people in their later years.

She wrote: It seems that for them to come to the

Post Office every day is something for them t.o look forward to, someplace they can walk to every day, and someplace to go if they need someone to talk to or someone to help them with just about anything they might not understand, and still provide them with all the mail services they might need.

The same is true in small communities all over the land. It is the type of service no value can be placed upon. Indeed, it may be invaluable. This letter says much about the feelings people in rw·al areas and small communities have for then· post offices and why they are so concerned with the possibility that many of those offices might be closed, removing the ve1'Y symbol of the U.S. Government from their midst.

!vlr. President, in closing her letter to me, Gale Hill penned a poem which she entitled "American Spirit." I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection. the poem was ordered to be printed in the RECOPD, as follo~·s:

AMERICAN SPmIT

(By Gale C. Hill) I look out my window and across the way, And I see the flag from the Post Office sway. And I wonder then as I've wondered before, How many years will it fly, how many more? It seems we·ve lost the spirit that once was

so great, And I wonder now is it too late. To beat inflation, truthlessness and crime Is it too late, or do we still have the time?

Is it the time we need, or ls it more Is it faith and hope and loving thy brother And understanding and humbleness and

helping each other? I think it is as I stand here today and watch the fla.g from the Post Office S\'. ay.

NATIONAL EMPLOY THE OLDER WORKER WEEK

Mr. DOMENICL Mr. President, last week the Senate agreed to a resolution which designated the second week in March as National Employ the Older Worker Week in order to recognize and honor a vital segment of the American population. The bill has been referred to the Hou.se for action, and I am hopeful the measw·e, Senate Joint Resolution 35, will be quickly passed by that body. I believe it is appropriate at this time for Americans to pause and examine the capabilities of mature workers, and in ow· own individual way, to inspire the employment of middle aged and older workers. We, as individuals, and as a nation, can only benefit from the more adequate utilization of the skills, the wisdom, and the experience of this country's older population.

Experience has shown that age alone cannot determine how well a person will perform a job. Older workers have demonstrated that they possess unique qualifl.cations for meeting a wide range of needs in both industry and community activities. As a result, many corporations and businessmen in recent years have

been makiug serious efforts to off e1· retraining programs and utilize older workers, and in their own economic interest.

The Federal Government also is supporting work opportunities for the older worker. The oldest program, the foster grandparent program, is a part-time employment program for persons aged 60 and over who wish to provide supportive care to children residing in institutions. The senior companion program enables older persons to work with the home-bound and frail elderly and other. adults who are homebound.

In addition, there are numerous projects involving nearly 13,000 individuals aged 55 and over who work in a variety of community service activities throughout the country. These projects are funded under the older Americans community service employment program \Yhich recently was extended and expanded through the 1975 amendments to the Older Americans Act. The extent to which employment programs for older Americans have grown suggests the desire of older people to feel useful and productive.

Although industry is becoming increasingly more aware of the desires and capabilities of older people, misconceptions concerning older workers still exist. An employer often believes, without evidence of fact, that skills or abilities decline after a certain age even after age 40. He can be quick to assume that older employees should retire to make way for the young. He sometimes fails to understand the vital need for experienced workers in almost any work setting as well as their potential contribution to the economy. He keeps the mature worker from advancement or denies him career building courses because mandatory re· tirement is ju.st a few birthdays away.

And, in times of high unemployment, age discrimination grows more severe. The older worker is usually among the last to be hired and frequently the first to be layed off his job. As result, numerous highly qualified individuals who are stable, dependable, and motivated either cannot find jobs or are locked into jobs with no advancement prospects.

Today, an increasing number of people are questioning society's attitudes and policies toward the older worker. Mandatory retirement policies are being closely examined. Also, Congress took an important first step when it passed the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, which bars discrimination in hiring or dismissing employees based on age for persons 40 through 64 years old. Congress passed this law because of overwhelming evidence brought forth at hearings about age discrimination imposing great injustices to older workers, and less dit·ectly, to the economy. Talent and experience, Congress was told were being wasted simply because of prejudice against men and women who, in the view of many employers, were too old.

Yet, to realize misconceptions rega-rd-ing the older worker, we just have to look at a. few great men who did their best work after reaching advanced

5762 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE Ma1~ch 9, 1976 maturity. Geothe completed his masterpiece, ''Faust," at age 82; Noah Webster wrote his monumental dictionary at age 70; and Alexander Graham Bell, who perfected his telephone at age 58, was past age 70 when he helped solve the problem of stabilizing aircraft balance.

It is most fitting to honor older workers our bicentennial year because they have been significant in the well-beh1g and growth of this Nation. During our celebration, however, we must remember that energetic and able middle-aged and older persons who want employment, cannot find work even when jobs for which they qualify are available. We, as Americans, must each do our part to encourage and inspire the employment of the mature worker.

BLOWING THE WHISTLE ON CORPORATE BRIBERY

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, the Federal bureaucracy has come under heavy criticism in recent years, and in most cases the criticism is entirely justifieci. But there are some notable exceptions. One of the most notable is Stanley Sporkin, Director of Enforcement for the SEC. In a 15-year career with the SEC, Mr. Sporkin has earned a well-deserved reputation for thoroughness, integrity, and an absolute dedication to the public interest. More than any single individual, he is responsible for the revelations of bribes and other illegal payoffs made by many of our largest corporations both at home and abroad.

An excellent article on Mr. Sporkin's career at the SEC recently appeared in the February 29 issue of the Philadelphia Sunday Bulletin. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the RECORD.


HE SLEEPS WITH ONE EYE OPEN

(By L. Stuart Ditzen) About a year ago, word got out in Wash

ington that some stocks and bonds hustlers in New York were plotting the demise of a federal bureaucrat named Stanley Sporkin.

The hustlers wanted Sporkin on the unemployment line. Preferably wit h his head in his hand.

Sen. William Proxmire, maverick Democrat from Wisconsin, quickly put on a razzle-dazzle defense, pinning down Sporkin's bossesthe members of the Securities and Exchange Commission-at a budget hearing.

"I 1·ead a story . . . concernin g an effort to get Mr. St anley Sporkin fired," Proxmire told the SEC. "He has a fine reputation and has done a fine job. I have two questions in this respect. Number One: Is there an orga.nized effort to get his job?"

Ray Garret t , Jr., chairman of the SEC, replied: "No one has approached me ... to do anything about Mr. Sporkin. Maybe they know it would not do any good."

Proxmire: "Well, Mr. Garrett, do I have your pledge to . . . stand behind him?"

Garrett: "You certainly do." Proxmire asked SEC Commissioner John

R. Evans, "What is your position on this?" Evans: "On Mr. Sporkin?" Prox1nire: "Yes sir." Evans: "I certainly support St an and the

work he is doing . . ." Next, Proxmire asked Commissioner Irving

M. Pollack if he, too, stood behind Sporkin.

"Yes sir," said Pollack. Proxmire looked around. "Anyone else on

the commission?" Commissioner A.A. Sommer Jr. volun

teered: "I would certainly resist strongly any (attempt) to remove Stan Sporkin."

Nothing more was hea1·d from the New York hustlers about getting Stanley fired. And if they couldn't get him then, it's going to be even harder now.

Stanley Sporkin is director of the enforcement division of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Son of a Philadelphia judge, disarmingly eccentric, little known to the genera.I public, Sporkin is one of the most powerful men in America. Deep within the government, from a central nervepoint at the SEC, for $37,000 a year, he shapes decisions that can throw big business into upheaval and alter trends of American life. It is his job to police the stock market---the huge companies tlia.t comprise it, and the stockbrokers, attorneys and accounts who make their livings from it.

Sporkin is not a typical bm·eaucrat. Like television's Lieutenant Colombo,

dazed genius of the homicide beat, Sporkin seems an unlikely sort to unravel the schemes and cabals of the ne'er-do-wells of the world.

Almost everyone he goes up against is rich, smooth and sophisticated: an unending parade of pseudo aristocrats and wheeler dealers and fat cats. Sporkin inundates them in chaos. He slumbers at the height of confrontation. He disorients his adversaries and disconcerts them and blugeons them with disorganization. In the utter confusion of his methods, there is only one certainty: Stanley himself knows what he is doing.

The securities industry lives in fear of him.

Sporkin has precipitated a phenomenon in America, a flood tide of corporate contrition.

Big companies are falling over each other with admissions of misdeeds and apologies for poor ethics.

It is Sporkin who brought suit against Gulf Oil and forced out the details of how Gulf channeled cash to U.S. politicians from an illegal $10.3 million slush fund.

Through the Gulf suit, it was revealed that almost from the day he took his seat in the senate in 1959, Sen. Hugh Scott, of Pennsylvania, had received regular cash allotments from Gulf Oil.

It was Sporkin who, during Watergate, pushed foi;ward an SEC probe of exiled financial buccaneer Robert Vesco despite attempts by the Nixon Administration-and even a former SEC chah·man-to quash it.

It was Spo1·kin who exposed vast payoffs American businessmen were making to officials in foreign countries. Four million by Gulf in South Korea. One-point-two million by United Brands in Honduras. Other payoffs by Rockwell International, Ashland Oil and the Northrop Corp.

Sporkin has upset big business to the point where it is rushing to investigate itself just to calm him down. Coming to him with confessions. Even accusing itself of committing crimes.

William Proxmire isn't the only one cheering Stan Sporkin. Consumer watchdog Ralph Nader has been cheering. Even muckraker Jack Anderson has been cheering.

If there are tints or colors to the brain waves in Stanley Sporkin's head, they can only be red, white and blue.

Sporkin is a fervent, almost obsessive, believer in the fundamental goodness of the American Way.

Corruption gags up genu!.1.1.e outrage in him.

His enemies say he is naive, misguided, unreasonable, crazy-but they admit he's honest. Vigorously honest.

No effort is too great in Sporkin's mind to put a shyster out of business, to expose a

slickster who takes the investments of little old la<lies and departs for the islands.

Sporkin, at 44, is a driving crusader. A New York securities lawyer says of him,

"Stanley just can't stand the thought that somewhere in the world someone is doing something wi·ong and not being punished for it. He sleeps with one eye open."

Some people in the securities business think he never sleeps.

Sporkin. is in his office every day from 9 A.M. to 6 P.M. in continual conferenee. He does paperwork at home every night roughly from 9 P.1\1:, to 2 A.M.

With a s taft' of about 600, he spreads a police net across the land to cover 25,000 public companies, 3,500 broker dealers, 3,500 investment advisors, 1,300 investment companies and all the accountants and lawyer;; who serve them.

When the barons of big business come under SEC scrutiny, it is common for t hem to pilgrimage to Stanley's office to barter and wheedle and shout.

They sit at a conference table with Stanley's staff amidst overflowing ashtrays, spilled stacks of papers, constantly ringing telephones. Sporkin aides barging in several times a minute in mid-sentence, to show Stanley something, or ask him something or tell him something. The barons of big business sit t here and hash whatever it is they're supposed to have done wrong.

These conferences are legendary. While they unfold, Stanley paces erratic

ally. He is in and out of his chair. Up and down. His stomach hangs in a bulbous paunch over his belt. He rubs it. Scratches. He cocks his glasses ba.ck on his head. Rubs his eyes like a man coming out of a stupor. He grasps tight to the back of a chair and leans heavily and listens intently. Then he is distracted. He paces a.gain. Suddenly he is at the couch at the side of the room. Easing down onto it. He draps out a leg. Yawns. Reclines. Closes his eyes.

Uncertainly, the barons of business continue to battle with Stanley's henchmen.

They eye Stanley with dismay. Is he sleeping? Is he listening? What is he doing?

Even Sporkin's close associates are not absolutely sure what he is doing when he lies down on the couch. Some say he catnaps during dull stretches of conferences but has an unaccountable ability to return to consciousness at crucial moments. Others believe he is in a trance of some kind, assimilating, filtering, digesting-taking in all the fine points of the debate.

For half an hour, sometimes longer, Stanley reposes.

Then, in the words of one of his deputies, "He leaps up and starts spitting it out. Give me this. Get me that. Affidavits. Proxy statements. Minutes of the board ... a whol& laundry list of stuff." One deputy says of Sporkin: "He's had some of the great lawyer& of our time rushing to scratch it down while he spits it out. Stanley does better asleep than most people do awake."

Stanley Sporkin grew up in West Philadelphia, one of four children of Common Pleas Court Judge Maurice W. Sporkin.

He went to old West Philadelphia High School and then to Penn State and then to Yale Law School. Finished it all up in 1957 and went to work as a law clerk for a federal judge in Delaware where he stayed for three years, then practiced law for one year and finally went to work for the SEC in 1961.

Sporkin's fa..ther was an assistant distric t attorney for some 20 years before he became a judge.

When Stanley was a kid, he used to make his way down to City Hall in the afternoons to watch his father work.

Sitting down for a moment, in an interview at his office, Sporkin recalled: "Other kids used to play ball in the afternoons, but I used to get a big kick out of going downtown-this may sound corney-and watching

I

Ma1~ch 9, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 5763

my Dad try cases. There were some great attorneys in Philadelphia in those da,ys. It was a. marvelous thing to watch them in court and to watch my Dad in court.''

Stanley Sporkin always wanted to be an attorney.

The things that counted with him were the old American virtues-truth, hard work, honesty, integrity.

The curious thing about him, in the work that he does, is that the symptoms of cynicism are missing. Sporkin says the people who have influenced his life-his father, certain judges and attorneys along the way, his superiors at the SEC-have all been men of principle.

Because of those associations, he says, "I really haven't had a. chance to get sullied, I guess."

But he worries for America. The old virtues have eroded. Corruption pervades business. It's gotten so bad, Sporkin says, that students going out of college, who go to work in the securities industry are, as a matter of course, "trained to become crooks." They learn to juggle books. To collude. To set up double billing systems. To manipulate stocks. To create slush funds. To bribe.

Sporkin wants to recapture honesty for big business. To cement integrity into the system.

Not only does he want to rid America of hustlers who bilk old la-dies, Sporkin wants to renew a sense of outrage in America that bilkings even occur.

"Sporkin feels these things very deeply," said a former SEC attorney, "He can go through the most complex kind of investigation, catch the biggest crook in the business, and when it's all over shake his head and ask out of genuine curosity, "Now why would the guy DO something rotten like that?"

Stan Sporkin (married, one daughter, two boys) spends his Saturday mornings in a school gym in suburban Washington with a mob of eight-year-old basketball players tangled at his feet.

His son Tommy is among them. Sporkin is the coach. His older son, Danny,

14, is his assistant. The eight-year-olds drill on offense, de

fense, lay-ups, jump shots, bounce passes. Then they break into two teams and play against ea.ch other.

They are remarkably disciplined. As they scramble and charge, Sporkin

glows with satisfaction "Organized chaos," he smiles.

It is apparent that this is more to Stanley Sporkin than obligatory time spent with his sons. It is a form of 01·chestration-another way in which he, uniquely, generates order in the world.

From his operating base at the SEC, Stan Sporkin has succeeded in turning the enemy against itself. He has deputized large segments of the securities industry to watch from. within for the signs of chicanery.

One way he has accomplished this is with civil lawsuits in which he charges big corporations with fraud in the violation of securities laws.

The blue chip firms of America do not like the bad publicity that goes with lawsuits. The well-heeled sophisticates who run the blue chip firms do not like to see themselves depicted in the daily newspapers as manipulators, con men and payoff' artists.

When Stanley Sporkin brings suit against them, they normally waste very little time in getting over to his office to put the que -tion, 'Stanley, isn't there some way we can settle thls?'

Stanley Sporkin is a reasonable man. He is always willing to settle. On his terms. Namely, that the firm promise to never again do whatever it is Stanley says it has done v,rong and then, that the firm hire a team

of independent experts to examine the wrongdoing and report directly back to Stanley a.bout it.

It ts a way in which the expense of a.n investigation can be transferred from the government to the lawbreaker. Like arresting a man for murder, then making him pay the salaries of the dectectives who caught him.

And the reason big companies acquiesce to skinnings like that is that, typically, it 1s the least painful way to get out of a. jam With the SEC.

This was the technique Sporkin \L5ed in the Gulf Oil case.

Gulf did all it could do to modify Sporkin.-.came in for a settlement, agreed to set up its own "special reView committee" to examine its transgressions-but even then, for reasons beyond Gulf's and even Sporkin's control, the case became a national sensation.

The genesis of the Gulf case goes back to 1973 and Watergate when it was discovered by the Special Prosecutor's Office that one Claude c. Wild Jr. had given $100,000 in cash to the re-election campaign of Richard Nixon.

An ensuing investigation determined that Claude Wild was the chief Washington lobbyist for Gulf Oil and that the $100,000 he gave to Nixon was drawn from a secret $10.3 million slush fund Gulf kept in the Bahama Islands.

Gulf and Wild were charged by the Special Prosecutor with criminal violation of federal campaign statutes and both pleaded guilty.

But the Special Prosecutor's Office never pursued the question of what happened to all the other money in the slush fund.

It wasn't until 1975 that those details began to come out as the result of a lawsuit Sporkin filed against Gulf in U.S. District Court in Washington charging that the company failed to report the existence of the Bahamas slush fund to its stockholders. Named as a co-defendant with Gulf was Claude Wild.

While Gulf quickly opted to settle, Claude Wild didn't.

The SEC moved forward with its suit against him, open1ng a series of deposition hearings last -fall in which Gulf employees gave detailed accounts of how Wild had tapped the Bahamas slush fund for $25,000 every month for 12 years and how he ga,e the money in cash to Hugh Scott and other politicians all over the country.

In the meantime, while the depositions were being filed in court, Gulf's ov.n special review committee, headed by a venerable New York attorney, named John J. McCloy, was wrapping up an inside investigation of the slush fund.

On Dec. 31, the Mccloy committee reported to Sporkin that Gulf's entire Bahamas set-up was "shot through with illegality" and many of the company's top officers were responsible for it.

Two weeks later Gulf chairman Bob R. Dorsey and several other executives resigned.

Thus, in the end, Gulf bathed in two months of bad publicity from the SEC's suit against Wild, only to be drenched in a. final dose of chastisement on New Year's Eve from its own paid consultants, the members of the McCloy committee.

This is the knd of lesson, Sporkin contends, that big companies must learn if they want to have secret slush funds.

The big companies are learning well. Said one Gulf official: "Anybody ,vho

would even think of doing this kind of thing again would have to have his head examined-and he'd probably flunk the exam."

But the concept of "special review committees'' isn't the only way Sporkin has forced the securities industry to police itself.

By concentrating on what he callis the

"access points" to the stock market, Sporkill has expanded the SEC's reach far beyond its traditional jurisdiction.

In Sporkln's view, there are too many prospective stock manipulators Tunning loose in the land to be caught, all of them hankering to cheat the public of its Investment dollar, all of them plotting separate schemes, all of them eyeing a different prey. But there are certain things they all must do to accomplish their plans-certain common routes they all must follow to the marketplace.

They must hire attorneys. They must hire accountants. They must find a broker to underwrite them.

These are the "access points" to the market.

These are the places where Stanley Sporkln has brought pressure: Holding lawyers and accountants accountable for the deeds of their clients. Forcing the big brokerage houses to hire inside security experts· to watch over their operations.

The lawyers a.nd accountants and stockbrokers are outraged.

But the SEC-so far-ha.s prevailed. "At no cost to the public," says Stan

Sporkin, "we've expanded our operation many!old. I can't say to you we're getting one percent or 10 percent or 100 percent of the violations, but people are sufficiently in awe 01· respect of our activities that they think several times before they engage in violations ... No one ever knows where we're going to strike next.

"We believe we've accomplished major safeguards for the investor."

Stanley Sporkin has worked on some fascinating cases. The C. Arnholt Smith case where a man called ":Mr. San Diego," a preeminent civic leader and one-time confident o! Richard Nixon, turned out to be the man who misapplied $27.5 million from his own San Diego bank. The Glenn Turner case where the son of a South Carolina sharecropper built a $150 million fortune with a program called Dare To Be Great and a company called Koscot Interplanetary Inc. and did it all through an illegal pyramid sales scheme.

But the big one was the Vesco case. It was in the Vesco case that a private

detective started poking into Stanley Sporkin 's personal life. It was in the Vesco case that an illegal $200,000 contribution was made to the 1972 Nixon re-election ch·ive to put a. halt to Stan Sporkin's efforts. It was in the Vesco case that Sporkin's own boss at the SEC tried to slow him down.

And nothing worked. Robert L. Vesco came under investigatio!l

by the SEC in March, 1971, in connection with his role as chairman of Investors Overseas Services Ltd., a firm that managed foreign mutual funds.

By November, 1972. the SEC had charged Vesco in a civil lawsuit with "looting" some $224 million in assets from the mutual funds.

Vesco fled to Costa Rica where he endeared himself to President Jose Figueres there by investing $60 million in various Costa Rican ventures, including one in which Figueres himself had an interest.

But from the beginning, Vesco had dona everything in his power to stop the SEC probe.

In March, 1972. be complained to former Commerce Secretary Maurice Stans that the SEC was harassing him. He offered as much as $500,000 to the Nixon reelection ch·ive if he could get some "help."

Stans, NiXon's chief fundraiser, talked ovel' Vesco's proposal with former Attorney General John Mitchell who was running Nixon's campaign.

On April, 1972. a suitcase containing $200,000 in 100 bills was delivered to Maurice Smns from Robert Vesco.

5764 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 9, 1976 One month later, in May, 1972, John

Mitchell contacted SEC Chairman William Casey and arranged for Vesco's attorney to go see him.

Mitchell and Stans were later tried in connection with their role in the Vesco matter and acquitted.

Testimony in the trial showed that on Nov. 1, 1972, SEC chairman Casey called Sporkin and asked him to postpone depositions of the Vesco secretaries because the election was close at hand.

Sporkin's answer: "Impossible." A few days later, Casey again contacted

Sporkin to repeat the request explaining that the testimony of the Vesco secretaries, who knew of the $200,000 contribution to Nixon, would prove "politically embarrassing" just before the election.

Sporkin testified that he again refused Casey's request and told him, "Some day, you are going to be thankful for relying on my judgment in this matter."

As it turned out, William Casey escaped any serious taint in the Watergate scandal and eventually left the SEC to become head of the Export Import Bank of the United States.

By rights, Sporkin said, Casey should have fired him back in November, 1972. "I refused to do what he told me."

Is Casey upset about it? "Are you kidding?" Sporkin grins in

an-iazement. "He loves me." When Robert Vesco couldn't get to Stan

Sporkin through his superiors, he arranged for a. private detective to take a look at Sporkin's personal life to see if there was some dirty tidbit there that might be used to discourage his probe.

Sporkin won't talk about that phase of the Vesco case, but he makes it plain that he isn't happy about it.

The detective didn't find anything. "Stanley lives too clean," says one of his

aides. "He lives as clean and simple as a person can live."

Sporkin is not widely loved by lawyers who specialize in securities law, but it is his staff that usually bears the heaviest criticism.

The staff is characterized variously as inexperienced, over-zealous, too-fervent, narrow-minded or just plain dumb.

"They a.re out to rid the world of corruption," said one New York attorney. "They tend to see everyone in the business world as crooks. They just have no fundamental insights into how business works or how the American economy operates."

But the staff doesn't make the decisions. Stanley personally keeps touch with all the cases cooking in his office and is constantly consulted by his staff attorneys on them.

Milton Freeman, a Washington securities attorney, says: "You don't have an answer from anybody else until they go see Sporkin."

Freeman says he likes Sporkin personally and finds him generally fair.

"The first time I ever met him," Freeman recalled, "he announced some outrageous point of view on some subject and I said 'I'm not going to listen to this,' and I walked out. But over the course of time I came to appreciate that if you yell at him and then talk to him a little while, he'll see your point. He's really open minded ... after you yell a little bit."

Sporkin's staff, intensely loyal, also sees him as even-handed.

"He tends to speak in very blunt terms," says a former staff n-ien1ber. " He's very direct and to-the-point. He doesn't talk about 'possible violations.' He talks about 'goddam crooks, we're going to put them in j.ail.' But he is very much an impartial investigator. Very conscious of people's rights."

Robert Ryan, one of the staff attorneys who handled the Gulf Oil case, says of Sporkin:

' 'He kills with discretion." And Sporkin himself, even in his fervor

to eradicate corruption, argues that he ls at pains to be fair with the persons he investigates. Any suggestion to the contrary, he says, is "hogwash."

"When a defendant has no case on the merits," Sporkin declares, "he attacks the investigator. That's always been the way. We're seeing much more of it now."

Sporkin always makes his approach to the adversary straight on. Armed with facts. No bluffs. No politics. No personal sentiments. The one standard is to be right.

"In this business, you gotta be right," Stan Sporkin says. "It's like Israel-you can only lose one war. Anything less than the facts and you get a reputation-" he squints and shakes his head-"for being some guy wit h a cause."

UNION ORGANIZATION IN THE ARMED FORCES

Mr. DOMENIC!. Mr. President, I recently cosponsored along with 24 of my colleagues, Senate bill 3079, to prohibit union organization in the Armed Forces. I did not make this decision lightly. I believe in the Constitution of the United States and place a heavy burden on legislation that would restrict B,ny of our basic freedoms such as the individual's right to associate with organizations of his choice.

However, there are reasons to differentiate military society from civilian society. While the members of the military are not excluded from the protection granted by the fl1·st amendment, the different character of the military community and of the military mission require a different application of those protections. As the Supreme Court said in Parker against Levy:

The fundamental necessity for obedience, and the consequent necessity for imposition of discipline, may render permissible within the military that which would be constitutionally impermissible outside it.

That which, is tolerable in the civilian community, it is intolerable in the military community. The Armed Forces depend on a command structure that at times must commit men to combat, not only hazarding their lives but ultimately involving the security of the Nation itself. We cannot have command decisions subject to grievance procedures or even to collective bargaining negotiations.

In 1890, in In re Grimley, the Supreme Court observed:

An army ls not a deliberative body. It is an executive arm. Its law is that of obedience. No question can be left open as to the right to command in the officer, or the duty of obedience in the soldier.

Mr. President, in the highly technical nature of our military today, it is even more imperative that discipline and obedience be immediate. With modern technology that demands instantaneous decisions, it is incongruous that we might countenance a soldier refusing an order saying, ''Sorry, I'll have to spealt to the shop steward first."

Aside from the strike, we have arbi· tration as a means of settling labor disputes. While this is an effective method of settling disputes in the private sector, it is totally unacceptable in the military.

An outside, neutral arbitrator would not have the "best interests" of the Nation in mind, he would have the best interests of the "employee" and the "employer" represented by the union and At·med Forces. Policy should be made by the Executive in concurrence with the Congress. We cannot have either unions, arbitrators, or even the military itself making policy. We live in a world fraught with the danger of nuclear war and we must continue to set policy through our elected officials.

Mr. President, this bill is not directed against unions or labor organizations. The good of assuring the working man his just share of the economic pie is a laudable goal and one with which I concur. However, in the military, matters of national security must be considered above all else. Our Nation depends on its military forces to protect it from the very real enemies that now exist. For these reasons, I cosponsored this legislation and I urge -this body's favorable consideration.

INDIANA'S SELF-RELIANT UPLANDERS

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, during my travels throughout Indiana, it is often my pleasure to visit with the folks who live in the beautiful hills of southern and south-central Indiana. This is a highly diversified part of the State, with thriving family farms, the world's finest limestone, large and small industry and some of the finest institutions of higher education in the Nation.

A common bond holding together the residents of southern and south-central Indiana is a deep appreciation for the beauty of the land and resources which surround them. I came to fully appreciate that tremendous beauty when my wife, Marvella, and I lived in Bloomington, the largest city in that part of Indiana, during the 3 years I attended the Indiana University School of Law.

The beauty of the land has encournged many persons to turn to a life close to nature. These folks may be likened to modern day pioneers, self-reliant individuals who fill their needs from the natural resources in abundance around them. They live in harmony with a hardy breed of Hoosier who have since birth lived that same self-reliant life.

An article by James Alexander Thom and J. Bruce Bauman in the March issue of National Geographic magazine pays tribute to these people and the land of southern and south-central Indiana. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article, "Indiana's Self-Reliant Uplanders," be printed in the RECORD.


INDIANA'S SELF-RELIANT UPLANDER$

(By James Alexander Thom) One winter evening I stood on a wooded

1·idge in. southern Indiana. a,nd watched the last orange tint of sunset dissolve into lilacgray t wilight. Not an electric light, a car, a plane anywhere. In the darkening valleys I could hear an ax biting" into wood, the ring of a hammer on an anvil. It was one of those

March 9, 19~6 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 5765 hushed moments that make a man wonder about his relation to time and place.

Most of my adult life I have lived in cities, writing about the complexities and anxieties of modern society. Now and then I need to return to these old uplands where I was born and raised, because here time seems to pause and let me think.

When I was a boy, Etta Macy, then in her eighties, used to live with other elderly Quakers in a sagging, vine-covered pioneer house on this ridge. They had almost no income, but ate well, laughed much, and needed little beyond what they grew themselves. Etta was famed for her recitations of poems; when townsfolk stopped at the farm to hear her, she would advise them:

"If thee needs anything and cannot find it, just come to me and I'll tell thee how to get along without it."

Etta found contentment in knowing that she could get by with little and take care of herself. I think this trait runs strong in many Indiana uplanders because of the kind of country this is.

I turned up my overcoat collar and looked around. Every horizon was another long, level, deep-blue ridge. Most of Indiana, flattened and filled by Ice Age glaciers, is rich farmland. But the glaciers bypassed the uplands, leaving a spine of forested sandstone and shale h1lls flanking a limestone plain honeycombed with caves and sinkholes. The uplands (map, page 345) are not adapted to large-scale farming; the gun, ax, and anvil, as much as the plow, were the survival tools of settlers.

The people who began settling in the uplands about 1820 were of English, German, Scotch, and Irish blood. Many were sons or grandsons of pioneers who had first pushed westward through Cumberland Gap.* They were true frontiersmen who had learned to live by their hands and wits. They could hack out a living in deep woods and on hUlsides. We know the sort of people that kind of life can forge: Abraham Lincoln lived and worked in the southern Indiana woodlands from his eighth to his twenty-second year.

The Indiana hills are part of modern America now, of course, and all of civilization's trappings are here. But many people in this region still would rather meet their basic needs as their forebears did. They don't rely much on producers and middlemen; they would rather not pay good money for work they can perform themselves. They like knowing that they could survive if our technological society failed.

When my mother, Dr. Julia Thom, retired from a career as a psychiatrist, she moved to the old Macy land. One of my brothers designed a house for her; it stands on the site of the Macy home, utilizing the old sandstone fireplace. I stay there on my visits.

About a mile below the ridge lives Estel Freeman, a descendant of early Owen County settlers. When I hailed him from the road on a spring afternoon, Mr. Freeman was riding in one of his fields, breaking clods of freshly plowed earth with a wooden framelike contraption pulled by a pair of big draft horses. Fists full of reins, his slight, 78-year-old body balanced lightly on the drag, he looked like a water-skier being towed slowly ac1·oss the field, absorbing the jolts with flexing knees. Since he was 12 years old, he has been working his land just this way.

"Never had any want of a tractor," he said, taking off his cap and wiping his forehead. "Folks who get started buying tractors and all, their trouble is they get too involved with money. They get to depending on it."

We talked for a long time while the horses waited, dark with sweat. I learned just how

*See "The People of Cumberland Gap," by John Fetterman, National Geographic, November 1971.

Estel Freedman feels about his horses and his tools, about crooks and honest men, a.bout his obligations to God and his fellow man, and about his two main accomplishments in life; "I've always given at least a dollar's worth of work for a dollar of pay." And, "I'll leave my land better than I found it."

Standing in the sun-drenched field with this tireless plowman, I perceived a sense of time measured not by clocks but by the 1·011-ing of the seasons.

Mr. Freeman said that he's slacking off work as he approaches 80. "Got a friend. He brags to me, 'Estel, I can still work as hard as I did fifty years ago.' I told him, 'So can I. But I don't get near as much done.'"

Chuckling, he gathered up the reins to get his horses under way. "Man stopped me one day, asked how I get such straight furrows. I said I followed Jesus' advice: Put your hand to the plow and don't look back. Gee-yup!"

Thousands are lured to Monroe County by Indiana University, at Bloomington, and by Monroe Lake, a 10,750-acre recreational reservoir that twists through the valley of dammed-up Salt Creek. But down the unpaved back roads, in the hills and hollows native uplanders live out their long, uncomplicated lives, seldom seeing or being seen by students or vacationists.

Cora Stafford, whose great-grandparents came to southern Indiana from Kentucky early in the 1800's, is admired by people in the Little Salt Creek area for her independence. Never married, now 75, she lives in a weathered house (pages 356-7) on about 60 acres of land a few miles from the reservoir.

Cora lights her home with kerosene lamps, heats it with iron stoves, and draws water by bucket from a well. A few chickens and one guinea hen chase and fuss about. Several white-faced cows amble among the log outbuildings and graze the sloping lawn.

Wh-an I first saw her she wa-s mending fence to keep those cows in. She came along the barbed wire, a stake in one hand, an ax in the other. I offered to carry the ax as we toiled uphill to the house.

"Nope. I'm usin' it for a cane." Cora believes people would get by on less

money if they mended things instead of throwing them away. "Some used to say my :people were stingy. Well, they weren't stingy. But they wouldn't go buy a thing just t'be a-buyin'. Only if they'd need it."

She receives no money from the government and wants none. "Shame how folks scheme t'get money out of th' government. One feller, I told him, 'You, y'd rather have 50 cents y'd schemed for than a dollar y'd earned.'"

Americans could also learn from Hebert Deckard, a 65-year-old bachelor who lives near the end of a long, unpaved valley road. Heb has found the best way to get along without worrying about money is to do for himself. He gets by on a farm of about 40 acres. He was squatting on the floor of his garage, repairing the starter of a mower, on the rainy spring day when I met him. He spoke pure southern Hoosier dialect: twangy, lively, and emphatic.

"I try t'get out a good garden. That's 'bout half of a livin', is a good garden. Fruit's about half my livin', too. I like dried apples and canned peaches." As for meat, "A man can get it all from th' woods, if he likes t'hunt." But Heb is particular about game meat. He doesn't care much for squirrel. As for venison: "Them dag-gone deers . . . they hain't no count. A feller cut me up a mess of venison last fall; I didn't like it a'tall. I told him, said, 'By gum, I wouldn't give a halfgrown rabbit f'r th' whole deer.' Now, y'take rabbits, why, yes, I like 'em pretty well."

Heb saves money by heating his home with firewood. He also repairs his old tractor and car. "Now, y'take anything into a garage, they really charge ye. Do it y'self, y'save that. If y•got th' time. I got th' time.''

l\!Iany Indiana University students find

these hills a living laboratory for the natural ways of doing things. In a Bloomington restaurant or coffee i::hop you're likely to find a dozen students gathered around William Addison, the local Pied Piper of organic farming. FUtyish, with long hair, grizzled beard, and a dazzling white grin, Addison is a nonstop teller of outrageously funny tales and a zealous back-to-earth advocate.

About three years ago Addison started tallcing to a few ecology-conscious adults who believed that organic matter should be returned to the soil. They became stockholders of Scarab Compost Company, a small firm that under his management began converting large portions of Bloomington's biodegradable waste into compost.

Addison maintains that compost is the world's b.est fertilizer. Using the city's annual accumulation of autumn leaves and virtuanv any other organic waste, he and a few part'.. time employees-sometimes including the stockholders themselves-create rich, black compost in 14 days (page 354). Mechanized piling and turning is scientifically timed. Thus, the Scarab company solves some municipal waste-disposal problems while manufacturing compost in large quantities. Other Indiana communities have sought Addison ·s counsel for development of similar plants.

So far only the soil is getting rich. Scarab's stockholders say that's their main concern anyway.

Indiana University and the surrounding uplands enjoy a sort of symbiotic relationship. The university, keenly interested in the region's culture, arranges for local craftsmen-weavers, toolmakers, stone carvers, and others-to teach their skills to students. And the hill country has become home to many educated young people who have decided there's no place they'd rather live. Some natives look askance at their bearded freethinking new neighbors. But one old-timer chuckled and told me, "Now, I'll admit we could stand to have our minds opened up a bit. And them kids'll do it."

Ron and Sara Nehrig have made their life here an adventure in self-reliance. They live in a large, snug log house they built with their own hands on three and a half acres of land. Ron, a muscular 27-year-old with an engaging grin, studied economics and political science in college. "I feel that being selfsuffiicient brings us closer to our basic needs," he said.

The Nehrigs grow and preserve their own vegetables, milk a cow named Blossom, and make almost everything they need, even the complicated looms upon which Sara weaves. She has mastered intricate patterns, such as a design of squares and wavy lines known as "snail trail and cat track."

Their house is not rough or primitive. Its polished floorboards gleam. Through the picture window Blossom gazes curiously into the living room. The structure is so tightly built that the Nehrigs heat the two floors with a small stove, which Ron often fuels with chunks, shavings, and sawdust out of his woodworking shop.

Ron earns most of the little money they require with his custom-built lamps and fine hardwood .furniture. They tan hides, from which Sara makes shoes for herself and Ron and their 3-year-old blond daughter, Rachel (opposite). Sara's cobbling also contributes to their income.

"We've been able to get our expenses down to just about nothing," Ron said. "The largest expenditure we have is our property tax."

Brown County, bordering on Monroe County, gives most outsiders quaint impressions of Indiana's uplands. Attracted by tlle stunningly beautiful springs and autumns and the rustic county seat at Nashville, tourists learn of places with such names as Gnaw Bone, Beanblossom, Needmore, and Possum Trot Road.

5766 <;::QNG1:lESSIONAL RE~ORQ-. SENA'l;E March_ 9, 1976 They may find a little village called Pikes

Peak, and they wonder whether their leg 1s being pulled when they hear how it got its name. Old-timers say a covered wagon was headed for Colorado with a- sign that said "Pikes Peak or Bust." Unable to make it farther than Brown County, the· pioneers· Just named the place Pikes Peak, and that took care of that.

Brown County lies in a picturesque section of a stream-dissected plateau called the Norman Upland. It has narrow ridges, steep slopes, and deep, forested, V -shaped valleys. In spring the profuse redbud and dogwood blossoms look like plumes of pink and white smoke among the oak and hickory trees. In autumn the foliage blazes with colors.

But Brown County is Just one small section of the uplands. The hills extend south to the Ohio River, the southern edge of the state, and each county claims that its vistas are best.

Between the Norman Upland and a parallel formation, the Crawford Upland, is the Mitchell Plain, an area of thick limestone deposits riddled with caves, sinkholes, dry valleys, and sinking streams. In a single square mile near Orleans in Orange County, 1,022 sinkholes have been counted. About 1,400 caves have been explored in southern Indiana, the most famous being the Wyandotte, Marengo, Squire Boone, and Blue Spring caves with their miles of winding passageways and cathedral-like rooms.

Quarries in the Bloomington-Bedford area produce the famous Indiana limestone, a choice building material since the early 1800's. Many of the older men in this vicinity were quarrymen or stone-mill workers sometime in their lives.

But the advancement of concrete building techniques stole much of the market from the limestone industry, and the quarries and mills gradually declined.

Twenty-five years ago my high-school friends and l used to look down into the great quarry at Romona 1n Owen County when it was full of shouting men and clangorous machinery, and hazy with white dust. Now it is as quiet as a canyon. The mammoth Junk that was its heavy equipment is ruddy with rust. The only recent signs of man a.re a few spent shotgun shells and the wafflelike tire tracks of cross-country motorcycles.

Jake Peterson of Spencer, a 37-year-old stone carver (page 350), believes that the secret of being independent rests in having a skill people wlll pay you reasonably for, and not wanting more than your earnings will buy.

Jake's limestone balusters decorate state capitols and other buildings as far away as California and the Carolinas. On big lathes 1n his shop he turns out balusters for the limestone companies for which he, like his father, used to work as a stonecutter.

"I do a lot, but I do it at my pace," Jake said. "What I like best is to carve me some freehand pieces." These are limestone gateposts, flower boxes, birdbaths, and other ornamental objects, many of which imitate stumps and tree trunks. Jake gets much of his inspiration from the woods.

"It's kinda nice," he mused, "to know that work I did will still be around after I'm gone. still a-lookin' good."

Often Jake's shop is closed on nice days. · Like many of the men in these parts, he goes out and fishes or hunts to put food on the dinner table.

One day before the leaves were on the trees, Rich Bra.ult, a young hunter, fisherman, and mechanic from Hobbieville, came by to visit. His brother, a. Marine on leave, was with him. Rich found that I hadn't had supper yet and asked if I Uked.__rabbit. Very much, I replied. "I'll get you one," he said. The brothers went to their van. I thought they were going to

get a. rabbit out; instead, they let out a dog. With guns they disappeared into the woods.

I'd always thought rabbit hunting had to be part luck, so I began wondering what else I might fut for supper. But 1n minutes they returned to the house · with a kitchen-ready rabbit. They had bagged and skinned it as routinely as one goes to the supermarket for a chicken.

Every Saturday morning from November through February, pickups, vans, and cars line Court House Square at Spencer, laden with pelts......:.muskra.t, squirrel, fox, mink, raccoon. Buyers come, stroll around, bid, and buy. No one sponsors or runs this Owen County fur market; nobody knows how it started. But it has been going on every winter Saturday morning for well over a. century.

Hunting, fishing, and trapping are Just a few of the many things these people do well. The Jack-of-all-trades is alive and well in the hills of southern Indiana..

John Foglesong of Gypsy Hollow near Owensburg is an example. John drives a school bus. "'Course, you can't make a. good living at that." But the schedule permits him to spend the best hours of his days opera.ting his lucrative milling, timbering, and blacksmithing businesses (page 351).

He admitted that he can make or repair just about anything. "Growing up during the Depression, I learned to make things 'ca.use we were poor. You just couldn't find a dollar. So we ma.de everything we used." John designed and built a modern sawmlll he can operate single-handed. At his forge he hammers out knives, cleavers, and tools of tempered steel, welds ornamental items, and restores such archaic tools as hay saws, adzes, and cradle scythes.

His most useful restorations are the ha.lfcentury-old single-cylinder gasoline engines that power his grist mills, blacksmith shop, and sorghum press. Their rhythmic popping and chuffing is fam111a.r music at Gypsy Hollow.Stone-ground cornmeal and wheat :flour, sold in cotton bags, are the main supplements to his income.

John is dedicated to keeping as many farm and home crafts alive as he can. With the help of his brother, Carson, and his friend Ray Baker of Springvllle, John organizes informal fairs at Gypsy Hollow. These gatherings bring together the region's many weavers, gunsmiths, beekeepers, woodworkers, home · canners, and various collectors, who come to show, tell, and sell.

I remember their first fair, on a clear day in 1974. John entertained on the anvil, demonstrating his sk111. Old engines jiggled and banged, cornmeal sifted out of the mill, and scores of visitors prowled among the exhibits.

Ray explained why the fairs have become a labor of love: "We want people to come see how things used to be done, so they won't be forgotten. As for me persona.Uy, well, I work in computers over at Crane Naval Weapons Support Center all day. So when I get done there, well, gosh, I just need to get my hands onto something real."

One of the craftsmen John admires most is Frank Fancher of Grantsburg, who is considered to be probably the last of the oldtime master handle makers. A friend and I drove down to see Frank, a. lean 63-year-old. We needed to replace ax handles we had broken while cutting hardwoods for fuel.

Using a sledgehammer, steel wedges, a mallet, and a. froe, Frank split a hickory log. Despite a severe Ump he manhandled the heavy wood without interrupting his monologue. "When I was in the eighth grade, I would've had to walk three and a half miles to school, so I gave that up and started doing this. That was 47 yea.rs a.go."

Frank roughed out the handles with an old broad-bladed hand ax. He measured only by eye and touch. Then he locked one of the pieces of hickory in a sturdy homemade rig

called a shaving horse and pulled his ra.zorsharp dra.wknife toward him along the length of the piece, pausing only to study the grain of the wood. The knife hissed; long, white shavings curled and piled up at his feet. Not a motion was wasted (page 350).

"I used to shave one of these out in eight minutes," he said, "but I don't work ths t hard anymore."

In Frank's opinion there are three things wrong with the mass-produced ax handles normally sold 1n hardware stores: "They'!u sawed out. They're kiln-dried, and th-i·, makes them brittle so they break easy. Ar.d they cost too much."

Frank sells his handles directly to customers who come to him, eliminating the middleman's share. He has all the orders he can keep up with, and demonstrates his skill at fairs and expositions.

"I shaved handles at an arts and crafts festival down in Madison," he said. "They had a trophy. They gave it to me when we were done. An artist alongside me said, 'I sure was after that trophy, Frank.• I told him, 'Well, I didn't even know there was a trophy.' That's the way it goes, I guess. If you're working for trophies, you likely won't get 'em. If you're working for the work, maybe you will.''

Our handles were finished. His knife had sh aved them so smooth that no sanding ·was necessary. I held them together; they were within an eighth of an inch of being identical. This master craftsman charged us less than half what we would have paid for storebought handles.

Frank rewarded his labors by hand-rolling a cigarette. I asked if he had come by his limp through a woodcutting accident. No, he said, his leg and back were bent by infantile paralysis when he was young. Suddenly I understood why he hadn't been- able to walk to school 47 years ago. "A doctor looked at me not long ago," he said with a grin. "Told me he didn't see how I'd ever been able to do a day's work in my life.''

Like generations of southern Indiana. natives, Frank has survived on his knowledge of wood. Hardwood is one of the m ajor resources of this region, where trees cover about half of the land.

In Martin County wood proved to be the salvation a few yea.rs ago of an unusual community called Pada.naram. I drove into a secluded valley to visit this communal village, whose buildings of logs and roughsawn lumber, dirt streets, bearded men, sheltered women, and active children suggest those of an American pioneer town. There are no television sets.

Yet Pada.na.ram roars with modern technology. Large diesel-powered forklifts charge around the log yard, grabbing up hardwood logs. From the tinroofed sawmill come rumblings, rattles and thumps, the meta.me whine of high-speed saws, the yells and whistles of busy men, a yellow plume of sawdust, and stacks of graded lumber.

An independent logger, waiting while his trailer rig was unloaded, shook his head in admiration and said, "It's a.bout the cuttin'est mill I know of.''

The mlllion-dollar-a-year sawmill and the village it supports are the inspirations of 57-year-old Daniel Wright, who had been an itinerant preacher. The ideal of a selfsufficient utopian society 1s the motivation of Padanaram's 140 citizens, and the closest thing to a common religion. They speak fervently of their unique brotherhood and their freedom from the "inequalities" of the outside world.

"I can't imagine myself ever leaving here," said Larry Hopkins, a young carpenter, gazing over the green valley. "It's llke it's God's plan.''

Daniel Wright ls certain that Pada.naram is God's plan. In 1966, after interpreting a series of mystical visions, Daniel tried to


sustain an agrarian commune here on 86 acres with 11 followers. Months of bad weather and crop failures ensued.

"Then," Daniel said "for the first time we 1·ea1ly saw the timber we had here, and we decided to build a sawmill." The mill made $4,000 in its first year. Padanaram now owns about a thousand acres of mortgage-free timberlands and fields, in which all adult males have equal shares.

The people of Padanaram have faced the hostility and suspicion of neighbors, politicians, and some newspapers critical of communal living. Some voiced alarm because the commune was adjacent to the Crane Naval Weapons Support Center.

Little by little those attitudes have changed. The commune is open to visitors on Sundays and by special invitation, and the settlement is now tolerated by most and admired by many. Delinquent and homeless boys and girls sometimes are placed in the care of the commune by local authorities.

The settlement, named after a region mentioned in the Book of Genesis, is like an Old Testament patriarchy. "The men do the hard work and make the decisions here," said Daniel. "The wives serve their men, cook and wash, and bear and tend babies."

More than forty children have been born in Padanaram, usually by natural childbirth with midwives and husbands in attendance. Growing up close to nature and hard work, Padanaram youngsters might be seen quietly fishing or herb-gathering, or running about with their arms extended forward, imitating a forklift.

I left Padanaram after a few days, my head full of unusual impressions, but one image, especially, sticks in my mind:

Black-bearded Tim Johnson, early in the morning of a two-shift workday, was using his few spare moments for a special project. Standing in the children's play yard, he was wielding a snarling, smoking chain saw to sculpt a hobbyhorse out of a log.

To me, this contrast of ruggedness and tenderness was the essence of Padanaram.

Dwellers in Padanaram, I think, feel secure because they're part of a brotherhood of capable people. I sensed that kind of secu-1·1ty one drizzly winter Wednesday in a valley below the country home of Ole Steffen Dahl, as I helped put fence posts and barbed wire around a livestock pond. It was strenuous work in cold, ankle-deep mud, but in good company, and our little group of fence builders finished the day with food and brandy in front of Ole's fireplace.

A Danish-born master violin maker who practices his art in a shop near Indiana Uni· versity, Ole is one of a group of friends who get together on Wednesdays to pitch in on work projects that one person or another can't easily do alone. One week they might dig a root cellar, the next, harvest a field.

Besides saving money, they learn practical skills from each other, and their friendships grow. "It's a kind of insurance," said one member. "We just share the load.''

The pioneers knew ·that the folks one can rely on are those who rely on themselves. I imagine it was reassuring, when a settler stood on a wooded ridge on a winter evening early in the last century, to hear the sounds of a gun, an ax, and an anvil, and know that such people were nearby in the wilde1·nessjust in case they might be needed.

K. C. JONES: DISTINGUISHED COACH OF THE WASHINGTON BULLETS Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, oc

casionally, one finds on the sports pages of our press philosophical insights that fit the circumstances of all of us. Such a piece appears in today's Washington Post in the form of an interview by David DuPree with Washington Bullets coach, K. C. Jones.

As a longtime admirer of Coach Jones and his team, I would like to call this article to the attention of my colleagues in Congress. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: [From the Washington Post, Mar. 9, 1976] COACH JONES STILLS DISSENT, PUTS BULLETS

BACK ON TRACK

(By David DuPree) Bullets• coach K. C. Jones has managed to

bring his troubled team back into a winning mold after a series of struggles with his players.

Jones, who was described by one player earlier thls year as "just too easy," has survived explosive team meetings and sharp confrontations with key players. Along the way he has transformed the Bullets of, in his own words, "too many stars, and all at the offensive end," into a unit that works together.

The Bullets have won six of their last seven NBA games and their 13-5 record since the all-star break is the best in the league.

Some of the players admit that they may have taken advantage of Jones• easygoipg manner in the past.

"Don't let anyone tell you K. C. can't coach," one player said early ln the season when the Bullets were struggling. "It's just that he's so concerned a.bout our feelings. He's got to say to hell with our feelings and make us do the things the way he wants them done. That's what most of us need.''

At one point this season, it was unclear whether the Bullets would win more games than they lost, and Jones• job was in jeopardy.

"When you lose, everyone is looking around to blame someone,'' Jones said.

"I was down. I was really low at one point, but all I could do was go to practice and

BULLETS' STATISTICS TO DATE

(Washington Bullets' statistics through 67 games)

work hard. You've got to keep getting up when you're down or it's all over.

"It's tough to tell a superstar to be patient and work for better shots. A lot of guys just want to get out there and play their game without thinking about the unit.''

To combat that, Jones made the Bullets run plays nearly ever time they came down the floor, if they didn't have a clear fast break. In practice it was repetition, repetition repetition. Many of the players hated it. They felt it took away from their natural skills. But Jones stayed ,vith it and has taught his team patience.

"When everyone goes for himself, like we were doing for a time," Jones said, "it causes bickering and all sorts of problems. It kills the unit when one guy tries to take everything on himself. And when you have three or four guys in the lineup like that you really have problems."

Jones says those problems are behind the Bullets now. "We are where we are now because we are working togethe1· and talking. We're a unit at both ends of the floor.

"If you come to depend on a teammate to get you a good shot, then it's natural to depend on him at the other end of the floor as well,'' Jones a.dded.

"Om· confidence is back now and we are playing as smart as we have ever played. Smarts and hustle are the keys, and I put hustle at the top."

Jones' formula for winning is simple, "Rebound, teamwork, get the loose balls and play defense. The offense is just the nail in the coffin. You win the games down at the other end of the floor."

Earlier in the season the Bullets were playing 10 and 11 players every game. Now they play seven and no more unless they are forced into it. "That's the system that has worked best for us," Jones said.

If there is one player Jones is most responsible for the Bullets• success, it is Dave Bing. "He leads by example,'' Jones said. "You can preach hustle and teamwork and talk all the game you want, but Dave is the one who goes out and shows you how to do it."

The Bullets have a rare seven days off before they play the conference-leading Celtics Sunday at Boston. Jones gave the players yesterday and today off.

"Now is the time you have to play better,'' the coach said as the Bullets headed into their final 15 regular-season games. "It's a delicate time.''

The Bullets lead Cleveland by two games in the Central Division and trail Boston by 3 Y2 games for the best record in the conference. They have two games left with the Celtics and one with the Cavaliers.

"We can't afford to look any further ahead than our next game," Jones said, "but in the back of our minds we're thinking about catching Boston (for the best record in the conference) .''

The Celtics undoubtedly are looking over their shoulders at the Bullets, as well.

Name G Min. FG-FGA Pct. FT- FTA Pct. Reh. PF Pts. Avg.

Chenier _______ ------- 65 2,392 524-1,088 0. 482 233--283 0. 841 255 203 147 1, 286 19. 8 Hayes _____ ------ ----- 65 2,388 530-1, 133 .468 223-351 .635 716 104 236 l, 238 19. 7 Bing _________________ 67 2,405 403-907 • 444 290-371 • 782 195 385 212 l, 096 16. 4 Robinson _____________ 67 1, 521 246-566 • 435 168-248 . 677 425 92 184 660 9.9 Unseld ______ --------- 65 2,477 270--487 . 554 93-158 . 589 889 364 169 633 9. 7 Riordon_ ------ ------- 67 1, 789 278-£05 .460 59-79 • 747 178 114 186 615 9.2 Haskins_------------_ 45 638 128-232 . 552 44-53 .830 48 60 68 300 6. 7 Weatherspoon ____ ----- 50 771 131-308 .425 69-100 .690 200 38 120 331 6.6 Jones _____ ----- ______ 52 912 124-253 • 490 59-77 • 766 99 88 105 307 5. 9 Grevey _______________ 44 437 68-180 . 378 46-51 .902 52 24 51 182 4.1 Kozelka_ ------------- 53 443 45-89 • 506 14-22 .636 63 26 60 104 2.0 Kropp _____ __________ - 18 57 7-25 .280 5-6 • 833 11 5 15 19 1.1

Total.. ••••••••• 67 16, 230 2, 754-5, 873 ,469 1, 308-1, 799 .727 3, 131 1, 503 1,553 6,816 101. 7 Opponents ______ 67 16, 230 2, 755-6, 233 .442 1, 184-1, 536 • 747 3, 136 1,349 1,615 6,694 99.9

5768 CONGRESSIONAL· RECORD - SENATE March 9, 1976 DR. BENJAMIN E. MAYS HONORED

Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, one of the most distinguished citizens and educators of the city of Atlanta, the State of Georgia, and the South, Dr. Benjamin E. Mays, is being honored by the Southern Conference of Black Mayors.

The conference will set aside the week of April 4, 1976 as "Dr. Benjamin E. Mays Week," and on April 10, a dinner will be given in his honor. · Dr. Mays is President Emeritus of Morehouse College in Atlanta, and presently serves as president of the Atlanta Board of Education. He has a long and distinguished career of community service and leadership in the field of education. He holds many honorary degrees from all over the United States and he is the author of numerous books and articles.

This recognition by the Southern Conference of Black Mayors is certainly a well-deserved tribute to Dr. May's dedication and hard work and I congratulate him on this distinction.

Also, I ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the RECORD a resolution commending Dr. Mays that was adopted by the city council of Atlanta.

There being no objection, the resolution was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

RESOLUTION

W};lereas, Dr. Benjamin E. Mays has distinguished Wm.self in positions of leadership in religion, education, government, civil 1·ights and civic affairs over a. span of more than four decades; and

Whereas, Dr. Mays has worked tirelessly throughout his private and professional llfe to further the cause of human dignity and justice for all people; and

Whereas, Dr. Mays has proven himself to be a creative and committed administrator throughout his 27 years of service to the Atlanta academic community as President of Morehouse College and through his terms as President of the Atlanta. Boa.rd of Education; and

Whereas, in addition to his administrative work, Dr. Mays has authored or co-authored five books, contributed chapters or sections to over 14 books and published almost 75 articles in various magazines and academic journals; and

Whereas, on the recommendation of Mayor Maynard Jackson, it is fitting and proper that the Atlanta. City Councll recognize formally the great works and many contributions of this gi·eat man to the cause of human betterment.

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Atlanta City Council adopt this resolution and Join with the Southern Conference of Black Mayors in honoring the works of this great Atlantan.

LEAD POISONING Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, 2 weeks

ago the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health disclosed the preliminary results of a recent testing program conducted at two lead smelting plants in Indianapolis. NIOSH commissioned by Dr. Irving Seliko:ff of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine to examine 158 persons who were exposed to lead contamination while employed at the two plants. Dr. Selikoff found that more than 58 percent of the employees

examined have blood lead levels above the proposed OSHA safety standard, and more than 25 percent of those tested have "dangerously high" blood lead levels for which immediate treatment is required. High percentages of employees also evidenced other effects of lead poisoning, including high blood pressure, accelerated aging of the nervous system, kidney disorders, stomach pain and weakening eyesight.

Dr. Selikoff's findings clearly indicate that both plants are permeated with a level of lead contamination so high as to constitute a serious danger to the lives of those working there. In and of itself, this is very disturbing. But, Mr. President, it is all the more disturbing to realize that OSHA has known for 3 years of the inherently dangerous working conditions at these plants and has failed to take effective remedial action. OSHA inspected both plants in 1973 and found illegally high levels of airborne lead contamination.

Each plant was ordered to immediately institute an abatement program designed to reduce significantly the level of lead contamination. OSHA then granted each plant six extensions of the previously established deadline for final abatement. Today, neither abatement program has been completed, and OSHA has refused to enforce final abatement of the dangerously high levels of lead contamination at these plants.

Mr. President, hundreds of managers and owners of small and large businesses have written and spoken to me in the past few years to express their disenchantment with OSHA. They frequently complain that OSHA is "on their backs" about seemingly trivial matters. While I agree that the operations of OSHA, like every Federal agency, can be improved, I will not join with those who, like President Ford, want OSHA thrown into the ocean. The NIOSH study of workers in the Indianapolis lead smelting plants demonstrates the tragedy that can strike when OSHA falls to do its job. My colleagues and I haNe the responsibility to ensure not only that OSHA stays in place but that it carries out the task for which it was created and that the American worker is provided with a safe and healthy working environment.

PUBLIC INTEREST NOMINATIONS TO NATIONAL CANCER ADVISORY BOARD Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, the

Fliends of the Earth and 15 other public interest, labor, environmental, and consumer organizations have joined in nominating members of the National Cancer Advisory Board.

Writing on the letterhead of the Commission for the Advancement of Public Interest Organizations, they explain they are submitting the names of individuals "who are qualified to serve on the NCAB and who would bring badly needed specialties and perspectives to its deliberations and advice."

Their letter to Dr. Frank J. Raucher, Jr .• Dh·ector, National Cancer Institute, asserts:

It is clear that in order to develop policies that focus on preventing cancer, the makeup of the Institute's National Cancer Advisory Board needs to reflect a balance of persons who have special competence in epidemi~logy and preventive medicine, persons who combine a specialty in health science with a demonstrated involvement in grassroots citizen action efforts for the welfare of the general public, and persons representative of those sectors of the public, such as labor, whose members a.re heavily affected by federal regulatory actions or inactions that contribute to t he rise of the cancer rate.

. In ~ separate letter to me, the legislative director of the Friends of the Earth Jeffrey W. Knight, reports that the sig~ natories feel the present membership of the board "does not re present the type of balance demanded by the Federal Advisory Committee Act and that the appointment of the people listed would correct that imbalance as well as bring to the board, members with an appreciation of of the threat of carcinogens in the envfronment."

Mr. President. these organizations should be commended and encouraged for their initiative in light of the Federal Advisory Committee Act's requirement that advisory committee membership "be fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed by the advisory committee." The other signatories are:

Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Int er-n ational Union.

United Auto Workers International Union. Public Citizen Health Research Group. Sierra Club. Environmental Defense Fund. Natural Resources Defense Council. Public Interest Economics Center. National Consumers League. Consumer Federation of America. Rachel Carson Trust for the Living En

vironment. Environment Forum. Migrant Education Component of the Na-

tional Child Labor Committee. Environmental Policy Center. National Clean Air Coalition. United Mine Workers of America.

The National Cancer Advisory Board consists of five ex officio members-the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare; the Director of the National Science Foundation; the Director of the National Institutes of Health; the chief medical officer of the Veterans' Administration-or his designee; and a medical officer designated by the Secretary of Defense-and 18 members appointed by the President. These standards apply to the appointed members:

First. Not more than 12 shall be scientists or physicians who are among 'L.'l.e leading scientific or medical authorities outstanding in the study, diagnosis, or treatment of cancer or in fields related thereto, and not more than 8 shall be representatives of the general public.

Second. Each shall be appointed from among persons who by virtue of their training, experience, and back.ground are especially qualified to appraise the programs of the National Cancer Institute.

Third. They hold office for overlapping terms of 6 years and are eligible for reappointment and may serve after the expiration of their terms until their successors have taken office.


The terms of six members of the board will exPire this year-the letter refers to seven, but means six. The organizatio~ wrote to Dr. Rauscher, because of thell" understanding that the Presidential appointments are made from a list of candidates prepared by the National Cancer Institute.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter to Dr. Rauscher be printed in the RECORD, along with a list of the six board members whose terms expire in 1976, and an item from the "Briefing" column of the August 9, 1974, issue of Science, dealing with the appointment of new members to the board that year.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,

as follows: JANUARY 19, 1976.

Dr FRANK J. RAUSCHER, Jr .• Di;ector, National Cancer Program, ~ationaZ

cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Mel.

DEAR DR. RAUSCHER: We, the undersigned, representing a number o! public interest, labor, environmental and consumer organizations, wish to nominate the following listed persons for the seven terms of service on the National cancer Advtsory Board which expire on or before March 31, 1976. A curriculum. vitae for each ls attached. All candidates listed have stated their willingness to serve, i! appointed.

The candidates we are nominating have been chosen from and are listed here according to eight areas o! special competence we belleve must be better represented on the Board: labor, preventive medicine and epidemiology. chemical carcinogenesis, basic science, professional health science writing, professional public interest health, citizen/ consumer a.nd legal areas.

In our view. the National Cancer Advisory Board, as presently constituted, lacks balance in terms of disciplines represented. Moreover, while industry appears to be well represented, there is not corresponding representation from the labor and public in· terest communities. Troublesome, also, is that the allocation of resources within the National Cancer Institute has emphasized the curative rather than preventive approach to cancer research. Such emphasis is unfortunate, particularly in view of NCI's recent estimate that 90% of human cancers are environmentally induced, many by chemicals in the environment. It would seem logical under these circumstances to have programs of the National Cancer Institute emphasize, at a much higher intensity than is currently the case, the preventive aspects of cancer research.

It is clear that in order to develop policies that focus on preventing cancer, the makeup of the Institute's National Caneer Advisory Board needs to reflect a balance of persons who have special competence 1n epidemiology and preventive medicine, persons who combine a specialty in health science with a. demonstrated involvement in grassroots citizen action efforts for the welfare of the genera.I public, and persons representative of those secto1·s of the public, such as labor, whose members are heavily affected by federal regulatory actions or inactions that contribute to the rise of the cancer rate.

With these concerns in mind, we submit the names of individuals who a.re qualified to serve on the NCAB and who would bring badly needed specialties and perspectives to its deliberations and advice.

LABOR George Ferkel, Director of Research, Textile

Workers Union o! America., 99 University Place, New York, New York 10003.

CXXII--365-Part 6

Dr. Franklin Mirer, Industrial Hygienist and Toxicologist, Social Security Department, United Auto Workers International Union, 8000 East Jefferson, Detroit, Michigan 48214.

PREVENTXVE :MEDICINE AND EPIDEMIOLOGY

Dr. Donald Austin, Chief, California Tumor Registry. State of California-Health and Welfare Agency, Department of Health, 2151 Berkeley Way, Berkeley, Cali!ornia 94704. ·

Dr. Bertram W. Ca.mow, Professor and Director, University of Illinois, School of Public Health, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 835 South Wolcott Avenue, Chia.go, IDinois 60680.

Dr. William Finkle, Kaiser Permanente Medical Ca.re Program, Health Plan, 4661 Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 9-0027.

CHEMICAL CARCINOGENESIS

Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, Swetland, Professor of Environmental Health and Hum.an Ecology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio 44106.

Dr. John w. Gofman, 1045 Clayton Street, San Francisco, California 94117.

Dr. William Lijinsky, Group Lea.der. Biology Division. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, P.O. Box Y, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830.

Dr. Arthur C. Upton. Attending Pathologist, Medical Department. Brookhaven National Laboratory. Associated Universities, Inc .• Upton, Long Island, New York 11973.

PUBLIC INTEREST HEALTH PaOFESSIONALS

Dr. Robert Harris, Director, Toxic Chemicals Program, Environmental Defense Fund, 1525 18th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

Dr. Sidney Wolfe, Director, Public Citizen Health Research Group, 2000 P Street, N.W .• Washington, D.C. 20036.

Dr. Karim Ahmed. Staff Scientist, Natural Resources Defense Council, 15 West 44th Street. New York, New York 10036.

Dr. William Johnson (c.v. forthcoming). Resident, University of Arizona, College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona 85721.

BASIC SCIENCE

Dr. Bruce Ames, Professor of Biochemistry. University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720.

Dr. Emmanuel Farber, Professor and Chairman, Department of Pathology, University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine, 100 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 1L5.

LEGAL

William Butler, General Counsel, Environmental Defense Fund, 1525 18th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

Anita Johnson, Staff Attorney, Public Citizen Health Research Group, 2000 P Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

PROFESSIONAL HEALTH SCIENCE WRITING

Paul Brodeur, The New Yorker, 25 West 43rd Street, New York, New York 10036.

CITIZEN/CONSUMER

Judy Bra.Iman, President, Empire State Consumer Association, Inc., 109 Heather Drive, Rochester, New York 14625.

Dr. S. Stephen Chapman. Research Director, Minnesota. Public Interest Research Group, 3036 University Avenue, S.E., Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414.

Stanley Cohen, Chief, Washington Bureau, Crain Communications, Inc., National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20004.

Dr. Susan Ann Mcintosh, Regional Director and Health Research Director, Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group, 120 Boylston Street, Room 320, Boston, Massachusetts 02116.

Dr. Gerald Glantz, Assistant Clinical Professor, U.C.L.A., 9808 Venice Boulevard, Culver City, California 90230.

With thanks for your consideration, we are Sincerely,

(Note-signatures omitted.)

MEMBERS OF THE! NATIONAL CANCER ADVISORY

BoARD WHOSE TERMS ExPIRE IN 1976 Dr. Harold Amos. Professor, Department of

Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, Harvard Medical School, 25 Shattuck Street. Boston, Massachusetts 02115.

Elmer H. Bobst, Consultant, Warner-Lambert Company, 7 East 60th Street, New York, N.Y.10022.

Donald E. Johnson, Sr., President, Advertisers Press, Inc., 718 Harrison Street, Flint. Michigan 48502.

Dr. Irving M. London, Director, HarvardMIT Program in Health Sciences and Technology, Bldg. 16-512, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139.

Dr. Gerald P. Murphy, Institute Director. Roswell Park Memorial Institute, 666 Elm Street, Buffalo, N.Y. 14203.

Dr. Ph111ppe Shubik, Director, The Eppley Institute for Research in Cancer, University of Nebraska, Omaha, Nebraska 68105.

[From Science, Aug. 9, 1974] 'l' HE WHITE HOUSE AND THE CANCER

BOARD

The presidentially appointed National Cancer Advisory Board has six new members--almost. Although they showed up !or the board's most recent meeting and were formally introduced, the President has yet to get around to making their appointments. The situation ls a source o! some embarrassment to the brass at the National Cancer Institute (NCI), who are supposed to be fighting cancer without red tape.

Feellngs a.bout the present lack of presidential responsiveness are compounded by the fact that the White House did care enough about the new appointees to take an active role in their selection in the first place. There are those at NCI who see that as unhealthy political interference.

The new members o! the board are William O. Baker, president of the Bell Telephone Laboratories; G. Denman Hammond, director o! the cancer center at the University of Southern California School of Medicine, Los Angeles; virologist Werner Henle of the Children's Hospital o! Philadelphia; and radiologist William E. Powers o! Washington University in St. Louis. Philanthropist- Mary Lasker of New York, originally appointed to the board for a 2-year term, was reappointed. So was Joseph H. Ogura, chairman of otolaryngology at Washington University, who was appointed in mld-1972 to fill a vacancy.

According to persons close to the situation, Ogura's reappointment was managed by the White House and could have become the focus of a dispute between the people running the cancer program from Bethesda and those running it from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue had it not been for Stanford biochemist Paul Berg.

The story, pieced together from various individuals, seems to be this: Ogura, known as an outstanding head and neck surgeon, was not among the persons on NCI's original list of candidates for the six openings simply because of a desire to put new people on the board rather than rename existing members. But word filtered back to NCI that the White House wanted Ogura, allegedly because he has strong Republican connections in the Midwest. It looked for a time as if Hammond, whom many persons were particularly anxious to have on the boa.rd, would not be asked to serve. It is not clear Just how far the NCI would have pushed its feelings about this matter, but as it turned out, it never had to, because Berg unexpectedly said "No" when he was asked if he would be willing to join the board. This created what amounted to a vacancy.

Berg's decision to reject an opportunity to be on the board was not made as a protest against the cancer program. or the Adm1n1stration but rather as a protest against "administration." Berg, who says his decision

5770 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE Marth 9, 1976 not to serve on the board was one that caused him real anguish, realizes that by remaining out of the fray he has lessened his right to criticize the policies others make but in the end his commitment to his research took precedence. Having just resigned the chairmanship of the department of biochemistry in order to spend time in the laboratory, he concluded that it would hardly make sense to take on the time-consuming administrative duties that go with being a board member.

And so, what might have become a minicrisis for the NCI passed.

Ogura, for his part, says that, although he is a Republican, he is not politically active in any way a.nd has no connections with highly placed members of the Administration, least of all, the President. The most likely reason for his reappointment, he suggests, is that having been named to fill a vacancy, he has not ha.d sufficient time to contribute fully to the board's activities.-B.J .C.

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS OF THE RHODE ISLAND GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and my distinguished senior colleague <Mr. PASTORE) I present several memorials and petitions adopted by the General Assembly of the State of Rhode Island. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: HOUSE RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING CONGRESS

TO URGE THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT To PROVIDE FOR THE FUNDING OF SECURITY GUARD PROGRAMS AT CITY AND TOWN HOUSING PROJECTS WITH• IN THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, AS LONG AS No MEMBER OF ANY SUCH FORCE Is ALLOWED To SERVE BEYOND His 50TH BmTHDAY

Resolved, That the members of Congress of the United States be a.nd they are hereby respectfully requested to urge the Department of Housing a.nd Urban Development to provide funds for security guard programs at city and town housing projects within the state of Rhode Island; and be it further

Resolved, That the Secretary of State be and he is hereby authorized and directed to transmit duly certified copies of this resolution to the Rhode Island delegation in Congress.

HOUSE RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE CON• GRESS TO CONTINUE THE POLICY OF REVENUE SHARING BEYOND THE PROPOSED JUNE 1, 1976, TERMINATION DATE

Resolved, That the President of the United States and the congress be and they are hereby respectfully requested to take the appropriate steps necessary to continue the policy of revenue sharing beyond June 1, 1976; and be it further

Resolved, That the secretary of state be and he hereby is authorized and directed to transmit duly certified copies of this resolution to the congress, the President, and the senatorial and congressional delegation from Rhode Island serving in congress.

RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING CONGRESS TO EX• TEND ALL AVAILABLE MEDICAL AND HUMANI

TARIAN SERVICES TO THE PEOPLE OF GUATE•

MALA

Resolved, That the Senate of tlle State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations hereby respectfully resquests the Congress of the United States to extend all available medical and humanitarian services to the people of Guatemala. to assist that nation in recov-

ering from the disastrous effects of the recent earthquakes; and be it further

Resolved, That the Secretary of State be and he is hereby respectfully requested to transmit duly certified copies of this resolution to the members of Congress from Rhode Island.

SENATE RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING CON· GRESS TO EXTEND REVENUE SHARING

Whereas, The Congress of the United States saw fit that a revenue sharing program was originally enacted; and

Whereas, This program provided for the disbursement of federal funds to the respective local towns and cities; and

Whereas, The revenue sharing program also provided for a network of cooperation and involvement between citizens and various community neighborhoods and the respective town and city elected and appointed officials; and

Whereas, Federal Revenue sharing has allowed many towns and cities to initiate new programs for the welfare and benefit of the people; and

Whereas, This federal program in some instances has been of benefit in holding the property tax and alleviating some of the tax burden on our local citizens; and

Whereas, The loss of these funds and these programs would impair the continuation of certain programs and affect the local tax financing; now therefore be it.

Resolved, That the Senate of the State of Rhode Island hereby respectfully memorializes the Congress of the United States to extend revenue sharing; and be it further

Resolved, That the secretary of state be and he hereby is authorized and directed to transmit duly certified copies of this resolution to the senators and representatives from Rhode Island in the congress and to the speaker of the United States House of Representatives and the president of the United States Senate.

HUBERT HUMPHREY: STILL THE HAPPY WARRIOR

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, the February 9 issue of People magazine carries a sparkling interview by the distinguished correspondent, Clare Crawford, with Minnesota's Senator HUBERT HUMPHREY.

HUBERT HUMPHREY has been my friend for as long as I can remember. We were temporarily divided on the tragic issue of Vietnam, but throughout most of my political career, he has been a source of inspiration and abiding friendship. My family and I had the privilege of living next door to Muriel and HUBERT HuM· PHREY and their remarkable family for the first 10 years of my service in the Congress. Those were pleasurable and satisfying years.

Anyone reading Senator HUMPHREY'S interview with Ms. C1·awford will be impressed with the joy of life and the en· thusiasm for public service which are the earmarks of this remarkable public servant.

I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: IT'S NOT TOUGH SLEDDING ANYMORE FOR

THE NEW SERENE HUBERT HUMPHREY

Playing it cozy has never been Hubert Humphrey's style. But now, after 31 years in politics, as mayor, senator, Vice-President and Democratic presidential nominee in

1968, he regards his future with serenity. He says he is no longer driven by the urge to be President, though he would surely be waiting if fate ca.me to call. He also insists he will not campaign for the nomination. Even so, many Republican leaders, including President Ford, believe Humphrey will be his party's nominee in 1976. Relaxing at his fourbedroom home in Waverly, Minn., the senator recently spoke with PEOPLE correspondent Clare Crawford.

Although you were defeated in the 1968 pre::;idential election and failed to obtain your party's nomination in 1972, you are still regarded as a. viable candidate. Why?

I've never hated people. I've never indulged in any mean, nasty attacks on even my Republican friends. I really believe that sowing of seed is coming home in the harvest. There's a lot of goodwill.

When did you begin to accept the idea that you might never be President?

It wasn't a big decision. I just began to feel tlut there wasn't any need. I didn't feel the compulsion. I realized I had a. good position in the Senate, that there's a limit to how mucl you can give of yourself, and that you ought to recognize those limits. It's strange, but the more I decided I didn't want to run, th.e more people came to me.

Axe you enjoying yourself? I"ln having a lot of fun. I speak to Demo

cratic conclaves, get .them all revved up, and I don 't ask them for a thing. I don't need anything. Frankly, I don't even need to get reelected to the Senate. I'd like to, but we've got a nice place out here and I've got no problem making a living. It would be like picking oranges off a tree.

What do you like about this place? I can relax. I come out and sweep the

garage, clean the boathouse or pick dandelions. I wear old clothes. I don't shave. And I smell. In fact, I'm almost abominable somet.imes. That's the way I work it all out.

President Nixon defeated you in 1968. How do you think he will be evaluated by history?

In foreign policy I believe he will be remembered as essentially a good President. But he had no capacity to communicate with his own Cabinet or the Congress or the public. Being a loner is dangerous for a President.

How did he impress you personally? I don't think he was mentally unbal

anced-that's been overdone-but his whole life attitude has been one of suspicion and conspiracy from day one. That's the way he started in politics. He never passed a constructive piece of legislation. He was always investigating someone. He never thought about the joy in America the happiness in the streets. It's like I always say: if a man hates long enough he'll destroy himself. This fellow was so suspicious of everybody that when he got to be President it consumed him. (Nixon).

How do you rate Gerald Ford? As a weak President, but a decent man.

You have to be more than a person in the Presidency. You have to become a force.

Do you consider Ronald Reagan a. threat to his renomination?

Reagan is an exceedingly good campaigner. I think the odds are better than 50-50 that Reagan can beat Ford.

In retrospect, how do you feel about Lyndon Johnson?

I think he understood power, and I consider him a rnmarkably capable President. Vietnam was his quicksand and his sorrow. Every time I think of him, I see him brooding over those reports and trying to :figure out a way to get out of it.

Do you ever regret serving as his VicePresident?

No. It may have been true that Johnson used me as Vice-President, but that's an inevitability of the office. I was a good VicePresident. Muriel and I worked hard. We were a credit to the country.

March 9, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE 5771

Do you think it would have been wiser politically for you to have broken with Johnson in 1968?

I think it would have hurt. He was the incumbent President, and I had enough trouble without having another enemy. Johnson could be very mean 1! he wanted to be. I think if we ma.de any mistake, it was that we didn't ask him to do enough.

You don't think you lost because of his Vietnam policy?

Hell, the Southern states were all for Vietnam and I lost every one. I lost because of my position on civil rights.

Were you surprised by the bitterness of the antiwar protest?

Some people had very strong moral feelings about the war. Sometimes they were hostile. I expect that in politics. But I don't expect people to throw their filth on me, to spit on me, to harass my wife. I don't expect a college professor to show he can relate to kids by getting up and using every four-letter word he didn't dare use in graduate school. I don't have time for people like that, and that's one of the things I love about my life now. I don't have to have time for them.

Why did you run in 1972? Frankly, I just wasn't going to be shoved

aside. I came within four-tenths of one percent of winning the previous election, and my party, from 1968 to 1972, paid about as much attention to me as if I were a dead elephant. They seemed to be saying, "We're not going to have anything to do with him." And I said, "You will have something to do with me-here I am."

How do you feel when you are attacked for being a compromiser?

Once in awhile you run into this new breed, and they try to make politics into a religion. Some of those people think I'm always selling out because I'm perfectly willing to take half a loaf. I know there's another time to get the other half, but they want to die in the trenches. That's the only way you look pure. Well, I'm not pure. My name is not Ivory soap. It's Hubert Humphrey. I try to get things done.

How do you explain the Ulegal corporate contributions that were uncovered in your past campaigns?

If you went through the campaigns of every congressman and senator in the past you'd find illegal contributions. There's just no way you could prevent them. We didn't solicit them. But big companies go out of their way to hire clever people to launder money. They don't come to you and say, "Here's a corporate campaign gift."

Realistically, do you think there's a chance you could be drafted as the Democratic presidential nominee?

Yes. The convention might deadlock and people might turn to me. I would welcome the opportunity. I think I could do a good job, and I really believe I could win.

Why? I know this country better than anyone. I

can sense it. The blacks, the Chicanos, the labor movement, the business community. I've been here. I've been in it. It's part of my life.

THE WORSENING ENERGY CRISIS Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. President, I am

increasingly concerned with the energy crisis which faces our Nation. One of my greatest fears since the end of the Arab oil embargo has been that our citizens' awareness and appreciation of the oil crisis would wane as soon as gasoline became available. My fears are being realized each day. Too many of our citizens have lost their fears of the energy crisis-too many have returned to wasteful habits-too many are unwill-

i.ng to sacrifice a little today to avoid much greater sacrifices in the future.

I regret that much of the blame lies with our Government-both the administration and the Congress. We have devoted far too much attention to symptoms of the problem while ignoring the basic problem-how to intelligently conserve our limited available reserves of oil and gas to minimize energy shortages until supplies of new, clean, abundant energy sources can be developed and made available.

We in the Government have failed to rise above the rhetoric and we have chosen political expediency over constructive actions. In doing so we have lost the initiative in developing and implementing sound conservation policies and we have misled the American people into believiing that the energy crisis is over-it is not-it is worsening each day.

Mr. President, I would like to bring to my colleagues' attention an excellent evaluation of the situation which was written by Robert Samuelson and published in the New Republic on January 3, 1976. In his article Mr. Samuelson provides insight and analysis which can be of great benefit in dispelling popular myths and providing a more solid foundation on which to construct and implement a comprehensive, farsighted energy policy.

I would also like to submit for my colleagues' review four recent newspaper articles. These articles do not simply confirm the accuracy and timeliness of Mr. Samuelson's analysis. They provide positive indications of the unhealthy effects our current, uncertain energy policy has upon America's consumers, industry, employment, and balance of payments.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Samuelson's analysis entitled "Too Little Too Late"; the New York Times article entitled "Car Dealers Feel a Mood in the Nation for More and Bigger Autos"; the Wall Street Journal article entitled "Ford Motor Still Hasn't Made Its Decision Whether To Produce a Minicar in the U.S."; and two other articles which appeared in the Wall Street Journal entitled "GM Drops Plan To Boost Chevette Output, Underlining Softness of SmallCar Sales,,t. and "U.S. Sales From February 1-10 Increased by 21 %" be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: [From the New Republic, Jan. 3 and 10, 1976)

Too LrrTLE Too LATE

(By Robert Samuelson) Two years after the Arab oil embargo,

America. is still without an oil policy that deserves the name. There was a d-eceptive quality to the final bickering between the White House and Congress over the energy bill, because the essential element in an effective oil program-a stiff gasoline tax-had long before disappeared. In the end, the energy debate came down to a. few pennies on the price of gasoline: down a. couple of cents if the President signed Congress' legislatl<;n (which tem.po1·a.rily lowers the price of domestic oil), or up three to five cents if the President vetoed th'e measure. Select ing the

least painless political alternative, the President decided to sign.

Differences between these alternatives bothered oll producers, but neither faced up to the central reality of the nation's oil problem-the automobile. Neither was likely to blunt consumption significantly, and, more importantly, neither contained a clear message to the public that fuel scarcity has become a. permanent fact.

A:1 air of unreality pervaded the energy debate. Meaningful measures (and to be effective, a. gasoline tax would have had to be at least 20 cents, with, perhaps, later increases) were portrayed as stupendous sacriflces, almost without parallel in history, that were not to be asked of the public. If one wants to assess the blame for this, then are plenty of candidates: a President who deliberately constructed an energy policy so obscure and complicated that it was difficult to explain, let alone defend; a Congress which could not enact a realistic program of its own, but concentrated instead on embarrassing the White House; and a large number of economists who unimaginatively argued that energy problems should take a back seat to economic problems.

Consequently an opportunity (perhaps a unique one) was missed here: an opportunity to alter the consciousness of Americans and to convince them that they .must convert dramatically to smaller cars (and that means subcompacts with four cylinder engines) not only to save energy, but also to preserve their mobility. It may seem fatuous to suggest that anything like that could have happened. Perhaps. Clearly the public reaU-y didn't want to hear the message. Energy policy is, as we have repeatedly learned in the past two years, a politician's nightmare. Painless (or riskless) alternatives rarely exist, and the rewards for sensible decisions often materialize five, 10 or 15 years into the future. Unfortunately the future has no const ituency.

All that is true. But, for a br ief moment, t he embargo partially neutralized the underlying contradiction. The future was telescoped into the present. The "energy crisis," a media abstraction for most people, became a reality: waiting lines, fears of heating oil shortages and anguish over price increases. Faced with an obvious crisis, the public was listening, and the government had the chance-nothing more-to advance and adopt policies that in any other circumstances would have been inconceivable. Now the opportunity is gone. The "energy crisis" is back in the realm of abstraction.

On e reason we have come to this junctui·e is that we continue to believe a series of ideas a.bout our oil problems that sound plausible but are essentially wrong. These cliches result from political and journalistic necessity-the need to pose a program as a "solution" to a. well-defined "problem." Unfortunately energy problems resist such easy explanation. Instead what we have is a series of messy dilemmas: if we want to cut down demand, we wlll either have to raise prices or shackle ourselves with a large bureaucracy to regulate conservation standards; 1! we don't cut down demand, we increase the prospects of shortages, raise our dependence on imports, and-needing more domestic energy-increase the pollution and safety hazards associated with other power sources, nuclear and coal; if we raise prices too much, we risk endangering economic growth, but if we resort to administrative controls, we may come to regret the arbitrariness, rigidity and increased influence-peddling that they inevitably mean. And nothing will soon insulate us from the effects of foreign embargoes or restore the international power that resulted from our former energy self-sufficiency.

Sponsoring any energy program, then, is

5772 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 9, 19/6 an exercise in frustration, because no program could realistically promise a solution to any identifiable problem. To make such promises was to exaggerate-and exaggeration was a prominent feature of the energy debate-and to invite rapid refutation. That happened. It was an easy way for congressmen and White House officials to score points with the public against each other. In effect we have become prisoners of our own cliches and, if we want to understand why the postembargo period has been so fruitless, we need to examine the validity of these tenets of conventional wisdom:

( 1) Our fundamental oil problem is that we have become heavily dependent on foreign oil-and are becoming more so. This is a piece of jingoism that has wide appeal, and, understandably enough, it has been used by virtually everyone-the President, congressional leaders, oil companies-to justify whatever energy idea happens to be under discussion at the moment. Obviously it would be wonderful if we had unlimited domestic oil supplies, but the chances of achieving self-sufficiency are exceedingly small. Even if it did happen, the benefits are open to question.

Rather than foreign dependence, the realand ultimate-oil problem is that we're going to run out of it. Printed below is a series of simple tables that illustrate both the difficulty of attaining independence and the impending exhaustion of our oil resources. The first table gives estimates of the total oil reserves left in the country. Of course, this is a matter of speculation. You can never know how much oll there is until it's discovered (or isn't discovered), and, first you have to look. We haven't yet looked everywhere. The table, then, lists various estimates of undiscovered oil, which, when combined with today's known reserves, produces the estimates of the total amount remaining. The next two tables show how quickly these estimated supplies would run down under varying assumptions-first that annual consumption doesn't increase from 1973's level; and second that consumption rises at a modest 2.5 percent annually. Either assumption constitutes a radical departure from the recent past; between 1965 and 1973, consumption increased at a compound rate of 5.2 percent. (In the tables, the sources of the estimates are: the National Petroleum Council, an oll industry group tl:at advises the government; the National Academy of Sciences; M. K. Hubbert, a prominent geologist now retired from the U.S. Geological Survey; and the Mobil 011 Corporation.)

ESTIMATED REMAINING OIL RESOURCES IN UNITED STATES

Source

NPC ___ ---------------- -----MobiL _ -- ------ ---------- -- -NAS ___ - ------------------- -Hubbert ___ ________ --- -- -- __ -

Estimated undiscovered

reserves (billions of

barrels)

154 88

113 72

Total remaining

217 151 176 135

ASSUMPTION NO. l: NO INCREASE IN ANNUAL CONSUMPTION

Source

N PC_ --- _ ---- •• ------------ _ MobiL. ---- -- --------------NAS-- ----··-----------· --·Hubbert. ••••••••••••••••••••

Year of exhaustion

No imports

2009 1999 2003 1996

35 percent imports

2028 2012 2018 2008

ASSUMPTION NO. 2: 2.5 PERCENT INCREASE IN ANNUAL CONSUMPTION

NPC __ • ---- ---------- -------Mobil_ -- ___ --- _____________ _ NAS __ --- ------------ ______ _ Hubbert ____________________ _

Source: Senate Commerce Committee.

2000 1994 1996 1992

2009 2001 2004 1999

Now, there·s nothing sacrosanct about these numbers. Undiscovered reserves could prove to be more-or less-than the estimates. Then the oil would run out sooner 01· later. Consumption might be held down more successfully, or it might increase more rapidly. But the changes have to be massivethe amount of reserves must be doubled, or consumption must be cut deeply-to change the central conclusion: based on today's best guesses and today's estimates of recovery technology, the nation wm exhaust its oil reserves somewhere between 1990 and 2030.

The important implication of these numbers for energy "independence" is the high level of imports assumed in the second column-35 percent. To put that in perspective, at the time of the embargo, imports constituted about 38 percent of U.S. oil consumption. But a comparison with the embargo period really isn't apt, because our imports then included nearly one million barrels of Canadian oil. Worried about their own limited reserves, the Canadians have now reduced this to about 500,000 barrels daily; by the end of 1976, the inflow could be as low as 250,000 barrels, and the Candians hope to phase out their exports to the U.S. entirely by the end of 1981. So future imports will come increasingly from sources that appear unstable and "dangerous." The table indicates the dilemma: if we quickly try to become less dependent on imports by relying more on U.S. oil, we will only drain our own limited supplies sooner, becoming more dependent later.

Suppose, however, that we were to become independent. So what? The Europeans and the Japanese will still rely heavily on imported oil. If another international showdown develops in which oil is used as a weapon-a likelihood of that is impossible to predict--the weapon need only be turned against Japan nad Europe. If an embargo proved effective ( another imponderable), would the United States sit passively while our major allies shut down their economies? In such a brutal confrontation, our own independence would be of only limited value.

(2) The way to wean America from its thirst for oil is to promote mass transit. That sounds attractive-a quick way to push down the demand for oil. Unfortunately it won't work. More widespread use of transit (and, in most cases, that probably means buses, not rail) can assume some of the role of the car, but the geography of this country-not only the vast distances, but also the suburbanization of metropolitan areas-makes it impossible for mass transit to replace the automobile. Virtually everything-our shopping patterns, our work habits, and our social customs-depends, for better or worse, on the existence of individualized transportation. The prospect of losing individualized transportation is difficult to contemplate, and the possible disruptive impact is of tidal wave proportions. By comparison, the inconvenience and occasional hardship of the oil embargo would be a mere ripple.

Ultimately, then, the oil problem is the automobile or, more precisely, finding an alternate fuel for the automobile. For, unlike most other oil consumers-factories, utilities and homes, which can shift to coal, nuclear or solar power-the car is totally dependent on oil. There are potential substi-

tutes. For example coal can be converted into menthanol, but such a shift would put enormous pressures on the coal industry, which is already having problems meeting projected demand. Even if we were content to import all our oil to satisfy the automobile, we should be wary of the assumption that the oil will be available. Other countries, too, face depletion of their reserves. The non-Communist world's proven reserves of oil now total about 600 billion barrels, or about 30 years' consumption ( consumption is running nearly 20 billion barrels annually). Until the embargo, the rate of new discoveries wasn't increasing as rapidly as consumption. If consumption begins to increase and the discovery rate doesn't increase, a squeeze is inevitable. Even Exxon recently warned that "there is a good chance that by the late 1980s, oil supply-and therefore demandwill be limited by the availability of discovcovered resources."

In this situation, any sensible oil policy must attempt to give us the longest possible breathing space to master the difficult environmental and economic problems associated with converting the automobile to a non-oil fuel. We want to push out the date of depletion as far as possible. Because we don't know the extent of oil reserves, the only way to lengthen this time is to con -serve: to convert as rapidly as possible to significantly smaller, more gas-efficient cars.

If that's the way to look at the long-term oil problem, it is also the way of looking at the short-run oil problem. Automobiles now represent about 40 pe1·cent of total oil consumption, but other users-although candidates for eventual conversion to other fuelscan't quickly be taken off oil. Utility boilers and home furnaces aren't discarded like paper towels. Their abandoment depends 011 physical deterioration or economic obsolescence, a process that may take 10 or 20 years. Artificial increases in the price of oil may hasten the speed of long-term conversion, but in the short run, such price increases are likely to be inflationary (higher costs passed along in higher prices) or cause genuine hardship (families going without heating oil, or businesses cutting back p1·oduction). The quintupling of world oil prices probably prompted n1ost of the "easy" conservation steps these consumers could make. Cars, on the other hand, have a relatively short life (about five to six years) before they are scrapped. Someone who trades in a car with a V-8 engine for a car with a four-cylinder engine is still getting the same basic service: transportation. If we want to save oil without shutting down our factories or risking electric power shortages, the path lies in more efficient cars-inducing the manufacturers to build them and the public to buy them. All this ~onstitutes a persuasive case for sharply raising the price of gasoline. If we want people to buy more efficient cars, the motivation for them to do so must be there. Likewise, if we want to lure people back to a mass transit (and we should), we will have to give them a reason for making the change-not just platitudes. The unpleasant fact is that mass transit has been losing patronage steadily since the end of World War II (the decline between 1963 and 1972, for example, was one third), and the reason, aside from increasing suburbanization, is economic: the real cost of owning and operating a car has steadily declined.

Instead of raising the price of gasoline relative to other fuels, we have actually been doing just the opposite. Although you wouldn't know it from reading the newspapers or listening to congressmen, the price of gasoline has increased less sharply since the embargo than other oil fuels. From October 1973 to now, the price of gasoline has

March 9, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 5773 risen about 50 percent; meanwhile jet fuels has gone up 116 percent, home heating oil has increased 70 percent, and diesel fuel has jumped 125 percent. There are a number of reasons for this disparity. First, gasoline, being a highly refined product, has always sold at relatively higher prices than most other oil fuels, because refining costs were higher. Thus higher crude oil prices-passed along roughly equally on all products-would cause a lower percentage increase for gasoline. The effect was compounded by the existence of the four cent per gallon federal excise tax (and similar state taxes), which also meant that the initial price was higher.

Indeed one goes back to 1966, one makes the somewhat startling discovery that the "real" price of gasoline-that is, gasoline prices adjusted for inflation-has hardly risen at all in a decade. According to the Federal Energy Administration, the real price of gasoline in 1966 was 33 cents and in 1974 it was 33.9 cents. Price wars actually reduced gasoline prices in the late '60s, and the increases of the last few years have only made up that lost ground. But, even considering these reductions, the rise of gasoline prices has not exceeded the general rate of inflation by very much. Between 1970 and 1974, the "real" price rose only about 10 percent. It should come as no surprise then that gasoline consumption is down less since 1973 than most other fuels; gasoline sales are now about equal with 1973's level, though total crude oil consumption ls down about siX percent. Warm weather and the recession undoubtedly played a part in the diminished demand for industrial and heating fuels, but the mildness in the rise of gasoline prices also helps explain the pattern of consumption.

(3) The world cannot live with the ciirrent high OPEC price of oil. Remember that? Well here we are nearly two years after the quintupling of oil prices, and the industrialized world-battered and bruised-is still functioning. The plain truth is that developed nations (though not the developing) can, and probably should, live with the current high price of oil without undue hardship. Oil is a wasting resource, but not many of the world's major nations-least of all the u.s.-were treating it as such. Americans lived (and, to a large extent, still live) as if oil were inexhaustible. Though not many people like to admit such distasteful realities, the steep increase in oil prices has ca.used the world's major energy consumers to take many simple, necessary and desirable conservation steps that they never would have undertaken on their own. Even in the U.S. oil consumption is still below 1973 levels.

Nor, as yet, have those huge OPEC monetary stU'pluses proved to be the time-bomb that they were once thought to be. Perhaps the pessimistic predictions will ultimately be vindicated, but so far a number of factors have defused the timebomb. First, the high price of oil, coupled with the worldwide recession, has held down the demand for oil and, simultaneously, the oil countries' revenues. Second, and more important, the oil producers' ability to spend their new riches has exceeded expectations. According to estimates by Morgan Guaranty Trust Co., the OPEC surplus (that is, the excess of their export and investment income over their import spending) declined by an estimated 50 percent in 1975 (from $65 billion in 1974 to a.bout $36 billion). Next year Morgan expects the surplus to continue to shrink, and, by 1980, assuming annual oil price increases of about seven percent, to disappear.

The genuine danger lies not in the high price of oil per se, but in the prospect that OPEC will exert a permanently destablizing and inflationary influence on the world economy. That could happen if OPEC repeatedly

increases oil prices sharply ( i.e., well above Morgan's seven percent average). OPEC's disruptive potential lies not only in the direct impact of high oil prices-and their ripple effect throughout the economy-but also in the direct consequences resulting from actions taken by government to offset the effects of higher prices. As many economists have pointed out, a big price increase tends to act like a tax increase. Consumers and businesses suddenly find their spending power reduced, but oil producers don't necessarily spend all their new revenues immediately. This loss of purchasing power threatens to slow down the economy or create a recession. To offset that tendency, many economists have suggested the government cut taxes ( or increase spend.ing) and relax credit.

That sounds fine, but there's a problem. The money spent for higher oil prices ultimately does lead to higher spending: the oil nations import more, or they invest their money. A rise in oil prices is int-ended to transfer real resources-manufactured goods, food, technical services-from oil consuming nations to oil producing nations. If consuming governments try to deny this-by permanently maintaining their own domestic purchasing power-the consequences are likely to be inflationary: both consumers and oil produce1·s will be competing for the same goods. The resulting dilemma. is clear: to ignore the impact of a large OPEC price increase is to allow the economy to be "stopped" with every big price jump; but to take offsetting actions-which may not be able to be undone quickly-is to inject a latent source of inflation into the economy.

In practice, this agonizing choice is likely to materialize only if OPEC succeeds in pushing through large price increases on a regular basis. No one knows the likelihood of this. On the one hand the rapid erosion of the sm·plus revenues of many OPEC nations-including Iran, Libya, Algeria and Nigeriahas compounded the pressures for higher prices. But the pressures don't occur in a vacuum, and the ultimate outcome depends on OPEC's internal politics, the political situation in the Mideast, the cohesion of the consuming nations, new oil discoveries in and outside OPEC, and the goals of Saudi Arabia.

With 160 billion barrels of estimated reserves--or about 25 percent of the non-Communist world total-Saudi Arabia is the key, and its position is extraordinarily delicate. It has more money than it can spend. Acceding to pressures for higher prices would satisfy its OPEC partners, but at what gain? For, aside from the Saudis' traditional conservative and pro-Western outlook, there are a number of factors that appear to counsel for stable prices, or at least, only small increases. The Saudis' political interest in a favorable settlement for the Arabs in the Arab-Israeli conflict is well known. Yet the weapons at their disposal to prod the U.S. to influence Israel are limited. Basically they are three: an embargo; a big oil price increase; and the threat of these things. Developments since the Yom Kippur War do not appear to have n1ade an embargo any easier. Just as we have become "hooked" on oil, so now are most of the oil producing nations becoming "hooked" on their oil revenues-and the projects that these revenues are financing. With OPEC now operating well below capacity, an embargo by Saudi Arabia and a number of its Persian Gulf neighbors (Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates) could very well be undermined by other OPEC nations. Seeking to augment their revenues, they would increase production as much as possible. This happened during the 1973 embargo (when OPEC had little spare capacity) and as the following table indicates, the potential is now much greater.

[In thousands of barrels per day)

Capacity Percent of Oil (August shut-in

production 1975) capacity

Algeria_---· _________ 900 1,000 10. 0 Iraq __ . _________ ___ ._ 2,260 2,600 13.1 Kuwait_ ___ --- -- ----- 1, 960 3, 500 44. 0 Libya __ _____ --------- 2, 100 3,000 30. 0 Qatar ________________ 410 700 41.l Saudi Arabia __ ----- -_ 8, 210 11, 500 28.6 United Arab Emirates_ l, 870 2,400 22.1

Subtotal, Arab 17, 710 24, 700 28. 3 OPEC ____ __ _

Ecuador_ _________ . __ 210 240 12. 5 Gabon ___________ -- -- 210 250 16. 0 Indonesia ____________ 1, 380 1, 700 18.8 Iran _________ . _______ 5, 510 6, 500 15. 2 Nigeria _______ ------ - 1, 760 2, 500 29. 6 Venezuela ________ -- - 2, 280 3, 100 ~6. 5

Subtotal, non-11, 350 14, 290 20. 6 Arab OPEC ___

Total OPEC .... 29, 060 38, 990 25. 5

Source: Central Intelligence Agency.

To make an embargo successful, Saudi Ara.bia needs to increase oil demand. More steep price increases will not do that. Likewise using the oil price weapon indiscriminately might exhaust its usefulness. If a tacit understanding exists between the US and Saudi Arabia that the US will maintain pressure on Israel in retm·n for Saudi moderation on oil, a series of large price increases-taken without regard to diplomatic developments involving Israel-risks rupturing that understanding.

None of this precludes another whopping price increase. If the last five years have taught us anything, it is that one can't predict what OPEC will attempt to do next. Our interest in restraining the growth of imports, however, should be clear: the greater the gap between OPEC's actual production and its full productive capacity, the more ineffective any emba.rgo; likewise, the greater the gap, the greater the pressure on the Saudis to restrain future price increases. This means that lowering domestic oil prices is the wrong way to move; to ao so is to encourage more consumption and importsand, therefore, higher world oil prices. Nor should we really want a dramatic break in OPEC's prices, for such a break would probably be only temporary: consumption would accelerate, and in a tight market the cartel could reestablish itself. Barring immense discoveries outside OPEC, the concentration of oil reserves and oil power in the hands of a few producers is a fact-of-life that simply must be accepted and dealt with. Our interest lies more in price stability than price reduction.

(4) The nation's future oil supply depends heavily on what Congress decides to do about "decontrolling" oil prices. The irony of the energy debate is that the President committed his reputation and political capital to an issue whose ultimate si6nificance is secondary: ending federal price controls on oil. Not that decontrol is the monster that it's been made out to be. It isn't. Some sort of decontrol has probably always been inevitable, and it will almost certainly result in additional domestic oil production. That's desirable. However with or without decontrol, prices il1 1985 will be just a.bout the same; and, with or without decontrol, the nation's dependence on foreign oil will still be heavy.

Throughout the energy debate, crude oil fell into three major price categories-imported oil (where prices were fixed by OPEC) , domestic oil not subject to federal price controls, and controlled domestic oil. Uncontrolled oil sold at about $12.50 a barrel and

5774 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 9, 1976 consisted of oil in excess of 1972 production, plus oil that has been released from controls (small stripper wells producing less than 10 barrels a day are exempt, and for every barrel of "new" oil brought into production, oil companies were allowed to exempt a barrel of "old" oil from controls). Collectively, only aoout 40 percent of US oil came from "old" oil sold at the controlled price of $5.25 per barrel. With the two dollar import fee imposed by President Ford early in the year, imported on had risen to about $14 per barrel by the end of the summer, and the composite price of a barrel of oil-the average of imports, "controlled" and "decontrolled" onwas almost $11.

The important thing to remember, however, is that this situation wasn't static, and, whatever Congress did, the proportion of low-priced controlled oil was bound to fall. The controlled oil comes from the US's older fields, where production is declining and will continue to decline. As this happens, the volume of $5.25 per barrel fuel will drop. Since the Arab embargo, for example, US oil production has declined from a.bout 9.1 million barrels dally to about 8.4 milllon barrels. The declines, obviously, a.re occurring in the old fields.

The President's program had two objectives: first, to prolong production from these older fields by making it more attractive for producers to apply expensive secondary and tertiary recovery techniques; and second, to dampen consumer demand for oil by raising the price. There is nothing wrong with this logic, but the effects of decontrol-by itselfa.ren't that great over the long run. FEA's own estimate indicates that decontrol wlll probably result In about 1.2 mllllon barrels of additional daily production by 1985, assuming OPEC oil prices don't increase any faster than inflation. With a.bout a 20 percent increase in the real price of oil, FEA forecast a 2.8 million barrel increase. Such estimates are necessarily imprecise, and the 2 .8 million figure looks suspiciously high. But, even if it isn't, the increases are only temporary: it's squeezing the last oil out of old fields, Again, .it is surely better to hai-e Americans producing that oil than to pay OPEC for it, but-although billions of dollars are at stake here-the ndditional oil won't change the basic nature of the oil problem.

As for blunting the growth of consumption, there might be some effect here, too but over the next decade, it isn't likely to be that important. One way or another, most of the "old" oil is gone by 1985, and thus, prices will be about the same with or Without decontrol. Neither the President nor his congressional opponents like to mention this, because it makes the fighting of the la-St year look ridiculous. '!11e main difference between the White House and the Democratic Congress was timing. Against that background, had the White House initially proposed a phased decontrol program~lwa.ys with the threat that rejection by Congress would result in immediate decontrol-it might have minimized the political fireworks over the issue.

Instead, by fighting over decontrol, the President and the Congress have spent most of their time arguing over what is, in effect, a Maginot Line oil policy. The necessary target of a.ny oil policy is the automobile. The President obviously didn't want to say this in simple, plain language. The only reasonable explanation of tlle President's complicated, convoluted plan (tlle two dollar import fee, plus decontrol) is that it represented an elabora.te e.ttempt to avoid any proposal that might be lebelled a gasoline tax. Almost from the moment he inherited the White House, President Ford exhibited. a diabolical delight in knifing suggestions ( from almost all his top energy advisers) for a gasoline tax. He may have reasoned that such a dh·ect assault

on so cherished an American institution as the car would be doomed to failure.

Perhaps. Unfortunately, the alternative-on political grounds-was worse. By embracing decontrol as the centerpiece of his program, the President appeared to be fronting for Big Oil. More importantly because any plan to raise oil prices generally (the President's plan) would also have to raise gasoline prices, the Whit.e House's proposal was assured opposition from any one who would oppose a gasoline tax-motorists, auto workers and Detro.it. However, in addition, it was also assured the opposition of other users of 011 and their elected representatives: New England governors (worried about a big jump in heating oil prices), airlines, petrochemical companies, utilities, truckers, railroads and city and state officials (whose own utility and heating bills would be raised). These groups would not necessarily have opposed a gasoline tax, but, predictably, they fought the administration's plan. And, if the President believed that he might avoid some unpopularity by skirting a gasoline tax, he was surely mistaken. Most people could not fathom all the details of the President's programs and were likely to see it as a gasoline tax anyway (that's certainly how the newspaper headlines treated it).

(5) There was a natural and inl1erent conflict between sound economic policy and a sound energy policy. Probably more than and other idea, this was seized upon by congressmen looking for a respectable excuse to vote against something they wanted to vote against anyway. The argument was plausible: if oil prices were raised, then the resulting inflationary impact would curb total consumer spending and undermine the recovery. And the message was boomed forth loudly by many economists, particularly liberal Democrats, whose advice (when stripped of all those protective qualifications) basically bolled down to this: the economy is in such poor condition that energy problems ought to be forgotten for the moment.

In a narrow sense, the economists were l"ight. A phased decontrol program was better than the President•s proposal. Even if tax rebates-also proposed by the Presidentcould offset the depressing effect of a large, immediate boost in oil prices, the tax refunds could not eliminate the inflationary and psychological impact of raising all oil prices in one sudden burst. Phased decontrol would spread this shock. But, having poked holes in the President's approach, most economists did little to advance imaginative alternatives. Perhaps they feared unpopularity as much as anyone else? Their conventional analysis-concentrating almost exclusively on government spending and credit policies failed to address the plight of the automobile industry and to see the interconnection between the auto industry's catastrophic slump (one reason for the severity of the recession) and energy policy.

In 1974, auto executives, jolted by both the embargo and the increase in oil prices, faced two basic problems. First, a significant part of their underlying investment-the tooling for large-size cars and engines--was threatened by the new market situation, which had shriveled the demand for these cars. And second, the auto executives didn"t really know what kind of ne,Y cars to offer as replacements. Should they concentrate on reducing the size and weight of existing model cars, a strategy that would achieve large, but not dramatic, gains in gasoline efficiency ( and would also preserve much of the existing plant investment)? Or, should they commit substantial funds-running into the hundreds of millions of dollars-for new tooling to produce significantly smalier cars: subcompacts with four-cylinder engines?

In the main, he auto executives appear to have selected the first alternative. Cars

have been slimmed {a.nd, in the 1977 model year, will be slimmed further), a.nd there has been a large percentage increase in gasoline efficiency-from a sales-weighted average of 13.9 miles per gallon in 1974 to 17.6 miles per gallon for the 1976 ca.re. These overall figures include imports, but the gains for the American manufacturers have also been large (for GM, average miles pe-r gallon has risen from 12 to 16.6; for Ford, from 14.2 to 17.3; and for Chrysler, from 13.7 to 16.4). Yet these increases fall far short of the dramatic improvements that are possible, and the shift towards more four-cylinder engine cars--where the truly significant gas savings are to be had-has been slow. At the time of the embargo, the estimated capacity of U.S. manufacturers to build four-cylinder engines was about one million units annually, with only Ford and GM having such capability. Since the embargo, only one new four-cylinder engine line has been builtby GM in Flint, Michigan to power the new Chevette. Meanwhile <the other two major manufacturers appear to be hesitating and agonizing. Both have said they will introduce new subcompacts (Ford in early 1977; Chrysler, probably in the fall of 1977), but are wondering whether demand will be sufficient to justfy the huge investment in new plants here. The engines, at least, may be imported by both companies.

One can sneer at such indecisiveness, but with hundreds of millions at stake, the wavering is understandable. What the auto makers needed in 1974-and wha.t they need now-is a. sense of certainty about their market: a clear signal that the demand !or new ca.rs will shift decisively to much smaller subcompacts. That signal could have been provided by a large increase in the gasoline tax, perhaps phased over three or four years to allow an opportunity for the auto makers to retool. Perhaps, in the short run, a oo.x increase would have further depressed sales for larger cars, but it it did, there might have been a. corresponding increase in the demand for smaller cars. And, over a period of the ne."tt five 01· six years, the heightened demand for small ca.rs would have helped speed a.nd sustain the industry's recovery. The energy savings are obvious. Yet, not many economists made this connection, and their inattention contributed to a climate in which no significant legislation was likely.

(Because the direct effect on consumers' incomes is fairly easy to determine, the depressing impact of a gasoline tax can be easily offset: if you raise one tax, you can lower another. The frequently made charge that such a policy would have hit the poor the hardest was another triumph of rhetoric over reality. In 1973, almost half of the "poor" families-based on US Census Bureau definition--0.idn't own a ca.r. By contrast, almost 80 percent of the families with incomes exceeding $16,000 had two or more cars. Any policy that encouraged mass transit would probably help the poor most-becau ·e they use it most-and the tax rebates could have been skewed towards the poor.)

To be fair, the bill passed by Congress made a superficial attempt to deal ·with automobile fuel economy. The blll prescribed fuel economy standards and corresponding fines if the manufacturers didn't meet them (the fine would be $50 per car for every mile per gallon in fuel efficiency that the manufacturer's aYerage car fell below the standard). Congress set the standard at 18 :miles per gallon in 1978, 19 mpg 1n 1979, and 20 mpg 111 1980; then, leaving the Secretary of Transportation responsible for establishing "maximum" feasible fuel economy levels :for 1981 to 1984, Congress set the 1985 target at 27.5 mpg.

The problem with this ought to be obvious: you can force the manufacturers to build smaller ca.rs, but you can't force cons11mer:; to buy them. Faced with steadily

!.

Ma1'·ch 9, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 5775 rising new car prices-and shrinking sizeconsumers might simply decide to hold onto their older cars sllghtly longer. Sooner or later, of course, they would have to trade them in, but, in the meantime, the auto manufacturers would be left in limbo. Diminished sales might impair their financial ability to underwrite the very changes mandated by law.

It makes little difference whether this problem is real or imaginary, because the auto manufacturers are likely to think it ls real. Therefore they are likely to resist the standards, and that will make the goals more difficult to reach. That improvements cannot simply be ordained is a lesson that Congress ought to have learned from its auto pollution and safety legislation. And the 1985 gasoline standard, if not unrealistic, is highly optimistic. It implies an almost complete conversion of the industry. To grasp the extent of the likely change, all you have to do is to look at this year's fuel economy results for small cars. Most laymen would probably agree that most of the foreign manufacturers offer predominantly "small" model cars. Yet of the foreign companies, only two-Subaru and Honda-meet the 1986 standards this year. Volkswagen was slightly below (27 mpg) as were Nissan (25.9) and Toyota (25). Given the immense transformation envisioned for Detroit, how much easier it would be if the industry felt that the preponderance of consumer demand had shifted in the same direction, too.

But Congress wanted the best of both worlds: the credit for having embraced "energy conservation" without the unpopularity of voting a gasoline tax. So it set laudable goals, avoided creating a climate in which the goals might be met, and assigned the dirty business of making it all happen anyway to the Secretary of Transportation. This is a formula for guaranteed frustration and conflict to which the Congress frequently resorts when confronted with difficult problems. You can almost imagine the scene in the middle of 1983 or 1984: a series of congressional hearings; the auto manufacturers aren't close to the standard; congressmen are sweating under the glare of the television lights; the congressmen appear bothered and upset, and, in self-righteous tones, angrily question the auto executives and the Secretary of Transportation, who are made to look like idiots and incompetents. No one will remember, of course, that much of the problem was created by Congress' failure to act in 1976.

There should, however, be no illusion. A realistic oil policy consisted basically of two parts-a gradual decontrol (to assure maximum production), and a stiff gas tax. But even had Congress and the White House en· acted such a policy, the results would not have been dramatic. Changes in consumption patterns occur slowly; that is one reason it is important to begin as soon as possible. There are already 100 million cars on the road, and, with the natural growth in population, the pressures for more driving increase every year. Not all those cars can or will be replaced immediately, and some of the savings will be offset by the addition of new drivers. Likewise new mass transit services cannot be expected to materialize overnight.

According to estimates of the FEA, even a 40 cent gasoline tax would save only about 600,000 barrels of oil immediately, with the savings rising to 1.6 million barrels after 10 years. A number of officials at the Department of Transportation feel that the 10th year estimate may be too low. That estimate apparently assumes that motorists who cut down on their driving in the first year will increase it a.gain when they have smaller, more economical cars; on the contrary, DOT officials argue, by the 10th year, driving habits may have permanently changed. But the truth is that no one knows, and all the

computer analyses in the world constitute only a sophisticated form of guessing.

The only refuge in all of this is common sense and caution. No one really knows what oil demand will be in 1985. It may be 20 mil· lion barrels daily ( against about 17 million today), or it may be a million or two more or less. Until the economic recovery has proceeded many more months and we've had a cold winter, we will not know how much of the last two years' "savings" was real and how much artificial. Likewise, no matter what we do, we can no longer insulate ourselves entirely against embargoes, the economic shock of huge price increases, or the environmental costs of seeking more energy. The best the White House and Congress could have done was to push us forcefully in the right direction, but they didn't do it.

[From the New York Times, Feb. 13, 1976] CAR DEALERS FEEL A MOOD IN THE NATION FO~

MORE AND BIGGER AUTOS (By Robert Lindsey)

LAS VEGAS, Nev.-The nation's car dealers are returning home from their annual convention here fired up with a collective conviction that Americans are in a mood to buy cars again-in big numbers and in big sizes.

"The war is over, we think this is going to be a. great year," said John Powell, a Williamsport, Pa., Chevrolet dealer.

There were more than 4,000 dealers at the five-day annual meeting of the National Automobile Dealers Association. Besides the dealers, about 10,000 others were drawn here by the convention-wives, Detroit representatives and salesmen trying to sell the dealers hundreds of products, ranging from elaborate automatic car-washing machines to custom Cadillacs turned into pickup trucks, to computers.

While most dealers predicted strong sales this year, many said they were wary about Detroit's increasing emphasis on smaller cars, which has been prodded by Washington as a means to cut gasoline consumption.

Most Americans, they said, still want standard-sized automobiles, and are crawlingrather than racing-into the small-car era.

Some dealers predicted that reduced production of standard and larger ca.rs later this year could result in a shortage of big ca.rs. They denied to skeptical reporters here that such predictions were meant to goad 'buyers into creating a rush on the available large cars, and contended instead that a slump in demand for smaller cars could prompt Detroit to revamp plans and produce larger cars longer than it now expects.

"I've been in this business a long time, and I can tell you, you've always been able to take a man out of a small car and put him in a big car and put a smile on his face," said B. H. Roberts, a Ford dealer from Alton, Ill.

"But you can't take a man out of a big car and put him in a small car and expect to keep that smile on his face," he continued.

John Pohanka. of Marlow Heights, Md., who sells Oldsmobiles, Italian Fiats and Japanese Hondas, and who is the 1976 president of the dealers association, agreed that there could be a shortage of larger cars later in the year.

"Big cars are very popular right now," he said, ·'and I think they'll continue to be. But," he added, "we cannot let the energy crisis be solved by the free marketplace. If we do we'd never solve the energy crisis.

Virtually every dealer interviewed here said he had high hopes for new-car sales and profits this year. Many said that, despite Detroit's widely publicized problems, they did not do poorly last year. Most dealers who were Interviewed said they expected their sales volume and profits to be up 16 to 30 percent this year over last year's depressed levels.

These were other points made by t he dealers interviewed at the convention:

More are becoming buyers because of increasing confidence in the economy.

Although the steep price increases on new cars imposed by Detroit during the last three years are still deterring some, consumers apper.r to be growing accustomed to t he higher prices and are increasingly commit ting themselves to long-term car loans with high monthly payments.

The initial success of General Motor's new mini-car, the Chevette, appears to be coming less from an invasion of the importedcar market, than from the market share of domestic manufacturers, especially for second and t hird cars in a family.

Nevertheless, continuing price increases on most imports have all but eliminated their historic cost advantage over domestic aut os, and, as a result, the domestic cars are competing much more effectively than in most recent yea.rs

[From the Wall Street Journal, Dec. 5, 1975] FORD MOTOR STILL HASN'T MADE ITS DECISION WHETHER TO PRODUCE A MlNICAR IN THE U.S.

DEARBORN, Mica.-Ford Motor Co., which previously announced plans to import a. new European-made minicar to compete with General Motors Corp.'s Chevette and popular small imports, still is undecided whether to commit itself to building such tiny models in the U.S.

William 0. Bourke, newly named executh-e vice president for the No. 2 a.ut-0 maker's North American operations, told reporters in Dearborn that Ford is continuing plans to import a German-built, front-wheel-drive small car, about the size of GM's new Chevette, as early as January or February 1977. He said Ford hopes to sell 100,000 to 150,000 of the yet-to-be-named car in the U.S. in the first year, but noted that is far less volume than the company considers needed to justify tooling up for domestic production of the car.

He said Ford would require annual sales volume of at least 400,000 units to warrant the capital investment to build the same car here. He estimated it could cost up to $1 billion for production machinery and facilities to make the components of the car in the U.S., in pa.rt because the model differs mechanically considerably from anything produced in the U.S.

GM has indicated it hopes to sell about 276,000, and perhaps even 300,000, Chevettes in the first year. Several foreign cars of that size, including the German-ma.de Volkswagen Rabbit and the Japanese Honda, also are on the market. More a.re likely in a year or two, including an Italian Fiat and another, Volkswagen, smaller than any currently sold in the U.S.

''The question is just what is the size of that market and how many pieces will it bust up into," Mr. Bourke said. He said auto-product planners a.re uncertain how many American car buyers ultimately will buy very small cars, in the years ahead. "The mainstream, as we see it, will be the five passenger, 25-mile-per-gallon family car with a trunk and some interior space," he said. He said cars in the current compact-size category would be similar to this description.

" The rest of the market is composed of tributaries," he asserted, "and maybe we can protect ourselves in those spots with something a little bigger, perhaps using an engine" and other parts Ford already has.

That's Ford's current strategy for competing with GM's Chevette. The company is plugging a stripped-down, high-economy version of its veteran Pinto subcompact as a price and economy rival to the Chevette.

Mr. Bourke said Ford's plan to 1.mport a European-made little car in 1977 is an effort "to test the market." He said that if Ford should decide to build such a car here, it

5776 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE lJ,!arch 9, 1976 would happen "no earlier than 1979 and no later than 1981-if ever.''

One of Ford's dilemmas is that It believes the cost of U .s. production of the kind of minicar it plans to import would be considerably higher than what it cost GM to bring out Its Chevette.

The Ford executive noted that the Chevette uses a conventional front-engine, rearwheel-drlve system. He said the mlnlcar Ford plans to import, like the popular Volkswagen and Honda small cars, Will have a more complex front-engine, front-wheel drive. The advantage of such a system is that it el1m1nates the usual drive-shaft tunnel through the center of the floor, providing more interior passenger space.

I! Ford eventually elects to build the car tn the U.S., however, tt would seem to have some advantages enjoyed by GM when it decided to produce the Chevette. The Ford car, like the GM one, is being developed as a "world car"--one that can be built and sold in many countries around the world. Also, :Mr. Bourke didn't rule out the possibility that to cut costs, Ford could build some parts of the car in the U.S. and assemble it here, while importing other parts.

Although Ford previously had announced its general plans to import the little car, 1'.'Cr. Bourke confirmed several details, including that it wlll be built in Germany, will use au English engine already in production and initially won't be equipped with an automatic transmission. It will have a French-built four-speed manual transmission, he said. The car, a .. hatchback" model, will be nearly identical to one Ford plans to put into production in Spain a year from now and in England in early 1977. Production in Germany for that market Will start next May, he said.

(From the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 17, 1976] GM DaoPS PLAN To BoOST CHEVETTE 0trrPUT.

UNDERLINING SOFTNESS OF SMALL-CAB SALES

(By William Bulkeley) DETROIT.-In a move that reemphasizes

the !allure of small-car sales to llve up to Detroit's hopes, General Motors Corp. at the last minute scuttled plans to expand production of its new Chevette minicar into a second assembly plant.

The auto maker also discussed new cutbacks for some of its other small cars.

Last November. GM announced plans to start producing the Chevette at its South Gate, Calif., plant March 1, citing eXP&ctations of increased demand. The little car has been built only at one plant on the East Coast. But last week GM's president, E. M. Estes, said: "In recent weeks, as the overall automobile sales continued to strengthen, the buying public hasn't increased its purchases of small cars correspondingly."

GM said that it will continue to build Chevettes on a two work-turn basis at its plant in Wilmington, Del. But, Mr. Estes added, "the Wilmington plant can give us the production needed t-0 meet the current market demand for cars in the subcompact end of the market."

The sudden decision to avoid increased production ts an embarrassing move for the big auto maker. The new little car received widespread publicity both before and after its introduction last fall. It represented a crash progra.m by GM to bring out an allnew, domestically built small car to answer what appeared to be a dem.and for vehicles with greatly improved gasoline mileage.

To get the car on the market in less than two yea.rs from the date OM decided it needed such a vehicle, GM adopted an existing design it was using in overseas markets as a. "world car." It then spent untold millions of dollars for the capacity in the U.S. to reproduce the entire vehicle and all its part.s-almost all of which are totally different from any OM had used on its other rars.

The last-minute decision to scrub plans for expanded Chevette output is certain to be a costly one. GM already had done some preliminary preparation to put the car into production at South Gate, and presumably it has committed itself for the expensive special tooling, jigs and fixtures needed for its assembly.

GM, to be sure, hasn't written off the little car. "The Chevette continues to be an excellent competitor in the market place," ?v!r. Estes said. He noted that it is smaller and achieves better gasoline mileage than any other car made in America, and added that it "provides an important addition to customer choice in this country." In announcing the decision against expanding production to a second plant, GM also described its action only as a "postponement."

But in response to a question. a GM spokesman said that the company doesn•t have any specific time in mind 'for reviving the plan to expand Chevette capacity. "It depends entirely on the market," he said. "There's no date in sight.''

The move by GM is the second case recently in which a U.S. auto maker apparently was overly optimistic about the outlook for one of its all-new small cars. American Motors Corp. recently was forced to slash the output of its highly touted Pacer after expanding its capacity too rapidly because of an initial rush of sales.

GM's Chevette is being watched closely by other U.S. auto makers, who don't yet have anything that small on the market. Ford Motor Co., for instance, decided only recently that in 1977 it would have to Import a small minicar it is developing in Europe so that its U.S. dealers would have some kind of directly competitive model. It's unclear whether GM's latest action will affect Ford's plans.

The scaling back of Chevette production goals underscores the problems U.S. auto makers have had in trying to gauge the subcompact and smaller-size car market lately.

Early this year, when production schedules were set, all makers expected small cars to grow faster than the rest of the market and subcompacts in particular to boost their share sharply. Although some expansion of market share for those models has occurred, it hasn't happened nearly as fast as the auto makers predicted.

Instead, auto makers recently have found demand for larger-size cars growing more than expected. Analysts, executives and dealers say this surprise development is apparently a result of slightly declining gasoline prices in some parts of the country, possible buyer disenchantment With the very smallest of cars and simply the need of some customers With famllles for a larger vehicle.

As a result, GM, Ford and American Motors have found themselves swamped with supplies of many of their smallest models. All three have had to close some small-car plants for varying periods to keep those supplies from swelling further. (Chrysler Corp. doesn't have a domestic subcompact, but it has had to close some big-car plants to hold down stocks. It's the only car maker With that problem, however. Others have been adding to larger-car output lately.)

Ironically, Chevette hasn't ever been in a difficult inventory sltl.tation, and currently there is a relatively tight 44-day supply in stock, according to Automobile News, a trade publication.

But GM no longer expects sales to grow as rapidly as it thought before. A spokesman confirmed that GM currently is tnrgeting about 250,000 first-year sales, which represents a return to its 01·igina1 forecast from some enthuc_;iastic subsequent projections of up to 300.000 sales.

GM had scheduled the Chevette for the California plant because the car primarily v:as de igned as an import fighter. By build-

ing it in California, Gl\.I thought it would be making the car more readily available in the very heru.·t of the country's biggest import market. However, according to market surveys, the car has taken fewer sales from the imports than GM projected, and GM has decided it could continue to supply the California market from across the country.

When it announced the change in Chevette plans, GM also disclosed that it would halt production of some of its sporty subcompact cars for some additional time to hold down swelling inventories. As a result, 2,500 GM hourly workers will be idled for a total of three weeks.

They all work at the South Gate plant, where the Chevette was to have been added. Originally, GM planned to close the plant this week to control inventories of the sporty subcompacts being built there, and to keep it closed next week while final tooling changes for Chevette production were made. When the plant reopened, it would have been building both Chevettes and the sporty subcompacts at a combined rate slightly ahead of its cul'l'ent rate on the subcompact series alone. Now, GM will keep the plant closed those two weeks but has added a third week of idle time. It is scheduled to reopen March 8 and resume producing the subcompacts at the current rate.

In another development, apparently related to Detroit's current small-car sales dilemma, Ford Motor announced a temporru:y $165 price cut on certain options on some of its Pinto subcompact cars. Ford said it will offer buyers of certain Pinto models a "limited edition" package of dress-up trim items for $48. The items normally retail for $213, Ford said. Ford, GM, and American Motors Corp. have all recently offered similar discounts on some of their smaller models in hopes of stimulating lagging sales.

{From the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 17, 1976] U. S. CAR SALE.S FaOM FEB. 1-10 INCREASED BY

21 PERCENT-RISE Fao:M WEAK 1975 MATCHED FoaECAST, ANALYST SAYS PERIOD w ASN'T A "Rousm" DETROIT.--Sales of U.S.-built cars in earlv

February rose 21 % from weak year-earlier levels. The latest sales were about in line With industry expectations.

Domestic car sales in the Feb. 1-10 period totaled 167,608 units, compared with 138,108 a year before, when auto makers were in the midst of a devastating sales slump. Those year-earlier figures were the worst for an early-February period in more than a decade despite the industry efforts to stimulate sales with highly publicized cash rebates to new car buyers.

Early-February sales this year were also ahead of the co1Tesponding 1974 period, when fears of gasoline shortages were hurting demand, but were lower than any other early February since 1970.

Sales analysts who work for the Big Three auto makers said the latest figures represented. a continuation of the recent auto sales pattern, in which demand has come in well ahead of the recession-wracked periods of last year. The period "was a continuation of what we have seen. But it isn't what you'd call a rouser," said one analyst. In recent months auto sales, when measured on a seasonaly adjusted annual-rate basis, have been on a plateau, with gradual increase 1n the rate e:x'})ected in ea.ch of the later quarters of the year.

Auto makers, however, recently have been troubled with a change in the demand for various types of ears despite overall sales remaining well ahead of last year. Car buyers have begun to buy more larger-size cars than some of the smaller models that auto makers thought they would want.

As a result, the industry is being forced to cut back on its production on some small cars and lay otr workers while trying to add


some larger units to production schedules. On Friday, General Motors Corp., for example, announced more reductions in its sma.11-car output plans.

In the just-ended sales period, the best results were registered by car sales divisions that primarily make larger cars. For example, GM's Buick, Oldsmobile and ·Pontiac divisions reported sales increases o! between 48% and 88% from a year earlier and Cadillac sales jumped over 169 % . Ford Motor Co.'s Lincoln-Mercury unit reported a 49 "o increase. To some extent, these big percentage gains were aided by the fa.ct that year-earlier cash rebates were concentrated among smaller models.

For the early February period, total GM sales rose 31 % , Ford Motor deliveries rose 16%, and Chrysler Corp sales increased 8.4%. American Motors Corp. reported a 1 % g~in.

Feb. 1-10, 1976

31, 164 15, 717 20, 177 6, 463

90,270

34, 901 10, 507

45,408

16, 142 9, 573

25, 715

36, 387 10, 589 10, 763 2,405

69,065

32, 106 7,052

39, 158

14, 763 8,968

23, 731

U.S. industry, total cars__ 167, 608 138, 108

Percent change

x-Ther1t wer1t XX selling days in the period this year and XX last year. Percentage differences are based on daily sales rate ratlle, than on sales volume.

PERCENTAGE OF MARKET (EXCLUDING IMPORTS)

General Motors ______________ _ Ford Motor ________________ _ American Motors ____________ _

Chrysler_ --- ---- --- ----- -- -- -

1976 1975 period period

53.9 27.I 3. 7

15.3

50.0 28.3 4.5'

17.2

CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there further morning business? If not, morning business is closed.

ENERGY CONSERVATION AND INSULATION IN BUILDINGS ACT OF 1976 The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem

pore. Under the previous order, the Senate will now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 8650, which the clerk will state.

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A blll (H.R. 8650) to assist low-income persons 1n insulating their homes, to facilitate State and local adoption of energy conservation standards for new buildings, a.nd to direct the Secretary o! Housing and

Urban Development to undertake research a.nd to develop energy conservation performance standards.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to its consideration.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and insert:

That this Act may be cited as the '"Energy Conservation and Insulation in Buildings Act of 1976". TITLE I-RESIDENTIAL INSULATION ASSISTANCE FOR LOW-INCOME PERSONS

SHORT TITLE

SEC. 101. This title may be cited as the "Residential Insulation Assistance Act of l.ifl6".

FINDINGS

SEC. 102. The Congress finds and declares tha.t-

(1) dwellings owned or occupied by low-income persons frequently are inadequately insulated, and such persons, particularly elderly and handicapped low-Income persons, can least afford to make the modifications necessary to reduce their residential energy use;

(2) improved insulation in such dwellings would lower utility expenses for such lowincome owners or occupants as well as save thousands of barrels per day of needed petroleum;

(3) the States should be encouraged through Federal assistance to develop and support coordinated residential insulation programs designed to am-eliorate the adverse effects of high energy costs on such low-income persons, to supplement other Federal programs serving such persons, and to conserve energy; and

(4) such State programs should supplement and not supplant, and be fully coordinated with, the emergency energy conservation program carried out by community action agencies pursuant to section 222 (a) ( 12 of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964.

PURPOSE

SEC. 103. The purpose o! this title is to develop and implement a supplementary residential insulation program to assist in achieving a prescribed level of insulation in the dwellings of low-income persons, particularly elderly and handicapped low-income persons, in order both to a.id those persons least able to afford higher utility costs and to conserve needed energy.

DEFINITZONS

SEC. 104. As used in this title the term(1) "Administrator" means the Adminis

trator of the Federal Energy Administration; (2) "Director" means the Director of the

Community Services Administration; (3) "elderly" means persons who are sixty

years of age or older; (4) "Governor" means the chief executive

officer of a State (including the Mayor of the District of Columbia.);

(5) "handicapped person" means an individual who meets the definition of a "handicapped individual" as defined in section 7 (6) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, or who is under a disability as defined in section 1614(3) (A) or 223(d) (1) of the Social Security Act or in section 102 (7) of the Developmental Disablltties Services and Faclllties Act of 1970, a.s amended, or who is receiving benefits under chapter 11 or 15 of title 38, United States Code;

(6) .. insulation materials" means items primarily designed to improve the effieient

energy utilization of -a. dwelling, includlngr but not limited to, celling, wall, floor, and duct insulation, storm windows and doors, and caulking and weatherstripping, but not including mechanical equipment valued in excess of $50 per dwelling unit;

(7) "low-income" means that individual or family income, as appropriate, which does not exceed 50 per centum of the median income for individuals or familles (adjusted for family size), as appropriate, for a particular geographical area, as determined by the Director in consultation with the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; and

(8) "State" means the several States, the District of Columbia., the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

FINANCL'>.L ASSISTANCE

SEC. 105. (a) The Administrator is authorized, in accordance with the provisions of this title and regulations issued pursuant thereto, to (1) provide :financial assistance to States, and {2) to transfer to other Federal deparments or agencies funds for use to serve Native Americans, to assist in carrying out projects designed to improve insulation and energy conservation in dwellings in which the head of household is a low-income person, particularly where elderly and handicapped low-income persons reside.

(b) (1) The Administrator, after consultation with the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Secretary of Labor, the Director of the ACTION Agency, and the heads of such other Federal agencies as he deems appropriate, and with the concurrence of the Director, shall develop and publish in the Federal Register for public comment, not later than forty-five days after the date of enactment of this title, proposed regnlations to carry out the provisions of this title. He shall take into consideration comments submitted regarding such proposed regulations, and shall publish such final regulations not later than seventy-five days after the date of such enactment.

(2) The regulations prescribed pursuant to this section shall include provisions-

(A) prescribing, with the approval of the Director of the National Bureau of Standards in the Department of Commerce and in consultation with the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, for use. in various climatic, structural, and human need settings, standards for insulation materials, energy conservation techniques, and balanced combinations thereof, designed to achieve a balance of a healthful dwelling environment and maximum energy conserva· tion; and

(B) designed to insure that (i) the benefits of insulation assistance in connection with leased dwelling units will accrue primarily to low-income tenants; (ii) the rents on such dwelling units wlll not be raised because of any increase in the value thereof due solely to insulation assistance provided under this title; and (iii) no undue or excessive enhancement will occur to the value of such dwelling units.

(c) In the event that a State does not, within one hundred and fifty days after the date of enactment of this title, submit an application meeting the requirements set forth in section 106, a community action agency carrying out programs under title II of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, as amended, may, in lieu of such State, submit an application (meeting such requirements and subject to all other provisions of this title} for carrying out projects under this title in the geographical area served by such agency under that Act.

(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Administrator 1s authorized to transfer to the Director sums appropriated under this title to be utilized in order to

5778 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE Manh 9, 1976 carry out programs under section 222(a) (12) of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, as amended, in furtherance of the purpose of this title.

APPLICATION

SEC. 106. (a) The Administrator is authorized to provide financial assistance ( or transfer funds) from sums appropriated for any fiscal year under this title only upon annual application therefor containing such information (including information needed for evaluation purposes) as may be required (1) in the regulations prescribed pursuant to section 105 and (2) to carry out this section. In making grants and transferring funds to provide such assistance, the Administrator shall allocate funds on the basis of the relative need for 1·esidential insulation assistance among low-income persons throughout the States, taking into account the climatic and energy conservation factors specified in subsection (c) of this section.

(b) (1) Any State submitting an application for financial assistance under this title shall designate or create a State agency or institution which, itself or a policy advisory council of which, has special qualifications and sensitivity with respect to solving the problems of low-income persons (including the residential insulation and energy conservation problems of such persons) and which is broadly representative of organizations and agencies which are providing services to such persons in the State, and shall submit its application to the Administrator through the agency or institution so designated. Such agency or institution shall be the sole agency for administration, coordination, and allocation of the financial assistance provided to such State under this title, and shall allocate such funds to carry out residential insulation projects within the State based on factors set forth in subsection (c) of this section.

( c) Each application for financial assistance under this title shall specify the location and scope of projects to be funded, including a description of-

(1) (A) the estimated number an d characteristics of low-income persons and dwellings to be assisted;

(B) the climatic conditions in t he State, which may include consideration of annual degree days;

(C) the type of insulation work to be done (including insulation materials and energy conservation techniques to be used) in the various settings;

(D) the priorities to be established among low-income persons, including a description of the way in which priority is to be assured for elderly and handicapped low-income persons, and the extent to which priority will be given to a single-family or other high-energy-consuming dwellings; and

(E) the estimated amount of fuel to be conserved;

(2) policies and procedures designed to a ssure that financial assistance provided under this title will be used so as not to supplant State or local funds, but to supplement and, to the extent practicable, to increru,e the amounts of such funds that would in the absence of such Federal funds be made available for carrying out the purpose of t his title, including plans and procedures (A) for securing, to tlle maximum extent feasible, the services of volunteers and manpower training participant s and public service en1ployment workers, pursuant to tlle comprehensive Employment and Training Act of 1973, as amended, to work under the supervision of qualified supervisors and foremen, and (B) for complying with the limitations set forth in section 107.

LIMITATIONS

SEC. 107. (a) Funds provided or transferred to any recipient of financial assistance

under this title shall, to the maximum extent feasible, be used for the purchase of insulation materials, except that not to exceed 10 per centum of a.ny grant or transfer of funds under this title may be used to administer a residential insulation project.

(b) The Administrator shall insure that not less than 50 per centum of the sums appropriated for any fiscal year shall be allocated to community action agencies in such year in accordance with the provisions of subsection (c) of this section.

(c) The Administrator shall insure that financial assistance provided to States under this title will-

( 1) be allocated to community action agencies carrying out programs under title II of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, as amended, or other appropriate qualified public or nonprofit entities in tl1e State so that-

(A) due consideration will be given to the availability of and relative need for residential insulation assistance among the low· income population within the State, including such factors as climate and the availability of similar insulation assistance under othet· Federal programs;

(B) (i) funds to be allocated for carrying out the residential insulation projects under this title in the geographical area served by the emergency energy conservation program carried out by a community action agency under section 222(a) (12) of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, as amended, will be allocated to such agency, and (ii) priority in the allocation of such funds for carrying out such projects under this title will be given such a comml.mity action agency in so much of the geographical area served by it which is not served by the emergency energy conservation program it is carrying out: Provided, That such allocation requirement and such priority shall no longer n.pply in the event that the Governor makes a determination, after following policies and procedures consistent with those set forth in section 110, that the emergency energ conservation program carried out by such agency has been ineffective in meeting the purpose of this title or is clearly not of sufficient size, and cannot in timely fashion develop the capacity, to support the scope of the project to be carried out in such area with funds under this title; and

(C) due consideration will be given to the results of periodic evaluations of the projects carried out under this title in the light of information regarding current and anticipated energy and residential insulation needs of low-income persons within the State; and

(2) be allocat ed (including disapproval or discontinuation of funding) under this tit le to residential insulation projects within the State consistent with the policies and procedures set forth in section 110.

M ONITORING, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, AND EVALUTION

SEC. 108. The Administ rator and the Director shall monitor and evaluate the operation of project.s receiving financial assistance under this title through reports as required in section 109(a) or through joint or separate onsite inspections, or otherwise, in order to assure the effective provision of insulation assistance for the dwellings of low-income persons, and shall jointly carry O"t periodic evaluations of the program authorized by this title and projects receiving financial assistance hereunder. They may provide technical assistance to any such project, directly and through persons and entities with a demonstrated capacity in developing and implementing appropriate technology for enhancing the effectiveness of the provision of residential insulat ion assistance to the dwellin gs of low-income persons, u t ilizing in

any fiscal year not to exceed 10 per centum of the sums appropriated for such year unde1• this tit le.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

SEC. 109. (a) The Administrator, in consultation with the Director, by general or special orders, may require any recipient of financial assistance under this title to provide, in such form as he may prescribe, such reports or answers in writing to specific questions, surveys, or questionnaires as may be necessary to enable the Administrator and the Director to carry out their functions under this title.

(b) Each person responsible for the administration of a rc..::;identia.l insula tion project receiving financial assistance under this title shall keep such records as the Administrator may prescribe in order to assure an effective audit of the disposition of t he funds provided under this title.

(c ) The Administrator, or the Director, and the Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their duly authorizd representatives, shall have access for the purpose of audit and examination to any books, documents, papers, information, and records of ,ny project receiving financial assistance under this title that are pertinent to the financial assistance received under this title.

(d) Payment.sunder this title may be made in installments and in advance or by way of reimbursement, with necessary adjustments on account of overpayments or underpayment s. APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS AND ADMINISTRATION

OF STATE PROGRAMS

SEC. 110. (a) The Administrator shall not finally disapprove any application submitted under this title, or any modification thereof, without first affording the State agency or institution (or community action agency under section 105 ( c) ) in question as well as other interested parties, reasonable notice and opportunity for a public hearing. Whenever the Administrator, after reasonable notice and opportunity for a public hearing, finds that in the administration of the program within such State there is a failure to comply substantially with the provisions of this title and regulations prescribed hereunder, he shall notify such agency or institution and other interested parties that the State (or such community action agency) will not be regarded as eligible to participate in the program under this title until the Administrator is satisfied that there is no longer any such failure to comply.

(b) Reasonable notice under this section shall include a wi·itten notice of intention to act adversely (including a statement of t he reasons therefor) and a reasonable period of time to submit corrective amendments to the application, or t o propose corrective act ion.

JUDICIAL REVIEW

SEC. 111. (a) If any applicant is dissatisfied with the Administrator's final action wit h respect to the approval of its application submitted under section 106 or with the final action under section 110, such applicant may, within sixty days after notice of such act ion, file with the United States court of appeals for the circuit in which the State in question is located a petition for review of that action. A copy of the petition shall be forthwith transmitted by the clerk of the court to the Administrator. The Administrator thereupon shall file tn the court the record of the proceedings on which he based his action, as provided in section 2112 of title 28, Unit ed St ates Code.

(b) The findings of fact by the Administrator, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive; but the court, for good cause shown, may remand the case

March 9, 1916 CONGRESSIONA.L RECORD-SENATE 5779 to the Administrator to take further evidence, and the Administrator ma.y thereupon make new or modltied findings of fact and may modify his previous action, and shall certify to the court the record of the further proceedings. Such new or modified findings of fa.ct shall likewise be conclusive if supported by substantial evidence.

(c) The court shall have jurisdiction to atnrm the action of the Administrator or to set it aside, in whole or in part. The judgment of- the court sha.11 be subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States upon certiorari or certltication as provided in section 1254 of title 28, United States Code.

NONDISCRIMINATION

SEC. 112. (a.) No person in the United States shall on the ground of race, color, national origin, or sex, or on the ground of any other factor specified in any Federal law prohibiting discrimination, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits ot, or be subjeci;ed to discrimination under any program, project, or activity supported 1n whole or in part with financial assistance under this title.

(b) Whenever the Administrator determines that a recipient of :financial assistance under this title has failed to comply with subsection (a) or an applicable regulation, he shall notify the recipient to secure compliance. If within a reasonable period of time the recipient fails to secure compliance, the Administrator shall ( 1) ref er the matter to the Attorney General with a recommendation that an appropriate civil action be instituted; (2) exercise the power and functions provided by title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 u.s.c. 2000d et seq.) and any other applicable Federal nondiscrimination law; or (3) take such other action as may be provided by law.

REPORT TO CONGRESS

SEC. 113. The Administrator and the Director shall each submit, on or before March 31, 1976, and annually thereafter through 1979, a report to the Congress and the President describing the supplementary residential insulation program carried out under this title or any other provision of law, including the results of periodic evaluations and monitoring activities required by section 108.


SEC. 114. There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the program under this title, $55,000,000 for ea.ch of fiscal yea.rs 1976, 1977, and 1978, to remain available until expended.

TITLE II-BUILDING CONSERVATION STANDARDS SHORT TITLE

SEC. 201. This title ma.y be cited as the "Building Energy Conservation Standards Act of 1976".

FINDINGS AND PURPOSE

SEC. 202. (a.) The Congress finds that-( 1) large amounts of fuels and energy a.re

consumed unnecessarily each year in heating, cooling, ventilating, and provlding domestic hot water for newly constructed resi· dential and commercial buildings because such buildings la.ck adequate energy conservation features;

(2) Federal policies and practices contribute to this condition, which the Nation can no longer afford 1n view of its current and anticipated energy shortage, by provldlng, without regard to energy considerations, Federal construction a.ids directly such a.s through loans or grants and indirectly through financing from federally approved, regulated. or insured financial institutions.

(3) !allure to provide adequate energy con-servation measures 1n newly constructed

buildings increases long-term operating costs that may affect adversely the repayment o! and secm·ity for loans made, insured or guaranteed by Fede!'al agencies or made by fed· erally insured or regulated instrumentalities; and

( 4) state and local building codes or similar controls can provide an existing means by which to a.ssure, in coordination with other building requirements and with a minimum of Federal interference in State and local transactions, that newly constructed buildings contain adequate energy conservation features.

(b) The pui·poses of this title, therefore, are to-

( 1) redirect Federal pollcies and practices so that Federal :financial assistance for construction purposes is provided only under conditions which assure that reasonable energy conservation features will be incorporated into new buildings receiving such assistance;

(2) provide for the development and implementation as soon as feasible of performance standards for new residential and commercial buildings which a.re designed to achieve the maximum practicable economies in fuels and energy consumption within reasonable cost levels; and

(3) encourage States and local governments to adopt and enforce such standards through their existing building code and other construction control mechanisms.

DEFINITIONS

SEC. 203. As used in this title, the term( 1) "Secretary" means the Secretary of

Housing and Urban Development; (2) "Administrator" means the Adininis

tra.tor of the Federal Energy Administration; (3) "building" means any structure to be

constructed which includes provision for a heating or cooling system, or both, or a hot water system;

( 4) "residential building" means any building developed for residential occupancy, substantially on a. year-round basis, for one or more persons or faxnllies;

( 5) "commerc~al building" means any building developed for use other than residential occupancy, including buildings developed for industrial or public use;

(6) "Federal building" means any building to be constructed by or for the use of any Federal agency which is not legally subject to State or local codes or similar requirements;

(7) "unit of general local government" means a city, county, town, municipality, or other political subdivision of a State or any combina.tion thereof, which has a building code or similar jurisdiction over a particular area;

(8) "Federal agency" means any department, agency, corporation. or other entity or instrumentality of the executive branch of the Federal Government, and includes the United States Postal Service, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation;

(9) "financial assistance" means any form of loan. grant, guaranty, insurance, payment, rebate, subsidy, or any other form of direct or indirect Federal assistance, other than genera.I or special revenue sharing or formula. grants made to States;

(10) "Federal instrumentality responsible for the supervisor's approval, regulation, or insuring of banks, savings and loan associations, or similar institutions" means the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the . Comptroller of the eurrency, the Federal Home Loa.n Bank Board, the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, and the National Credit Union Adm1n1.stra.tion;

(11) "State" includes each of the several

States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the United States territories and possessions;

( 12) "performance standard" means a goal or goals to be met without the specification of the methods, materials, and processes to be employed in achievlng that goal, but including statements of the requirements, criteria and evaluation methods to be used, and any necessary commentary; and

(13} "building code" means a legal instrument which ls in effect in a State or unit of general local government, the provlsions of which must be adhered to it a building is to be considered to be in conformance with law and suitable for occupancy and use.

PROMULGATION OF MINTh!U"M ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS

SEC. 204. (a) (1) As soon as practicable, but in no event later than three years after enactment of this title, the Secretary, only after consultation with the Administrator, the Secretary of Commerce utilizing the services of the Director of the National Bureau of Standards, and the Administrator of the General Services Administration, shall develop and publish in the Federal Register for public comment proposed performance energy conservation standards for new commercial bulldings. Performance standards shall be developed and promulgated within six months after publlcation of the proposed standards and shall become effective within a reasonable time, not to exceed one year after promulgation, as specified by the Secretary.

(2) As soon as practicable, but in no event later than three years after enactment of this title, the Secretary, only after consultation with the Administrator and the Secretary of Commerce utilizing the services of the Director of the National Bureau of Standards, shall develop and publish in the Federal Register for public comment proposed performance energy conservation standards for new residential buildings. Performance standards for such buildings shall be promulgated within six months after publication of the proposed standards and shall become effective within a reasonable time, not to exceed one year after promulgation, a.s specified by the Secretary.

(b) All standards promulgated pursuant to this section shall take account of, and make such allowance as the Secretary determines appropriate for, climatic variations among the difl'erent regions of the country.

(c) The Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator, the Secretary of Commerce, the Administrator of General Services, and other Federal officials, as appropriate, shall periodically review and provlde for the updating of standards promulgated pursuant to this section.

(d) The Secretary, it he finds that the dates otherwise specified in this section for publication of proposed or promulgation of final performance standards under subsection (a) (1) or (a) (2) cannot practically be met, may extend the time for such publication or promulgation, but no such extension shall result 1n a. delay of more than six months in promulgation. INCORPORATION OF STANDARDS IN STATE AND

LOCAL CODES SEC. 205. (a) No Federal officer or agency

shall approve any financial assistance for the construction of any building in an area of a State unless the State has certified that the unit of general local government having jurisdiction over such area has adopted and is implementing a building code or similar requirement which meets or exceeds the minimum standards promulgated pursuant to section 204 of this title, or unless the State certifies that a State code or requirement providing for the enforcement of such stand-ard or standards has been adopted and is

5780 CONGRESSIONAl RECORD - SENATE "fl/larch 9, 19i6 being implemented on a statewide basis or within the area in which such building is to be located.

(b) In any case where, on the effective date of the performance standards referred to in section 204(a), a State has not yet developed and implemented a procedure for certifying local codes or similar requirements, or adopted and proceeded to implement a State code or requirement for carrying out the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, but where the Secretary finds that the State is actively developing such procedure or code, the Secretary may receive and approve a code or other requirement proposed by a unit of general local government as complying with the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, but no such approval shall extend for more than one year.

(c) Each Federal instrumentality responsible for the supervision, regulation, or insuring of banks, savings and loan associations or similar institutions shall adopt regulations prohibiting such institutions from-

( 1) making loans for the construction or :financing of buildings, or

( 2) purchasing loans made after the effective date of any energy conservation standard for the construction or financing of buildings, unless such buildings are to be located in areas where Federal assistance for constl'uction is permitted under subsection (a) of this section.

(d) In the certification submitted by a State, the State may recommend to the Secretary that specific units of local government within the State be excluded from all provisions of this title on the basis that new construction in such jurisdiction is not of a magnitude to warrant the costs of in1plementing or providing for 1·equired inspections, and the Secretary may, in his discretion, exclude such unit without thereby af· fecting the State's certification.

( e) The Secretary shall, by regulation, provide for the periodic updating of State certifications under this action, and shall make such reviews and investigations as he deems necessary to determine the accuracy of such certifications. The Secretary may reject, disapprove, or require the withdrawal of any certification but he shall not take such action without affording the State a reM:onable opportunity for hearing.

FEDERAL BUILDINGS

SEC. 206. The head of each Federal agency responsible for the construction of Federal buildings shall adopt such procedures as may be necessary to assure that such construction meets or exceeds the applicable government to assist them in meeting the ene1·gy conservation standards promulgated pursuant to this title.

GRANTS TO STATES

SEC. 207. (a) The Secretary is authorized to make grants to States to assist them in meeting the costs of developing standards or State certification procedm·es to carry out the provisions of section 205 of this title.

(b) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated for the purpose of grants under this section not to exceed a total of $5,000,-000 fo1· fiscal year 1976.

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

SEC. 208. The Secretary, directly, by contract or otherwise, may provide technical assistance to States and units of general local requirements of this title. CONSULTATION WITH INTERESTED AND AFFECTED

GROUPS SEC. 209. In developing and promulgating

standards and carrying out his other functions under this title, the Secretary shall consult with appropriate representatives of the building community, including labor, the construction industry, engineers, and architects, and with appropriate public officials

and organizations of public officials, and representatives of consumer groups. For purposes of such consultation, the Secretary shall, to the extent feasible, make use of the National Institute of Building Sciences as established by section 809 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. The Secretary may also establish one or more advisory committees as may be appropriate. Any advisory committee or committees established pursuant to this section shall be subject to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

RESEARCH SE..:. 210. The Secretary, in cooperation

with the Administrator, the Administrator of the Energy Research and Development Administration, and the Director of the National Bureau of Standards shall carry out such research and demonstration activities as he determines may be necessary to assist in the development of standards under this title and to facilitate th~ implementation of such standards by State, and local governments. Such activities shall be designed to assure that standards are adequately analyzed in terms of energy use, institutional rei:ources, habitability, economic cost and benefit, and impact upon affected groups.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro ·tempore. The time for debate on this bill is limited to 2 hours to be equally divided and controlled by the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. PROXMIRE> and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. BROOKE), with 1 hour on any amendment in the first degree, 30 minutes on any amendment in the second degree, and 20 minutes on any debatable motion, appeal, or point of order.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time not taken out of either side.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will call the roll.

The assist9.nt legislative clerk proceeded to call the roJI.

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the orde1· for the quorum call be rescinded.


.STATEMENT BY SENATOR PROXMIRE CONCERNING CONFERENCE REPORTS ON H.R. 6516 AND H.R. 8835

Mr. PROXMffiE. Mr. President, the appointed conferees on these two bills have met and agreed on conference reports which I hope the Senate will adopt without delay.

The first of these bills, H.R. 6516, is the Equal Credit Opportunity Act Amendments of 1976. It provides needed protection against arbitrary discrimination in credit transactions based on race, color, religion, national origin, age, receipt of public assistance benefits, and exercise of rights under the Consumer Protection Act. This bill is the natural and logical sequel to the original Equal Credit Opportunity Act which barred discrimination on the basis of sex or marital status.

Extensive hearings were held on this legislation both in the Senate and in the House, and the resulting bill reflects a careful assessment of the needs of credit applicants and credit grantors. I am

particularly happy to report that the conferees accepted the stronger enforcement provisions from the Senate billparticularly the higher ceiling for class action recoveries, which is now $100,000, but will be $500,000 under this act.

The other bill is H.R. 8835, the Consumer Leasing Act of 1976. This legislation will add a new chapter to the Truth in Lending Act requiring full disclosure of the component and aggregate costs of leasing consumer goods. Such leases are becoming an increasingly common alternative to credit sales, yet the existing disclosure laws do not cover them. This bill fills that gap, and also provides protection for consumers in so-called .financing leases where part of their contract.ual obligation is based on an estimsi te of the residual or salvage value of the i;oods at the end of the lease term. This bill also contains the higher ceiling on class action liability and makes that ceiling applicable to the entire Truth in Lending Act.

Mr. President, these are both good bills. The conferees worked out differences in a spirit of cooperation and with the knowledge that this legislation has great potential benefit for the American public. I commend all the conferees for their effo1 ts, and urge the Senate to accept the conference reports.

A STEP FOR CONSUMERS Mr. EIDEN. Mr. President, as the Sen

ate sponsor of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act Amendments of 1976 (H.R. 6516) and of the Consumer Leasing Act of 1976 (H.R. 8835), I want to record my support for the conference reports on these bills, brought before us today.

I believe the Senate and House conferees worked hard and with good will to produce the strongest possible legislation for the protection of credit applicants and consumer lessees.

When the Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs which I chair took up these bills last summer, we had the benefit of earlier hearings on them by the Consumer Affairs Subcommittee of the House Banking Committee. Its hard work made our job easier, and I believe enabled us to improve and perfect the legislation. This is borne out by the fact that in large measure the House conferees recognized improvements in the Senate version of these bills and receded to them.

I would like to mention a few of the features of these bills of which I am particularly proud. The Equal Credit Opportunity Act amendments expand the prohibition against discrimination in credit transactions to include race, color. religion, national origin, age, receipt of public assistance benefits, and exercise of rights under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. These provisions will assure that all Americans have fair and equal access to the credit they need and want.

The Senate bill contained a provision, which the conferees accepted, requiring creditors to notify applicants of the action taken on their applications within a reasonable time. No longer will creditors be able to deny an applicant by inaction.

Ma1rch 9, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 5781 More Importantly, the conferees ac

cepted that part of the Senate bill which establishes the right of all credit applicants to learn the specific reasons for any adverse action taken against them. Creditors must now, as a ba1·e minimum, give rejected applicants written notice of their rights in this regard. I believe that this provision will prove to be of great benefit not only to credit applicants, but also to credit grantors. Having to give the reasons for credit turndowns will discourage any discriminatory practices, and should serve a valuable educrutional function as well.

The House conferees agreed to accept the provision from the Senate bill raising the ceiling for class action recoveries from $100,000 to $500,000. I am most happy at this action, for it puts some real teeth into the enforcement machinery under this act. This same formula was adopted in the Consumer Leasing Act as well, not only for that act but for all of truth in lending.

In both the equal credit amendments and in the leasing bill, provisions were included to assure that the States remain free to enact and enforce their own laws so long as they are not inconsistent with these bills.

The Consumer Leasing Act responds to the need for disclosure requirementssimilar to those required under truth in lending for credit transactions-in longterm leases of consumer goods. Particularly in the automobile field, the use of such leases is growing by leaps and bounds. The disclosures called for in this bill will assure consumers adequate information to make intelligent choices, and will protect them from unexpected "balloon" liabilities in leases containing a residual value payment obligation.

Mr. President, I have said I am proud of these bills. I am also gratified at the spirit of cooperation with which the House and Senate conferees dealt with them. If one thing was clear in our conference, it was a common purpose to make these bills as strong and effective as we could. I think we achieved that purpose, and I thank all those staff members and conferees who contributed to the effort.

EQUAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITY ACT-CONFERENCE REPORT (REPT. NO. 94-685) Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I sub

mit a report of the committee of conference on H.R. 6516 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore (Mr. McGOVERN). The report will be stated by title.


The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 6516) to amend title VII of the Consumer Credit Protection Act to include discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, and age, and for other purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses this report, signed by a majority of the conferees.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to the consideration of the conference report.

(The conference report is printed in the RECORD of March 4, 1976, beginning at page 5494.)

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, this measure has been cleared with the minority. The Senator from Utah (Mr. GARN) handled it for the minority in conference and in committee.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the conference report.

The report was agreed to.

CONSUMER LEASING ACT OF 1976-CONFERENCE REPORT <REPT. NO. 94-686)

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of conference on H.R. 8835 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore (Mr. McGOVERN). The report will be stated by title.


The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 8835) to amend the Truth in Lending Act to protect consumers against inadequate and misleading leasing information, assure meaningful disclosure of lease terms, and limit ultimate liability in connection with leasing of personal property primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, and for other purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses this report; signed by a majority of the conferees.

The ACTING PRESIDENT . pro tempore. Without objection, the Sena.te will proceed to the consideration of the conference report.

(The conference report is printed in the RECORD of March 4, 1976, beginning at page 5491.)

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, in connection with this measure also, the minority has agreed that we could take it up and consider it on the floor of the Senate at this time. It is my understanding that there is no objection to it.

Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the conference report on H.R. 8835, now being considered by the Senate. At the outset of these remarks, let me say that I support unequivocally the actions taken by the conferees, of which I was one; and I commend your Banking Committee chairman, Senator PROXMIRE, as well as the subcommittee chairman, Senator BIDEN, and the ranking minority member, Senator GARN for the leadership which they have so ably demonstrated with respect to this legislation.

As noted in your Banking Committee's report which accompanied H.R. 8835, the growth of personal property leasing by consumers has been rapid and substantial. This growth has resulted from the fact that many consumers have discovered, in recent years, that a lease provides an attractive alternative to tradi-

tional sales financing. The committee found, however, that while consumers have been obtaining full and complete information generally with respect to the cost of traditional sales financing because of the Truth-in-Lending Act, cost and other disclosures in the leasing area have often been inadequate to fully inform consumers regarding the consequences of their actions.

The need for adequate consumer lease disclosures became abundantly apparent to your Banking Committee during the course of its deliberations. In this respect, one of the forms of open-end leases with which your committee was most concerned involved the so-called net or finance lease-as defined in section 57(c) of the Internal Revenue Code-which guarantees the lessor a specified return, or guarantees him in whole or in part against loss of income. Indeed, this form of lease was highlighted in your committee's report on H.R. 8835, and the conferees were equally concerned with the implications surrounding the use of such a lease.

The net or finance lease is the most widely used form of lease pertaining to motor vehicles. Under such a lease, the lessor-ordinarily a bank or automobile dealer-contracts with a lessee that the lessee meet monthly rental payments which are designed both to reimburse the lessor for the reduction in market value of his vehicle-that is, depreciation-and to provide him with a specified return. GeneraUy, the lessee may terminate such a lease after 1 year, with a rental adjustment thereafter designed to guarantee the lessor such specified return or to guarantee him in whole or in part against loss of income.

At the termination of such a lease, the vehicle is sold. If the vehicle is sold for less than its depreciated value, as originally estimated, the lessee is responsible for reimbursing the lessor for the difference between this value and the sales price. Conversely, if the vehicle is sold for more than such depreciated value, the lessee receives the excess as a retrospective adjustment in rent. Most lessors off er this form of lease because the lessee or user holds possession and control of the leased vehicle and, through adequate or inadequate maintenance, has the power to enhance or reduce the value of such leased property. Thus, the rental adjustment at the conclusion of the lease provides an incentive for the lessee or user adequately to maintain the vehicle in his possession.

It is possible under such a lease arrangement, however, to set the periodic specified rents so low during the lease term that a substantial deficiency is destined to result. If so, and the lessee is not apprised of this distinct probability, the lessee will not be cognizant of the full extent of his lease obligations. Accord- . ingly, the disclosure provisions of the instant bill are designed to alleviate this situation, and provide consumers with the type of information which is necessary to make reasonable and intelligent decisions prior to undertaking lease commitments.

For the foregoing reasons and others,

5782 CO.t GRESSIO AL RECORD-SENATE JYlarch 9, 1976 I support the conference report as I supported the actions of your Banking Committee. Moreover, I urge my colleagues in the Senate to act favorably on the report at this time.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the conference report.

The report was agreed to.

QUORUM CALL Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I sug

gest the absence of a quorum. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem

pore. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk pro

ceeded to call the roll. Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.


ENERGY CONSERVATION AND INSULATION IN BUILDINGS ACT OF 1976

The Senate continued with the consideration of 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 t-0 direct the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to undertake research and to develop energy conservation performance standards.

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, what is the pending measure before the Senate?

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The measure before the Senate is H.R. 8650.

Mr. PROX...1\ilRE. Mr. President, this is the Energy Conservation in Buildings Act of 1976.

I ask unanimous consent that the following members of the staffs of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs and the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare be entitled to the privileges of the floor during the debat.e and votes on this measure: Ken McLean, Carl Coan, Thomas Brooke, Robert Malakoff, Jeremiah Buckley, Conway Collis, John Steinberg, Dan Wall, and Rich Wahlation.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro t.empore. Without objection it is so ordered.

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, recent international events have made us all aware of the Nation's need to curtail energy waste. Last month the Congress enacted the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, major legislation designed to conserve energy through oil pricing, appliance standards, and Stat.e planning.

The bill before us today, the Energy Conservation in Buildings Act of 1976 (H.R. 8650, as amended) would take another significant step toward achieving greater conservation of energy, It would do this, first, by authorizing Federal assistance to insulate houses occupied by low-income families; second, by facilitating the adoption of building standards throughout the Nation to insure that new buildings will be energy efficient. Both of the e programs were re-

quested by the administration L.--i its energy proposals.

I repeat, this is, in effect, an adminiistration bill, and I think the administration is absolutely correct in asking for this legislation.

THE RESIDENTIAL INSULATION PROGRAM

The need for a program to assist lowincome families in making their houses weatherproof was demonstrated dul'ing hearings held last year by the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. The Federal Energy Administration reported that 5 million homes occupied by low-income families in the United States are inadequately insulated and energy wasteful. These low-income families spend three times as much of their income for house energy as do other families, and because many of them are elderly and handicapped and on fixed incomes, cannot make even relatively minor home improvements. By assisting in weatherizing their houses, the residential insulation assistance program authorized under title I of the committee bill would, according to FEA estimates, 1·esult in savings of some $200 million and 12 million ban-els of oil annually.

The residential insulation program would authorize the Federal Energy Administration $55 million annually for the years 1976, 1977, and 1978 for grants to States in order to assist in financing residential insulation improvements for low-income families. The funds would be used chiefly to purchase the necessary insulation materials; labor services would be provided primarily through volunteer and other Federal, State, and local programs.

So this is a very economical program inasmuch as the money would go for insulation materials, which are relativ-ely inexpensive, and the labor would be done largely by volunteers. As a matter of fact, we have programs like this in Milwaukee, Wis. I understand they also have been found to be successful in Maine and othel' places.

To receive funds, States would submit an annual application to the Federal Ene1·gy Administration. Funds would be allocated by the FEA in accordance with the need for insulation assistance, as outlined in the statute. Priorities in funding would, under certain circumstances, be given to local community action agencies, and at least 50 percent of the annual appropriation would be earmarked nationally for use by such agencies. The Governor of a State would have authority to set aside a local funding priority if he determined that a local agency is ineffective or lacks capacity. The committee bill would also authorize technical assistance to the State and mandate annual performance reports to Congress.

Title I of the committee bill differs from title I of the House bill more in emphasis than substance. Both bills provide a role for community action agencies in carrying out the program, in order to ensure that the new insulation program administered by FEA is coordinated with the broader Emergency Energy Conservation Services program administered by the Community Services Administra-tion and local community action agen-

cies throughout the Nation. The committee bill goes farther than the House bill in providing for coordination. By authorizing funding for local agencies and joint approval of the program regulations, the committee sought to ensure that existing capacity and experience are used, instead of simply establishing a new bureaucracy. The committee believes that strong links between the FEA and the CSA are required if the new insulation program is to respond effectively to the particular needs of low-income families, while, at the same time. achieving maximum savings of fuel.

THE BUILDING ENERGY STANDARDS PROGRAM

The need for a nationwide program of building standards to reduce energy consumption in new dwellings and commercial buildings was made evident by the administration and others who presented evidence to the committee during hearings and subsequent deliberations last year. The FEA reported that almost one-third of all of the energy consumed in the United States is used to heat, cool, and provide hot water in our buildings. So, this is a measure, of course, that deals with a great proportion of all of our energy consumption.

The FEA further estima t.ed that we could save at least 30 percent of this energy if we would adopt a nationwide program of building standards to conserve energy. The General Accounting Office studied the issue and found that a national progrnm is needed because present building practices in the United States inhibit the prompt adoption of energy conservation measures.

After carefully considering these findings, the committee concluded that energy conserving standards for new buildings are needed, and that only by the common action of Federal, State, and local governments can the Nation reduce unnecessary consumption of energy in our homes and places of work.

Title II of the committee bill would direct the Secretary of HUD to establish energy conservation standards for new residential and commercial buildings, and to facilitate State and local government adoption and implementation of such standards within a reasonable period of time. The standards would set forth minimum performance requirements for a particular type of building under varying conditions. These standards would not--I repeat, would not-specify particular construction design materials or methods that must be used, but would instead set an energy consumption target for a building and let the architect and builder take it from there.

Under the committee bill, HUD would promulgate minimum performance standards for residential and commercial structures within 36 months. What that would do would be to permit the Energy Research and Development Agency and the National Bureau of Standards to carry out the research schedule they have established for developing performance standards, and would also permit the Secretary to consult with Government agencies and concerned private groups before issuing the standards. Following promulgation of the standards, the

March 9, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 5783 States and localities would have the opportunity dw·ing the next 12 months to adopt their own standards based on the minimum Federal standards. The bill would provide that Federal Government agencies would be precluded from giving financial assistance for new residential or commercial construction to States or localities which failed to do so. Incidentally, that is, I am sure, going to be the subject of an amendment which I anticipate will be pressed hard and will get considerable support in the Senate. But it is very important, if we are going to have a bill that has any force and effect, that we maintain that provision in the bill.

The sanction would include Federal loans, grants and credit extended by federally supervised financial institutions. In order to assist the States, the bill would authorize $5 million for grants in fiscal year 1976, in addition to authorizing the provision of technical assistance.

Title II of the committee bill differs from the House bill in basic principle. The committee bill would make energy standards mandatory; the House bill would not. After weighing the evidence presented for mandatory standards by administration officials and others, and that presented by spokesmen who opposed, the committee concluded that energy standards should be required for all new construction in the United States in order to assure prompt and equitable implementation of the program in all parts of the country; and to promote lower building costs through development of a national market for energy conserving materials and services.

Mr. President, the issue involved in this legislation is not Federal versus State authority. The executives of both State and Federal governments are on record in favor of a national program which mandates a national standard to insure energy conservation in new construction.

The Governors are for this program, and they have gone on record for this program.

I should point out, also, that the organization of the State legislatures also has gone on record for this program and this bill in its present form.

S.o the issue is not "uniformity dictated by Washington." The committee bill c!oes not require uniformity in standards. States may adopt different standards, so long as they meet the test of minimum performance.

The issue is whether the Nation is 1·eally going to act to conserve energy. If we are, it is the Banking Committee's view that building energy standards, based on performance criteria, backed by sanctions to restrict building which does not meet minimum performance in saving energy, and conducted through the joint efforts of the Federal Government, the States, and the localities, is needed now.

The Building Energy Conservation Standards Act of 1976, contained in title II of the committee bill authorizes such a national building energy standards program.

Mr. Frank Zarb of the Federal Energy Administration sent a letter to me this morning. In this letter he strongly reiterates the administration's position that the bill before us should be passed as reported.

His letter makes three points: He says, and I quote from his letter: It is my belief that any amendments to

delete or weaken Section 205 of title II of the Energy Conservation in Buildings Act--

And there will be such an amendment before the Senate within a couple of hours.

Any such amendment "would be a serious blow to Federal efforts to achieve energy conservation. The time has come," says Mr. Zarb, "to take effective action against the needless waste of valuable energy in new buildings."

The second point is that: If Section 205 is retained, we can look

forward to general adoption of performance standards for new construction. New buildings will be constructed in a more energy efficient manner. All homebuyers will benefit by lower total housing costs through reductions in heating and cooling requirements.

And he goes on to say: If, on the other hand, the Senate strips

Section 205 from the bill, all that will be left will be an ineffectual resolution urging State and local governments voluntarily to conserve energy in new building construction. Such a voluntary program would impede progress toward energy self-efficiency, and cost the Nation thousands of barrels of high cost imported oil each day.

Mr. President, I have letters of support from the National Governors Conference, the Organization of State Legislators, the American Institute of Architects, the Fenestration Industries Association, the International Brotherhood of Painters, for themselves and for the AFL-CIO and its Building Trades Division, the Consumers Federation of America, the Sierra Club, the Ei:vironmental Policy Center, Congress Watch, and Friends of the Earth. Common Cause also expressed its support. I know of no group concerned about energy conservation that opposes this bill.

Mr. President, I urge that the Energy Conservation in Buildings Act of 1976, H.R. 8650, as amended, be passed by the Senate, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Meg Power of my staff be given floor privileges during consideration of H.R. 8650.


Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, the energy crisis our Nation faces is not ending. In truth, it has only just begun. It is obvious that we must establish both longterm energy resource development strategies and continuing policies for conserving our precious basic fuels.

These issues are, at last, getting some long-needed congressional attention. We enacted the Energy Policy and Cons€rvation Act of 1975, which included automobile efficiency standards, appliance labeling, and bloc grants for State conservation programs. But these are initial steps. A true national conservation pro-

gram might save as much as half our current consumption. A report by Denis Hayes of the Worldwatch Institute, produced on contract for FEA, offers us the hope that serious efforts to save energy in transportation, agriculture and building heating and lighting would vastly stretch out the leadtime we have for developing new energy sources.

The measure we are considering today, H.R. 8650, is a large step toward a serious national commitment to energy conservation in buildings. Buildings use nearly a third of all the energy we use. Studies of the construction industry confirm that between 1975 and 1985, the stock of residential and commercial buildings will increase by over 40 percent. This new construction could be built to be so energy efficient that new structures would consume 50 to 80 percent less energy in day-to-day operations than existing buildings now use. Such large savings would depend on the full utilization of advanced energy technologies in new construction together with adequate insulation. And even the simple expedients of marginally upgrading the existing designs for heating and cooling systems and adding insulation to conventional new building plans could save at least 30 percent of current operating expenses.

But the private market has not, by itself, generated sufficient incentives for builders to add the front-end costs required to make buildings economical users of energy in the long run. Responsible analysts, including the Arthur D. Little Co., of Cambridge, Mass., have found that increasing insulation and energy saving equipment expenditures will lead to savings on other materials even before the building begins to operate. But the industry is often conservative, and there are insufficient incentives to innovate designs in this increasingly competitive market.

For many years, the commercial and residential building markets have been so structured that there is a premium on the quickest, least expensive construction, even when it entails high long-run management costs. And the price for this shortsighted policy has been tragically paid by low- and moderate-income families, who since 1973 have faced either staggering utility bills or rapid rent increases attributable to fuel bills.

Where residential rents are controlled and cannot cover high energy costs, as is the case in subsidized developments, the result has been foreclosure and real personal tragedy. Small businesses, too, have buckled to high operating costs for utilities and fuel in the past 2 years. But concern for the first victims of the energy crisis is not the only reason for supporting this tough conservation program. The entire Nation needs these scarce fuels to assure our continued growth and security.

The FEA and the GAO have both analyzed the effectiveness of using economic incentives in contrast to strict standards for promoting energy-efficient new construction. As the Senate Banking Committee report on H.R. 8650 notes, both agencies have recommended congres-

5784 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 1llarch 9, 1976 sional establishment of energy performance standards backed by meaningful sanctions. There has been lengthy debate in the Banking Committee over this issue of imposing sanctions on State and local governments for failing to establish standards at least as strict as the Federal model code which will be promt lgated.

I am among those who share the majority view that. without a minimum standard, intergovernmental competition for taxable development will make it impossible for localities to adopt a strict conservation standard. Furthermore, it is only when we have a mass market for energy conserving building materials and components that we can minimize additional new construction costs. In any case, I am convinced that the minimum performance standards HUD will set up will allow a high degree of flexibility for governments adopting various methods of implementing general energy efficiency goals. In addition, I strongly supported the addition of tough sanctions to the House version of this legislation because I believe there is an overwhelming Federal interest in this major step toward a national energy conservation policy. Very few issues have such important implications for our long-run national security as effective energy use.

Of course, H.R. 8650 is not confined to establishment of standards for new construction. There is a realistic program for achieving energy conservation in some existing residential buildings, which would not be improved otherwise. The legislation provides a substantial boost to the small Community Services Agency residential energy conservation progi·ams, which affect existing structure . To date, the CSA-run emergency energy conservation service program ha5 used a variety of tools to assist low-income households which face contin;iing financial crises that are made worse by their utility bills. A very successful part of this effort has been the small weatheriza tion assistance program, which has so far committed $23.8 million to insulate the homes of low-income families.

The Residential Insulation Assistance Act, which is title I of H.R. 8650, creates a broad-based program of assistance to States to buy insulation materials and provide flexible, although limited, :financing for installation and other program-related expenses. It will be tied partly to the CSA efforts, in that the Director of CSA will help establish the conservation standards. and also in that at least half the funds will be channeled by the Governors through community actio 1 agencies. Ho,vever, the program iu H.R. 8650 is a direct, specific way of providing the basic materials needed to meet the major residential conservation problem, poor insulation. It is not a varied program of emergency assistance related to energy needs as is the existing CSA program.

A realistic program directed to lowincome households is long overdue. Onequarter of badly insulated homes are owned by the poor, and these are in many cases the most dilapidated of our buildings.

The poor have been particularly hard hit by rising fuel prices. They spend about 11 percent of their income on energy used in the home, while middleincome citizens spend only 4 percent. For energy, as for many other purchases, th~ poor pay more.

Space heating, a basic energy need, is responsible for more than half of the residential energy expenditures of poor households. This is largely because lowincome households are less likely to own major appliances suet. as an air-conditioner, separate food freezer, dishwasher, clothes washer, ·or clothes dryer. And it is in space heating that significant energy conservation can be realized by insulath1g.

Although I have personally worked hard in my capacity as a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee to provide funds for emergency assistance to the poor, the aid we have provided has, quite frankly, barely made a dent on the overall problem. H.R. 8650 would provide $55 million for each of the next 3 years, by which time as many as 30 percent of low-income residences could be upgraded. The cost-benefit ratio of this expenditure is remarkably good. By 1980. low-income persons would be saving $200 million per year. This is, of course. not only a gain for families who simply cannot afford their energy bills, but it is also a great help to our efforts to attain national energy independence. The United States can save as much as 12 million barrels of oil each year after the insulation pm·chased under the provisions of this legislation is installed.

Mr. President, as the distinguished chairman of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee has said, this is perhaps one of the most important energy bills to come before the Congress of the United States. It is backed by the President, and his administration represented by FEA and HUD. There are strong arguments to be made for the passage of this legislation, for which the people of this country have so long been waiting. I think, Mr. President, that such realistic conservation initiatives are long overdue. I urge my colleagues to enact H.R. 8650 and to resist any weakening or crippling amendments that may be offered to this important legislation.

H.R, 8650: TITLE I

Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, as the author and principal sponsor of the Residential Insulation Assistance Act of 1975, title I of the Energy Conservation and Insulation in Buildings Act of 1975, as reported from the Committee on Bank· ing, Housing and Urban Affairs, I believe it is important to enunciate clearly our intent regarding the operation of the program authorized by this title.

Mr. President, I will begin by explaining why the program authorized by this title is vitally needed. Second, I will summarize the operation and achievements of the emergency energy conservation services program, now carried out by the Community Services AdministrationCSA-which the program created by this title is designed to supplement. Finally, I will outline the supplemental program provided for in title I of the committee bill.

Mr. President, title I of the bill reported from the committee is designed to alleviate the impact of high energy costs upon the poor as well as to reduce our Nation's consumption of energy-producing substances. According to the Federal Energy Administration-FEA-23 percent of America's energy consumption is accounted for by residential buildings. Primarily, these buildings utilize fuel for space heating and cooling. FEA has estimated that; between 20 to 40 percent of this energy usage is the result of inadequate insulation in a minimum of 18 million of the Nation's 47 million singlefamily units. FEA has also estimated that 5 million of these 18 million homes are occupied by low-income persons, and that these low-income households spend almost three times as much of their income as other households for energy in the home. Although there also are an estimated 13 million multiple but less than five family dwelling units, FEA has not been able to produce energy-consumption data for such units.

Thus, Mr. President, inadequately insulated low-income dwellings unnecessarily deplete our Nation's energy resources, increase our dependence upon foreign energy sources, and lessen severely the ability of low-income persons to maintain minimum living conditions necessary to maintain a healthful en~ vironment.

One approach that Congress is co14 -sidering to deal with the problem of inadequately insulated dwellings is a tax credit to encourage homeowners to retrofit their homes by installing additional insulation, storm windows. et cetera. Since most households with incomes near or below the poverty line pay little or no Federal income tax, a tax credit would not be helpful to them.

Consequently, in reporting title I of this bill, the committee has acted to address directly the residential energy needs of the poor. In doing so, the committee has built upon the existing framework provided by the eme1·gency energy conservation services-EECS-program carried out under section 222(a l 02) of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964-EOAas added by the Community Services Act of 1974. Although this title is based upon the premise that continuation of the EECS weatherization program is fundamental to dealing with the energyrelated problems of the poor, it is also based upon the conclusion that a supplemental program focusing solely on residential insulation is also necessary. Thus, under the supplemental program authorized in the committee bill. additional funds would be provided solely for residential insulation assistance for lowincome persons. and the delivery system for this assistance would be built on the programs, expertise. and outreach capacity already in the field. The basic funding allocation decisions would be left to each State, taking into account the location of needy low-income persons. But in order to insure that effective programs now in place remain the fundamental delivery mechanism for residential insulation services, the committee bill requires that if funds are allocated to a geographical area served by a weatherization program

I: ,.


carried out by a community action agency under EOA section 222 Ca) (12), those funds must generally be allocated to that community action agency. Additionally, 50 percent of the total sums appropriated must be allocated-nationwide, not individually in each State-by the States to community action agencies. THE EXISTING ENERGY CONSERVATION SERVICES

PROGRAM FOR THE POOR

Mr. President, title I of the committee bill is designed to supplement the program now carried-out by CSA. Thus, I would like to describe that program in some detail. ·

STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND PROGRAM SCOPE

Section 222(a) (12) of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 as amended by the Community Services Act of 1974, authorizes the CSA to carry-out--

A program to be known as Emergency Energy Conservation Services to enable lowincome individuals and families, including the elderly and the near poor, to participate in energy conservation programs designed to lessen the impact of the high cost of energy on such individuals and families and to reduce individual and family energy consumption.

The primary thrust of this program is to lessen the impact of the high cost of fuel on poor people and to conserve energy, particularly through programs to increase the thermal efficiency of their dwellings. In addition, the program authorizes other forms of assistance to meet continuing human needs in emergency cases through programs providing for such assistance as crisis intervention to restore utility service or prevent cutoffs, and the delivery of fuel in emergency situations.

Eligible participants in this program are low-income individuals and famllies, including the elderly and near-poor. For this program, the near-poor are those persons whose, and whose family's incomes are between 100 and 125 percent of the poverty thresholds as established in CSA's current poverty guidelines.

Programs activities eligible for EECS funding include:

Weatherization: This means making home repairs and retrofitting dwellings to minimize heat loss and improve thermal efficiency. Components of a weatherization program may include: :first, repairing of broken windows, patching of roofs and walls, and caulking of cracks and joints to reduce or prevent infiltration; second, insulating of attic, fioo1·s, and walls, weatherstripping of doors and windows, and foundation banking; and third, 1·epairing or replacing heating sources.

Emergency assistance: This means intervention to prevent hardship or danger to health due to utility shut-off or lack of fuel. Emergency assistance may include grants, loans, or payment guarantees; mediation with utility companies or fuel suppliers; financial counseling; and provision of emergency fuel supplies, warm clothing, and blankets.

Other program activities: These miscellaneous activities include consumer information and legal assistance, assessment of alternative energy sources, transportation programs, and program support, including technical assistance

CXXII--366-Part 5

and research and demonstration programs.

FUNDING HISTOBT

Mr. President, from 1973 through June of 1975 CAA's used $31 million in local initiative funds-that Is, discretionary funds diverted from other programs-for energy conservation programs of the type authorized by subsection 222Ca) 02) in 1974. Subsequently, specific appropriations have been made for the EECS program: $16.5 million was contained in the fiscal year 1975 Second Supplemental Appropriations Act, and $16.5 mlllion was authorized to be expended this :fiscal year in the fiscal year 1976 continuing resolution. The fiscal year 1976 appropriation was increased to $27.5 million by the enactment, over the President's veto, of the fiscal year 1976 Labor-HEW Appropriations Act CH.R. 8069).

In addition, CSA is receiving $64.5 million from the Department of Commerce, under title X-job opportunities program-added to the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 by the Emergency Jobs Act of 1974-of which $17.5 million will be allocated for energyrelated manpower needs, almost all to pay for labor in the EECS program.

PROGRAM ACHIEVEMENTS

Mr. President, :figures are not yet available regarding the utilization and impact of the fiscal year 1975 and 1976 funds specifically appropriated for the EECS program since June of 1975. OMB has recently approved CSA's data collection form for this program.

However, the following estimates-in part based on the :figures from Project Fuel, the Maine weatherization program, using a cost for heating fuel at $0.35 per gallon-have been compiled regarding the impact of the $31 million in local initiative funds utilized by CAA's for energy conservation purposes from 1973 through June of 1975:

First, 100,00 low-income homes have been insulated;

Second, 300,000 low-income persons have been served;

Third, 864,000 additional low-income persons have been served by noninsulation, energy-related services;

Fourth, a minimum of 45 million gallons of fuel have been conserved; and

Fifth, a minimum of $15 million in fuel-related costs have been saved.

PROGRAM COVERAGE

The existing EECS prog1·am extends to all 50 States with 704 of the Nation's 833 CAA 's carrying out EECS programs. Eighty percent of the Nation's poor are in areas served by a CSA 222(a) (12) program.

CAA's have expended some 60 percent of the :first $31 million diverted to energy-related services on weatherization programs, almost all of which was used to cover the cost of mate1ials. The remaining $12 million has been spent by CAA's for other services-mainly emergency assistance--now authorized under section 222(a) 02).

The sum of $29 million of the $33 million appropriated and obligated since June of 1975 for section 222(a) (12) has been allocated through CSA 's regional offices to States and CAA ·s. and bet<:~:een

75 and 88 percent of this $29 million has been used for weatherization programs. The balance of the $29 million has been used for emergency programs of crisis intervention. Of the remaining $4 million, $1 million has been allocated to the Office of native American programs for weatherization programs for native Americans; $1 million for migrant or seasonal farm workers programs; and $2.5 million for research, development, and technical assistance. su:..IMARY OF TITLE r, RESmENTIAL INSULATION

ASSISTANCE FOR LOW-INCOME PERSONS

.Mr. President, this title is designed to speak to the need for residential insulation assistance for low-income persons. particularly elderly and handicapped persons. It would authorize the FEA to make grants, in amounts which total up to $55 million a year for 3 years, to the States to finance residential insulation projects-using funds generally for the purchase of insulation materials-for low-income persons, those with incomes below the poverty level, as determined on a local basis. The FEA estimates, based on figures from the Project Fuel program carried out by CSA, that at the completion of 3 years the program authorized by the committee bill may save the equivalent of 38,325,000 barrels of petroleum and result in a savings in fuel bills to low-income households of $200 million annually at today's prices. No firmer estimate can be made because the subsequent CSA experience shows that the average--$100 to $125 per unit-unit cost in Project Fuel has not been sustained and average costs will be higher. Insulation materials-designed to improve energy conservation-include, but are not lmited to, such things as floor and ceiling insulation, storm windows, and caulking and weatherstripping, as well as materials to stop infiltration, but do not include mechanical equipment in excess of $50 per dwelling unit.

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. President, the Administrator of the FEA would be authorized by this title to provide financial assistance t-0 States, including the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Vh·gin Islands, and to serve native Americans for use in accordance with estimates of State funding needs developed by each State in accordance with criteria prescribed in the program regulations. In drafting this legislation, we have not settled on the Bureau of Indian Affairs within the Department of the Int.erior as the administering agency for native-American residential insulation programs. Certainly, HEW and CSA should be considered for these pw·poses as well.

REGULATYONS

Mr. PI·esident, financal assistance to the States is to be provided in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Administrator of FEA, with the concurrence of the Director of CSA. Regulations are to h1clude provisions that:

Fh·st. Prescribe standards of insulation and the combination of techniques, approved by the National Bureau · of Standards-NBS--necessa1-y to achieve a balance between a healthy environ-

5786 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE March 9, 1976 ment and maximum energy conservation; and

Second. Assure that benefits in leased dwellings accrue primarily to low-income tenants, rather than to landlords. In this regard, the bill was drafted with the expectation that the States, in implementing this program, will discoui·age local governments from increasing property tax assessments because of residential insulation improvements made pursuant either to this title or EOA section 222 (a) 02), a point also stressed in the House committee report.

Mr. President, a concurrent role in prescribing insulation standards has b~en assigned to NBS in light of its close mvolvement with CSA and FEA energyrelated activities over the past several years. The Bureau's work in this field is highly regarded, and is to be continued under the committee bill.

In drafting title I, we noted that the administration's bill generally adopted by the House assumes and an average per dwelling unit insulation cost of $100 to $125. However, based on its experience in conducting weatherization programs across the country over the past 3 years, CSA has found that per dwelling unit expenditures must be expected to be as high as $350 in the colder climates, and $250 in the wa1-mer climates, particularly in light of the substantial problems of infiltration which CSA's experience has shown to be characteristic of low-income residences. CSA's per unit outlays have been made pursuant to recent NBS studies of the most cost-effective, energy conserving technologies and techniques. Thus we anticipate a higher cost per dweliing than does the administration but also, under the committee bill, the energy savings per unit will be greater, as will the resulting savings in fuel bills to low-income residences.

COMMUNITY SERVICES ADMINISTRATION/ COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY ROLE

Mr. President, as I have indicated, this title is designed to build upon the programs, expertise and outreach cap~city already in the field, while leavmg the funding allocation decisions to each State based on the location of needy low-i~come persons. Thus, the provisions of this title insure utilization of the CAA weatherization delivery system in the following ways:

First. The insulation standards must be approved by CSA and NBS, and be developed in consultation with the Secretary of HEW, the agency with the greatest expertise in health matters and in providing services to elderly and handicapped persons;

Second. Funds which the State allocates to areas now served by CSA weatherization programs will have to be channeled through the CAA carrying out that program, unless the Governor finds that the program is ineffective in meeting the purpose of this title or is clearly not of sufficient size, and cannot in a timely fashion develop the capacity, to support the scope of the project to be carried out in that area;

Third. On a nationwide basis at least 50 percent of each total annual appropriation must be allocated through CAA wea theriza tion programs;

Fourth. If a State fails to apply for funds within a designated time, or 1f its application is rejected after notice and hearing, CAA's in that State can obtain direct funding from FEA;

Fifth. The State must distribute its funds through a State agency which is sensitive--itself or through a representative policy advisory council-to the needs, including energy-related needs, of poor persons; and

Sixth. The administration may, if it wishes, carry out the residential insulation program totally through the CSA weatherization program.

Mr. President, I want to stress, in the strongest possible terms, the importance of the concurrent role of the CSA Director with respect to the program's regulations prepared by FEA. The rationale for requiring CSA concurrence is as follows:

First. CSA has for 3 years been running a weatherization program of the scope proposed by this title. It has developed standards and guidelines-based on the work done by the NBS-and has published and widely disseminated those guidelines. It has already had an opportunity to reevaluate and revise those guidelines, based on day-to-day experience in administering a weatherization program for low-income persons.

Second. The statutory purpose of the program is a dual one--both to achieve a safe and healthful living environment for the low-income persons served by it as well as to aid in national efforts to conserve energy. CSA has long experience in dealing with the totality of the needs of poor persons. That is its sole mission.

The committee believes that awareness of, and responsiveness to, the related problems encountered by poor persons is a critical aspect of this program. For example, the home of an elderly person with a health problem, such as arthritis, may well have to be warmer than that of a younger, healthier person. CSA's regulations are sufficiently flexible to meet these special circumstances.

Third. Since this is a supplemental program to an already functioning $64 million program-the total of the $31 million in local initiative funds used from 1973 to 1975, and the $33 million appropriated specifically for section 222(a) (12) since June of 1975-it should be well-coordinated with the existing program. CSA's concurrence in the regulations should provide for a coordinated Federal e:ff ort by the two lead agencies.

Fourth. CSA's concurrent role will enhance the credibility and effectiveness of the new supplementary program with poverty and minority groups.

Fifth. The regulations must be issued within 45 days after enactment, so the requirement for CSA concurrence will not cause delays in the issuance of the regulations.

Sixth. Concurrence in regulations is particularly appropriate, when the program being carried out by one agency seeks to benefit a particular constituency group generally served by another agency. This is exactly the situation here. A parallel situation is the veterans' costof-instruction program run by the Office of Education in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare by mak-

ing grants to colleges to establish veterans affairs offices. The regulations for that program, by law, must be jointly prescribed by HEW and the VA, although HEW administers the program. Thus, just as the VA jointly issues regulations for a program directly affecting veterans, but administered by HEW, in the same way CSA should concur in the regulations for a program administered by FEA, to serve CSA's constituency-lowincome people. In addition, in the energy and environmental field there are numerous laws and regulations providing for concurrent action or veto by one agency over another agency's action.

As directed in the committee repor t, the committee placed real importance on CSA's concurrence and this expects the CSA Director to exercise judgment on the regulations so as to bring about the greatest possible consistency between the new program and the existing program carried out by CSA.

APPLICATION FOR FUNDING

Mr. President, each application for funds must, first, be made through a State agency designated by the Governor to administer the program and to make funding allocations to nonprofit entities within that State. The agency designated-or a qualified and representative advisory council established by it--must have special qualifications with regard to solving the problems of the poor and be broadly representative of organizations and agencies providing such services to the poor. The application also must be set forth plans and procedures to secure the maxim.um feasible services both of workers and trainees under the Comprehensive Education and Training Act of 1973 as well as of volunteers.

ALLOCATION OF FUNDS WITHIN THE STATES

The Administ1·ator must insure that funds are allocated within the States in a manner which:

First. Gives due consideration to the need for these projects in various parts of the State; and

Second. Allocates funds for carrying out residential insulation projects under this title in the geographical area served by a section 222(a) (12) weatherization program, to that program; and gives a priority in the allocation of funds for carrying out such projects under this title to the CAA in those portions of the geographical area served by it which are not presently served by the weatherization program it is carrying out.

The bill as reported from committee bas sought by these provisions to insure that Federal moneys are utilized as costeffectively as possible-that new weatherization programs, utilizing appropriations authorized by this title, supplement and do not supplant existing, effective prngrams. To further this process the committee bill requires that FEA insure that not less than 50 percent of the total sums appropriated will be allocated by States-nationwide, not individually in each State-to CAA's, especially those carrying out EOA section 222 (a) (12) programs. If the program is administered as a truly supplemental program this mandate should be readily achieved, since 80 percent of the country's poverty

lllarch 9, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SE ATE 5787

population resides in areas now being served by such a 222(a) (12) program. Otherwise, the committeee believes there would be a most counterproductive and duplicative utilization of scarce Federal tax moneys.

UTILIZATION OF FUNDS

fr. President, the provisions in title I governing the utilization of program funds require some interpretation, and I ,rnuld like to explain them at this time.

Not more than 10 percent of the funds in any one grant, averaged on a statewide basis where funding is through the State, may be used for administrative purposes, which includes program planning di-1·ection, and evaluation activities as' well as State or local technical assistance activities. As to the remaining 90 percent of grant funds-the so-called program funds-the bill requires that they shall be used, to the maximum extent feasible, solely for the purchase-including installation tools and the delivery of materials-of insulation materials.

However much we might have wished that all of these program funds should be used for the purchase of materials, and that all labor should be provided by the low-income residents, volunteers, and CETA-funded workers, it did not seem possible or prudent for Congress to establish an absolute prohibition or ceiling on expenditures for installation labor to be applicable to every project throughout the country. Rather, we expect that the program regulations will implement the strong congressional preference here-reinforced by the application requirement in section 106(c) (2) regarding plans for use of volunteers and CETA workers-by establishing guidelines containing procedures whereby either FEA, or perhaps the state administering ag~ncy, would consider and make appropriate exceptions to such guidelines based on demonstrations of particular local needs and circumstances insofar as the availability of labor is concerned.

EVALUATION AND 'IECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. President, the Administrator of FEA and the Director of CSA-utilizing not more than 10 percent of the total funds appropriated-must, under the committee bill, either jointly or individually, monitor, evaluate, and provide teclmical assistance to projects carried out under this title. In providing technical assistance to any such project, they may do so either directly or through person and entities with a demonstrated capacity in developing and implementing appropriate technology for enhancing the effectiveness of the provision of residential insulation assistance to the dwelling of low-income persons-for example. the Center for Appropriate Technology. now funded by CSA, in Montana.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

. Due process procedures are specified m connection with funding of application at the Federal and State levels.


. ... fr. President, this title would autho1·-1~e .the appropriation of $55 million each tor .fiscal years 1976, 1977, and 1978.

CONCLUSION

Mr. President, I think we have developed a workable, balanced piece of legis-

lation in title I of the reported bill. This result was only possible because of the strong helping hand and constructive contributions in committee of my good friend from New Jersey (Mr. WILLIAMS) under whose chairmanship I serve on the Labor and Public Welfare Committee. We were also most fortunate to have the cosponsorship of the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. McINTYRE), who assisted us in committee, as well as of two other of our fellow Labor Committee members, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY), the Senator from Maine (Mr. HATHAWAY). and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. STAFFORD). Perhaps the major force and most staunch supporter throughout has been the dis· tinguished majority leader, the Senator from Montana (Mr. MANSFIELD), a great champion of the energy needs of lowincome persons and a strong supporter of CSA's efforts in this field. Also joining with us was the Senator from Ohio (Mr. GLENN).

Finally, Mr. President, I want to express my deep appreciation for the SUPport, cooperation, and understanding of the full committee chairman (Mr. PROXMIRE) and the chairman of the Housing Subcommittee (Mr. SPARKMAN), and the ranking minority member of the subcommittee (Mr. BROOKE), who at all times were most fair and courteous toward our proposal and our eff'orts.

Mr. President, this is not by any means a perfect piece of legislation, Few I know of are. But it represents our best efforts to reach a compromise between the bill we first proposed, which would have run the program through CSA, and the adm.inistratlon's PEA-oriented approach. Title I of the committee bill is the result of lengthy and numerous discussions and meetings ·with various FEA representatives, and I am hopeful that the substantial accommodations we have made to their views has removed any major obstacles to securing enactment of the legislation before us.

Finally, I want to note the :fine staff support performed by Bob Malakoff', Carl Coan, Ken McLean, and Jerry Buckley on behalf of the committee and Conway Collis on my behalf.

Mr. President, I urge adoption of the committee bill which I believe can make an important contribution to our national energy conservation needs and provide much needed assistance to lowincome persons in coping with energy shortages and high costs. .,

Mr: TOWER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed out of order for 5 minutes on the matter of the death of our late and lamented colleague, Wright Patman.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without cbjection, it is so ordered.

RESOLUTION RELATIVE TO THE DEATH OF REPRESENTATIVE WRIGHT PATMAN, OF TEXAS

M~. TOWER. Mr. President, I ask the Chan· to lay before the Senate a mess~ge from the House on House Resolut10n 1080.

:MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE

A 111:essage ~rom the House of Representatives dellvered by Mr. Berry, one

of its reading clerks, announced that the House has agreed to the foil owing resolution:

Resolved, That the House has heard with profound sorrow of the death of the Honorable Wright Patman, a Representative from the State of Texas and beloved Dean of the House.

Resolved, That a committee of 80 Members of the House with such Members of the Senate as may be joined, be appointed to attend the funeral.

Resolved, That the Sergeant at Arms of the House be authorized and directed to take such steps as may be necessary for carrying out the provisions of these resolutions and that the necessary expenses in connection therewith be paid out of the contingent fund of the House.

Resolved, That the Clerk conununlcate these resolutions to the Senate and transmit a copy thereof to the family of the deceased.

Resolved, That as a further mark of re-spect the House do now adjourn.

Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I call up my resolution at the desk and ask fo.r its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The resolution will be stated.

The legislative clerk read as follows: ResoZVed, That the Senate has heard with

profound sorrow the anouncement of the death of Honorable Wright Patman, late a Representative from the State of Texas.

Resolved, That a committee of two Sen·ators be appointed by the Presiding Officer to join the committee appointed on the part of the House of Representatives to attend the funeral of the deceased Representative.

Resolved, That the Secretary communicate these resolutions to the House of Representatives and transmit an enrolled copy thereof to the family of the deceased.

Resolved, That when the Senate adjourns today, it adjourn as a further mark of respect to the memory of the decea ed Representative.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the resolution?

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.

The resolution (S. Res. 402) was unanimously agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair appoints the Senators from Texas (Messrs. TOWER and BENTSEN) to join the committee of the House of Representatives.

M.r. TOWER. Mr. President, Wright Patman was the Dean of the Congress. He was elected in 1928. I was 3 years old when Wright Patman was elected to the Congress of the United States. He represented the first district of Texas ably and well. His political views and mine were often in conflict with each other but I never failed to have an enormous {·espect and l.'egard for him. He served the interests of what he considered to be the plain people in the best way that he knew how to do. I think all of us have cherished the e~perien~e that we have had in serving with Wnght Patman. Certainly those of us on the Committee on Banking and Currency, who have worked with him for so maf:lY years and through many long hours m ~onf erence committee, can all r~sp~ct his ~normous legislative capabil1t1es and hIS skill. I think that whether we agreed with him or not, we always resp~cted 1:im as a man of great honesty and mtegrity and one whose sole interest was to serve people, to achieve the great-

5788 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE Af a1"ch 9, 19 1 6 est good for the greatest number in the best way he knew how.

Mr. PROXMIRE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. TOWER. I yield. Mr. PROXMffiE. Mr. President, I

commend the Senator from Texas for this resolution. I have known Wright Patman, of course, in the 19 years I have been in the Senate. I found myself very often in agreement with him. I had great, great affection for Wright Patman. There are few people I have met in my life who were more gentle, more kindly, more warm and friendly in their personal relationships than was Wright Patman.

He is known nationally as a man who was a very powerful critic of the bankers. He felt that very deeply, as the Senator from Texas has said.

I think one particular aspect of the deceased Representative from Texas <Wright Patman) was the remarkable grace he showed when he was deposed as chairman of the House Committee on Banking. I know how most of us would have reacted to that kind of action-in bitterness and hatred. I talked to Wright Patman often after that. I never heard a single word of anything but praise for the man who succeeded him who happens to be a Representative from Wisconsin, Representative REuss.

Wright Patman showed the kind of class, the kind of gentility, the kind of real understanding and sympathy that few of us are able ever to develop. Here was a man whose accomplishments, I think, were very substantial and I think are going to continue, because some of the great legislative proposals he fought for have not been achieved, but are going to be achieved, I think, in the next several years.

Above and beyond his great accomplishments over the many years he served in the House was the fine, gentle, warm and friendly character that he represented.

It is always a sad task to note the passing of a colleague. It is especially so for me in the case of Wright Patman, because I had the very great honor and plea-sure of working closely with him on a number of common concerns over almost two decades.

But his loss is not one shared merely by his close associates, by all the Members of Congress or by his constituents in the first district of Texas. It is a loss shared by the common people of this country on whose behalf he toiled so hard throughout his 48 years in the Congress.

And this is the truly remarkable thing about Wright Patman. During all that time he never permitted himself to become the captive of political power. Instead, he consistently sought to employ it to help those whose political voice was weak, whose interests might be sacrificed to those of better organized groups. He fought for the politically and financially underprivileged-the small businessman, the small bank depositor, or saver or borrower, the small farmer-even though such battles cost him acceptance by the Nation's power elite and often made.him seem a maverick in the Congress.

Despite his refusal to play an insider's game and enjoy the perequisites of.power,

his record of accomplishments is a long one. Soon after his arrival as a first term Congressman in 1929, Patman introduced a bill to pay 3 ~':? million veterans of World War I adjusted payment certificates-which became known as the bonus-of nearly $4 billion. Patman demonstrated his farsightedness and persistence by leading the fight for 6 years until the bill became law despite Presidential vetoes. These payments provided an important stimulus to the economy during the depression.

His accomplishments also included his sponsoring a wide variety of bills to help small businesses, such as the RobinsonPatman Act, sponsoring an even greater variety of banking reforms, and cosponsoring the original Federal Credit Union Act in 1934 setting up federally backed credit unions which now have 32 million members. The other body voted yesterday to commemorate Mr. Patman's consistent legislative support for the credit union movement by renaming their credit union the Wright Patman Congressional Federal Credit Union.

But many of his achievements are things that did not happen-special interest initiatives that failed because the Congress had a watchdog like Wright Patman.

In all of his many activities over some six decades in public life, he sought to protect the public interest-first as a fighting district attorney, then as a member of the Texas House of Representatives, and finally as a Congressman. In the latter roles, he exemplified the model representative of the people, seeking to harness the power of the Government to the interests of its citizens, not the intei·ests of a few.

He was capable of anger, the kind that grows from moral outrage. Nor did he shrink from making enemies, if that were necessary to protect the common people.

And yet hard work never hardened him. His manner, even with his antagonists, was always marked by graciousness, kindliness, and a twinkling good humor that remained with him until his death. Mr. Patman's reaction to his being unseated last year as chairman of the House Banking Committee far from showing him to be less than the gentleman he was, really proved his mettle. He showed a complete lack of vindictiveness and continued an ambitious program of oversight and legislation as chairman of the subcommittee domestic monetary policy.

Wright Patman had a fund of good stories, often told on himself, for he had a fundamental modesty that allowed him to avoid pompousness. One story he was fond of telling had to do with his longtime friend and Texas colleague, the late Speaker of the House, Sam Rayburn. An opportunity arose for Representative Patman to run for the Senate. But Mr. Sam counseled against it, saying "Don't do it, Wright; we need you here in the House."

And we still do. Mr. BROOKE. Will the Senator yield? Mr. TOWER. I yield to the Senator

from Massachusetts. Mr. BROOKE. I thank my colleague. Mr. President, I was saddened to learn

of the death of Congressman Wright Patman of Texas. I have served on the Committee on Banking and Currencynow the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs-since I first came to the Senate. I am now in my 10th year, so that was 9 years and some months ago. The first conference between the House and the Senate that I attended was chaired by the Honorable Wright Patman, and there were many conferences thereafter.

I knew him, as Senator PROXMIRE said, as a very genteel man, in many respects as a very humble man. Although he was known nationally as a very difficult personality at times, I found not a man of a difficult personality but rather a man of great humanity and gentility. He was always fair, always equitable. As a freshman, I remember very well how courteous he "·as in letting us speak and listening to our views. I always appreciated it.

I got to know him a little bit personally, socially, at dinners. He had a wit and a warm humor. And He was just a nice human being.

He has had a great impact on banking in this country. He has had a great impact on the housing policies that have come under his committee's jurisdiction. Many, many Americans will always be grateful for his work. I count myself among them.

I commend the Senator from Texas for his resolution. I join with him and his colleagues in the delegation from Texas in extending our deepest sympathy to the Patman family.

WRIGHT PATMAN: A TRULY GREAT CONGRESSMAN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, last Sunday Congressman Wright Patman of Texas died at Bethesda Naval Hospital after 47 years service in the House of Representatives. It was my pleasure to serve with Congressman Patman during the years 1957-61. I have maintained my association and friendship with him in the the years since then.

During all this time, my admiration for this unusually dedicated and cow·ageous man has been increasing. He will be remembered for his championship of the small merchant, the family farmer, the veteran and ordinary Americans in all walks of life. If his fiscal and monetary views had prevailed, we would not now be in the grip of monopoly, inflation and recession. He believed in a people's capitalism-not one dominated by special interests.

I have a special reason for remembering and admiring Wright Patman. He was the only committee chairman or subcommittee chairman who had both the cow·age and the wisdom to advocate a congressional investigation of the Watergate scandal before the 1972 election took place. That is when an investigation should have occurred, and it should have been pushed with dispatch and energy. But Congressman Patman was blocked by White House lobbying among his colleagues on his own committee. It is a matter of grea.t misfortune that the Nation was thus deprived of the insights into the Watergate scandal that might

March 9, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 5789 have changed the outcome of the 1972 election. It is all well and good to argue now that our system worked in removing Mr. Agnew and Mr. Nixon from hi~h office. But the system did not work m time to serve the voters interest when it counted in the fall of 1972. Congressman Patman would have had it otherwise. As on so many other issues, history has proved him right. I have no doubt that in the long view of history, this distinguished Texas Congressman will be identified as one of the greatest men ever to serve in the Congress of the United States.

I ask unanimous consent that an excellent obituary piece by Richard L. Lyons in yesterday's Washington Post be printed in the RECORD. .

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: WRIGH T PATMAN DIES; 47 Y E ARS IN HOUSE

(By Richard L. Lyons) Rep. Wright Patman (D-Tex.), an oldtime

populist who spent his 47 yea.rs in the House fighting for the little man against big interests, died yesterday a t Bethesda Naval Hospital.

Rep. Patman, 82, was hospitalized on Feb. 24 for treatment of the flu and was placed in the intensive care unit two days later when he developed pneumonia..

He had served longer than anyone now in the House and longer than all but a. handful in history. For 12 yea.rs he was chairman of the Banking and Currency Committee until a year ago when House Democrats, led by their young freshmen, deposed him as too old or too arbitrary or ineffective as manager of the committee.

His forte was never as a legislative manager but as a maverick crusader. He never mastered the simplest procedural motions leglslators must make, but he was probably t he prickliest foe of central bankers since Andrew Jackson abolished t he Bank of the United States in 1836.

House speaker Carl Albert said in a statement that "no member who has served in the House during this century will make a more enduring impact . • . ."

Calling Rep. Patman one of his dearest friends in the House, Albert praised his dedicMion, patriotism and legislative contributions and asserted that he was "prob• ably unmatched in his devot ion to the problems of human beings."

Rep. Patman fought tirelessly against high interest rates, big banks, the autonomy of the Federal Reserve Board, misuse of taxfree foundations as wealth shelters. He championed the cause of the small farmer, the small businessman, the veteran whom he helped win a World War I bonus at the depths of the Depression.

To his critics, Rep. Patman has been a funny-money man with a simplistic plan to wipe out part of the national debt With the stroke of a pen, and With heretical views on pushing down interest rates.

To his supporters he has been a lonely fearless voice trying to protect the little people from the predators of Wall Street.

Rep. Patman had the face of a benign grandfather, and his harsh words-such as accusing the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of entering into a conspiracy With big bankers-were issued in a. soft sing-song.

He contended that the Federal Reserve Board scandalously restricted the amount of m oney in circulation-which raised interest l'at es, enriched bankers and caused recessions. He once sent officials of the Fed 245 questions that took nine months and $100,000 worth of research to answer.

Born in Patma.n's Switch, Tex., which was named for forebears who moved west from Georgia, he served in the state legislature With Lyndon B. Johnson's father and pushed through legislation to curb the Ku Klux Klan. He was a reform district attorney in Texarkana. when he was elected to Congress in 1928, the year Herbert Hoover was elected President.

From the poor fa.rm country of northeast Texas, Rep. Patman brought views opposing concentration of wealth that were sharpened here in conversation with Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis and the experience of the Depression.

As a young congressman, Rep. Patman moved to impeach Treasury Secretary Andrew W. Mellon, who represented great wealth, for conflict of interest. Mellon resigned during impeachment hearings and was made ambassador to Great Britain.

Rep. Patman also voted wit h seven other House members to impeach Hoover for mishandling the Depression.

He energetically pushed for the veterans' bonus, which pumped $3 billion into the economy in 1936.

He co-authored the Robinson-Patman Act, intended to protect small business by forbidding manufacturers to give special prices to big chains.

He was a prime mover in setting up U.S.backed credit unions, which now have 32 million members.

He helped pass the 1946 Full Employment Act, which created the President's Council of Econoinic Advisers and was intended to help provide jobs for all.

His monetary views were never enacted into law. Several years ago his committee voted new rules that put a. rein on his investigations. In 1972 he was the first congressional voice to call for an investigation of Watergate, but was blocked by his committee at White House urging.

In his retirement statement issue<i in January to his friends in Texas, Rep. Patman said:

"To the many faithful grass-roots citizens who have voted for me all these years, I say I tried always to vote for you in congress. Together I believe we can be very proud of all that we have accomplished. Thank you for a. wonderful, fulfilling 48 years."

Rep. Patman never used profanity because of a boyhood vow to his mother. He did not drink and rarely was seen at social functions. Because of a diabetic condition, he was a great walker and could often be seen in early evening striding along With his Wife a mile or more away from their Capitol Hill home.

In addition to chairing the House banking committee, he had also served as chairman of the Joint Economic Committee and the Joint Committee on Defense Production.

Rep. Patman served in the House longer than all but three other members-Carl Vinson (D-Ga.), Emanuel Celler (D-N.Y.) and the late Sam Rayburn (D.-Tex.).

Rep. Pa.tman's first wife Merle Connor Patman died in 1967. He remarried in 1968.

He is survived by his wife, Pauline Tucker Patman, and three sons, Connor, a Texarkana lawyer, Harold a. geologist in Austin, and William a state senator from Ganado, outside Mr. Patma.n's district.

Services will be held at 11 a.m. Wednesday at the First Baptist Church in Texarkana..

Mr. TOWER. I thank my colleagues for their kind remarks. On behalf of the Texas delegation, I extend my thanks for their very fitting remarks on our departed colleague.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time consumed in the preceding colloquy be charged to neither side.


ENERGY CONSERVATION AND INSULATION IN BUILDINGS ACT OF 1976

The Senate continued with the consideration of 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.

Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I ask my friend from Massachusetts if he will yield me 5 minutes on the bill.

Mr. BROOKE. I yield. Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I have

several reservations concerning this bill. · The most important concern is em

bodied in section 205. Under this section, in the future, unless a community adopts minimum Federal energy conservation building standards, no lender in that town can make a loan for any new house or commercial building. I think this could be very detrimental to the homebuilding industry, an industry that needs assistance rather than additional obstacles.

I have no objection to constructing buildings so that they ar~ energy efficient. I think we should encourage this wherever it would prove to be feasible and not disruptive. Forcing compliance in each and every case, however, could have the following adverse effects. Costs of new homes and apartments would be increased, thereby making it more difficult for families to obtain decent housing. Should a community choose not to adopt a building code with the Federal standards, then no one, even those favoring the standards and who voluntarily use them in their new house, can obtain financing for their new home. Furthermore, this provision would have the effect of creating a new layer of bureaucracy at the State and Federal level in order to implement and enforce these provisions.

Adoption of these standards could create a nightmare similar to the recently enacted Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act-RESPA. We would just be Piling one more burden on all of the realtors, builders, and lenders, who are so up to their necks in Federal rules and regulations that many have hired personnel just to keep them advised of the newest regulations printed in the Federal Register.

In addition to title II, title I also causes me to seriously question some of its provisions. It provides $55 million a year for 3 years to provide insulation materials in homes in which lower income families reside. I support this concept. Title I, however, is duplicative of another program, Section 222(a) (12) of the Community Services Act of 1974, the emergency energy conservation services program. Under the latter program, funds can be used either to insulate homes, a.s title I of this bill author-

5790 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 9, 1976

izes, or for what might be termed "personal services." Examples of what personal services are include funds t.o purchase flle4 clothes,. blankets and other similar items. For this community services administration program, Congress has authorized $27 .5 million for this fiscal year.

One concern I ha.ve is that the $55 million in title I will be used for insulation purposes and the entire $27.5 million for the separate CSA weatherization program will be used exclusively for personal services.

I do not think that Congress intended the latter when it authorized the 27 .5 million, and there is nothing in this legislation which would preclude this from occurring.

Another concern I have is that we mandate that FEA channel at least 50 percent of the funds through local Community Action Agencies. Yet we never heard one word o! testimony from CSA regarding this legislation. It is ineonce-ivable to me that we would approve thia major new progr.am without hearing one word from the Agency that will have the responsibility of administering most of the: funds.

r might add that this is the same agency, the Community- Services Administratio~ about which the House Commit.tee on Government Operations recently issued a report. After exte-nsiveinvestigations and hearing~ the- report :find& that the CSA. is very disorganized, and riddled with vacancies at the t p level decision-ma.king positions. I should like to read a- pa.rt. of the repo t dealing' with conditions at the regional level in CSA.:

The :O,eld. representatives interviewed by the &ta.ff unh:ersally- complained that they were unable to ca.tty out their duties. adequawly. F'l:lrther, they claimed the.Ir tra.'lel had been eut tcr the pofilt 'that they no longer could provide- effective monitoring or any teehnfcal assistance.

This~ I. remind you.- is the Agency that will be primatily responsible- for administering these funds and trying ta monitor and e.valnate how they are used.

Fina.lly. I: should like to ca.11 to- your attention a. letter t'.ba.t was sent to me from Frank Zarb, FEA Adm~trator, regarding, this legislation. It should be noted that FEA iS: the Agency tila.t originally submitted this legislation. AScan be determined by the letter,. FEA has serious reservations about this legislation. They are very concerned about some of the provisions in title I, and state thirteen major objections to this title.

With FEA strongly opposing this- title I as drafted, and no word ever having been received from CSA on tWs matt.er, I cannot see how we can possibly approve this proposal

Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? If the Senator will yield for a question, the Senator raised, among_ others, the point that this legis,lation might be dup-lieative of cw:rent Community Services Agency activities.

The PRESIDffiG OFFICER~ The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.-

Mr. BROOXEP r yield myself 5-- more minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Se.-nator may proceed.

Mr. BROOKE. It is quite true that the Community Services Agency has been performing some of these functions fn that it provides some insulation !or poor households. But there are only 881 community action agencies, and they cover only about two-thirds oi the counties in the country.

One of the reasons the Governors are so strongly in support of this is that there are many counties that are just not covered and will not be covered with the meager funds that the Community Services Agency has for this purpose; and, a second reason is that you just do not have these CAA agencies in all counties in order to perform this function.

I would just like to point this out to the distinguished Senator from Texas that if we are to give all of the counties in the country access to the program for insulation of homes for the poor we would have to broaden current efforts and that is exactly what we are trying to do in this legislation.

The amount of funding is- woefully inadequate for the Community services Agency at the present time, and under the legislation here proposed there will he obviously twice again as much money available, in order to benefit the entire Nation.

Mr-. TOWER. I thank my colleague. I intend to offer an amendment that 1 think will address itself to the problem which was ra.is.ed by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. We certainly do want to give these Governors the :flexibility they need. I have an. amendment which I think will provide for that which, I am sure. the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts will accept with great alacrity-I am not real sure.

Mr. BROOKE. I am sure that the Senator is not slll'ek [Laughter.}

Mr-. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mrk TOWER. Yes.. Mrk PROXMIREk I ould like. to reply

t th Senators statements which we-re very forceful and effective.

The- Senator raised a Sl)ecter that this legislation would inhibit homebuilding and slow dawn an industry that is already depressed, and in effect throw people out of. work~ I think if. it is tm_e it is a devastating criticism of this. legislation. But I am convinced th t this- is not true, and I would like to say why.

Rather than causing a reduction in building activity, ram convinced, and I think rcan show. that an effective energy standards program will promote an increase in building activity. I say thiS' because an energy standards program will reduce. the cost of shelter where welive and work. Reduced shelter costs will get reflected in increased demand through market forces. At a time when most Americ8llS are being priced out o! the home-buying market, this would be a positive force for expanding construction activity.

r say that not on the basis of just an opinion. A recent assessment of the im-

pact of energy conservation standards carried out by Arthur D. Little Inc., found that initial construction costs of constructing a new single family house would actually fall by 2 cents per square foot~ the cost of constructing a new retail building would fall by 33 cents per square foot; and the costs of constructing a new office building would fall by 93 cents per square foot. This finding-that initial construction costs particularly ·for commercial structures may be sig:niflcantly less than the costs of constructing conventional buildings clearly indicates that there are significant trade-offs between increased insulation requirements and reductions in materials and heating, ventilating and air-conditioning equipment costs in new buildings.

Ih a.ddition, there are very clear reductions in operating costs in buildings that are energy efficient. The Little Report found that operating savings for a single family residence would exceed 10 percent annually,. while opera.ting savings for commercial buildings would reach almost 40 percent yearly~

Now, even more important, Mr. President,. the-re are ve-ry clear rednctions in operating costs in buildings that are energy-efficient. The Little- Report found that operating savings for a single-family residence would exceed 10 percent annually, while operating savings for commercial buildings would reach almost 40 percent annually. So you have two reasons why this legislation would result in more homes and commercial buildings being built, not less:- No. 1, construction costs are reduced particularly for apartments, offices and stores; of course, this obviously will be helpful. But, more important, the main thrust is that the operating costs of all buildings w..11 be reduced; so that, for example, families who no cannot afford to buy or operate a home, pay their mortgage costs, and also pay their utfnties costs would be in a far better position to do it andL as I sayL this is not based just on an opinion; this is based an a very careful and comprehensive study by Arthur D~ Little, Inc.

Mr. President, I yield the floor. The- PRESIDING OFFICER. Who

yields time? AMENDMEI.il"l' NO. 1422

Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1422.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.

The legislative C'lerk read as follows: The Senator from Texas (Mr~ ToWEll) for

himself, Mr. GARN and. Mr. MOB.GAN proposes amendment No. 1422.

The amendment is as follows: Beginning with page 39, line lo, strike out

all through page 41, line 18. Redesignate succeeding sections- aecord-

1ng1y. On p..age 42, line 4.- strike out "or State cer

tiflca.tion procedUI'.es". On p-a.ge 42, line 5, strike out "o! section

205",

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 hour equally divided.

Mr. TOWER. Mr. President; section 205 of title n o.f H.R. 8650 provides for

Mm~ch 9, 1!)76 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 5791 sanctions for 11.on-0ompliance with the provisions of the Bullding Energy Conservation Standards Act of 1976. It must be remembered that title n requires the -Pederal Government to establish minimum energy conservation standards for all newly constructed commercial and residential buildings. If, within a certain period of time, a community does not adopt these minimum energy conservation standards, section 205 provides that very tough sanctions should be applied to them. Should a community not adopt these standards, then no federally related financial institution will be able to make a loan for any newly constructed residential or commercial building in that community. In essence, this means that if a community does not adopt the federally mandated minimum energy conervation standards, then all new construction in that community, including 1·esidential and commercial buildings, will come to a complete halt. This is true even if a private builder voluntarily bullds a building in conformance with the standards. If the community does not adopt the standard, the sanctions apply regardless of whether or not builders voluntarily build in compliance with the standards.

I think that this is too harsh a penalty. No one can deny that we need to conserve energy, and constructing new buildings in conformance with energy conservation standards is laudable. The role of the Federal Government in this area, however, should be that of encouraging this type of construction, not mandating it. An important effect of this provision is that the cost of new housing will be significantly increased due to the addition of energy saving devices. While this might be fine for those with incomes who can afford these additions, there are many who would not be able to purchase a home because of the increased cost. If we in the Congress think that it is good public policy to encourage construction of new homes, and all our recent housing legislation reflects this policy, then how can we pass a measm·e which will have the direct effect of slowing sales of newly constructed houses. The direct effect of this measure will be to produce fewer houses, which will mean greater unemployment in the construction industry.

I do not think that the Federal Government should be dictating to localities what kind of building codes they should be adopting. If my amendment to H.R. 8650 to delete section 205 is not adopted, such Federal intervention will be forced upon our communities.

Additionally, I am opposed to section 205 because it undermines the initiatives taken by many States to voluntarily develop consensus standards for building energy conservation.

The States and national code groups have been actively moving toward the adoption of building energy conservation standards based on ASHRAE standard 90-75. Under the auspices of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.ASHRAE-standard 90-75 was developed as a means to assist builders, engineers,

and architects in the design of 1·esidential and commercial structures that provide for effective use of energy.

On March 23, 1976, the Board of Coordination of Model Codes has scheduled a public hearing in San Diego, Calif., for the purpose of discussing ASHRAE 90-75 prior to its incorporation into the various model building codes. The principal building code organizations such as BOCA, Southern, and Uniform have under consideration proposals that will permit States and localities to regulate building energy. Already, California, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, and Wisconsin have adopted some form of bulltin energy regulations with many more awaiting the final determination of the model code agencies.

This trend will certainly continue. I think that it is certainly far more preferable to encourage the States in the direction of voluntary standards. The sanctions provided in section 205 subject the Congress to the charge that once again, the Federal Government is arbitrarily injecting itself in a matter that is best left to the discretion of State and local government. I would remind us that in the enactment of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, we encouraged the States to voluntarily develop energy conservation plans based on Federal guidelines and the offer of Federal assistance. Sanctions were deemed unnecessary in that act, and I am convinced that they are just as unnecessary in this bill.

I urge the adoption of this amendment which would delete section 205 of this bill.

Mr. President, I might note, there are a substantial number of entities that are very much opposed to section 205. They include the National Association of Counties, the American Iron and Steel Institute, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, the National Association of Realtors, the National Association of Homebuilders, the American Society of Civil Engineers. the U.S. League of Savings Association, the National Savings and Loan League, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Realty Committee and the State of Michigan Department of Labor-all of whom have come out in opposition to section 205.

With that kind of opposition, I hope that the Senate will adopt the amendment deleting section 205 from the bill.

Mr. PROXMffiE. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. President, the amendment of the Senator from Texas (Mr. TOWER) would gut the committee bill. It would just cut the heart out of the bill and remove all sanctions for noncompliance. It would leave implementation of the legislation to the voluntary actions of the 50 States and thousands of communities. It would make energy conservation in building a matter to be determined by local pressures the crazy-quilt way we determine building codes now.

Mr. President, the Governors have made their position very clear.

I hold in my hand a letter from the Governor from Vermont, Mr. Salmon, chairman of the National Governors

Conference Committee on Natural Resources and Environmental Management.

He says that the National Governors Conference has adopted policies relevant to the issues addressed by this bill.

He goes on to say: A question has been raised regarding t he

necessity of such legislation following the enactment of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. We believe that legislation iS still needed to mandate one national standard and one federal process for dispute resolution.

Mr. President, the State legislatures have also made their position clear on this.

I quote from a letter which I have here from the chairman of the Task Force on Energy of the National Conference of State Legislatures:

Our conference unanimously supports Congressional passage of legislation requiring the adoption of mandatory minimum building efficiency standards only if state authority to set more stringent standards remain unaffected.

Of course, that is what this bill would do.

Mr. President, energy conservation should not be a matter of local pressures, but a matter of national commitment. To make it a matter of local pressures would be an abdication of our responsibility, our responsibility as Senators to provide national leadership involving what is obviously an urgent national problem-the energy shortage.

Only by adopting a national program can we assure effective action.

Mr. President, every conservation organization that has taken a position on this legislation, including Friends of the Earth, the Sierra Club, the Environmental Policy Centers, all have taken a strong position for this legislation as it is, and for mandatory standards, which, of course, would be in opposition to the amendment of the Senator from Texas.

Mr. President, without the discipline of sanctions there is little chance that building construction will become energyefficient in this decade. The U.S. building industry is composed of many firms. Homebuilding, in particular, is a field of many small enterprises. This industry fragmentation, the GAO has told us, is very likely to result in the slow adoption of energy-saving practices. Nor are market forces alone likely to be strong enough to bring about rapid response by the industry since they must operate through many local housing markets under varying circumstances.

The President of the United States, the Secretary of HUD and the Director of the FEA, the Governors of the States and the organization of State Legislators, representatives of industry and labor, including the AFL-CIO, and groups concerned with conservation and social welfare-all have clearly stated that we need an effective national building standards program, and that an effective program requires the discipline of sanctions.

Without sanctions there is very little likelihood that all of the States will act promptly and in a similar manner.

The Douglas Commission found, some years ago, that the crazy-quilt of local

5792 CO~GRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE March 9, 1976

building codes adopted in this country reflects, in many cases. the dilution of standards resulting from competition among communities. The Governors and State legislators of the Nation are on record strongly in support of a. uniform mandated minimum performance standard. They have said that they want a law that wm prevent one State from competing with another by reducing its standards for conserving energy. They support a law that requires timely action by all governmental units. They, and other groups concerned with conservation. view a minimum national standard that permits each State to set more stringent standards, if they choose, implemented with the support of sanction as the most certain way to assure action that is timely and equitable for all communities, and to avoid foot-dragging and inadequate response by some.

Without sanctions there is little likelihood that the Nation will achieve the savin~ in energy and building-costs that are possible.

Mr. President, every Member of the Senate says he favors conservation of energy. We all say that. But here is an opportunity to put our vote where our mouth is.

Here is an opportunity to go on record in a way that will save millions of barrels of oil No question about it. No dispute about that.

We will conserve the consumption if we vote in favor of this bill and against the Tower amendment. We will not conserve if we go the other way.

If we believe in conservation, and all of us say we do, here is a test as to whether we really mean it.

An effective national standard will promote lower building costs. Building materia.ls that are energy efficient will be cheaper if they can be produced for the larger market that will result from standardized minimum requirements. Builders will find. in addition, that common minimum standards will mean less redtape in gaining local approvals to build. State and local governments will find that common minimum standards will reduce their costs of inspecting and certifying products, and in training their code officials.

Mr. President, let me conclude by saying it has been argued that all building will come to a halt if States or localities do not take part in the l)rogram and adopt minimum energy conservation standards. The impressior ;iven by this line of argument is that the Nation will face a shutdown of building activity if we pass the bill. That is totally misleading.

First of all, it is my belief that a great majority of Americans, their States and local governments will take part in a program to conserve energy. I think my distinguished colleague underestimates the willingness of Americans to act on their own convictions and in their own intere.5t.

I do not expect many communities, if any, in this day of energy scarcity, to refuse to adopt minimum standarda to achieve greater energy efficiency.

Second, the bill contains a provision for granting a waiver of 1·equirements

for localities which are designated by the States. Section 2.05 (d) of the bill gives the Secretary authority to approve the Governor's recommendation that specific unfts of local government within the State be excluded from all provisions of the title on the basis that new construction in such jurisdiction is not of a magnitude to warrant the costs of implementing the p1'0gram. I. would expect this waiver to apply to many communities in the Nation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BROOKE. Will the Senator yield? Mr. PROXMIRE. I yiel(L

APPOINTMENT BY THE PRESIDENT PRO Tmv!PORE

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. FORD) • The Cha.i.r-, on behalf of the President pro tempore of the Senate, pursuant to Public Law 94-201, appoints the following individuals to the Board of Trustees of the Amerlcan Folklif e Center: David E. Draper, of Mississippi, for a term of 4 years; K. Koss Toole, of Montana. for a term of 4 years; David Veight> of South Dakota, for a term of 6 years; and Donald Yoder. of Pennsylvania, for a term of 2 years.

ENERGY CONSERVATION AND INSULATION IN BUILDINGS ACT OF 1976 The Senate continued with the con

si"Cieration of 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.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Mr~ BROOKE. Time has been yielded by the senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts whatever time he-wishes against the amendment.

Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President~ I would agree with the chairman of the Banking~ Housing and Urban Affairs Committee that the effect of the Tower amendment would really be to gut this legislation. We have been talking a long time about energy conservation measures. There have been charges by the administration that Congress was not acting upon this essential legislation; that we did not have a congressional energy policy. And there have been countercharges as well.

Here at long last we have a piece of legislation which could be effective and which could do the conservation job, or certainly a good part of the job. if it were enacted.

If we were to strike section 205 from this bill it would mean that there would be no sanctions le! t in the legjslation at all.

There are two major reasons for these sanctions:

One, competition for new development is such that individual govanments will not adopt new conservation

standards as part of their building codes unless there is reasonable assurance that potentially competing jurisdictions will also be imposing the same requirements. That is understandable-.

Two, building material and techniques. which conserve energy will only be inexpensive when they can be mass produced for delivery in a national market.

Mr. President. this question has been studied, studied and studied. The man most responsible. for our conservation in the country is the Federal Energy Administrator, Frank G. Zarb. Frank Zarb says that if section 205 is retained, "w~ can look forward to general adoption of performance standa:rds for new cons_truction, that new buildings will be constructed in a more energy efficient manner, and that all home buyers will benefit by lower total housing costs through reductions in heating and cooling requirements. More importantly, mandatory thermal standards will save us the equivalent of 350,000 banels of oil by 1985, 90 percent of which will be reflected in a reduction of' oil imports."

We have all been trying to find ways in which we could cut down on oil imports. When we had a crisis due to- an oil embargo, the country resolved never to be in that crisis situation again. The passage of this legislation would lead us a long way toward out of the danger of being in such a crisis again.

On the other hand, the Federal Energy Administrator says that if the Senate strips section 205 from this bill, as the amendment of the. Senator from Texas would do, all that will be left will be an ineffectual resolution urging State and local governments voluntarily to conserve energy in new building construction.

I submit, Mr. President,_ that is what our choice is today.

I believe any responsible government,_ municipal, State, or county, is already urging builders to do what they can to conserve. The fact is that it is not being done~ and the fact also is that it will not be done unless we have strong legislation with mandatory sanctions as is provided in section 205-~

If we sttike section 205 from the bill, then we do not have any bill at alL We are right back where we started. We do not have any real conservation measures on the books, nothing that builders have to do. Governments will stfil be issuing useless admonishments saying, ''Do everything you can to conserve."

We will be right baclc where we sta.rted. We could be the victims of an oil embargo again. We would not be moving with any sound policy for energy conservation in this country. Therefore, Mr. President, I think it is imperative-it is essential-that we defeat this amendment.

There are many who agree with the majority- and some names of organizations have already been read. I think I want to add that millions of designers, manufacturers, laborers, consumers, environmentalists, and other concerned citizens have endorsed H.R. 8650 a.s reported by the Senate Banking Committee, without any amendment thereto~ Also, the American Institute of Archi-


tects, the .AFL-CIO, the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, the Sierra Club. the Energy Task Force of the Consumer Federation of America, the Environmental Policy Center, the Fl'iends of the Earth-I could go on. I think, most important. we have the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committees with our majority vote which followed lengthy debate. Also imPortant is that I believe, we have the President of the United States and his Federal Energy Administrator strongly urging that we adopt this legislation and that we 1·esist any amendments to the legislation as reported by the Senate Banking Committee.

With all due respect to my colleague from Texas, whom I know wants to see a strong energy policy, who, in all good faith, I am sure, because he is a man of great integrity, believes that it can be done on a voluntary basis, I most respectfully must disagree with him. It has not been done on a voluntary basis and I do not believe it will be done on a voluntary basis.

Though none of us really like to mandate, the fact is that if we do want to conserve energy we have no recourse but to keep these sanctions in. There! ore, I hope that we will be able to def eat this amendment which is not only crippling but gutting. If not, we will have no legislation at all.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Mr. TOWER addressed the Chan·. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen

a tor from Texas. Mr. TOWER. I would like t-0 ask the

distinguished majority whip if it would be agreeable to hiln if we set the vote for 1:45. We have not obtained the yeas and nays yet but we intend to ask for the yeas and nays.

Then perhaps we could recess, after the Senator from Utah has made his statement, because of the fact that the Republican Policy Committee meeting is in progress.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, that would be very agreeable. I take it that the Senator is suggesting a vote up or down on his amendment----

Mr. TOWER. At 1:45. Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. At 1 :45. Mr.

President, I so ask unanimous consent. The P;RESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it 1s so ordered. Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I yield to

the Senator from Utah such tilne as he may require.

Mr. GARN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Gil Bray of the staff of the Senator from Texas <Mr. TOWER) be accorded the privilege of the floor.


Mr. GARN. Mr. President, I rise 1n support of the Tower amendment. We have just heard the ringing defense by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and the minority member of that committee in favor of compulsion-in favor of telling the mayors, the local government officials, and the Governors of this country how to run their affairs.

As a former mayor, I do not disagree with the need for conservation, but there is a principle that is being lost here, because the defense they have Just both made is the defense we so often hear, that has built the greatest bureaucracy the world has ever known in the United states, and has taken away power from local and State officials, and the accountability of those officials to their constituents.

In other words, what we constantly hear is that the end justifies the means. Each bill, by itself, is not that big a situation, it is not that big a probl~m, but the totality of what we are creatmg in this country, and the destruction of the intergovernmental system, I happen to think, are more important than conservation at this time.

We just keep adding one more, and the justification is always that "They are not doing it, we must compel"-:-100 U.S. Senators and 435 Representatives setting themselves up as much brighter, more intelligent, and more articulate, "We know what is best, and so we are going to imPose our will on 80,000 units of local government."

Mr. President, I reject the idea that those of us sitting here in Washington can make those decisions on the basis that the end justifies the means, and against the wishes of the officials of those 80,000 units of local government who have to account to their constituents day after day.

While we are speaking of uniformity, it is a lot colder in Utah than it is in Florida; how do we come up with uniform standards? We are reluctant to look at the ASHRAE standards that most of the local communities adopt on a voluntary basis, adapting them to their own local situations. I do not disagree that we need to conserve oil, or need to conserve energy; but I am asking, is it worth destroying the principle of the relationship between the Federal, State, and local tovernments?

We say, of cow·se, we are going to use the carrot and the stick-to hold out the carrot, and if they do not accept it, hit them with the stick.

I say again. that is what has created the biggest bureaucracy this world has ever known, with Federal officials thinking they are wiser and brjghter than locally elected officials, and never responsible to account for their actions to voters any place in this country.

The chairman is correct; the adoption of this amendment will gut this bill. Let us not deceive anyone; that is my intent. That is why I am a cosponsor of the amendment.

I hear every Member of the Senate talk about how Government is getting too big, how we have too much redtape, how we must cut it down, and yet we continue, as a Senate, to vote for more and more redtape, more bureaucracy, more compulsion, more uniformity. There is a big difference between the rhetoric and the performance of this body.

The longer we continue. whether it is with this bill, whether it 1s land use planning-that, we say, is in the national interest, so we are not going to leave it

up to the local governments to make their decisions-whether it is flood control-there are sanctions in that alsoagain, the totality of what we are creating is total inability of local officials to act, until we will not need mayors, county commissioners, and Governors any more; we will just send out GS-18'.s or GS-20's, or whatever they are, as local managers for the Federal Government to carry out the policies we are creating.

Sena tor BROOKE and the chairman agree with my philosophy, I am told; all the time they say, "You are right, mayor, we respect your views, we are certain you are right."

What I do not understand is that if they agree, and if the rhetoric of the Senate is that we must not gut the authority of the mayors and county commissioners around this country, why do we continue to pass more and more pieces of legislation that do just the opposite of what we say we are in favor of?

I think there is a lot more at stake here than conservation. It is a change in the fundamental governmental system in this country. If we mean to run everything from Washington, and take away the powers of Governors, mayors, and local government officials, let us say that is what we are doing, that we are going to have an all powerful central government dictating all phases of local government in this country. Let us be honest about it. But let us not, while protecting otherwise, pass a myriad of individual pieces of legislation that accompiish that effect.

I do not expect that this amendment will pass. We very rarely pass anything in favor of local governments. We ignore the National League of Cities, the Association of Counties, and the Governors~ Conference, and I do not expect we will do much different today. But at least I wanted to raise this Senators' voice in opposition to the continuation of the carrot and stick approach, that we decide what is best for this country, just 100 of us out of 215 million people in this country; that because we think it is best, we are going to impose it and take away the ability of local officials in their communities to act and be accountable for their actions.

So I supPort the amendment and will vote against the legislation, regardless of the fact that I am in favor of conservation. I will not vote for a piece of legislation that has the vicious sanction to compel local governments to do the bidding of the Senate.

I reserve the remainder of the minority's time.

RECESS

Mr. PROXMmE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the majority whip intended for the Senate to recess at this time, in order to permit the Members of the minority to attend their policy luncheon.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

Mr. PROXMIRE. If that is the inten· tion, I move that the Senate stand in recess until 1:45 p.m.

The motion was agreed to; and at 12:57 p.m. the Senate took a recess until 1 :45 p.m. ·

5794 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 9, 1976

The Senate reassembled at 1: 45 p.m., when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mr. SYMINGTON).

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS SUBl\UTTED ON AMENDMENT 1422

Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I would like to express my support for the amendment of the senior Senator from Texas (Mr. TOWER). His amendment would remove the arbitrary sanction provision-section 205-from the bill, H.R. 8650.

I oppose the sanction provision because I believe it is an unnecessary use of Federal power to force local communities and States to adopt a national, federally dictated building code. The subject of housing and building codes has been discussed by our Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs over many years, and we have always believed that the Federal Government should not interfere with local decisions relative to building standards. The climatic and environmental differences and variations in local customs are too great great for a single standard to be developed in Washington.

The committee's approach to this issue was the passage in the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 of a provision to establish a National Institute of Building Sciences. The purpose of the institute was to do research and develop the technology to advise both the public and private sector of the economy on the use of building science and technology in achieving nationally acceptable standards for use in Federal, State, and local buildings. This law is on the books, and even though the institute is not yet in operation, it seems quite irregular for us to write new law relative to one possible use of a building code without regard to the broad responsibility that the institute would have in this subject.

I have another reason for objecting to the sanction requirement in the committee bill. It uses a sanction that I believe is entirely too severe in relation to the problem that it is supposed to help solve. It would deny the right of any bank or lending institution to make a loan for the construction or financing of any building in any community failing to meet the minimum construction standards promulgated by the State in conformance with those issued by HUD in Washington. Can you imagine what such a sanction would do to a community? No one could sell his home, and no one in that community could sell a commercial or industrial building, because the Federal Government would not let the bank make him a loan. Furthermore, no Federal agency could provide financial assistance for construction of a building in the area.

These are tough sanctions and would practically put the community out of business. In fact, I believe they are so tough that I doubt whether they would be enforced if the time came. I suppose you would say that in such a case, the pressure would be placed on the city council to adopt the Federal regulations. This sounds easy, but can you imagine all the complexities in a.n energy conservation code not only on residential

buildings, but on commercial and industrial buildings in the community. To work these out in difficult situations is not going to be easy, and I just do not believe that anything as complex as energy conservation standards should be arbitrarily forced upon local communities under threat of cutting off all Federal assistance and all local financial assistance for new construction or for selling buildings in the area.

Mr. President, I am a firm believer that we must do all that we can to encourage the wise and economic use of our limited energy resources. I am not alone. The various States and communities are moving to enact statutes and building codes which would save our energy. They are able to meet the needs of their people, because they are closest to their needs. I do not believe that the Federal Government, in all its wisdom and with its good intentions, could ever adopt energy conservation standards which would meet the needs of the people in Alabama and the people in Texas and the people in Vvashington and the people in Maine. The Federal Government is simply too far removed from these States to understand the energy needs, and climatic differences and the construction methods used to conserve energy.

To encourage energy conservation, the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers has developed model energy conservation standards for new buildings. This effort has been carried out by ASHRAE at the request of the National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards. These ASHRAE 90-75 standards represent the best Judgment of a broad range of our society as to the most effective means of assuring that buildings are designed and constructed to conserve energy on a reasonable, cost effective basis. These standards are under consideration by several States already. In addition, several States have already adopted their own standards for energy conservation in new buildings.

The enactment of the Energy Conservation and Insulation in Buildings Act as reported by the Banking Committee would disrupt this national voluntary effort. States and localities would be deterred from moving forward with the ASHRAE 90-75 standards while they awaited the development of a whole new set of standards by the Federal Government. State and local initiative which has resulted in the adoption of sound building codes throughout most of the Nation would be rebutted in this next logical step to State and local efforts to provide sound building codes that truly take into consideration local conditions. I believe that this would be very unfortunate.

The Federal Government does have a role in promoting sound efficient use of energy. That is why I support the major provisions of H.R. 8650, with the excep-tion of section 205. The bill would guide the States as they move forward in their efforts to develop building energy conservation standards that meet local needs. The development of standards by HUD would encourage the States to move faster in their efforts. But, I do not believe that the Federal Government can

answer the specific needs of our States and localities by developing mandatory standards which would not be practical or realistic.

This body has encouraged local initiative in many areas. President Ford has promised to eliminate some of the needless bureaucracy that governs our daily life. It seems inconsistent that both this body and the administration would encourage nationwide standards and the development of a massive Federal bureaucracy to implement what the States and localities are doing on their own.

I would hope that Mr. TowER's amendment be approved and that we can go forward with a sensible approach to conserving energy.

Mr. MORGAN. I rise as a cosponsor to the amendment offered by my colleague from Texas. We are all well aware of the pressing need to encourage the conservation of energy. The rising cost and lhnited supplies of energy dictate that something must be done. But do we really think that what must be done can only be done by the Federal Government? I think there is a better way.

Representatives of industry, local, and State governments all working under the auspices of the Federal Government have developed model standards known as ASHRAE 90-75. The problem can and will be solved through local and State action taking into account the needs of the people as they are represented in their Stat e legislatures and city councils.

An isolated and insulated Federal bureaucracy cannot meet the needs of energy conservation on the local level. Time and again we have seen instances where the Federal Government has tried to solve problems which are basically local in nature through a massive bureaucracy. And time and again, we have seen the Federal Government fail to meet those very pressing needs.

So I say to my colleagues, let us remove these sanctions from this bill. Let us give the States and communities guidance and encouragemen~ in the development of building energy conservation standards; but let us not threaten our States and localities with the loss of financing for new construction, because they will not toe the Federal line.

If we allow the States and localities to answer their own needs, we will be surprised at the initiative and innovative form that these answers will take. Yes, there is an energy problem facing the country; and yes something needs to be done about it. But we in Washington cannot meet the needs of the people in Charlotte any more than we can meet the needs of the people in Seattle. Let our message be clear, that we want something done to ease the energy crisis. Let that message also be clear that we expect and encom·age States and localities to answer their own needs with their own solutions.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I would like to join those who are urging adoption of the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from Texas.

While efforts to reduce the energy consumed by households and thereby to cut


heating expenses should be encouraged, the mandatory sanctions authorized by title n of this bill are not wise public policy.

Section 205 would require States and localities to adopt, within 12 months of their final promulgation, standards which meet or exceed those proposed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Should a community fail to take that action, all federally supervised, regulated, or insured banks, savings and loan associations, and other similar institutions would be prohibited from making or purchasing loans within those jurisdictions.

This would be an incredible intrusion by the Federal Government into local standards.

Building codes have traditionally been determined on the basis of a number of considerations-climate, topography, vulnerability to natural disasters, income patterns, and redevelopment targetswhich vary from locality to locality. Imposition of a Federal standard, as required by this act, would violate that tradition of local determination. Even if the standard were to vary from region to region, I seriously doubt that its application would be sufficiently flexible to accommodate peculiarly local needs.

I remain unconvinced that Department officials in Washington are best able to determine what actions local officials should take. Too often, those Federal officers, understandably pressing for attainment of their own program's special goals, are insensitive to the multitude of local needs which community officials must attempt to meet. A growing resentment between Federal and local officials results which only discourages attainment of agreements accommodating both sets of concerns.

The sanction authorized by section 205 provides a rather draconian penalty, if this negotiation process fails. Moreover, the penalties are directed against the prospective homebuyers, l...omebuilders, and lending institutions. If the community fails to amend its code to conform with Washington's wish'?s, the sanction is applied throughout the community-even if the house to be purchased meets the standards being proposed by the Department. The complaint will be that Washington is again imposing its will on a community with little regard for the individuals involved, and that objection will have a great deal of validity.

The Federal Government does have an important and proper role in encow-aging the adoption of conservation measures. It can fund pilot projects, develop and disseminate information on energysaving additions to new homes, and suggest model building codes to facilitate their adoption. It can and should provide :financial help so that low-income Americans can adequately insulate their homes, as authorized in title I of this act. I believe that State and local officials are anxious to receive such assistance.

But that assistance should not be provided in the form of a mandate with an absolute sanction imposed upon those localities which choose to disagree with the Department's decision. Communities are pm·suing a number of housing goals.

One of the most important must certainly be to encourage the construction of decent housing for the mlllions of Americans who now lack it. Imposing federally mandated building codes and the cost increases inherent with their adoption can only conflict with what must remain a primary objective of local officials.

The public policy '\\hich we enact must be consistent. It must provide every inducement to insure adequate housing for low-income Americans and to make the purchase of a home possible for all our citizens.

I do not believe H.R. 8650, as reported, is consistent with those oveITiding goals. I would, therefore, urge adoption of the amendment offered by my colleague from Texas.

Mr. DOLE. :Mr. President, I support the Tower amendment to the energy conservation bill now pending before the Senate-H.R. 8650. This amendment effectively strikes the severe sanctions which would be imposed against local communities which do not meet or exceed Federal building standru·ds-standards to be developed at a later time. Because those sanctions consist of suspending all Federal financial assistance for new construction purposes, the construction of both residential and commercial structures would come to a virtual halt in the affected communities. In my view, this would constitute an unnecessarily harsh penalty for both rw·al and urban areas which may choose not to adopt the mandated Federal construction code of "minimum standards."

I do not object to Federal energy conservation standards for buildings as long as they are reasonably flexible to allow adjustment to local conditions, and as long as a suitable extent of local discretion is permitted in complying with those regulations. The Federal Government should be in a position to encourage compliance with reasonable energy conservation guidelines, but not to effectively suspend new construction if those standards are rejected by responsible officials of the community. Nationwide uniformity of building codes is neither desirable nor pradical, from the standpoint of weather conditions a-s well as economic conditions.

Under the provisions of H.R. 8650 as reported from the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development would be expected to establish national energy conservation standards for new 1·esidential and commercial buildings. States or localities which failed to adopt equivalent or stricter standards within 1 year following promulgation of those standards would become ineligible for Federal loans, grants, or extensions of credit by federally supervised financial institutions, for the purpose of constructing new buildings in the area.

SANCTIONS OBJECTIONABLE

In my opinion, it is objectionable to allow the Federal Government to dictate building considerations best addressed at the State and local levels, just as it is unfair to require lending institutions to

enforce additional Federal programs of this type. The burdensome nature of this responsibility upon commercial loan institutions is already apparent through the similar sanctions established a few years ago for noncompliance with Federal flood insurance standards. Early last year, I expressed my reservations about the penalty provisions of that legislation, which have already left several communities in Kansas without access to normal lending resources simply because they chose not to adopt federally mandated standards for purchase of Federal flood insurance. The parallels between the flood insurance program sanctions and those which would be imposed by the bill before us today are both obvious and dis tressing.

STATE EFFORTS U::-.DERWAY

We should not overlook the fact that several States have already, by their own initiative, begun to develop their own responsible standards for building energy conservation. It is my understanding that California, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, and Wisconsin have already adopted some form of building energy regulations as a means to assist builders, engineers, and architects in the design of residential and commercial structures. Many more States are expected to follow suit pending further discussions on the matter among model code agencies in this country. It is far better, I think, to continue to encourage the States to adopt voluntary standards than to shackle them with an arbitrary code developed in Washington.

I will reserve final judgment on the merit of this bill as a whole until after this amendment has been dispensed with. The administration has expressed its dissatisfaction with certain portions of title I of this legislation, dealing with weatherization programs for residential dwellings of low-income persons, because of potential funding delays and burdensome administrative requirements. Keeping these considerations in mind as well, I will be closely following further discussion of the legislation's merits on the Senate floor today prior to the final vote.

Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.

The yeas and nays were ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques

tion is on ag1·eeing to the amendment of the Senator from Texas. The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk \"\ill call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD (after having voted in the negative) . On this vote I have a live pair with the distinguished Senat01· from Texas (Mr. BENTSEN). If he were present and voting, he would vote "yea." I have already voted •·nay." Therefore, I ·withdraw my vote.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce that the Senator from Texas (Mr. BENTSEN), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. BmEN), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. BUMPERS), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. EASTLAND), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. INOUYE). the Senator from

5796 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 9, 19?'6 Washington <Mr. JACKSON), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY) , the Senator from Utah (Mr. Moss), and the Senator from California (Mr. TuNNEY) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Washington <Mr. JACKSON) would vote "nay.''

Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. GOLDWATER) is necessarily absent.

The result was announced-yeas 43, nays 46, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 52 Leg.] YEAS-43

Allen Bartlett Beall Bellmon Brock Buckley Burdick Byrd,

Harry F., Jr. Cannon Chiles Clark Curtis Dole Domenici

Fannin Fong Ford Garn Griffin Hansen Helms Hruska Johnston Laxalt Long Magnuson McClellan McClure Morgan

NAYs-46

Nunn Pastore Pearson Roth Scott,

William L. Sparkman Stennis Stevens Stone Taft Talmadge Thurmond Tower Young

Abourezk Hatfield Nelson Baker Hathaway Packwood Bayh Hollings Pell Brooke Huddleston Percy Case Humphrey Proxmire Church Javits Randolph Cranston Leahy Ribicoff Culver Mansfield Schweiker Durkin Mathias Scott, Hugh Eagleton McGee Stafford Glenn McGovern Stevenson Gravel Mcintyre Symington Hart, Gary Metcalf Weicker Hart, Philip A. Mondale Williams Hartke Montoya Haskell Muskie

PRESENT AND GIVING A LIVE PAIR, AS PREVIOUSLY RECORDED-I

Robert C. Byrd, against.

NOT VOTING-IO Bentsen Bid en Bumpers Eastland

Goldwater Inouye Jackson Kennedy

Moss Tunney

So Mr. TOWER'S amendment was rejected.

Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was rejected.

Mr. PROXMIRE. I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I have had a continuing interest in H.R. 8650, the Energy Conservation and Insulation in Buildings Act of 1976. Title I authorizes a residential insulation assistance program under the Federal Energy Administration, but this proposal developed as a follow-on to an excellent emergency energy conservation services program developed and operated by the Community Services Administration.

I have continually supported the CSA winterization assistance program and supported the $27 .5 million appropriated in the fiscal year 1976 Labor-HEW appropriations bill, which included $3 million for the establishment of a National Center of Low Technology to assist the CSA conservation efforts. This CSA program has had considerable nationwide success and has been particularly success:..

ful in my State of Montana. Opportunities, Inc., of Great Falls, Mont., has a goal of winterizing 200 low':"income homes in a 6-county area by January 31, 1977. To date 63 homes have been completed and 55 other homes are now being worked on, with most of these homes to be completed within the next 3 months.

Labor for installing the winterization materials is a self-help project except in the case of disabled or elderly individuals who are unable to do the work. They a.re given assistance from volunteer workers, including CETA employees, Green Thumb workers, and volunteers for many local groups.

The CSA winterization program enables low-income individuals and families, including the elderly, to participate in an energy conservation program which is designed to lessen the impact of the high cost of energy and to reduce individual energy consumption. Repairs to houses that are eligible must minimize heat loss and improve thermal efficiency.

Mr. President, it is my sincere hope that the Senate and the House-Senate conferees on this bill will keep intact a strong CSA conservation effort in conjunction with the development of the FE.A residential insulation assistance program.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. STAFFORD). The bill is open to further amendment.

AMENDMENT NO. 1427

Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1427, and ask for its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.

The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Missouri (Mr. EAGLETON)

proposed an amendment numbered 1427.

Mr. EAGLETON's amendment (No. 1427) is as follows:

On page 39, line 19, strike all through line 18, page 41, and insert in lieu thereof:

ENFORCEMENT SEC. 205. No Federal officer or agency shall

approve any financial assistance for the construction of any building in an area of a State unless that officer or agency determines that the building does or will meet the minimum standards promulgated pursuant to section 204 of this title. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, as used in this section, the tern1 "financial assistance" does not include secondary market operations or special assistance functions of the Government National Mortgage Association, the Federal National Mortgage Association, or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator from Missouri will withhold for a moment, the Chair will try to obtain order.

The Chair would remind Senators that the business of the Senate would be expedited if those who wish to converse will retire to the cloakrooms and Senators will take their seats. The Senate will be in order.

The Senator may proceed. Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, I am

pleased to yield to the distinguished Senator from Wyoming (Mr. HANSEN).

Mr. HANSEN. ·Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that a member of my staff, Nolan McKean, may be present 011 the floor during the debate and all votes on this measure.


Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.

The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. STONE. Mr. President, will the

Senator yield? Mr. EAGLETON. I yield to the Sen

ator from Florida. Mr. STONE. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that a member of my staff, Mr. Ma.re Golden, be accorded the privilege of the floor during the consideration of this measw·e.


Mr. EAGLETON. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Ohio.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a member of my staff, Lyle Morris, be accorded the privilege of the floor during the debate on this measure.


Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, this amendment-No. 1427-would simply delete one of the excessive sanctions proposed in the committee bill; namely, the prohibition on conventional bank financing on nonconforming construction. The other sanction in the bill which denies direct Federal assistance would remain as is.

Mr. President, the bill before us is a classic case of legislative overkill. Starting with an objective of undoubted merit-the conservation of energy-the bill proceeds beyond any reasonable Federal connection with the issue to weave a whole new web of controls over the affairs of individuals and local communities.

Not content to influence the housing market through our sizable Federal housing programs or to trust that the obvious benefits of better insulated homes will make themselves felt in the private marketplace without an edict from Washington, this bill would coerce every community in the country into adopting and enforcing a HUD-dictated building code. If they do not, they would be denied not only direct Federal housing assistance such as VA and FHA insured mortgages, but also conventional bank financing if the lending institution in question is in any way regulated, insured or supervised by a Federal agency, as virtually all are.

Unfortunately, there is precedent for this misuse of the banking laws to force compliance with a program that has nothing at all to do with the financial integrity of banks and that is the Federal flood insurance program.

There is no question that the flood program is the model for the bill before us. It involves the very same sanctions and the same requirement that local jurisdictions adopt and enforce HUDdictated ordinances. Moreover, the programs in both cases hold the individual


property owner liable for the failure of his community to adopt the required building codes. It does not matter that the individual is willing to build his own house according to HUD :flood-proofing or weather-proofing standards. Unless he is also able to pe1·suade the community at large to go along with the same standards, all the sanctions under this bill will be applied against him.

Mr. President, it is clear to me that what we have in this bill is the second step toward the establishment of a national building code and land-use program. If we can rationalize the imposition of these sanctions to force compliance with flood-proofing and weatherproofing standards, I do not know what logic would prevent its ultimate extension to force compliance w·th some master Federal land-use plan.

The amendment I am offering would eliminate the conventional banking sanction and with it the requirement that every local jurisdiction adopt the HUD building code. It would retain, however, the denial of direct Federal assistance for new construction which does not meet HUD energy conservation standards. I think that is an appropriate condition to tie to a Federal financial assistance program and not unlike the many other conditions that go along with such programs. Most important, this sanction would be enforced on a case-by-case basis by the Federal agency involved and we would avoid the necessity of imposing HUD building codes on local jurisdictions.

I agree with the objectives of this bill and I think it is of utmost importance that this country embark upon a major energy conservation effort. The question here, however, is how far the Federal Government should go in imposing its ideas of what is prudent on individuals and local communities. I believe this bill goes too far, and thus I urge adoption of my amendment.

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, if the Tower amendment, which we just defeated, would totally emasculate the bill, the Eagleton amendment would make it impotent. The Tower amendment would result in a voluntary program; the Eagle· ton amendment would lead to almost, but not quite, the same result.

According to the most recent construction figures available, only one house in five being built, and none of the offices and commercial buildings, are federally assisted or supervised. So the Eagleton amendment would, in effect, remove the effect of sanctions from 80 percent of all houses built and from over 90 percent of all residential and commercial construction.

What would be the result? It would leave only a small fraction of the new housing as the stick to assure compliance with the minimum Federal standard, and most of it would be federally assisted housing intended for low- and moderateincome home buyers and renters.

Just think of the injustice of doing this. What logic is there in permitting the well-to-do home buyer to build an $80,000 house that wastes energy with no stand· ards required, while withholding assist·

ance to the moderate-income home buyer who would build an energy-efficient house that costs only $30,000?

I do not see any reason to deny the veteran the ability to buy a VA-assisted house while the well-to-do buyer, who is not a veteran, is not constrained.

Mr. President, I have indicated alrc:iuy the many objections that we have heard to amending the bill. There were the objections of the Governors of the country and the objections of the State legislatures. I see that the Presiding Officer is the Senator from Vermont. I might say '·'iat his Governor has written the committee, as the Governor in charge of the committee of the National Association of Governors responsible for conservation, strongly supporting the bill in its present form and opposing the effect of the Eagleton amendment which would, as I say, eliminate 80 percent of the sanctions.

The purpose of this bill is to promote energy conservation, not to withhold Federal housing assistance.

Mr. President, I hope that the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Missouri will not be accepted by the Senate.

Once again I repeat what I said before, that all of us favor conservation, but again and again in the Senate we have found that we could not quite go along with energy conserving proposals. Here is a proposal that the administration favors, the labor unions favor, the Governors favor, and the conservation groups favor. I hope under these circumstances that the Senate wlll find enough will to indicate that on this vote we do favor a measure which would conserve energy and do so in a very substantial way.

For that reason, I hope that the Senate will vote against the amendment of the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. CHILES. Mr. President, will·the Senator yield?

Mr. PROXMIRE. I am happy to yield to my friend from Florida.

Mr. CHILES. The problem I have with this legislation is that here we start off with a bill that is supposed to help people insulate their homes, and we end up with one more piece of legislation that will increase the bureaucraey. How many dollars is it going to take for HUD to have to do all this enforcing? How many sets of regulations are they going to issue? How many more stacks of paperwork will there be?

I wonder if the Governors really reali:re, when they say they are for this, what they are taking on now that HUD is going to be telling them whether they are going to get any Federal funds for any project.

It seems as if, when we start out to help someone or to take care of some· thing, before it ends up we are always adding to the bureaucracy, and we are always adding to the administi-ative costs.

Is this bill only providing $165 million? · Mr.PROXMIRE. What is that?

Mr. CHil.ES. lt Is just $165 m'illion that the bill is providing.

Mr. PROXMIRE. That would not be reached or touched by the Eagleton amendment. The $165 million provides for purchasing materials to be used for insulation in the homes of poor people, by and large, and providing that insulation. In other words, there would be $55 million a year to carry out the title I program of this bill, for a period of 3 years. This is not for the standards program.

Mr. CHILES. The Senato1· has done so much work on this. How much does he think it is going to cost totally by virtue of the new standards and new regulations that we are setting? How much does he think it is going to cost when the bureaucracy gets ahold of this and it works all the way down? That will include all the staff they have to have, with all of the additional costs and all the stacks of papsr. The States are going to have to have personnel, and they are going to have to add people. The counties are going to have to have personnel, and they are going to have to add people.

I say to the Senator that the costs are going to be more than $165 million when we add in the paperwork and the bureaucracy for doing this.

Mr. PROXMffiE. I say to my good friend from Florida, and I "ecognize he is a very good and effective fighter for economy, that I am convinced the energy standards program will save money. This will save Federal money. It will save money for people throughout the country. It will save money in a number of ways. I say that not on the basis of my own off-the-cuff estimate, or trying to get this bill passed. I say that on the basis of a very careful study which the Federal Energy Administration had made by Arthur Little, a study which shows that the effect of this bill is going to reduce construction and operating costs for residences. It is going to reduce construction costs for commercial buildings very subsubstantially. It will reduce construction costs by as much as 30 percent for commercial buildings. The finding on the part of everyone who has dealt with this is that the only way we can get effective standards is to mandate them.

Mr. CHILES. That is the kind of argument that all of us have made in the chamber so many times. Have we ever seen anything accomplished the way j!; was stated? Does the Senator have this kind of confidence? I am surprised, because it would be the first time, that I have known, that he is going to give HUD all this authority. Does the Senator think HUD is going to come up with something that follows Arthur Little, that is done on a cost efficient basis, that is done in a savings way and without tremendous paperwork and tremendous bureaucracy?

I am surprised, because I have never known that the Senator felt that way before about HUD, or any particular agency that we created, and here he thinks that it is going to save money.

Arthur Little might say that, if it were done the way rational human beings would do it, we might agree with that.

But, my goodness, have we ever done anything that ended that way under an

5798 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE

agency like HUD? It would be inconceivable to me.

Mr. PROXMIRE. I say to my good friend from Florida that the Senator from Massachusetts, the Senator from Florida, and myself are all on the HUD Appropriations Subcommittee. We are resporu;ible for the amount of money that HUD receives and the spending that they do. We have the authority to recommend to the Senate and the Committee on Appropriations that the budget be reduced. I am convinced, on the basis of past experience and having had extensive hearings on this, that this legislation will not increase the HUD bureaucracy significantly and that there will not be any increase.

The only big expenditure 1n this bill 1s $165 million. which goes to the States for purchasing materials to insulate the homes of PoOr people which will save them, the estimates are, conservatively $200 million a year after a. period of time.

If the cost is $55 million a year, the saving is $200 million a year. But, in fairness to the Senator from Missouri, that 1s not involved 1n this particular amendment. This amendment does not go to the cost to the Federal Government. It does not require an additional bureaucracy.

Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield. Mr. BROOKE. I hope the Senator from

Florida will read the language of the Eagleton amendment, if he is concerned about bureaucracy. The language of the Eagleton amendment is as follows:

SEC. 205. No Federal officer or agency shall approve any financial assistance for the construction ot any bulldlng 1n an area of a State unless that officer or agency determines that the building does or will meet the minimum standards promulgated pursuant to section 204 of this title.

Take an individual owner in an area which does not have uniform standards. That individual homeowner says: "But I meet the requirements. I have insulation. I qualify.'' That means that to be sure VA or FHA is going to have to go out and check each house, case by case. That would require inspectors. I believe that this amendment. itself, would lead to creation of a bureaucracy the likes of which we have never known.

If the Senator from Florida is concerned about bureaucracy. under the Eagleton amendment there would be a far greater bureaucracy. I do not believe that the bill, as presently written, will create any further bureaucracy to administrate this particular legislation.

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, ·will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. BROOKE. I yield. Mr. PROXMIRE. We do have some

data on this. As we know, California has 10 percent of the people of this country, more than 20 million people. It is one of the few States which has acted to conserve building energy. What was the cost involved in taking this kind of action? The estimates we have received indicate that it cost $35,000 to develop the regulations. $50,000 to publish manuals and to train officials, and

another $50,000 is figured necessary to carry out an intensive training program.

The estimates of the additional coot for inspection of a. new house run about $10 or $15, while that of a. commercial building increased by comparable percentage, depending on the size of the structure. In neither case is this considered to be a significant amount, when compared to the construction cost and when compared to the enormous savings. This applies to California, On a pro rata basis, the savings in the State could be as much as $20 million, for the expense of a few tens of thousands of dollars.

Mr. CHILES. The Sena.tor has just given me arguments as to what a State can do. We are taking away the right of a State to do this. A State can do it cheaper. They are always going to do it cheaper. But we are going to impose another layer and say, "Regardless of what you did, regardless of how effective you are, you have to meet our minimum standards and our paperwork and the people we are going to send down as inspectors, and we are going to send you the charts and the paperwork, and you will have to do it all over.''

I guarantee that, considering what the State of California can do it for, it will cost the Federal Government many times more, and the Senator knows that.

Mr. PROXMIRE. I say to the Senator that the Governors tell us they want this; the States want this;. the legislatures tell us they want it. They have made it very emphatic. They say that the only way it can work is if it is made national. Otherwise, there 1s competition in various States to see who can have the laxest and the easiest kind of requirement.

The only way to have an effective national program to meet this national energy shortage problem we have is to have Congress do what the administration is asking us to do and to assume a. national responsibility for establishing a minimum energy performance standard.

Mr. CHILES. I think the States want the money.

Mr. BROOKE. There is no money in this bill. There is only a little money for technical ~ista-nce. It is the standards governors want. They are not after the money. They want uniform standards,. because they know that if they do not have uniform standards, nothing is going to be done at an.

Mr. PROXMIRE. I would like to read from a letter we received from the organization of State legislators: · Our conference unanimously supports congressional passage of legislation requiring the adoption of mandatory minimum building efficiency standards . • .

This is from a letter from the Governors:

A question has been raised regarding the necessity of such legislation following the enactment of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. We believe that legislation ls st.ill needed to mandate one national standard and one Federal process for diSpute resolution.

Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield, so that I may ask a ques;.. tion?

Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield. Mr. BROOKE. Since the Senator from

Florida is concerned about the cost--and rightfully so-let me ask the Senator from Missouri, the proponent of this amendment, what he estimates the savings would be under his amendment.

Mr. EAGLETON. Savings to whom? Mr. BROOKE. The Federal Govern

ment. Mr. EAGL:i:!!TON. In terms of addi

tional bureaucracy, there would be none. They would go through the same inspection the VA and FHA inspectors do now. It would not add one new bureaucrat or one inspector. It would not enlarge the scope of Federal supervision. It would not enhance the public payroll one whit.

Mr. BROOKE. Then, the Senator's response is that no further bureaucracy would be created?

Mr. EAGLETON. Under the committee bill, if this amendment fails, there will be additional bureaucratic intervention.

Mr. BROOKE. Under the Senator's amendment, the Senator says, there would be no further bureaucracy?

Mr. EAGLETON. There will not be a need for one additional inspector beyond the number they now have.

.Mr. BROOKE. How does the Senator propose to handle the case-by-case decisions?

Mr. EAGLETON. The same way that the VA and FHA inspectors do nowthey would just add one more item to their list. It will not cost them 30 seconds of time.

Mr. BROOKE. Does the Senator really believe that they have enough inspectors to do what would have to be done under the Senator's amendment?

Mr. EAGLETON. I believe that HUD 1s the most catastrophically inept bureaucracy in the history of man.

Mr. BROOKE. That is not at issue today.

Mr. EAGLETON. It is at issue any time one is talking about a HUD program. Incompetence permeates their system.

Mr. BROOKE. I was trying to reply to the Senator from Florida. He is worried that the bill would be more costly.

Mr. EAGLETON.- I believe the committee bill would be more costly.

Mr. BROOKE. It would not be so. I assure the Senator from Florida that

this bill would not add any bureaucratic money. and that the Governors are not interested in getting grants.

We are talking about only $5 million nationally, for technical assistance, under this bill. It is not that they are looking for Federal money. They want uniform standards. That is why they and the legislatures a.cross the country, who generally do not want intervention in their affairs, want this' legislation. That is why the Federal Energy Administrator wants it-because we need a national energy policy, and this is a giant step toward such a policy.

If we do not have this legislation to avoid a crisis, we are back where we started from with a voluntary program which is not working.

I think that the Eagleton amendment. like the Tower amendment-with all due respect to the Senator from Texas-will gut this legislation.


I point out three things: One, the cost of subsidized housing would rise. I believe that the Senator from Missouri will recognize that the cost would rise, while the commercial sectors would be free of any requirements, under the Eagleton amendment, to conserve energy in new construction. They would not be required to do so. But subsidi<?:ed housing would be rising all the time. Do we really want that?

Two, the best estimate is that only a third of new residential construction receives direct Federal Government support. So, few new homes would be affected by this amendment.

Three, there is no need to legislate sanctions, as the Senator from Missouri would do, because the Secretary already can do that with regulations. Why put in this amendment? We already can do it with subsidized housing, and Government-funded housing buildings. We do not need to pass legislation for that. The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development has the authority and can establish the regulations to do it at any time she wishes.

So, No. 1, there is no need for the Eagleton amendment. No. 2, if we do have it, it is going to gut this bill entirely, and we will have no insulation and conservation standards program. If we want to go back to that, then we should agree to the Eagleton amendment.

Let us not be fooled. The Eagleton amendment is no compromise between this bill and the Tower amendment. It stands on its own. It would gut the bill just as much as the Tower amendment, which has been defeated-wisely so-by the Senate. I hope the Eagleton amendment will be defeated, also.

Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, I wish to respond briefly to a couple of the points that have been made by my distinguished colleagues from Wisconsin and Massachusetts. They both mention the Governors of the States. They said that, unanimously, the Council of State Legislatures has endorsed this. The truth is, Mr. President, the people that will have to enforce this are not the Governors or the State legislatures. They are the cities and the counties. I ask if Senator PROXMIRE and Senator BROOKE know what the League of Cities and what the Association of Counties did almost unanimously? They opposed it. The people who will have to live with this, work with this, implement this, are against it. I should rather have the judgment of the people who are going to be burdened with this responsibility than the ethereal, amorphous judgment of various State legislatures.

Both Senator BROOKE and Senator PROXMIRE have addressed themselves to the cost factor. They cannot have it both ways, Mr. President. I think I have a quote from Mr. PROXMIRE. He says that, "Arthur D. Little found that housing constructed according to insulation standards would not only be cheaper to operate but cheapter to build as well." That is Mr. PROXMIRE on Arthur D. Little.

Senator BROOKE then says something else. Their show is not quite in tandem. They cannot have it both ways. If the

housing is going to be cheaper, as Chairman PROXMIRE and his committee say, then my amendment should not hurt federally assisted housing. If, on the other hand, it is going to be more costly, then maybe we ought to rethink this whole bill. I, for one, do not want to do anything to further injure an already beleaguered housing industry.

Let me get down to a further point; then, as far as I am concerned, we can vote. I think both the Senator from Florida (Mr. CHILES) and I agree with the commendable purpose of the bill. We want to save energy. We want to be as energy-conserving as we can be. That is noble, that is pious, that is decent, that is patriotic in this Bicentennial Year. But the methodology employed in this bill is to use the banking laws of this country to club people into submission. This has nothing to do with the safety of an individual's deposits, or the safety of investment in bank stock. We are using the FDIC and the other banking regulatory procedures to bludgeon people into doing what Mr. PROXMIRE says they already should want to do, because it is cheaper. If it is cheaper and we can prove the case that it is cheaper, good American commonsense says the American citizenry will respond and build in prudent, costsa ving ways.

But the opponents of my amendment cannot have it both ways. They cannot say, on the one hand, that this is going to cost a barrel of money and be very expensive and, on the other hand, say how wonderful this program is going to be and how cheap it is going to be. If it is cheap, the .American public will buy it, the American public will adopt it, the American public will do it. If it is not, the program fails.

My amendment is a distinct departure from the Tower amendment. I voted against the Tower amendment. My distinguished colleague from Missouri (Mr. SYMINGTON) voted against the Tower amendment. I hope I can say that on his behalf, and I know I can say in my own behalf, that I shall vote for my amendment.

Mr. BROOKE. Will the Senator yield? Mr. EAGLETON. Yes. Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, it seems

to me that a fair analysis of the Senator's amendment-and I am sure the Senator does not intend this, because he has always been interested in low and moderate income housing and housing for the poor; but whether he intends it or not, this particular amendment is a pro-business amendment, because commercial property is not involved in this amendment. It seems also to favor the rich homeowner versus the poor homeowner. I should like to hear the Senator's opinion or his comment upon that, because I cannot read this amendment any other way.

Mr. EAGLETON. I do not cast it in terms of rich homeowner or poor homeowner. I cast it in terms of whether it is a legitimate utilization of our national banking laws. I thought the Senator's committee had enough to do with the problems of the bank supervisory agen-cies, with the Comptroller and all those

other weighty issues without trying to force the banking industry of this Nation into enforcing an energy program.

I lost that battle. But I do not see any legitimate nexus, between our banking laws and the subject at issue. The Senator from Massachusetts is an excellent lawyer. We served together as attorneys general of our States. I do not see that it is a legitimate utilization of the Federal banking laws to bludgeon homeowners into doing what Senator PROXMIRE says they ought to do anyway, because it is cheaper. Why do we have to club people to death with our banking laws to do what Senator PROXMIRE and Arthur Little say they ought to do anyway, out of commonsense? It is an excess of Government intimidation and intrusion.

Mr. BROOKE. Is the Senator's argument a jurisdictional argument?

Mr. EAGLETON. No, it is a philosophical argument. I do not believe in beating people over the head to get them to do what Senator PROXMIRE says they will do, in his Arthur Little assumption.

Mr. BROOKE. The Senate Committee on Banking does not intend to beat them over the head. The Senator says we need to conserve energy. He said "in this Bicentennial Year," but I believe we need to do it in every year besides the Bicentennial Year, too. We were faced not long ago with an energy crisis through an oil embargo.

Mr. EAGLETON. I thought we had solved that with the 55-mile nationwide speed limit, and the daylight saving bill. But, seriously, we have taken many steps to meet our energy problem.

Mr. PROXMffiE. If the Senator will yield, the point is they have not taken the step. They have had every incentive to take that step. The Senator says leave it to commonsense, they will do it. They have done it. Legislation of this kind is necessary, and I think the Senator from Missouri must realize that.

Mr. EAGLETON. I leave it to the Senator's judgment. He is quoting Arthur D. Little. He says this is prudent.

Mr. PROXMIRE. He says it is prudent if we make it a mandatory standard for several reasons--then we can provide insulation in a much more economical and efficient way.

Mr. EAGLETON. May I ask the Senator from Wisconsin, what :-isk there is to the lending institution in loaning money on a building which does not meet the insulation standards? Why do we have to withhold normal conventional financing? Why do we have to use that club? That 1s the weapon in this bill.

Mr. PROXMffiE. The answer is, because there is a national need to build homes that are energy-conserving. We have a national need to conserve ener6y and this will conserve energy. There is no question about it. We have had the statistics, that nobody has challenged, that if we pass this legislation, it can save a tremendous amount of our energy, over the next 10 years as much as 10 percent. That is a very great saving. Do we mean business about conservation of energy or not?

Mr. EAGLETON. I think our disagreement is one of faith. I think the Sena-

5800 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 9, 1976

tor from Wisconsin could show a little more faith in the American pub-lie to do the prudent tlling.

Mr. PROXMIRE. I have great faith in the American public; all of us have that.

Mr. EAGLETON. If this program is so sound, so prudent, so energy conserving and so wis~nd the American people are not a bunch of stupes-why do we have to club them over the head?

Mr. PROXMIRE. The fact is, if the Senator from Missouri will admit, it is not being done today. This is not a Missouri problem or a Wisconsin problem or of Massachusetts or Florida or Georgia, or any State. It is a national problem. The Senator will understand that. Certainly, it is a national problem. That is why we need a national policy.

The only way we are going to achieve it is through uniform standards.

Mr. EAGLETON. Under the Senator's bill, the standards will not be written for 3 years, will they? Under the committee bill, we will not have standards for 3 years.

Mr. BROOKE. That is the outside time limit to allow a good model code to be developed.

Mr. EAGLETON. Not if HUD is going to promulgate them. I do not think HUD will ever do anything inside the outside limit. He does not think they will do anything anticipatory.

Mr. BROOKE. I shall not engage in debate with the Senator on that. I think HUD does its job in the circumstances. Of course, there is room for L'rnprovement. I do not remember the Senator's definition of what HUD is, and I would not repeat it if I did remember it, but I cannot go along with that.

Mr. EAGLETON. A monstrosity. Mr. PROXMIRE. There is already a

Government implementing standard. The 3 years is the outside limit. It can be done more rapidly than that. But the important point is that nothing has been done to date that is effective.

I have here a very recent study of State actions to conserve energy. There is activity, but let us not kid ourselves about what it is likely to yield. The survey shows that most States have not taken any action. Only 21 States have any legal authority to deal with energy conservation. Twenty-nine States do not yet have legislation to do anything about this national problem. Only 8 States out of 50 actually have regulations which deal with energy conservation.

Now, I think, on the basis of the record, on the basis of the fact that we have been through a tremendous energy crisis-just 2 years ago, when we had long lines at gas stations-in view of the clear national necessity for that, for us to expect the States to do it if we do nothing except provide voluntary standards is to expect more than, realistically, we should.

Mr. STONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. PROXMffiE. I yield to my friend from Florida.

Mr. STONE. The Senator is aware of the energy bill the Congress passed and the President signed at the end of last year, is he not?

Mr. PROXMIRE. Well, I am aware of that. I understand there is nothing in this bill that duplicates that legislation.

Mr. STONE. The Senator is aware, is he not, of the fact that that bill requires the States in the short future to come up with their own State energy saving plans, State energy conservation plans and, in the absence of sufficient energy plans to save energy, the Federal Energy Agency would mandate those plans themselves?

Is the Senator aware of the fact that insulation is one of the key areas in that State energy plan approach which Congress adopted?

Mr. PROXMIRE. May I say, No. 1 the present law provides only for a plan. No. 2, there is no consistent standard required; and, No. 3, there is no implementation that is required.

Mr. STONE. If the Senator will further yield Mr. President, the reason there is no national standard is that a State like mine is a hot weather State and a State like his is a cold weather State. Does that make logic?

Mr. PROXMIRE. Well, the national standard provides for climate differences. There are even differences between northern and southern Wisconsin, as there are between northern and southern Florida.

Mr. STONE. That is the point. Is it not difficult-

Mr. PROXMffiE. This is a national minimum standard. It tatres that into account. I think the Senator realizes the standard is not that difficult.

Mr. STONE. The Senator may understand further that a State like mine is in the hurricane belt and a State like his is not, and building codes which have been evolved over decades have to give due credit and recognition to the difference in windstorm effects as well as just pure heat, and the nuances of the building requirements vary so greatly not only nationally but, as the Senator himself pointed out, even within his own State, northern Wisconsin and southern Wisconsin, that would it not be very, very difficult for a national agency like HUD, short of having a whole volume, a whole library of building code minimums, to really do the job?

Mr. PROXMIRE. I think not, no. The way this operates, as I understand

it, is that the Department of Housing and Urban Development would develop a minimum performance standard. The standard for different buildings in different climates would be enforced by the State, and there would be limited monitoring of the program by HUD.

The beauty of this legislation is that it delegates the authority to carry out the program to the States. As we have said before, the State legislatures have unanimously approved this, and the Governors have told us they favor this. We think it is a practical way to get a national program, and with a minimum amount of Federal involvement.

Mr. STONE. The Senator from Florida is very sympathetic of the goal of the committee and of the floor managers of the bill in trying to get some movement in insulation particularly, and other

building standards all over the country. But the Senator from Florida believes we should press ahead with the State energy conservation plans that were mandated by the energy bill we passed, and that in the absence of sufficient building requirements in those energy plans that the FEA could continue to press forward with such elements.

But to have a national duplicate building code, because minimums-the building code in my original home county, Dade county, a pretty good building code, would have to be duplicated by the national building code. That is now either a one- or two-volume set of minimums. Those building codes are not maximums; they are minimums.

Mr. PROXl\URE. The standards do not have to be duplicated at all. All the State must do is meet the minimum performance standards the Federal Government has set. The State code can be tough, it can be stronger. It does not have to be identical. All it has to do is to meet the Federal minimum. Nobody, Senator, so far as I know, unless the Senator from Florida feels that way about it, nobody argues the law we passed earlier this year would do this job. Nobody argues that the law we passed wou!d provide for effective insulation of new American homes, and serve as savings barrels of oil.

Mr. STONE. Did the Senator answer my colleague as to the projected force that will be required in enforcing these standa.rds? Is there a fiscal note on this?

Mr. PROXMIRE. We have not received any estimate that HUD would have to increase their staff. This program would be administered by the States and by the localities, not by HUD. The involvement of HUD and the cost to HUD would be extremely small.

Mr. STONE. How about the staff? Mr. PROXMIRE. All HUD would have

to do is to review certifications, that is it, 50 State certifications. They should be able to do that with a staff smaller than the staff the Senator from Florida has in his office.

Mr. STONE. The Senator from Florida just will not swallow that.

[Laughter.] Mr. STONE. But the Senator from

Florida would like to ask the distinguished floor manager of the bill if he thinks the minimum st andards set by HUD nationally could be so attuned to the variations in climate, in building materials, in earth conditions that they could reasonably be done nationally.

One last point , then I will yield the floor. In my part of Florida, original part of Florida where I grew up, we have oolite conditions, subsurface oolite conditions. Further north in my State we have red clay. A little bit in the middle we have white sand. The subsurface conditions have a lot to do with our building codes down there. As you go farther north in the country you have mountains. We do not have any mountains in Florida, but we have every other kind of surface soil conditions. We have coastline problems and waterfront setback problems.

When you go farther north and you get to the moun t ains you hv.vc rrot prob-


lems of subsidence; you have got problems of soil coming down from the mountains in rain storms. You have got erosion problems, and really there are so many variables--

Mr. PROXMmE. Let me try to answer the Senator from Florida. He raises an excellent point which, I think, would trouble all of us because all of our States are different, and different regions in the country are entirely different and would require a different adaptability, so let me read a letter from HUD just sent today, March 9. It says:

The bill further provides, in Section 210, that the research activities leading to development of standards, "shall be designed to assure that standards are adequately analyzed in terms of energy use, institutional resources, habitabillty, economic cost and benefit, and Impact upon affected groups."

Now, obviously, the purpose of this is not to have the same standards in Maine that you have in Florida, or the same standards in North Dakota you would have in Mississippi. They would have to be different because, as the Senator properly says, the climates are different. But the language of the bill recognizes that, HUD recognizes that, the hearing record recognizes that, and the majority of the committee feels this is sensible legislation which will not handicap or impede one part of the country as compared to another. As a matter of fact, it provides that the States shall develop their own standards because the States may recognize their different climate problems in more detail than the Federal Government can.

Mr. STONE. What the Senator from Florida is troubled by is the immense variety of problems when you start to pass building restrictions other than at a local or regional level. The energy bill that we passed went about it this way: It said to the States:

You figure out how best to save this energy. You work with your local governments, with your local businesses, with the kinds of problems that you face in your States. Some of your States are keyed to tourism, some of your States are keyed to manufacturing, some of your States have long distances and llght populations and, of course. buildings to match. You come up with the ways that you can save this energy.

And we gave them a goal-Then if you do not do it, the national

standards are going to be brought in on you, and we are going to save it for you.

Mr. PROXMIRE. Well, if the Senator will yield at that point, Mr. President, I think the Senator describes very well, far better than I have, what the bill tries to do. It tries to do exactly that. It leaves it to the States to determine what standard they will develop, and the only overall standard is the amount of energy you can use, and it would be up to the State to try to comply with that requirement of HUD and the Federal Government. That is why we cannot do ft next month and why it does take a couple of years to do it.

Mr. STONE. Well, respectfully, I really believe, this Senator really believes, that States, in complying with the requirements of the energy saving

CXXII--367-Part 5

conservation plan mandated by the energy bill we passed at the end of last year, are going to be concentrating on building savings.

They are going to be doing this job, turning lights off, or setting the thermostat, or requiring insulation, which fits the climatic conditions and the building needs of each of the areas in a State, not merely of a whole State, in a geographical way, to make the energy saving.

For us to come in and put HUD in charge with an ax handle as large as the State itself seems to be not only duplicitous to this Senator, but defeating of the goal we have already mandated in the energy bill we have just passed.

Mr. PROXMIRE. May I say to the Senator from Florida that the feeling on the part of the people who have studied this, the administration, on the committee, and in the States, among the Governors, is that by relying on the legislation passed, we will not get the job done. We have only a minority of States with legislation, only eight have regulations that deal specifically with energy conservation.

We have to enact this measure in order to get the job done.

Mr. STONE. I have just one last question, if the Senator will yield.

Mr. PROXMIRE. Yes. Mr. STONE. Would the minimum

standards set by the Federal agency be applicable to all States or does the Senator envision that there would be groups of States, like classified as warm-weather States, or groups of States classified in another way, would the Federal minimum be keyed severally, to each of the 50 States?

Mr. PROXMIRE. The Federal minimum performance standards would vary by climate. They would take into account the differences in climate among the various States. We recognize that fact.

Mr. STONE. In other words, the Senator envisions a group of several standards, not one minimum standard?

Mr. PROXMIRE. In a sense, yes. Mr. STONE. For each of the problems? Mr. PROXMIRE. In a sense, yes. But, as I say, the purpose of the stand

ard would be to achieve certain energy savings and there would be the amount of energy that would be used per square foot for single family residences.

Mr. STONE. I thank the Senator. Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Will the

Sena tor yield? Mr. PROXMmE. Yes. Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. I believe all

of us are in favor of the insulation in homes. We realize that 1t does save energy.

However, I was interested in the comments of the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin which I believe indicated it was necessary for the Federal Government to act because the States have not acted.

I am just wondering, living as we do in a country where we have individual freedom, individual initiative and individual action, what has been done voluntarily by the people of the country over the past several years in insulating their homes?

I remember a year or two ago doing some insulating in my own home and was

told that there was a shortage of insulat • ing material because of a run on such material.

The PRF.SIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Wisconsin on this amendment has expired.

The Senator can yield time from the bill, if he wishes.

Mr. EAGLETON. Do I have time remaining?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 15 minutes remaining.

Mr. EAGLETON. I yield 15 minutes to my distinguished colleague.

Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. I appreciate the Senator yielding, but, certainly I will not take that much time. '

Mr. PROXMffiE. The Senator asks a good question, I think we could take all into account in achieving the purpose.

The question, as I understand it, is how much progress have we made through individual action, individual initiative, in insulating homes.

The best information we have, and it comes from utility companies and elsewhere, is that we have not made substantial progress in the last several years, that there has been some initiative but the progress has been halting, slov.!, erratic, and far, far less than could be achieved if we had this bill in law.

Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Does the Senator know or has the committee made inquiry to determine whether the production of insulating material has increased whether actually more insulation material has been sold?

I say this because of the personal experience in attempting to get insulating material and having to go to several stores in order to get what I wanted for my own home.

Mr. PROXMIRE. I think the Senator raises another interesting point, because I think individual people may find insulation material not available. We are told that the industry affected has the capacity, they can produce the insulation.

Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Have they increased their production? Are they selling more insulation material which, to me, would indicate whether or not people were using it. Does the Senator know if they are selling more?

Mr. PROXMIRE. Our understanding is that the industry had anticipated that there would be a considerable increase in insulation because of the fuel shortage. The short answer is that there have not been the sales they anticipated. There has not been individual initiative to provide the kind of insulation increase we hoped would be achieved.

Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Does the Senator have any statistics on whether insulation of homes has increased over the past several years?

Mr. PROXMIRE. What is that? Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Does the

Senator have any statistics. or know to what extent insulation of homes has increased over the past several years?

Mr. PROXMIRE. We do not have the statistics except as we have talked with the industry. and the industry indicated they have not been able to increase the sales very much.

5802 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE Mar.ch 9, 1976

Frankly, one of the reasons is that they anticipated revisions in the tax laws that would provide incentives.

Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. I cosponsored such legislation.

Mr. PROXMIRE. It has been pending, but not enacted, and I think that is one of the reasons it slowed down.

Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. I appreciate the Senator's responses.

Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri has yielded back the remainder of his time. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Missouri. The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce

that the Senator from Texas <Mr. BENTSEN), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. BIDEN), the Senator from Arkansas <Mr. BUMPERS) , the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. EASTLAND), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. INOUYE), the Senator from Washington (Mr. JACKSON), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY), the the Senator from Montana (Mr. MANSFIELD), the Senator from Kentucky <Mr. FORD), the Senator from California (Mr. TUNNEY) , and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Moss) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Washington (Mr. JACKSON) would vote "nay."

Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. YouNG) is necessarily absent.



Allen Bartlett Beall Bellmon Brock Burdick Byrd,

Harry F., Jr. Cannon Chiles Clark Curtis Domenic! Eagleton

Fannin Fong Garn Goldwater Hansen Helms Hruska Johnston Laxalt Long McClellan McClure Mcintyre Montoya

NAYS-48 Abourezk Hart, Philip A. Baker Hartke Bayh Haskell Brooke Hatfield Buckley Hathaway Byrd, Robert C. Hollings Case Huddleston Church Humphrey Cranston Javits Culver Leahy Dole Magnuson Durkin Mathias Glenn McGee Gravel McGovern Griffin Metcalf Hart, Gary Mondale

Morgan Nunn Pastore Pearson Roth Scott,

William L. Sparkman Stone Symington Taft Talmadge Thurmond Tower

Muskie Nelson Packwood Pell Percy Proxmire Randolph Ribicoff Schweiker Scott,Hugh Stafford Stennis Stevens Stevenson Weicker Williams

NOT VOTING-12 Bentsen Bid en Bumpers Eastland

Ford Inouye Jackson Kennedy

Mansfield Moss Tunney Young

So Mr. EAGLETON's amendment (No. 1427) was rejected.

Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was rejected.

Mr. PROXMIRE. I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BAKER) . The bill is open to further amendment. If there be no further amendment to be proposed, the question is on agreeing to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.

The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the amendments and the third reading of the bill.

The amendments were ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read a third time.

The bill was read the third time. Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I ask

for the yeas and nays on passage. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a

sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.

The yeas and nays were ordered. ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS SUBMITTED ON H.R.

8650

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the Residential Insulation Assistance Act, which is title I of H.R. 8650, the Energy Conservation in Buildings Act of 1976.

This measure is designed to reduce U.S. energy consumption by assisting the poor to insulate and weatherize their homes.

The Residential Insulation Assistance Act builds on the experience and existing framework for weatherization of homes developed under the Emergency Energy Conservation Services program carried out under the Community Services Administration. The program authorized under H.R. 8650 would supplement the Community Services Administration program by authorizing additional Federal funds to the Federal Energy Administration to make grants to States to finance residential insulation projectschiefly for the purchase of insulation materials. Financial assistance would be provided in accordance with regulations prescribed by the FEA administrator, with the concurrence of the Director of the Community Services Administration. Such regulations would include standards of insulation and the combination of techniques necessary to achieve a balance between a healthy environment and maximum energy conservation and methods of assuring that benefits accrue primarily to low-income tenants.

Grants to States would be provided after the approval of a State plan providing that funds allocated by the State to areas now served by the Community Services Administration weatherization programs will be channeled through the community action agency in that area unless the Governor makes a finding that the CSA program is ineffective in meeting the purpose of the act or is not of sufficient size and cannot in a timely fashion develop the capacity to support the project to be carried out in that area. If a State chooses not. to participate in the program, funding may be provided dh·ectly to a community action agency.

The Federal Energy Administration estimates that, at the completion of 3 years under the committee bill, a savings of 38,325,000 barrels of petroleum will have been accomplished and a resulting savings in fuel bills to low income households of $200 million anually will have been effected. While the average per unit cost in Maine's Project FUEL was $100-$125, subsequent experience under the CSA program indicates that per unit costs will be higher. However, with this remarkably small investment, the energy savings and improvement in healthful conditions will measurably improve the lives of poor persons and assist the Nation in reducing its energy expenditure.

Mr. President, as a cosponsor of this provision in the Banking Committee and chairman of the Labor and Public Welfare Committee which authorizes the community services programs, I wanted to be sure that this FEA program would not duplicate the efforts of community action agencies providing assistance to the poor community for weatherization. The weatherization program run by CSA and the community action agencies dates back to the onset of the energy crisis in 1973. Through the worst period of that crisis community action agencies spent from their own funds for community programs more than $31 million nationwide to assist the poor in withstanding the impact of the greatly increasing costs of oil and gas and limited supplies to heat their homes.

To stunulate development of programs throughout the United States, the Con·· gress provided specific authorization in the amendments to the Economic Opportunity Act in 1974 for the expansion of weatherization programs; $16.7 million was appropriated for this program in 1975, and an additional $27.5 million has been made available through the fiscal year 1976 Labor-HEW Appropriations Act. In addition, the Community Services Administration has received a grant from the Department of Commerce under title X, the job opportunities program, which will allocate $17.5 million to community action agencies to cover manpower costs for energy related projects, almost all of which is to pay the costs of manpower for the weatherization projects. This program, the emergency energy conservation services program, operates in all 50 States, with 704 of the Nation's 883 Community Action agencies carrying out EECS programs.

While data collection is currently underway on the full impact of the Community Services Administration program, preliminary estimates from the initial $31 million spent by community action agencies from their own local initiative funds reflect the following savings from 1973 through June of 1975: 100,000 homes were insulated; 300,000 low income persons have been served; a minimum of 45 million gallons of fuel have been conserved; and a minimum of $15 million in fuel-related costs have been saved.

The emergency energy conservation services program basically supports both weatherization projects and other emergency energy assistance--such as intervention to prevent hardship or health


hazards due to utility shut off or lack of fuel. including emergency fuel supplies. However, 60 percent of $31 million has been spent on weatherization.

With this record before us during consideration by the Banking Committee. it was important that we build on this experience and this framework in authorizing the residential insulation assistance program. H.R. 8650 does . this in ~ remarkable fashion, making available grants to the States for additional insulation materials and providing a c.ooperative delivery system which will build on existing programs and also provide for important within-State coordination of other energy saving efforts.

The future health and vitality of our economy is closely bound up with this Nation's commitment to reduce energy consumption. By providing for a program of Federal weatherization assistance for low income individuals, the legislation we consider today allows us to make significant strides toward our goaL

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a statement by the distinguished Senator from Utah <Mr. Moss).


STATEMENT BY SENATOR Moss A bill presently before the Congress (H.R.

8650) provides for assistance to low income persons in insulating their homes. It also facilitates state and local adoption of energy conservation standards and performance standards for new buildings. It is hoped that this new blll wm have the effect of reducing the utmty expenses for low income users. particularly the elderly and the handicapped and those least able to make the necessary changes to reduce their energy use.

The Federal Energy Administration would be authorized to provide :financial assistance to the states and otQ.er federal agencies for assisting and carrying out these insulation programs. Five mllllon dollars ls requested to be authorized for the purpose of the state grants in 1976. Additionally, technical assistance may be furnished by HUD directly o~ by contra.ct to states and local units of government for their assistance in meeting any standards ultimately established.

I am fully in support of this bllL It incorporates many o! the same concerns to which my earller bill was addressed. My bill (S. 28) was ftrst introduced in 1973 and was p~d by the Senate at that time. I introduced it again during the st:icond session o! the 93rd Congress but it was delayed before the session closed and required new .introduction for the new session · -.hich began January 14. On January 23, 1975 I once again reintroduced the bill.

My bill sought to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide a credit against tax, or in the alternative a deduction for energy-conserving residential expenditures. I have been pleased to note the growing support for this issue. The potential tor energy savings in the residential sector is enormous. and we must make it possible for low and middle income people to afford these kinds of home improvements. Another important benefit from the bill would be the tremendous shot-in-the-arm which the building trades and construction industries would receive. The total energy savings to the nation of such a program o! consena.tion is also signlflca.nt.

And so, because of the similarity o! this new bUipresently berore us to those same important matters- wi~ which my bill dealt, X pledge my support to it and request a

thoughtful consideration of it by the Congress.

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, over the past few yea.rs we have experienced a growing awareness of the level of our national energy consumption and ~e need for viable energy conservation measures. Through experience we ba.ve learned that implementation of realistic conservation measures not only sa.ves precious fuel and reduces our reliance on imported oil but also creates jobs in industries producing and supplying the materials and machines necessary for conservation. We have proven that energy conservation and a sound economy are complementary concerns.

Energy consumption for heating and cooling commercial and residen?8'1.buildings is a major example of significant energy waste. It is estimated that 20 million of the 4 7 million existing single family dwellings in this country are inadequately insulated. By installing presently a.vallable, cost-e1fective, weatherization improvements in these homes and similarly inadequately insulated commercial buildings, the Federal Energy Administration believes we can reduce commercial and residential building energy consumption by 30 percent. Given the fact that 35 percent of all energy consumed in this country is accounted for by space heating, cooling and providing hot water for these buildings, the energy to be saved through improved weatherization is the equivalent of more than 1.2 million barrels of oil a day. With imports of foreign oil averaging over 6 million barrels a day, this potential savings represents about 20 percent of foreign imports.

Of those more than 20 million inadequately insulated homes, at least 5 million are owned or occupied by economically disadvantaged individuals and families. These individuals and families cannot a1ford to purchase and to install insulation, storm windows, and other materials which would significantly reduce energy consumption in their homes. This is especially unfortunate since these materials more than pay for themselves in energy cost savings over a short number of years.

The Energy Conservation and Insulation in Buildings Act of 1976 will provide Federal assistance to thooe individuals and families who cannot afford the materials needed to properly insulate their homes and reduce their energy consumption. By providing $55 mlllion annually as Federal assistance for the purchase of insulating materials, fuel bills of low-income persons will be reduced by almost $200 million annually in 1980, over 12 million barrels of oil can be saved each year. and our Nation's dependence on foreign oil imports can be reduced significantly.

This act also provides for the establishment of minimum Federal standal·ds for energy conservation in new commercial and residential buildings. Adoption of these Federal standards by the individual States is virtually mandated through the use of penalties for noncompliance. These penalties are essential if we are to achieve realistic and neces-sa1·y energy conse1-vation in our yet-to-

be-constructed residential and commercial buildings.

I support the Energy Consen·ation and Insulation Act of 1976 as reported by the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. It is a necessary step towards achieving effective energy conservation in our buildings, but we cannot stop here. We must go on to ensure that all existing buildings are properly~lated and precious energy preserved. This can be accomplished through enactment of tax incentives to encourage installation of necessary insulation materials in buildings owned by persons ineligible ·for assistance under the act we are considering today. Possibly, we can also enact federally guaranteed low interest. loans for such owners.

Finally, Mr. President. we must look ahead and provide today the means to make new energy sources and insulation materials available tomorrow. We must provide funding for research and development of energy conservation technology and implement realistic energy conservation measures throughout every sector of our society. In this manner, we can achieve reduced energy consumption, reduced dependence on imports of foreign oil and a strong, viable economy.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President .. I support the enactment of R.R. 8650, the Energy Conservation and Insulation in Buildings Act.

As chairman of the Senate Committee on Aging, I shall direct my remarks primarily to the provisions in title I, the Residential Insulation Assistance Act.

Title r would authorize the Federal Energy Administration to make grants to Sta.tes to :finance residenful insulation improvements for low-income persons.

The funds would be used principally to purchase insulation materials to improve the thermal efficiency of a home. Funds would also be available for caulking and weather-stripping.

I am especially pleased that priority attention is given to the needs of lowincome elderly and handicapped persons.

Hearings conducted by the Senate Committee on Aging have made it abundantly clear that older Americans have been especially hard hit by rising energy costs. Many are now experiencing hardship and deprivation.

Elderly and other low-income persons typically spend about 14 percent of their incomes for direct energy costs-nearly 3 Y:z times the percentage amount !or other Americans.

Since many are struggling on limited incomes, they do not have the :financial capability to withstand higher fuel costs.

An inadequately insulated home can, of course, waste substantial quantities of fuel. This, in turn, can cause or intensify health problems for older Americans, particularly the frail elderly.

A recent study by the Federal Energy Administration reveals that at least 5 million homes occupied by low-income persons are inadequately insulated.

However, many of these homes can be e1fectively weatherized-producing important savings !or the occupants and our Nation as a. whole.

The Senate Banking, Housing and Ur-

5804 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 9, 1976 ban Affairs Committee estimates that this bill can conceivably reduce fuel bills of low-income persons by almost $200 million by 1980. In addition, it can help to save over 12 million barrels of oil each year.

I am also pleased that H.R. 8650 incorporates a number of concepra I advanced in my Older Americans Home Repair and Winterization Act, s. 1277-although in slightly modified form.

Mr. President, I reaffirm my support for H.R. 8650, and urge that it be adopted promptly.

FEA POSITION ON H.R. 8650

Mr. HUGH SCOTT. Mr. President, at the request of the Federal Energy Administration I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the REcoRD a letter to me from Administrator Frank Zarb expressing the FEA's position on H.R. 8650, a bill relating to energy conservation in new buildings.


FEDERAL ENERGY ADMINISTRATION Washington, D.O. February 23, 1976.

Hon. HUGH SCOTT, -Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.O.

DEAR SENATOR SCO'I'T: The purpose of this letter 1s to convey the Administration's position on Title I of H.R. 8660, as reported by the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee and which the Senate is expected to consider shortly.

As passed by the House of September 8, 1975, the Weatherlzation Assistance Act, Title I of H.R. 8650, is a modification of an Administration proposal submitted one yea.r ago as part of a comprehensive energ-,)' bill. The purpose of this energy conservatiou program is to encourage the development and implementation of weatherlzation programs for the dwellings of low-income persons in each State. The fuel savings from such programs will lower heating bills of low-income persons and lessen our dependence on imported fuels. The bill as proposed by the President and passed by the House allows the States maximum flexibility in determining how to best admlnlster the program within their own jurisdictions, and at the same time keeps administrative burdena to a. minimum.

The House-passed bill, which was strongly supported by the Administration, has been considerably modified by the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. The Senate bill contains objectionable provisions which, among other things, could seriously delay program implementation and place unnecessary bureaucratic burdens on the States. FEA strongly recommends that such provisions be removed before final passage of the legislation. Our major objections to the Senate bill followt:

Duaz Concurrence on ReguZations: Section 105(b) (1) of the Senate blll requires that the Administrator of FEA obtain the concurrence of the Director of the Community Services Administration (CSA) on weatherlzation program regulations. FEA has been working closely with an interagency task force tha.t includes CSA, and has received helpful advice from many of the participants. We intend to continue this process, but object strongly to a requirement for concurrence of another agency in regulations regarding the weatherization program. Such a requirement is administratively burdensome, diffuses responsibility, spawns bureaucratic entanglement, and generates delays in providing assistance to the needy.

Dual Oversight: Section 108 of the Senate bill give:., both the FEA Administrator and the CSA Director the authority to monitor,

evaluate and provide technical assistance. Reference to the "Director" should be struck since only one Federal agency should be accountable and the States shoul, . be responsible to only one Federal agency. For the same reasons, reference to the "Director" should also be removed from Sections 109 ( c) and 113 which provide, respectively, for audit authority and for an annual report to the Congress and the President.

Transfer of Funds: Section 105(d) of the Act permits the Administrator of FEA to transfer funds to the Director of CSA for programs under Section 222 (a) ( 12) of the Community Services Act of 1974. The Administration believes that this program ls designed to foster State action and enable States to integrate the program within their borders to best meet their own local needs. This ls best accomplished by the development and funding of State plans, not by Federal interagency fragmentation.

CAA Funding Mandate: Section 107(b) requires FEA to guarantee that on a national basis the Governors will allocate fifty percent of program funds to CAA's. While CAA's doing effective conservation work should, of course, be eligible for fULds through the States, inclusion of this mandatory restrictive clause in the legislation will not only limit State flexibility, but wlll require the institution of an administrative procedure whereby FEA would have to delay funding any State application until all applications are received, in order to guarantee that the requirement of the provision ls met. FEA would prefer to fund meritorious State applications as received.

RoZe of Local Community Action Agencies: Section 105(c) requires FEA to bypass a State and contract with CAA's upon application if the State has not properly applied within 150 days after enactment of the legislation. As originally conceived, the legislation was designed to encourage State leadership in this field. It is anticipated that States will be able to supplement Federal funds and continue the program with State funds after Federal developmental funds are awarded. By inserting this provision, the Senate bill punishes States who may, for some legitimate reason, not be able to submit an application within 150 days. If this did happen and the CAA's were awarded a State's funds, serious geographical inequities would result because CAA's do not cover all of the Nation's poor population.

Moreover, the provision is defective in that the time limit would start running upon enactment of the legislation rather than on the date that the regulations are promulgated. This severe restraint would inhibit the States from accepting the responsibillty of carefully planning an effective weatheri2}ation program.

Application Procedures: Sections 106 and 107, in general, place unnecessary bureaucratic burdens on the States, restrict the administrative discretion of the Governors and will require submission of very lengthy applications that will be of little help In promoting program success. FEA believes in giving the Governors reasonable administrative latitude in the planning and implementation of the program, emphasizing output requirements rather than mere promises on how the program will be run. The House language should be retained.

Standards: Section 105(b) (2) (A) of the Senate bill requires that FEA "prescribe standards of insulation materials, energy conservation techniques, and the combinations thereof," subject to approval by the National Bureau of Standards. The weatherization program should not be burdened with national standards issued in Washington. Sta1;es a.re better equipped to adjust the program to their varying needs and conditions. To achieve agreement on national standards could potentially delay program implementation. Furthermore, while FEA has contra.cted with NBS for retrofit studies,

it is only one of many contractors used by the agency in this field. We do not believe there ls a single set of standards for weatherization that should be promulgated for the Nation as a whole. Accordingly, the requirement for development of Federal insulation standards with NBS approval should be deleted.

Definition of Low-income: Section 104(7) of the Senate blll contains a definition of "low-income" that would open the provisions ?f the Act in many areas to persons with incomes above the national average and would thus dilute the targeting of funds away from the tn1ly needy. At the same time families with incomes below the poverty level in very poor areas of the Nation could be excluded from receiving assistance under the Senate definition. We do not believe that the objectives of the weatherlzation program are well served by the perverse outcome of inclusion of this definition applied on an area basis.

In contrast, the House definition, by using established Government poverty level statistics, would not create these inequities.

Transfer of Funds for Native Americans to Other Federal Departments or Agencies: Section 105(a) (2) authorizes the FEA Administrator to transfer funds to other Federal departments or agencies to serve native Americans. This provision is objectionable because it treats native Americans as a distinct group apart from other citizens. It assumes that the Administrator and the States will not assure that native Americans are treated like other citizens and receive their fair share through the regular procedures under the weatherization program.

If special provision is made for native American communities we believe it would be preferable to adopt the approach and definitions in section 104 of the Older Amer~ leans Amendments of 1975 that would allow the Administrator to grant funds for weatherization directly to an Indian tribal organization if he determines that members of the tribe are not receiving benefits eqivalent to those provided other persons in the State and that the members of the tribe would be better served by direct grants.

Mandatory PubZic Hearings: Section 107 (c) mandates funding of CAA's in a State unless sufficient reasons for non-funding are shown through public hearings by the Governor. Such a provision adds nothing positive to accomplishing the pm·poses of the Act but would create unnecessary delays and conflicts in program administration. In addition, this provision is contrary to om· position of granting flexibility for each State to determine how best to deliver weatherization services. States should not be dissuaded from selecting the best delivery systems for weatherization assistance because of a requirement for a presumptive service deliverer.

Use of the Terms "Supplementary" and "Supplant": The idea appears several places in the bill that the new wea.therization program would be supplementary to other programs. The proposed FEA weatherization program is not a supplement to any other legislation but is a major independent initiative to assist low-income people to save energy by weatherizing their homes. The wording of these sections should be conformed to reflect the true characteristics of the new program.

Materials: Section 104(6) contains too broad a definition of materials, in our view, by including mechanical equipment. FEA prefers the House language under which. items such as furnace filters could be purchased but items such as portable heaters could not. FEA also perfers the House language to that contained in Section 107(a) of the Senate bill, which would make it pos· sible for FEA and the States to spend less than ninety percent of the funds on materials; FEA believes that sufficient volunteer, trainee and occupant labor can be mobilized to assure that the largest number of homes


are winterized without the unnecessary expenditure of funds on non-material costs.

Definitions: In Section 104 FEA is concerned that the Senate has placed less emphasis on the most needy elderly as a priority population by broadening the definition from persons 65 years or older to 60 years or older. Moreover, the term "state" has been broadened to include the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, neither of which have significant needs for this program in light of the temperate climates of those possessions.

We urge the Senate's consideration of these matters.

The Office of Management and :Rudget advises that there is no objection to the submission of this letter from the standpoint of the program of the President.

Sincerely, FRANK G. ZARB,

Administrator.

Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to H.R. 8650, the Energy Conservation in Buildings Act of 1976.

This Senator supports the basic principle of the bill that we should practice and encourage energy conservation in buildings. My disagreement is with the method that this bill would use to work that end. Federally mandated standards and practices are contrary to the now widely held opinion that there is too much Federal regulation. Additional Federal standards are particularly inappropriate in this instance because building practices and codes and insulation needs vary widely with the climate throughout the country. These considerations are best addressed at the State and local levels of government.

I also support encouraging residential insulation as an energy conservation measure. But, again, my disagreement is with the approach that this bill takes in that regard. The Community Services Administration to which one-half of the funds under this program would be allocated did not testify at all on the proposal. I think that alone should lead us to question the wisdom of the program. From experience, I have serious doubts as to how much of these funds would actually reach the intended recipient. The majority of low income persons live in leased housing and the improvements will benefit property owners. This bill is thus a Government subsidy to property owners at the expense of the taxpayers. I do not think the vast majority of the American taxpayers would think this fair and a good use of their tax dollars. If there is a need to assist low-income persons in insulating their homes, a well developed and administered information program would appear to be an appropriate Federal contribution.

For these reasons, Mr. President, I must urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 8650.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, H.R. 8650, designed to assist low-income persons in insulating their homes by establishing a 3-year State grant program, is a measure which I am pleased to support, both in my capacity as chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and as a Senator from a State which has experienced in the extreme the effects of the high costs of fuel.

The Federal Energy Administration will administer the program under H.R. 8650, which also provides for the devel-

opment and adoption of energy conservation building standards for new construction. There a~·e safeguards in the bill which provide for a cutoff of funds for failure to adopt conservation standards.

The budgetary impact of this measure was considered when the ceilings were established for the various functions under the second concurrent resolution. Ample funds remain within the natural resources, environment and energy function of the budget to accommodate this bill, as shown on page 25 of the latest weekly Senate budget scorekeeping report.

H.R. 8650 authorizes $60 million in budget authority in fiscal year 1976, with an estimated $20 million in outlays. Additional budget authority in the same dollar range is authorized for the next 2 years. Subsequent appropriation action is required to make these funds available. It is my understanding that the appropriations process will proceed expeditiously to allow an early start for this program. In his budget submitted to Congress last month, the President supported a similar program at about the same levels beginning in fiscal year 1976.

Mr. President, I support this bill. It would conserve energy and be of economic benefit to many families. It is consistent with the second concurrent resolution, and it is a piece of legislation that will mean a great deal to those families hit hardest by our energy and economic problems.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Budgetkeeping Report, to which I have referred, may be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: FUNCTION 300 : NATURAL RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENT, AND

ENERGY

TABLE A- FUNCTIONAL SUMMARY

[In billions of dollars]

Category

I. 2d concurrent resolution __________ _

11. Spending legislation: A. Completed action:

Fiscal year 1976

New bud~et Estimated

authority outlays

18. 7 11.4

1. Enacted in prior years.___ 1 18. 0 10. 9 2. Enacted this session __ ________________ ____ __ _ 3. Passed Congress but not

signed. __ - - -- - --- _____________ __________ _ 4. Conference agreement. ••••••••. ____________ _

B. Action underway in Senate: 1. Passed Senate________ __ -. 1 (2) 2. Reported in Senate ___ ______________________ _

C. President's spending requests not yet reported in Senate ,_ • 1 . I

Current status: Under 2d concurrent resolution_____ __ • 7 .4 Over 2d concurrent resolution _____ _______ ---------------

111. Possible additional legislation: A. Spending legislation _____________________________ _ B. Authorizing legislation (see

Potential im~!~i~ B)__ __ __ __ ________ __ G. 2 . l

Under 2d concurrent resolution_________________ • 3 Over 2d concurrent resolution____ __ __ 5. 5 - ---------

1 fncludes $19,100,000,000 enacted during lstsess., 94th Cong. (This amount is higher than the total shown above because that total also includes offsetting receipts from legislation enacted in earlier years.)

2 Less than $50,000,000. 3 Totals for category 11.C, taking account of House action to

date: $0.1 billion new budget authority, $0.1 billion estimated outlays.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, as the chairman of the Labor and Pt:blic Welfare Committee-as well as the chairman of the Labor Subcommittee-and a principal sponsor of title I of -:;his bill, I want to be sure that all relevant labor standards required by t:ither statute or regulation are enforced in residential insulation projects authorized by this bill. I know that my concerns are shared by my distinguished colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. PROXMIRE), the floor m~:.1ager of this bill and able chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, and my distinguished colleague from California (Mr. CRANSTON) , who serves with me on both the Labor and Public Welfare and Bar..king, Housing and Urban Affairs Committees, and who is the author of title I of the bill as reported from committee.

So, Mr. President, I want to be certain that my colleagues and I are in complete agreement about ~he rules governing the rates of wages for laborers, mechanics, and other workers serving under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act of 1973-CETA-or otherwise, j n connection with the program authorized by title I of the pending measure.

Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the concerns expressed by my dis';inguished colleague from New Jersey, with whom I serve on the Ba:..'lking Committee, and under whose able chairmanship I am honored to serve on the Labor and Public Welfare Committee.

Mr. President, the Senate bill contains a very strong provision in section 107 (a) which emphasizes that the fw1ds authorized by this title are to be used, to the maximum extent feasible, solely for materials. In addition, there is a requh·ement in section 106(b) (2) of the bill to maximize the use of workers under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act of 1973. CETA employees under titles I, II, and VI-whether serving in residential insulation programs under the committee bill or any other jobs-are subject to all of CETA's statutory or regulatory requirements, including those in sections 105(a) (5), 208(a) (2), and 604 (b) (3) of CETA, with respect to the payment of prevailing wages and any other labor standards matters.

In addition, with respect to other funds which may be used to assist projects also supported under this title, there are comparable labor standards provisions, such as in section 607 of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, as amended. Moreover, the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act would, of course, apply to funds expended under this title for labor, when the requirements of that act are present.

For these reasons, Mr. President, although title XI of S. 594, the Energy Independence Act of 1975, proposed by the administration, contained a broad Davis-Bacon requirement for laborers and mechanics employed by projects receiving assistance under the proposed new title, we did not include it in the Senate bill bee a use it was unnecessary to do so. Similarly, this provision ·.vas not included in the House bill, although the House report is silent as to why it was omitted.

5 06 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE .MaJCh 9, 1916 Mr. President, I would like to ask the

distinguished chah·man of the Senate Banking Committee, and the :floor manager of this bill, if my statement comports with his understanding of the issue.

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I would like to thank my distinguished colleague from New Jersey, and my distinguished colleague from California. for bringing this issue before the Senate for clarification. I am in complete agreement with the Senator from California. That i my understanding of the matter.

Mr. WILLIAMS. That also comports with my understanding of this matter. I thank my colleagues for this clarification.

Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, I am in firm support of the Energy Conservation and Building Act, as it is now written and reported from the Senate Banking Committee earlier this year. Specifically, title II of this bill calls for the development of minimum energy conservation standards for new residential and commercial buildings. Once these overall energy performance standards for new residential and commercial buildings are developed, State and local jurisdictions would adopt the detailed building codes to achieve those energy performance standards.

Passage of this bill by the Congress, and subsequent approval by the President, would take us a long step toward developing a consistent and comprehensive energy conservation program. I commend those who have worked long and hard on this legislation, and hope that the Senate will recognize the broad base support for this legislation from the Federal Energy Administration, American Institute of Architects, National Council of Fenestration Industries, International Brotherhood of Painters & Allied Trades, The Sierra Club, Consumers Federation of America, Envh·onmental Policy Center, and Friends of the Earth.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the question is, shall it pass? On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk called the roll

Mr. MORGAN (after having voted in the negative>. On this vote I have a pair with the distinguished Senato1· from Arkansas (Mr. Bu.MPERS). If he were present and voting, he would vote "yea.,. If l were at liberty to vote, I would vote "nay." I withdraw my vote.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce that the Senator from Texas (Mr. BENTSON), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. BIDEN), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. BUMPERS), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. EASTLAND), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. FoRn) , the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. INOUYE). the Senator from Washington (Mr. JACKSON), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY), the Senator from Montana (Mr. MANSFIELD), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Moss), and the Senator from California (Mr. TuNNEY) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Washington (Mr. JACKSON) would vote "yea."

Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. YOUNG) is necessarily absent.



Abourezk Hathaway Baker Hollings Bayh Huddleston Brooke Humphrey Byrd, R o ben C. Javits Case Leahy Church Magnuson Clark Mathias Cranston McGee Culver McGovern Durkin Mcintyre Glenn Metcalf Gravel Mondale Hart, Gary Montoya Hart, Philip A. Muskie Hartke Nelson Haskell Packwood Hatfield Pastore

NAYS-35 Allen Domenicl Bartlet t Eagleton Beall Fannin Belln1ou Fong Brock Garn Buckley Goldwater Burdick Griffin Byrd, Hansen

Harry F .. J r. Helms Cannon Hruska Chiles Johnston Curtis Laxalt Dole Long

Pearson Pell Percy Proxmire Randolph Ribicoff Schweiker Scott, Hugh Sparkman Stafford Stennis Si;evens Stevenson Taft Weick er Willia m

McClella n McClure Nunn Roth Scott,

WilliamL. Stone Symington Talmadge Thurmond Tower

PRESENT AND GIVING A LIVE PAIR AS PREVIOUSLY RECORDED-1

.. Io rgan, against.

NOT VOTING-12 Bentse n Ford Mansfield Bid en Inouye Moss Bumper;; Jackson Tunney Eastland Kennedy Young

So the bill (H.R. 8650 ) , as amended, was passed.

FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' POLITICAL ACTIVITIES ACT OF 1975

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 8617.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be stated by title.


A blll (H.R. 8617) to restore to Federal civilian and Postal Service employees their rights to participate voluntarily, as private citizens, in the political processes of the Nation, to protect such employees from improper polit ical solicitations, and for other purposes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

There being no objection, the Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, as the chah·man of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, I with to lay out the broad guidelines of intent in this piece of legislation, without torturing the details of the pending proposal. At the conclusion of my remarks, I will put into the RECORD all the necessary details.

I say to my colleagues who are in the Chamber that Senator FONG, the ranking member of the committee, and I have agreed that today we will only lay down

the concepts as we see them in regard to the legislation, and we do not anticipate proceeding to amendments or votes today. That process will be undertaken when we 1·esume the session tomorrow.

For the record. Mr. President, I point out that there are many misconceptions about what the pending Hatch Act reform really would do. All it seeks to do is to correct the overreaction and the misdirection that has flowed in the wake of the original Hatch Act back in the late 1930's. That Hatch Act went on the books for some very elementary and rightful reasons.

In the processes of government, generally beginning with Andrew Jackson·s t enure in the White House back in the 1830's, on down to the 1930's, it was customary to treat all public jobs in the Federal Government as plums for the political parties: and whichever party won, in general, had most of the plums.

While it had a peculiar attribute of being responsive to the way an election had gone that year, it had many detracting consequences because of the uncertainties of career or continuity, a well as serious questions about the caliber of officials who were appointed.

So a serious effort was made in the late 1930's to lend some dignity to civil servants and to eliminate the unfortunate or excessive political consequences of a non-Hatch Act political era. What were some of these unfortunate practices?

One certainly was demanding from any public servant of the party in power all kinds of deeds not associated with the position he occupied in the Government-generally, political deeds or. in some few instances, misdeeds. The whip was cracked to extract those indulgences because the individual had been appointed to the job as a political reward. The obvious excesses that arose need not be 1·ecounted extensively at this time. They are a matter of historical record and are very familiar to all the Members of this body.

What this measm·e proposes to do, Mr. President, is update, through the experiences of the last 35 or 36 years, the principles of the Hatch Act so that, in the light of the expel"iences that we have had, we can be sure that it is on the highest road and on the kind of track that was originally intended.

Let me stress one thing at this point in my comments: That is that in 110 way-let me repeat that--in no way does H.R. 8617 propose to repeal the Hatch Act. In no way are we doing away with the Hatch Act. It is important that its basic concepts and basic prh1ciples con -tinue. But, in the years that have followed the Hatch Act, there have been misinterpretations and overinterpretations about ,vhat the Hatch Act really meant.

No one can say with certah1t:y what the individuals who wrote the Hatch Act were really thinking. All we can do is record what the legislative history shows the intent to have been and to proceed on those lines. I think the way to proceed to that point is to examine the kind of discrimination that has arisen under the Hatch Act.

March 9, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 5807 For example, it is now, under the de

cisions made by the commissioners judging such cases, impossible for a civil servant in Federal employment to run for partisan political office. I do not think that the Hatch Act ever intended that-ever-because that denied some American citizens a basic right. That is to stand for public office and be judged by his peers. It does not have to exclude that. It does not have to attach that restriction in order to preserve the basic principles of the act.

Second, it invokes penalties upon civil servants for activities that are associated not with running for office, but because they interest themselves in somebody who is standing for public office. No American citizen, in this day of commitment, of relevance, of believing in the efficacy of our system, should be denied the opportunity to make his commitment in a political way. What the measure before us proposes to do is describe the ground rules so that everybody understands them, so that we do not have a commission that may waver from election to election and from year to year in how it interprets borderline evidences of conduct or misconduct by public employees. It is simply aimed, Mr. President, at removing Federal employees from second-class citizenship.

Federal employees ought to be protected in their rights as citizens; not only their l'ight to vote, but the right to express their political views, the right to work for candidates of their choice as individual citizens, and the l'ight, if they so decide, under the proper guidelines and ground rules, to run for political office as any other citizen-as a member of the National Association of Manufactw·ers or the AFL-CIO might desire to run for public office. Whatever his credentials, be he a doctor or even a professor, he ought to be entitled to run for public office without the kind of penalties that, at the present time, hobble public servants as they examine whether they ought to take the chance or not.

One or two of my colleagues have mentioned to me that they do not want to encourage some Federal employee who wants to run on a platform to get more retirement benefits or higher salaries for retired military to run against them for the Senate, because just on that one issue. the incumbent can be beaten. If someone can be beaten on that issue, he ought not to be in the Senate. If his base, his profile. his visibility. the things he stands for, do not stand on a better base than that, I have news for him: he is in trouble even before we talk about the Hatch Act.

I think that it is important, as we consider this bill, that we strip away a lot of the rhetol'ic that surrounds it, a lot of the confusion and obfuscation that tends to focus attention away from the heart of the question.

The matters that affect this legislation are those that seek to protect the citizenship rights and opportunities of a Federal employee. What the bill says, in very carefully chosen terms is that if, for example, a Federal employee wishes to run for some community office-the

school board or the county commissioner or the State legislature, or, if you will, the Congress of the United Statesthere are certain preconditions that must be met and still will enable him to run. One is that he has to take a leave of absence from his job. He cannot run for office from his job in any way.

Second, as he takes that leave of absence, he has to make sure that he does not go back to his job area and browbeat his colleagues there, or shake them down for any kind of consideration while they are on the job. He has to make a clean breast of it.

I must say, as a public employee 18 years ago, it would have been impossible for me, if I may say so, to run for the Senate of the United States if I had had to quit my job as a professor of history on the campus of the University of Wyoming. I would not have dared. The answer simply would have been, no.

There are those who say that would have been great, but there were those who wanted me out of the university, anyway, and they thought maybe they could find me other employment. You kind of meet that both ways.

But I could not have considered running for public office. If one wants to make the assumption that somebody other than McGEE might have been a good candidate, and the reason he did not run was that he had a public job at a university, federally assisted as land-grant colleges are, I think it makes a very good point for protecting the Federal employee by 1·equiring that he take a leave of absence to run for the job. When it is over, then he should have the option of reinstatement without prejudice to the position at the level of employment that he had occupied before he took that leave of absence.

I am proud to say that at my university, the individual who was most prominent 1n the role of board of trustees of the university at that time was my colleague from Wyoming (Mr. HANSEN). He was one of those chiefly responsible for making it possible for GALE MCGEE to have a leave of absence from the University of Wyoming. I take the time to spell that out because that is the pattern that is envisaged in this measure regarding Federal employees that might choose to run for some kind of public responsibility.

It was likewise my opportunity, in the event of def eat, to return at the end of that existing semester in the autumn to the post that I had held, at the same rank, in the history department, without any prejudice in any way. In those days, it was a kind of landmark decision by an administrative body affecting such an operation. That is pretty much the format within which our whole approach to the Hatch Act is envisaged, to try to protect the right of any individual serving in a Federal job, to exercise an element of responsibility as he sees it in standing for some public office at whatever level it may be.

The other factor in the bill that is spelled out with great care has to do with the old and much abused practice

under both Republican and Democratic administrations. As we all recognize, once you were in general control of the Government, your party having won the last election, it could shake down the troops. You could require, for example, that employees contribute so much to the party coffers. You could shake them down for contributions to an individual's campaign and put the bee on them in order to gain some inside advantage or you could require that they perform certain services of a political nature to avoid having to hire outsiders to do the same kind of job.

Well, what this bill spells out--and again I ask my colleagues to examine the language in the bill to satisfy themselves that it is indeed totally clear on this-it specifies that no superior can twist the arm, distort, threaten, abuse, or cajole-either the services or the time of a Federal employee who serves under him or any other Federal employee on the job or the premises. But I am not going to take the time to draw out these details because I think, in view of the kind of day this is and the importance of our colleagues trying to beat the snow home tonight, I do not want to protract this unnecessarily. And so I ask that my prepared remarks be inserted into the RECORD at this point.

There being no objection, the prepared statement was ordereci to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Mr. President, the issue raised by the bill H.R. 8617 is an extremely important one in that it involves the basic citizenship rights of more than 2.8 million Americans who happen to work for their Government.

The bill would restore to these citizens their full political rights, permitting them to participate voluntarily, as private individuals, in the political decision-making processes of their communities, their states, and their Nation.

H.R. 8617 aims at striking a proper and effective balance, however, between the rights of this Government's citizen-employees and the need of our society for a fair and impartial civil service, free from the taint of the spoils system. It does this by amending the so-called Hatch Act, a. very restrictive law hastily enacted in 1939 in response to depression era abuses which did not by-and-large involve the career civil service. ·

There has been an inclination amona those who oppose the restoration of thes: basic civil rights to equate the Hatch Act with the merit system itself. The bill laid before the Senate today in no way alters the merit system. Indeed, it is largely concerned with providing the civil service employee with protections to insulate him against improper solicitations.

H.R. 8617 prohibits those political actiYities which tend to erode public confidence in the integrity of the civil service and the government itself.

It prohibits political activity on duty, in government buildings, or in uniform.

It bars soliciation of employees or members of their families by those with supervisory authority.

It establishes an independent board to adjudicate violations, thus freeing the Civil Service Commission to concentrate its functions on educating employees on their rights and prohibitions and on enforcement.

It provides for the disciplining of employees in the excepted service in the same manner as applies to those in the competitive civil service.

And it provides a new criminal provision

5808 CO.c TGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 9, -1976 applicable to any person who would extorl any contribution from • government employee for political purposes.

The debate over what political latitude should be allowed Government employees ls an old one, dating to the second session of the First Congress 1n 1791. when it was proposed to prevent inspectors enforcing an excise tax on dlstfiled spirits from taking any part 1n political affairs, other than glvtng their own vote. The proposed limitation failed in the House, which apparently agreed with Congressman Fisher Ames, who argued that the provision would "muzzle the mouths of free men, and take away the use of their reason.••

The Congress. in enacting the Pendleton Act of 1883, which established the Civil service Commiss1on. authorized the President to make regulations to prevent a government official from using his official authority or infiuence to coerce the political action ot any person. That authority led, ultimately, to the promulgation of Civil Service Rule 1 in 1907. Rule 1 did prohibit active participation in political campaigns for employees in the competitive service.

Prior to 1939, then, regulation of political activity by persons employed by the government was a result of executive branch action. The New Deal era gave rise to concern, how· ever, because of numerous allegations of political solicitation and coercion in relief agencies. These were investigated and doc• umented by the Special Senate Committee. The result was the Hatch Act, which was amended in 1940 to incorporate more than 3,000 pre-1940 administrative determinations into the law and to apply the same restrictions applicable to Federal employees to State and local government employees engaged 1n Federally-funded activities.

In 1974, as part of the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments, Congress wisely ellmlnated most restrictions upon previously covered State and local employees.

The vagueness of the Hatch Act has been long recognlzed. The Commission on Political Activity on Government Personnel, esta'bllshed by Congress in 1966, observed 1n Its report a year later that," .•• there are everincreasing difficulties confronting public employees 1n ascerta1n1ng what the statutory restrictions mean under the Hatch Act, and in knowing what interpretation has been given to the act by the Civil Service Commission 1n rulings which often are not published or readily available in usable form."

The OC>mmission also observed 1n Its 1968 report to the President and the Congress that dramatic changes have occurred since the law was enacted ln 1939:

"Since 1939, when the Hatch Act was enacted. the American political system has changed dramatically. The growth of Fed· eral responsibilities, the parallel growth of technology in Government, and the need for skllled personnel are eroding away traditional patronage schemes. Not only has the American political system changed, but the growth of the merit principle and Impartial administration of Government programs have been integral elements in this transformation."

The Committee on Post Office and Civil Service has been involved in considering changes in the Hatch Act for several years. Hearings were held on earlier proposals 1n the 92d Congress, and at that time the Civil Service Commission itself testified that it was working on a set of provislons to clarify the law and grant employees a greater de· gree of political freedom. The Committee patiently awaited these recommendations, which never came.

The need for change to keep up with the times, then. has been widely recognized for some years.

The changes proposed in H.B. 8617 have as their basic thrust the freedom of individual employees to volunteer or not to 'Volunteer,

as they freely choose, 1n the furtherance or a political goal or purpose. If H.R. 8617 were enacted, then, employees

could on their own time, take an active part in a political campaign, hold office 1n a political organization, or become a candidate on a partisan ticket. They could solicit funds for political purposes, providing no solicitation was made of a subordinate or his family, nor contribution given to a superior. Candidates for full-time elective office, however, would have to take leave Without pay from their public employment prior to any election.

In truth, the restrictions of the present law are not as severe as most employees believe, I dare say. Nothing today, for instance, interferes with an employee's registering as a member of a partisan political party. Nothing prevents him from making a donation to the party or candidate of his choice. Nothing bars him from expressing a political opinion. Nothing prevents him from putting a bumper sticker on his car or a pin in his lapel. Yet, the truth is that the do's and dont's are sufflciently vague and the small print so liberally used that Federal employees are inhibited from exercising many of the rights they do have under the present Hatch Act.

Some argue that the relatively recent disclosure of political abuses, including patronage rings in a number of government agencies, demonstrates the need tor holding a tight rein on government employees. But those abuses did not flow from voluntary activity by career employees in their own free time. Those abuses stemmed from the misuse of power by those cloaked with executive authority. Indeed, it can be argued, and I will argue, that what we need ls more voluntary participation 1n our political processes, not less.

What the Watergate-era abuses demonstrate is the need for more effective application of merit principles. Too, they may show the need for more effective protection of the employee against coercive activity from above. And that is provided for in H.R.8617.

The bill before us provides stronger controls over those who would coerce political activity or contributions from government employees than does the current law. In· deed, if we were faced with a bill which simply lifted the ban on a wide range of political activities Without adding any protections for the employee to insure him against being pressed into involuntary political participation. then I would undoubtedly be arguing on the other side of the issue. But that is not the case.

This bill expands the investigatory and prosecutorlal powers of the Civil Service Commission. No longer Will the Commission have to await a complaint. Rather, It can seek out infractions on its own. No longer will there be an uneven application of the law, whereby the Commission might act to suspend a career employee while a confederate in the excepted service goes unpunished because the Commission lacks authority to discipline him and his agency falls to do so.

This bill establishes an independent adjudicatory Board with the power to issue subpenas. order depositions, and compel testimony. And it provides for judicial review of that Board's actions.

This bill provides for a wide range of penalties so that the disciplinary measures can fit the crime, so to speak.

Mr. President, the bill does exempt one class of Executive Branch employees from the restrictions against engaging in political activity while on duty, in a government office or building, or in uniform. That restriction is waived tor the President, the Vice President, and for those employees working di· rectly tor them in the Office of the President and Vice President. This exemption was extended origin ally by the House Commit tee

in its consideration of H.R. 8617 and left untouched by the Senate Committee on Post Office and Civil Service as a practical matter, since the President of the United States and the Vice President, if they are to seek reelection, must be allowed to carry out their official duties at the same time. Those prohibitions in the bill, however, are not waived for any others, save the elected Mayor and Chairman or Members of t he District of Columbia Council.

Let me say that it is n ot the intent of the Committee to int erfere With any other provision of law. We simply realize that activities related to political campaigning do overlap Wit h the official duties of elected officials, as in simply scheduling the day's activities for example. At present, employees paid from the appropriation for the Office of the President are exempt from these provisions of the Hatch Act which forbid active political campaigning or campaign manaaement as it is defined by t he Civil Service decisions encompassed by the law.

This exemption, also, does not run to those sections of the bill which pertain to the use of official authority or influence for political purposes or to the solicit ation of polit ical contributions.

Our real focus, furthermore, has not been upon the handful of people employed by the White House, but upon the 2.8 million fundamentally disenfranchised citizens who do the public's business in vital and important but less glamorous surroundings-your letter carrier, the clerk in the local Social Security Office, the civil engineer employed by the Defense Department at any one of its numerous installations, or the nurse in a V .A. Hospital. These are the people to whom we propose to restore their rights to fully participate in the most fundamental processes of a free society.

Mr. President, the charge has been made, and repeated many times over in form letters and postcards which I'm sure every member has received, that this legislation really has as its purpose the enhancement of labor unions• "clout" in the Federal sector. It simply is not so. It ls true that most, but by no means all, labor unions representing Federal employees favor the changes proposed in the laws llmiting their members' political rights. They may well see some advantage in, for instance, having active members free to administer voluntary political programs and funds. But that is not so bad. To me, it seems preferable, in fact, to having the members' programs run by full-time officers.

The real reason for H.R. 8617 lies in the belief of its sponsors and supporters that the individual citizen's rights must be guaranteed and that any limits placed on those rights for the benefit of the society overall must be carefully weighed.

Whose rights are so restricted today? l\Iy own State of Wyoming has one or the smaller Federal employee concent rations in the Nation--due no doubt to our small population. Wyoming has roughly 6,000 Federal employees. Among them are 69 civil engineers, 199 foresters and conservation scientists, 72 geologists and geophysicists, 9 mathematicians and 3 statisticians, 28 accountants and auditors, 122 registered nurses, 7 veterinarians, 1 speech and hearing clinician, 2 museum curators, 6 dentists, 12 draftsmen, 280 biological science tech-

. nicians, 65 air traffic controllers, 1 nuclear medicine technologist, 46 electricians, 2 radio mechanics, 7 sewage plant operators, 23 plumbers and pipefitters, 1 cabinet maker, 5 stonemasons, 16 switchboard operators, 252 typists, a.nd 101 truck drivers.

That is pretty much a cross section of the population overall. 'these people a.re like all other Americans. Some belong to unions; some don't. Some belong to churches; some don't. Some belong to Rotary or Khvants; some don't. Some are Republicans, some

March u, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 5809

Democrats, some independents, and others, rm sorry to say. probably take Uttle l! any part in our political processes.

What they do in their own fi•ee time a.s private citizens is really :io business of mine, of yours, or of the government's, so long as it does not impair their efficiency. And let us not forget that these a.re responsible people, certainly as capable a.s any other group of Americans to be trusted to use sound judgment and discretion in ordering their own affairs. I do believe they deserve the opportunity to exercise that judgment and discretion, and therefore ask support of H.R. 8617.

Mr. FONG. Mr. President, I wish to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank the distinguished Senator.

Mr. McGEE. Tyield the :floor.

TRUST TERRITORY OF THE PACIFIC ISLANDS

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 12122 and that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the bill.

Mr~ HANSEN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--

Mr. JOHNSTON. This is the trust territory authorization.

Mr. HANSEN. I have no objection. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk

will state the bill by title. The assistant legislative clerk read

as follows: A bill (H.R. 12122) to amend section 2 of

the- Act of June 30, 1954, providing for the continua.nee of civil government for the Trust Territory of the Pactiic Islands, and for other purposes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the request of the Senator from Louisiana is agreed to.

The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment in the nature of a substitute to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to read the amendment.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.


The amendment is as follows: On page 1, line 3, strike all after the en

a.cting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:

That section 2 of the Act of June 30, 1954 (68 Stat. 330). Is amended by deleting "plus such sums as are necessary. but not to exceed $10,000,000, for ea.ch of such fiscal years, to offset reductions in, or the termination of, Federal grant-in-aid programs or other funds made available to the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands by other Federal agencies", and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "for fiscal year 1976, $80,000,000; for the period beglnning July 1, 1976, and ending September 30, 1976, $15,100,000; for fiscal year 1977, $80,000,000; and such amounts as were authorized but not appropriated for :flscal year 1975. a.nd $1,800,000 f'or a. human development project In the Marshall Is-

land plus such sums as are necessary, but not ta exceed $10,000,000, for ea.ch of such fiscal years, or periods, to offset reductions in, or the termination of, Federal grant-inaid programs or other funds ma.de available to the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands by other Federal agencies, which amounts for each such fiscal year or other period sha.11 be adjusted upward or downward and presented to the Congress in the budget document for the next succeeding fiscal year as a supplemental budget request for the current fiscal year, to offset changes in the purchasing power of the United States dollar by multiplying such amounts by the Gross National Product Implicit Price Defiator for the third quarter of the calendar year numerically preceding the fiscal year or other period for which such supplemental appropriations are made, and dividing the resulting product by the Gross National Product Imnliclt Price Deflator for the third quarter of the calendar year 1974,".

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, R.R. 12122 is similar to H.R. 7688 which is presently on the Senate Calendar, and which has been favorably reported by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs with an amendment.

This amendment would take out sections 2, 3, and 4 of that bill to make it c<>nform to the Senate bill, with the further exception that we have further excised from the Senate bill the $8 million for the Pon ape Junior College. So what we have left in the bill, when this amendment is adopted, is the shell of the trust territory authorization bill without these extraneous programs, without the Micronesian claims authorization, without the ability of the President to extend Federal programs to the other trust territories, without the conforming amendment making Federal programs in Guam and in the Marianas identical.

We have excised that amendment. We have further excised $8 million for the Ponape Junior College, so all we have left is the shell for the authorization of the trust territories for the government of the trust territories.

I ask that the amendment be adopted. Mr. GARY HART. Mr. President, will

the Senator yield? Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, I yield. Mr. GARY HART. As the Senator from

Louisiana knows, some of us expressed concern about establishing a commonwealth in the Northern Marianas.

Over several months, the covenant to establish this commonwealth was discussed. Questions were raised about :financing and the commonwealth status itself.

The Senator from Colorado would like to ask the principal sponsor. the Senator from Louisiana, a number of questions with regard to the relationship of this bill presently before us to our debates and discussions concerning the covenant.

The Senator from Louisiana knows that even the opponents of the covenant felt very strongly about the commitment of this country to the people of Micronesia under the Trusteeship Agreement with the U.N. But we felt that commonwealth status was not the best approach for the Northern Marianas.

The purpose of the Senator from Colorado is to find out how the proposal put forward by the Senator from Louisiana relates to promises made to the Senate by sponsors of the covenant, particularly

in regard to obligations of the American taxpayers. I am concerned about a provision to satisfy World War II claims. I understand this was in the House-passed Marianas covenant. I am also concerned about the extension of all Federal benefits to the Northern Marianas, because both measures were discussed some months ago. I would be interested in the comments of the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senator is entirely correct in his statement of the concern articulated here on the :floor during consideration of the Marianas bill with reference to these additional programs.

This amendment takes all of those extensions of programs out of the bill. The Senate had none of those in the Senate bill other than $8 million for the Po nape Junior College. But we have taken that out.

We have also taken out those additians in the House bill.

This method of procedure was adopted in response to the request from the distinguished Congressman from California (Mr. PHILLIP BURTON), who feels very strongly these items should be included.

I informed Mr. BURTON that our committee felt very strongly that they should all be taken out. Indeed, we have polled our committee, and it is unanimous in its opposition to these measures.

However, Mr. BURTON thought they should be the subject of a conference committee and our commitment to Mr. BURTON is that we take all of the matters out of the bill, go to conference and listen to the arguments. But I think he fully understands that there is total opposition at this point in the committee and, I think, he further understands it was a condition of passage of the bill with a great many Senators that these additional programs not be included.

Mr. GARY HART. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, that is my concern. I might well favor all these measures seeing them standing on their own feet. I have not heard the arguments in favor of them or against, for that matter, but I do know in the extensive debate on the :floor and in committee on the covenant that representations were made about the cost of the covenant. I think those representations should be considered in respect to this specific authorization measure.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I believe the Senator is correct, and I know that the Senate conferees will keep those representations very much uppermost in their minds.

Mr. GARY HART. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for just one final question? I note in the authorization a provision for constant dollar computation of levels of payment. This was another matter that we discussed at some length during covenant debates. I still find it somewhat confusing.

It is my understanding that as of today we shall have to escalate the $80 million fiscal 1976 authorization to account for 11-pereent inflation.

Is it the Senator from Louisiana's understanding that that will be all of the escalation that will take plaee with regard to fiscal 1~76? Does this constant dollar provision somehow permit the administration to escalate benefits in the fiscal 1976 approval?

5810 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 9, 1976 Mr. JOHNSTON. These only apply to

the authorizations and not to any of the Federal programs.

I am not personally aware of any in· flation built on inflation, as it were, but it certainly is a legitimate thing for the Appropriations Committee to consider.

It is not our intention to give inflation stacked on inflation. In other words, to give more inflation factor than the inflation actually dictates, and we will observe that very closely as it goes to Appropriations. It is not our intention to get a double dip here.

Mr. GARY HART. So the Senator from Louisiana will be a principal proponent of the Senate position in the Marianas covenant conference. He intends to stay with the Senate's position, particularly in respect to the House's add-ons and statement made with regard to getting the covenant passed before the Senate.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes; that is certainly correct.

As I say, we have stated to the Congressman from California that we would go to conference and listen with an objective, open mind. But he understands, at the same time, the Senate committee has been polled. They are strongly opposed to it. He is aware of the debate and statements made on the floor of the Senate with regard to the Marianas.

So, I think it is safe to say it would call for persuasive powers of incredible dimensions in order to get the Senate conferees to change their minds.

Mr. GARY HART. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I might say, the Congressman from California is an extraordinary debater. I doubt if he has those kinds of skills.

Mr. GARY HART. I am well aware of the abilities of the Senator from Louisiana, as well.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank my colleague. Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Will the

Senator yield? Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes. Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. This does

not extend any additional Federal benefits to the Marianas, other than what benefits the Marianas obtain under the trust mandate, I assume.

Mr. JOHNSTON. That is correct. This is simply an authorization for

the trust territories as a whole, which includes the Marianas. It is not a new Federal program.

In fact, no new Federal programs are extended to any trust territory. If the amendment is adopted, no part of that has been amended out of the bill.

Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I thank the Senator.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana.

The amendment was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill

is open to further amendment. If there be no further amendment to be pro-posed, the question is on the engrossment of the amendment and the third reading of the bill.

The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a third time.

The bill was read the third time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall it pass?

The bill (H.R. 12122) as amended, was passed.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank my distin· guished colleague from Ha wait for being so generous with his time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen .. ator from Hawaii is recognized.

FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' POLITICAL ACTIVITIES ACT OF 1975

The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill (H.R. 8617) to restore to Federal civilian and Postal Service employees their rights to participate voluntarily, as private citizens, in the political processes of the Nation, to protect such employees from improper political solicitations, and for other purposes.

Mr. FONG. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation, H.R. 8617.

The distinguished chairman of the Post Office and Civil Service Committee has emphasized very strongly in his statement that this legislation does not repeal the present Hatch Act.

Although it is true that this legislation does not in toto repeal the Hatch Act, it, in fact, utterly cuts out, excises, emasculates, if we wish, from the present Hatch Act, the heart of the Hatch Act, the larger part of provision 9 (a) which prohibits Federal employees from taking an active part in political management and in political campaign.

The stated purpose of the bill is to provide Federal employees more flexibility in political expression than they now enjoy under the Hatch Act. This the bill proposes to do by repealing current restrictions on employee participation in partisan politics such as running for partisan political office, managing election campaigns, fundraising, soliciting votes, endorsing candidates, and addressing political gatherings.

In effect, H.R. 8617 would wipe out long-standing, time-tested, effective prohibitions against active participation in partisan politics by Federal workers. In lifting the legal restrictions of many years' experience, H.R. 8617 would open a Pandora's box of political evils. It would strip away the needed protections and leave employees unshielded from political pressures.

The end result would be the erosion of the Civil Service merit system, the return of the old, despised "spoils system" of political favoritism, and the placing of excessive power in the hands of large public employee unions. In short, it would pave the way for the death of the Hatch Act and the beginning of a dangerous new political patronage system.

BACKGROUND OF THE HATCH ACT

Some limitations on the active participation in partisan political activities by Federal employees have been a part of the Federal policy since the Nation was founded. The question of prohibiting such political activities was debated as early as the second session of the first Congress in 1791. George Washington voiced

his concern about partisanship in the public administration, and succeeding Presidents also expressed the desirability of limiting the political activities of Federal civil servants.

President Thomas Jefferson promulgated the first restrictions on the political activities of the executive branch personnel. A directive he issued in 1801 expressed his dissatisfaction with the active participation of Federal personnel in Federal and State elections and warned them not to "attempt to influence the votes of others, nor take any part in the business of electioneering * * * . "

Later Presidents also sought to impose similar restrictions in an effort to curb a growing spoils system that caused inefficiency, favoritism, and corruption in the Government. The patronage system persisted until the shocking assassination of President James A. Garfield by a disgruntled office seeker in 1881. The reform movement gained strong momentum and, 2 years later, in 1883, Congress passed the Pendleton Civil Service Act which created the Civil Service Commission.

The 1883 law prohibited Government officials and employees from using their authority or influence to coerce political action. It also provided that a public employee was not under any obligation to make a political contribution or perform any political service, and further that the employee may not be fired or penalized for refusing to do so. But it did not specifically ban political activity of employees.

In 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt issued an Executive order which stated that while persons in the competitive classified service could express privately their opinions on all political subjects, they were prohibited from taking any active part in political management or in political campaigns. Having previously served on the Civil Service Commission, he was fully aware of the need for a ban on political activity.

The language of the Roosevelt Executive order was immediately incorporated into Civil Service rule I. The Civil Service Commission had concluded after 24 years of experience that the prohibitions contained in the 1883 act, and rule I promulgated under it, against using official authority or influence to coerce the political action of others or interfere with elections, was not sufficiently effective in controlling improper political activities on the part of those in office.

WPA SCANDAL

During the Great Depression of the 1930's and the New Deal-inspired Works Progress Administration-WP A-the Senate created a special committee to investigate alleged use of relief and work-relief funds for political pw·poses. The committee found extensive misuse of Federal relief funds in the 1938 election campaign, uncovering widespread solicitation of campaign funds by Federal and State officials from employees receiving Federal pay. Congress quickly responded by passing the Hatch Act of 1939.

The investigation by the Sheppard committee into the WPA scandals was thorough and extensive. It documented case after case of political coercion spreading across 10 States. It did its task

Ma'tch 9, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 5811

so thoroughly there was no disputing the fact of widespread political abuses and the need for Congress to quickly pass the Hatch Act.

COMMISSION ON POLITICAL ACTIVITY

Twenty years later, in 1966, Congress saw the need to review the operation of the Hatch Act and other Federal laws. It wanted to assess the effect of laws regulating the political activity of public employees. It established a Commission on Political Activity of Government Personnel to conduct the study and to report to the President and Congress by the end of 1967 with recommendations for legislative changes.

The Commission was made up o! 12 top-flight members of both major political parties--four appointed by the President and four each by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House. Its- chairman was Arthur S. Flemming, former president of the University of Oregon; Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare from 1958-61; and member of the U.S. Civil Service Commission for 9 years. The others were Members and former Members of Congress; public administrators; and experienced men from the education and the business worlds.

The Conmtission sought the vie s of the Civil Service Commission; held a series of public heru:ings in the key cities of Washington, D.C., Atlanta, Dallas, Chicago, Boston, and San Francisco. The Commissioners heard representatives of Government employee unions, local political leaders, political scientists, representatives of interested organizations, and directors of State mer-it system offices.

In addition, a major survey of Federal employee opinion, inquiries to State employees and State and country political party chairmen, staff' research, and information gathering from other available sources furnished the data for extensive discussion of issues by the Commission members.

What resulted was the most thoroughf;Oing investigation ever conducted into the subject of participation of Government officers and employees in political activity.

In undertaking its task, the bipartisan group carefully attempted to accommodate and reconcile two vitally important, but sometimes competing objectives.

On one hand, the Commission recognized the importance of encouraging the participation of as many citizens as possible in the political processes which shape our Government. On the other hand, it also acknowledged the importance of assuring the integrity in the administration of public service and the development of an impartial civil service free from partisan politics.

It made 10 recommendations and voiced the opinion that the best protection that the Government can provide ~r its personnel is to prohibit those activities that tend to corrode a career system based on merit. This, the Commission said, requires strong sanctions against coercion and requires some limits on the role of the Government employee in politics. It was the unanimous view of the Comm· sion members that

these limits should be clearly and specifically expressed.

Now, let us examine how these views of the Commission compare with the provisions of H.R. 8617. H.R. 861'Z sets no real limits on political activity for Federal emplayees, except in an extremely limited number of areas, and the bill does not even define what "political activity" is. Thus. H.R. 8617 went overboarc! to remove virtually all restrictions on political management and campaigning-contrary to the Commission's recommendation.

The onlY matters on which there was substantial disagreement within the Commission related to the kinds of local public office and local party office a Federal employee should be permitted to hold.

UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT

Commission members were in unanimous agreement that Federal employees should be barred from positions oi chairman, vice chairman, or treasurer of. any national political party. Most Commissioners felt that this prohibition should also extend to similar state, county" or city political offices. These opinions are Q.is-regarded in H.R. 8617, which wonld allow Federal employees to serve as officers in partisan political parties at all levels.

The recommendations of the Commission were incorporated in a draft bilL In the very important area of political management and political campaigns, the Commission's bill would prohibit certain political activities which have been. the particular object of abuse and publc criticism. Among such activities prohibited are these:

First, partisan political fundraising ai any level;

second, engaging in political activity while on duty or on Government prop,erty;

Third, becoming a candidate or campaigning for or holding an office of the United States, a State, or other office except a "local office";

Fourth. managing a campaign for a candidate seeking such an office;

Fifth, acting at any polling place as an official recorder, checker, watcher or challenger; and

Sixth, serving as an officer in a political organization such as chairman. vice chairman, or treasurer of any national, State. county, or city pa1·ty.

Here. we see a very wide divergence between what the model bill would prohibit and what H.R. 8617 would prohibit. H.R. 8617 has none of the recommended prohibitions on political activity except one-engaging in political activity on duty or on Government property. The Commission's model bill would bar all other listed political activity; H.R. 8617 would not.

The Commission combined political science research techniques with public. hearings in an effort to gather information about the effect of the Hatch Act.

D.7TER'.'-U:WS WITH EMPLOYEES

Because much was said in the hearings as to how public employees feel about existing laws and their application, the Commission decided to test the opinion

of employees themselves. It contracted for the services of the Survey Research Center, University of Michigan, an organization that has been conducting national political surveys since 1952.

The survey was done with great care and professional competence. Its starting point was a statistical sample maintained by the Civil Service Commission of every Federal employee whose social security number ends in 5-a tenth of all Federal empl-Oyees. From approximately 167,000 entries on magnetic tape prepared by the Civil Service Commission, the sampling section of the Survey Research Center drew a sample of 1,108 Federal merit gystem employees who, with the cooperation of the Federal agencies, were interviewed at work during July and August 1967. The results, by October, was a survey of 980 Federal employees' opinions about the Hatch Act. The survey allows generalization on a statistical basis to 1,641,190 Federal employees.

In addition. the Commission conducted a care s.udy o! State employee opinion in the four mo.st populous State&--New York, California, Pennsylvania, and Texas. The study used a mailed questionnaire and obtained 6 percent oveTall response.

Another questionnaire was mailed to 102 state chairmen and 489 county chairmen to obtain their observations as to the effect of the Hatch Act on their political parties. Again, the response rate was about 60 percent-a high rate which enhanced the study's validity.

Still another research included a compilation of State laws regulating the political activities of State employees; a study o! legislation and rules regulating political activity of public employees in other nations;- an analysis of all Civil Service Commission cases since 1939 in which charges were issued; and the production of a bibliography of books, articles, cases-, and legislative documents from the great abundance of materials resulting from the reseai.:ch.

SURVEY FINDINGS

In view of the survey's extensive b.:l.mpling of opinions of Federal employees, what were some of the findings? Below are a few of the more interesting results:

A'ITITUDES TOWARD. CHANGES IN THE HATCH ACT

Question: Do you favor some chanD'eS in the act, or do you thfnk ft should remain the way it is? What kinds of changes do you have in mind? (.Asked only of those who had heard of the Hatch Act and said they know the general purpose of it)

Percent Should remain as is~ do not favor

changes---------------------------- 35 Should be cl)anged to allow more par

ticipation in political activity (general mention) ----------------------- 19

Should allow :Federal employees to campaign or work for a political party or candidates of his choice_____________ 13

Should allow Federal employees to hold local or nonpartisan office____________ 6

Should allow Federal employees to hold political or partisan office____________ 6

Should be changed (not aseertained how) ----------------------------- 5

Should allow freedom to speak on polltl-ca.l matt.ers, discuss politics when they want------------------------------- 4

5812 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE MaTch 9, 1976 Percent

Repeal the Hatch Act_________________ 3 Should allow local participation of all

kinds (except holding office)--------- 3 Should lessen or decrease the penalties__ 2 Should tighten and clarify the restric-

tions------------------------------- 1 Should allow Federal workers to drive

people to the polls___________________ 1 All other responses_____________________ 3 Do not know what changes should be

made------------------------------- 12

Total (percentages add to more than 100 due to multiple re-sponses) --------------------- 118

Question: If Federal employees were al-lowed to be more active in politics, do you think that would change things like promotion decisions and job assignments?

Percent Yes---------------------------------- 52 No----------------------------------- 45 Do not know__________________________ 3

Total -------------------------- 100 Question: If Federal workers were allowed

to do more things in politics. what differences would this make in your own political activities away from work? Would you be:

Percent A lot more active__________________ 8 Somewhat more active______________ 14 A little bit more active_____________ 18 Stay about the same________________ 60

Total ------------------------ 100 EFFECTS OF RESTRICTIONS ON THE POLITICAL

ACTIVITY OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

Question: Have you ever wanted to take part in particular kinds of political activities but didn't because you were a Federal employee? Has this happened several times, or only once or twice?

Percent 16 13 71

Yes, several times _________________ _ Ye~ once or twice _________________ _

No --------------------------------Total ------------------------ 100

GENERAL POSITION ON ALLOWING MORE POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

Question: All things considered, do you think the rules should be changed to allow Federal employees like yourself to participate in politics more, should they be changed to allow less participation, or should they remain about the same?

Allow more participation____________ 47 R.en1.ain the san1.e___________________ 48 Allow less--------------------------- 1 Do not know________________________ 3

Total ------------------------ 99 I have called special attention to the

survey of the Commission on Political Activity of Government Personnel because it was a most thorough and scientific project. It probably stands above any other such interviews of Federal employees on their political attitudes. It is truly a milestone in the field of objective polling.

The survey underscores the opinions expressed by Commission members on the need for setting some limits on the role of the Government employee in politics and on the need for these limits to be clearly and specifically expressed-requirements which are missing from H.R. 8617.

I feel compelled to note that the Senate Post Office and Civil Service Committee, which reported H.R. 8617, did not investigate the Hatch Act subject thoroughly. The committee held only 2 days of hearings and hea1·d only 21 wit-

nesses last November. Compare these 2 days of hearings with the very extensive hearings conducted by the Commission on Political Activity of Government Personnel. The 2 days of hearings by the Senate Committee were certainly very limited. On the other hand, the Commission on Political Activity held 3 days of hearings in Washington, D.C.; 1 day in Atlanta, Ga.; 1 day in Dallas, Tex.; 2 days in Chicago, DI.; 1 day in Boston, Mass.; and 2 days in San Francisco, Calif. A total of 90 witnesses testified.

In addition, a scientific sampling of Federal employee opinion was conducted by the Survey Research Center of the University of Michigan, an organization which has been conducting national political surveys since 1952. Also, the Commission conducted a case study of State employee opinion in the four most populous States-New York, California, Pennsylvania, and Texas. In addition, a mail questionnaire was sent in those States, with a 60-percent response. A questionnaire was also sent to 102 State chairmen and 489 county chairmen as to the effect of the Hatch Act on their political parties, again with a 60-percent response.

Still another research included a compilation of State laws regulating the political activity of public employees in other nations; an analysis of all Civil Service Commission cases since 1939 in which charges were issued; and the production of a bibliography of books, articles, and legislative documents from the great abundance of materials resulting from the research.

This shows how thoroughly the Commission went into the subject matter as compared with the very abbreviated treatment this bill received in the Senate committee.

In view of the complexity of the bill and its numerous and far-ranging ramifications, H.R. 8617 should have been explored in depth. Given a fuller hearing, is likely that the many flaws in the bill could have been brought out and aired at that time.

HATCH ACT IN PERSPECTIVE

I have attempted to trace for you the history of political activity by Federal personnel. It goes back to the early days of our national government--back to the days of Thomas Jefferson. President Jefferson had issued the first executive order admonishing Federal officials not to take any part in electioneeling. The history of the old spoils system was an unhappy legacy until Congress passed the Pendleton civil service law establishing a formal merit system in 1883. Just before that, President James A. Garfield had been assassinated by a disgruntled office seeker.

It was President Teddy Roosevelt, a former Civil Service Commissioner, who by executive order 642, on June 3, 1907, amended a civil service rule and stated that while persons in the competitive service could express privately their opinions on all political subjects, they "shall take no active part in political management or in political campaigns."

In 1938, the Sheppard committee of the Senate brought under official scrutiny the many abuses of political pres-

sures and favoritism in the New Deal public works apparatus, which led to the passage of the Hatch Act a year later.

The 1966-67 study by the congressionally created Commission on Political Activity of Government Personnel showed the Hatch Act was still an indispensable tool in keeping partisan politics out of the Federal bureaucracy. It recommended retaining many of the Hatch Act restlictions on employee participation in political management and campaigning.

This history shows the evolutionary process leading to the enactment of the Hatch Act. It has been a long and slow development in our Nation's history. The Hatch Act has served our Nation well.

But now, less than 10 years after a duly constituted commission of Congress-after long and careful study, research, and hearings-recommended the retention of the "no politics" provisions of the Hatch Act, we are confronted with a determined attack on the most vital part of the law by the bill which is before us.

H.R 8617. if enacted, would open the door to the old, despised patronage system based on favoritism and not on merit. So we must marshal our forces to defeat this very bad legislation.

SCUTTLING THE HATCH ACT

In advocating enactment of H.R. 8617, now before the Senate, proponents are in effect asking for repeal of the most vital part of the Hatch Act--the part containing the prohibition relating to active participation in political campaigns in a management capacity or as a candidate in a partisan election. The proponents appear determined to cut out the heart of President Theodore Roosevelt's Executive order of 1907 forbidding partisan politicking in the Federal civil service system. They insist on repudiating the spirit and purpose of Thomas Jefferson's Executive order of 1801 which warned Federal employees against taking "any part in the business of electioneering."

The long and carefully evolved principle of keeping partisan politics out of the merit system would be discarded if H.R. 8617 becomes the law of the land, for H.R. 8617 would lift the Hatch Act's ban on virtually every partisan political activity now prohibited in the areas of political management and campaigning. Twelve of the thirteen prohibited activities in these areas of political management and campaigning would br, repealed by the bill, ranging from running for partisan office and fundraising to soliciting votes and serving as an officer of a political party at all levels.

The records of the Civil Service Commission show that it is in the areas of political management and campaigning that the overwhelming majority of Hatch Act violation complaints arise. Statistics for the 5-year period from 1970 to 1974 indicate the Commission processed 211 complaint.s of alleged violations on the part of Federal employees in the areas of candida.cy, campaigning, and management. By contrast, only 29 complaints were processed in the categories of soliciting contributions and mism;e of official authority.


Some advocates of H.R. 8617 make much of the bill's provisions to control soliciting contributions and misuse of authority as though these areas represent the major problem of enforcement of the Hatch Act, when in fact they are a minor part, as the figures show. These same advocates largely ignore or minimize the much more extensive areas of complaints in political management and campaigning. It is there restrictions on political management and campaigning which H.R. 8617 would repeal in their virual entirety.

Those who are most acquainted with the history and significance of the Hatch Act are the people who are today most concerned about the current effort to scuttle this law and all the protections sought by dedicated public leaders going all the way back to the early days of our Nation. These people fully understand the crippling effect such a move would have on our Government and its ability to furnish honest, impartial, and efficient service to the American people.

Such a concerned organization is the National Civil Service League, founded in 1881 by reformers-among them Teddy Roosevelt-to lobby successfully for the Nation's first civil service law in 1883. Its chairman of the board today is Mortimer M. Caplin, former Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

In the opinion of the league, H.R. 8617 is "inimical to merit employment and apt to lead to a rebirth of the spoils system against which the League has fought for more than 90 years."

Proponents of H.R. 8617 claim that the bill is legislation wanted by public employees, that it is time to scrap the present Haiich Act, and that if enacted, the legislation would not endanger the integrity of Government adminis,tration and the civil service merit system.

UNWANTED LEGISLATION

I totally disagree with these claims. After careful consideration of all aspects of this important subject, I have come to the conclusion that H.R. 8617 is unwanted by most public workers, is unacceptable legislation, and if enacted, will have disastrous consequences for the Federal civil service employees, the merit system, and the best interests of the American people. It should be defeated.

As the ranking minority member of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, I heard testimony of numerous witnesses and diverse points of view on H.R. 8617. The testimony presented at the Senate committee hearings; a review of the House subcommittee hearings and committee report, and the House debate; my study of the history of the Hatch Act; and my general discussions with others on this subject-all these have led me to the conclusion that H.R. 8617 is dangerous legislation and should be rejected.

I have set forth in detail my reasons for opposing this bill in the minority views accompanying H.R. 8617. My distinguished colleague on the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, Mr. BELLMON, joined me in this report.

Mr. President, I turn now to proper limits on political activity.

We are dealing here with a difficult subject-the setting of proper limits on the political activity of government personnel. On one hand, we all recognize the constitutional rights of citizens, including Federal Government personnel, to participate in the political processes of the Nation. On the other hand, we must assure the integrity of the administration of our Government and maintain an impartial, nonpolitical civil service free from partisan politics.

I concur with the opinion of the Commission on Political Activity of Government Personnel that:

The best protection that the government can provide for its personnel is to prohibit those activities that t.end to corrode a career system based on merit. This requires strong sanctions against coercion. It also requires some limits on the role of the government employee in politics.

The Hatch Act meets those requirements. For 36 years it has served our country well. It has succeeded in preventing political erosion of the civil service system based on merit. Despite occasional inroads, the Hatch Act still serves as an effective shield to protect Federal employees from the pressures of partisan politics. By barring their participation in partisan political management and campaigning, the Hatch Act has freed public workers from coercion-subtle or otherwise-of politically ambitious individuals and groups.

Since the Hatch Act has served its "politics free" purpose so well for so long, why is there a clamor now for emasculating it? And where is the pressure coming from?

PRESSURE FROM UNION LEADERS

Support for H.R. 8617 comes primarily from leaders of Federal civilian employee and postal unions, most of them, affiliated with the newly organized Public Employee Department of the AFL-CIO. These leaders contend that the Hatch Act has relegated their members to the status of "second-class citizens" by denying them the opportunity to take part actively in partisan political activities. They assert that this denial constitutes an unreasonable restriction on Government employees. They even imply that Hatch Act rest1ictions on Federal workers are somehow related to the low voter turnout in national elections.

These contentions cannot stand up to close examination. The facts do not sustain their arguments.

I do not believe that Federal employees are second-class citizens or that most regard themselves as such. Moreover, the Supreme Court has clearly ruled that Hatch Act proscriptions on partisan politicking are not an unreasonable restriction on Federal workers.

The right to participate in politics is not, and has never been absolute. In U.S. Civil Service Commission against Letter Carriers, the Supreme Court in 1973 sustained the constitutionality of that provision in title 5, United States Code, which prohibits Federal employees from taking an active part in political management or in political campaigns, the very provision H,R. 8617 would repeal.

The Court held that:

A major thesis of the Hatch Act is that to serve this great end of government--the impartial execution of the laws-.:it is essential that Federal employees not, for example, take formal positions in political parties, not undertake to play substantial roles in partisan political campaigns and not run for office on partisan political tickets. Porbidding activities like these will reduce the hazards to fair and effective govern-1nent ....

There is another consideration in this judgment: it is not only important that the government and its employees in fact avoid practicing political justice, but it is also critical that they appear to the public to be avoiding it, if confidence in the system of representative government is not to be eroded to a disastrous extent.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the interests of society must be balanced against the interests of the individual. In this case, it seems reasonable, and the lesson of history shows it is necessary, to curtail the political activities of Federal employees in the interests of society. Impartial administration of the law without regard to personal convictions or political affiliations is required for a fair and efficient government.

MANY PERMISSIBLE ACTIVITIES

First amendment rights of Federal employees are not placed in a straitjacket under the Hatch Act, as claimed by proponents of H.R. 8617. While there are prohibited activities under the Hatch Act, there are at least as many permissible activities. An employee may register and vote in any election; express his opinion privately and publicly on political subjects and candidates; display a political picture, sticker, badge, or button; participate in the nonpartisan activities of a civic, community, social, labor, or professional organization; be a member of a political party and participate in its activities to the extent consistent with law; attend a political convention, rally, fund-raising function, or other political gathering; sign a petition as an individual; take an active part, as an independent candidate, or in support of an independent candidate, in a nonpartisan election; be politically a-etive in connection with a question not specifically identified with a political party, such as a constitutional amendment referendum, approval of a municipai ordinance or any other question or issue of a similar character; and serve as an election judge or clerk, or in a similar position to perform nonpartisan duties as prescribed by State or local law.

In short, Federal employees are permitted far more political involvement than most citizens usually seek.

As to the notion that Hatch Act restrictions are somehow related to the low voter turnout in national elections, this is nonsense. If there is one right above all others which is guaranteed Federal employees under the Hatch Act, it is their right to vote. Their right to the ballot has never been questioned, not even by the critics of the Hatch Act. If a Federal employee chooses not to exercise this right, it is that employee's privilege, but it is definitely not because he or she is prohibited from ·ctoing so by the

5814 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE IV/arch J, 19:J Hatch Act. As a matter of fact, my impression is that Federal employees as a whole exercise their franchise more freely than the average citizen.

Bn.L LACKS GRASS ROOTS SUPPORT

Are "grass roots" Federal workers clamoring for repaal of the Hatch Act? Not that one can discern from various polls and questionnaires. The contrary appears to be the case, according to a poll conducted by Representative JosEPH L. FISHER, Democrat of Virginia, among his northern Virginia constituents, of whom one-third to 40 percent are civil servants. Of 20,000 individuals who responded to his questionnaire, 59 percent expressed opposition to any change in the Hatch Act. In addition, his mail indicated that civil service employees who want the status quo outnumbered others 8 or 10 to 1.

Representative GILBERT GUDE, Republican of Maryland, testified that his mail reflected constituent sentiments similar to those reported by Representative FISHER in his district.

What is significant in both cases is that the two Congressmen represent districts which have the largest civil service employee constituencies of any in the coun -try outside of Washington, D.C.

Rep1·esentative ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN, Democrat of New York, said responses by constituents to her questionnaire were 2 to 1 against weakening the Hatch Act.

In still another sampling of sentiment on the issue, only two members out of 3,000 career civil service members of the Federal Executive Alumni Association who were polled by mail wanted the Hatch Act changed.

My own mail showed strong opposition to changing the Hatch Act. Most constituents who wrote me expressed serious concern that "Federal workers must be protected from union political exploitation.••

Previously, I have already described in detail the 1967 study for the congressionally-created Commission on Political Activity of Government Personnel by the Survey Research Center of the University of Michigan. The study revealed strong sentiment among Federal employees for keeping the Hatch Act unchanged. Of 14 categories of responses concerning their attitudes toward changes in the Hatch Act, the one with the highest response was:

The Hatch Act should remain as i&; do not favor changes.

Only 3 peTcent aid they favor repeal of the Hatch Act.

89 PERCENT WANT HATCH ACT AS IS

The most revealing expression of opposition to changing the Hatch Act came from the widely-respected National Federation of Federal Employees, NFFE, the largest independent union of Federal ca.reer employees, representing 136,000 workers. Its president, Nathan T. Wolkomir, testified that 89 percent of the members polled registered strong support for continuing the Hatch Act as is.

If any other union conducted a poll of its members on this question, no such data were offered at the Senate committ~ hearings.

The University of Michigan"'s Survey Research Center found that, generally, more than 60 percent of those surveyed reported that they would not perform any additional political activity if the restrictions in the Hatch Act were removed, and generally less than 10 percent reported they would become a lot more active.

I suggest that the Senate authorize a new survey to learn if this view among Federal employees has changed since the 1967 survey and, if so, in what direction. My judgment, based on all the indications cited, is that most Federal employees do not seek to engage in additional political activities but they do wish to retain the protection afforded them by the Hatch Act.

Why is there such a concerted drive among leaders of Federal civilian and Postal Service unions are drastically changing the Hatch Act?

The most forthright answers came from union officials themselves-one who favors no change, the other a strong advocate of R.R. 8617:

Nathan Wolkomir of the NFFE: There is no question in my mind that tl...is

is a further attempt by the AFL-CIO to have terrific impact on the Hill ( Congress 1 •

John Mccart, executive director. public employee department, AFL-CIO:

I suppose that to the extent we make our people more aware of the polltical process, you could say that we could acquire more political clout. But what's wrong with that? Our union·s whole history is related to politics.

Public employee unions in 1939, when the Hatch Act became law, were not the laree, powerful organizations they are today. Where there were only 180,000 Federal employees represented by unions in 1963-the earliest data available-the number had jumped to 1,142,-419 in 1974-an increase of more than six times in an 11-year period.

Their spectacular growth, the militancy of some of their leaders, their national impact in this jet-age industrial society-all make the Hatch Act even more important and necessary today to protect Federal employees from potential pressure from union officials.

STRENGTHENING LEADERS" POWER

The power of leaders of the public employee unions would be tremendously strengthened by enactment of R.R. 8617. Hundreds of thousands of Federal workers on public payrolls would be available for staffing party organizations and campaigns to work for union goals. Federal employee unions' political action funds could be targeted more effectively on Senate and House candidates \Yilli11g to do their bidding once elected.

What R.R. 8617 does, essentially, is to remove many of the prohibitions on partisan political activity that, in the past, have insulated Federal workers from political pressures from above. Under this bill, it will no longer be illegal for Federal employees to manage political campaigns; to run for partisan P'llitical office at the Federal or other levels; to solicit, receive, collect, handle, disburse or account for political assessments, contributions or funds; to organize, sell tick-

ets to, promote or actively participate in partisan fundraising activities; to endorse or oppose a partisan candidate for public office in political adve1'tisements, broadcasts. or campaign literature; or to serve as officers of political parties.

HATCH ACT'S TWO-WAY PROTECTION

The existing Hatch Act. although not perfect, offers a two-way protection. Federal employees are insulated from pressures to become involved in party politics, campaigns, or fundraising. The public is served by a system based on the advancement of civil servants solely en merit, efficiency and honest public service. H.R. 8617 would remave these mutual safeguards and open the Federal bureaucracy to political manipulation and abuse of potentially staggering proportions:

Officials and employees of the Internal Revenue Service could sp~nd their evenings working in political campaigns a fundraiser, or in other capacities whil~ during their days they processed audited, and ruled upon returns fil~d in good faith by citizens who trust the integrity and fairness of the tax system.

FBI agents investigating alleged illegal activities could simultaneously be working for ca11didates for political office.

Customs officials, the post office, and other agencies once renowned for their close political ties would easily revert to their former condition while the Immigration Service, the Census Bureau and countless other regulatory, grant~ making, and law enforcement agencies anc. bureaus could be staffed v.ith candidates, managers, workers, and fund raisers of major political parties.

H.R. 8617 SHOULD BE DEFEATED

R.R. 8617 is a giant step backward. If enacted, it will have a most corrosive effect, for it will inevitably lead to political favoritism. Our present merit system will then return to the old spoils system.

At a time when the American people already hold their Government in such low esteem, any action by Congress which would further lower the people's confidence in that Government would be a grave disservice to the Nation. We must preserve the nonpartisan integrity and impartiality of the public service and its employees. R.R. 8617 would do just the opposite and should be defeated.

I want to commend and pay tribute at this ·time to the various agencies and organizations which are opposing H.R. 8617. Their enlightened opposition to this bill deserves our praise and encouragement. Among these groups are: the U.S. Civil Service Commission, National Federation of Federal Employees, Comptroller General, Office of Management and Budget, Internal Revenue Service, National Civil Service League, Federal Executive Institute Alumni Association, Organization of Professional Employees of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Standing Committee on Public Management and Machinery of Government of the National Academy of Public Administration, the U.S. Postal Service. _

The Nation's press has been most helpful in focusing the spotlight on the legis-


Iative efforts to scuttle the Hatch Act. Numerous editorials have appeared in newspapers and magazines to oppose H.R. 8617. We who are on the :firing line of this battle deeply appreciate their support.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD-at the end of my remarks-the following materials in this order: a partial listing of agencies and organizations opposed to H.R. 8617; a partial listing of editorials and articles in opposition to H.R. 8617; a statement dated February 1976 captioned "H.R. 8617: A Bill to Scuttle the Hatch Act"; a number of editorials and articles on the Hatch Act which have appeared in the Nation's press; and the text of the minority views on H.R. 8617.


(See exhibit U Mr. FONG. In summary, I reiterate

that, to allow Federal employees virtually unlimited partisan political activity would:

First, be a great disservice to the 2.8 million Federal civil service employees;

Second, inevitably introduce partisan consideration into the administration of Federal programs;

Third, seriously undermine public confidence in the integrity of Government operations;

Fourth, compromise, in the public's eye, Federal employees who actively participate in partisan politics;

Fifth, detract from the efficient administration of the public business;

Sixth, make employees vulnerable to indirect and subtle influences and coercion to support political parties or individuals;

Seventh, inject political consideration in promotions, decisions, job assignments, and similar actions;

Eighth, adversely affect employee morale and efficiency;

Ninth, step backward 70 years to 1907 before President Roosevelt barred political management and campaigning of Federal employees;

Tenth, eventually emasculate the Hatch Act;

Eleventh, eventually return to the spoils system; and

Twelfth, ultimately destroy the merit system in the Federal Government.

Mr. FONG. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

EXHIBIT 1 PARTIAL LISTING OF AGENCIES AND ORGANIZA

TIONS OPPOSED TO H.R. 8617, FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' POLITICAL ACTIVITIES BILL

U. S. Civil Service Commission, National Federation of Federal Employees, Comptroller General, Office of Management and Budget, Internal Revenue Service, National Civil Service League, Federal Executive Institute Alumni Asso

ciation, Organization of Professional Employees of

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Standing Committee on Public Manage

ment and Machinery of Government, National Academy of Public Administration,

U.S. Postal Service.

PARTIAL LISTING OF EDITORIALS AND ARTICLES IN OPPOSITION TO H.B,. 8617, FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' POLITICAL ACTIVITIES Bn.L

"Potential Flaw Shown 1n Hatch Proposal", by John Cramer, from the Washington Star, November 10, 1975.

"Crippling the Hatch Act?", by Kevin P. Phillips, from King Features Syndicate, October 1, 1975.

"Downing the Hatch Act", editorial from the Washington Star, October 23, 1975.

"Second Class Nonsense" by Howard Flleger, from U. S. News & World Report, September 22, 1975.

"Keep the Hatch Act", editorial from the Richmond Va. Times-Dispatch, reprinted in the Christian Science Monitor, June 16, 1975.

"Save the Hatch Act", editorial from the Chicago Tribune, August 1, 1975.

"Will the 'Reformers' Unhatch Hatch Act?" by Michael Kilian, from the Chicago Tribune, October 14, 1975.

"Hatching Trouble", by Nat Kelly, from Roll Call, November 6, 1975.

"Easing the Hatch Act and Promotion Politics" by Joseph Young, from the Washing Star, December 16, 1975.

··rt Is Up to the Senate to Save the Hatch Act", editorial from the Philadelphia Inquirer, February 22, 1976.

"The Hatch Act Hurdle," editorial from the St. Louis Globe-Democrat, December 30, 1975.

H.R. 8617: A BILL To SCUTTLE THE HATCH ACT

The proper regulation of government employees' political activities has been a sub-:ject of debate since the meeting of the first Congress in 1791. The present Hatch Act was enacted in 1939 after a Senate investigation documented numerous cases of political coercion and the solicitation of financial contributions from public employees.

For the past 36 years, the Hatch Act has wisely restricted partisan political activities by employees in the Federal Civil Service merit system. Now, however, a strong drive-promoted primarily by big labor union leaders-is underway to pressure Congress to repeal the protective features of the Hatch Act.

H.R. 8617 was passed by the House of Representatives on October 21, by a vote of 288-119, 17 votes short of the total needed to sustain the anticipated veto. The bill is now before the Senate in almost the same version as passed by the House

PERMITTED ACTIVITIES UNDER THE CURRENT HATCH ACT

Federal employees are now permitted a wide range of activities. They may-

1. register and vote in any election; 2. express opinion as an individual pri

vately and publicly on political subjects and candidates, display a. political picture, sticker, badge or button;

3. make a. financial contribution to a political party or organization.

4. participate in the nonpartisan activities o! a civic, community, social, labor or professional organization, or of a similar organization;

5. be a member of a political party or other political organization and participate in its activities to the extent co11Sistent with law;

6. attend a political convention, rally, fund-raising function or other political gathering;

7. sign a political petition as an individual;

8. take an active part, as an independent candidate, or in support of an independent candidate, in a nonpartisan election. In specified municipalities having high concentrations of Federal employees ( 41 in Maryland, 11 in Virginia, 13 in other states) employees may be independent candidates for and

serve in elective office, and as independents may take an active part in political management and campaigns in connection with partisan elections for local offices of the municipality or political subdivision;

9. be politically active in connection with a question not specifically identified with a political party (constitutional amendment, referendum, etc.);

10. serve as an election judge or clerk or in a similar position to perform nonpartisan duties;

11. otherwise participate fully in public affairs, except as prohibited by law, in a manner which does not materially compromise efficiency or integrity of an employee or the neutrality, efficiency or integrity of the agency.

PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES UNDER THE CURRENT HATCH ACT

Federal employees may not--1. use official authority or influence for the

purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election;

2. take an active part in political management or in a political campaign of a. partisan candidate for public office or political party office;

3. serve as an officer of a political party, a member of a National, State or local committee of a political party, or an officer or member of a committee of a partisan political club, or be a candidate for any of these positions, organize or reorganize a political party organization or club;

4. directly or indirectly solicit, receive, collect, handle, disburse or account for assessments, contributions or other funds for a political organization;

5. organize, sell tickets to, promote or actively participate in a fund raising activity of a partisan candidate, political party or club;

6. become a partisan candidate for or cam.paign for an elective public office;

7. solicit votes in support of or in opposition to a partisan candidate for public office o! political party office;

8. act as recorder, watcher, challenger, or similar officer at the polls on behalf of a political party or partisan candidate, drive voters to the polls on behalf of a. political party or partisan candidate;

9. endorse or oppose a partisan candidate for public office or political party office in a political advertisement, a broadcast, campaign literature or similar material;

10. address a convention, caucus, rally or similar gathering of a political party in support of or in opposition to a parti&an candidat~ for public or political party office;

11. serve as a delegate, alternative or proxy to a political party convention;

12. initiate or circulate a partisan nominating petition.

(Source: Code of Federal Regulations, Title 5, Part 733.) IMPACT O? H .R. 8617 AS FASSED BY THE HOUSE

AND REPORTED BY SENATE COMMITTEE

The current provisions of the Hatch Actwhat employees may and may not do--are totally replaced by the provisions of this bill.

The new language specifies only what employees may not do, and allows all other political activities.

H.R. 8617 specifically prohibits a.n employee fron-i:

Using or attempting to use directly or indirectly official authority or influence-

To interfere with or affect the result of any election;

To intimidate, threat.en, coerce, comm.and or influence an individual to vote or not to vote in any election, to give or withhold any political contribution, or to engage in any form of political activity whether or not prohibited by law:

3816 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE Jlarch 9, 1916 Giving or offering a pollt1cal contribution

t-0 any individual either to vote or not to vote or to vote for or against any candida.te or measure in any election.

Soliciting, ac<:epting, or receiving a political contribution to vote or not to vote or to vote for or against any ca.ndida.te or measure.

Knowingly giving or handing over a political contribution to a. superior.

Knowingly soliciting, accepting or receiving a political contribution from a subordinate or in any room or building used for official. duties of a U.S. government employee or office-holder.

Engaging in political activity while on duty, while wearing uniform or official insignia, or in any room or building used for official government duties.

All other currently prohibited activities would be permitted under H.R. 8617 except for using official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the outcome of elections. Everything else now banned would be permitted-running for partisan office, managing election campaigns, fund raising, soliciting votes, endorsing candidates, addressing political gatherings and all other items listed above under current Hatch Act proh ibitions.

CANDIDATES' LEAVE

H.R. 8617 provides that employees who are candidates for full-time elective office mus1; take 90-da.ys leave with or without pay prior to the election. (Incumbent officials are exempted from this provision.)

COVERAGE

H.R. 8617 includes all Exec1.~tive agency employees, including President and Vice President, civil service, postal service. Excludes armed services. (President, Vice President, individuals paid from White House appropriations, paid from funds to enable the Vice President to assist the President, or on special assignment to the White House, D.C. Mayor and City Council a.re excluded. from the ban on pollt1cal activities while on duty or in official rooms or buildings.)

BOARD ON POLITICAL ACTIVITIES OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

A presidentially-appointed three-member, pa.rt-time board-instead of the Civil service Commission-ls established to hear and decide on alleged violations.

INVESTIGATIONS

The Civil Service Commission is required to Investigate reports and allegations of prohibited. activities (90-day time llmlt).

PENALTIES

The Boa.rd may impose penalties of dismissal from office, suspension without pay, or lesser penalties at its discretion, according to the nature of the actual violation. (Present penalty: dismissal or suspension for not less than 30 days).

EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM

Th e Civil Service Commission shall establish and conduct a continuing program to inform all employees of their political rights a.nd of prohibited activities.

Each employee shall be informed individually 1n writing at least once a year but not later than 60 days before the earliest primary or general election for State or Federal electi've office.

(From the Philadelphia Inquirer, Feb. 22, 1976]

IT Is UP TO THE SENATE To SAVE T HE fuTCR ACT

For more than 35 years, the main categories of federal government employes-now numbering almost 3 milllon-have been protected from political exploitation by a law known as the Hatch Act. The taxpayers of the u. s. have been, coincidentally, spared the burdens of the sort of patronage abuses

which the Hatch Act has prevented. All that is in peril.

The Hatch Act is no simple measure; it wasn't when it was drafted and fought through legislative thickets by reform Sen. Carl Hatch in 1940; it ts less so today, having been compounded and elaborated. by some 3,000 1·egulations and administrative 1·U1ings.

But the heart of the law is uncomplicated, and it is strong. It prohibits federal civil servants from managing or running in partisan political campaigns. It thus, more importantly, prevents those civil servants' bosses from requiring such behavlor as an implicit condition of employment, promotion or other favors or conveniences.

Since its inception, the Hatch Act and its principle have been attacked vigorously. The strongest current force arrayed against it is the labor movement--which long has argued that the Hatch Act interferes with federal employes' freedom of speech and association.

Led on by that spurious cry-and by the inviting prospect of instant recruitment of 3 million political patronage workers-the House of Representatives last October passed a bill, H.R. 8617, which would end the Hatch Act protections.

The bill's proponents argue mightily that it is not really a repeal of the Hatch Act at all, but a sort of benevolent reform measure which would give affected civil servants the freedom to "express themselves" politically, while relying on new "prohibitions" against political exploitation.

Nonsense. H.R. 8617 would, purely and simply, make federal civil servants direct political participants, for the first time in more than 35 years. And anyone who argues that once it is permissible for them to politic, moneyraise and otherwise labor in the electioneering vineyards that somehow their bosses won't ask them to--well, anyone who argues that to you is blowing smoke up your leg.

To its discredit the Senate Post Office and Civil Service Committee has sent to the Senate floor a bill virtually identical to H.R. 8617. If it passes, and there is great pressure being brought for Just that, lt would be the end of the Hatch Act-and the beginning of a patronage system unimagined since Ulysses S. Grant's more power-lustful dreams.

[From the St. Louis Globe-Democrat, Dec. 30, 1975]

THE HATCH ACT HURDLE

On the heels of bis recent veto tussles, President Ford faces another major clash with Congress over the attempt to scuttle the Hatch Act, which has kept federal employes out of partisan politics since its enactment in 1939.

Last October the House defied Administration opposition to changing the law and passed amendments by a commanding vote of 288 to 119. The senate ts expected to follow through early ln the new year. Thus the stage will be set for another epic confrontation between Congress and the White House.

Again organized labor bosses, but by no means independent government unions, are behind the drive to weaken the present law.

Chief sponsor of the House bill to water down the Hatch Act was St. Louisan William L. Clay, whose own use of federal employes has been under scrutiny. While Clay claims his bill is "a milestone in achieving fUll and complete suffrage for federal employes," spokesmen for large blocs of federal workers do not see it that way.

Robert L. White, president of the National Alliance of Postal and Federal Employes, fears that lifting restrictions on political activity will result in job discrimination. "Speaking as the head of a black union," said Whit e, "we have to be careful about

.removing any restrictions that might bring about any more discrimination."

Na.tan T. Wolkomlr, president of the National Fede1·at1on of Federal Employes, predicts "a terrific influx of abuses" if the Hatch Act is discarded. He sees the push for passage from organized labor as "nothing more than the old AFL-CIO pitch for muscle and power."

The final version of the bill th.at is expected to pass the Senate and go to the President would permit nearly 2.8 million civil service employes to be active in party politics, thereby exposing them to pressures from all sides.

It would permit federal employes to run for fu11-time elective office. While the original Clay proposal would have allowed government workers to run for public office without taking unpaid leave from their Jobs, it is anticipated that the final version would require any such prospective candidates to take leave 90 days before any elections in which they were involved.

The liberaUzed bill would permit federal workers to campaign actively in behalf of party-backed candidates, while presumably banning them from politicking during working hours or on government property.

The abuses that would be opened up under such an arrangement are impossible to enumerate. Complaints of too much politicking by government workers led to the passage of the Hatch Act in 1939, and for good reason.

The Civil Service Commission is strongly opposed to changing the law, arguing correctly that corruption cannot be prevented, once the doors to political activity are opened.

The public needs to be protected from the ever-constant danger that government employes would be intimidated Into lending their time and support to candidates their bosses favored.

If the Hatch Act is diluted there can be no assurances that promotions and jobs will not be dependent upon the recipient backing the right political horse.

If the Senate acts as expected, President Ford will be on a collision course again With the forces of big union bosses and a con:. gress that has become subservient to them.

President Ford, facing this hurdle in an election year, Will have no choice but to exercise his veto. The country cannot afford a return to the worst days of corn1ption in government by invitation.

[I'rom the Washington Star, Oct. 23, 1975 J DOWNING THE HATCH ACT

To hear some congressmen and union leaders tell it, there ls great wailing and gnashing of teeth among federal employes over the constraints of the Hatch Act. Unfortunately, a majority of the House has bought the argument that these downtrodden workers must be liberated.

Before this thing goes further, we wish a referendum could be taken among the some 2.5 million federal workers on how they really feel about the Hatch Act. We have no doubt that an overwhelming majority would tell their would-be "liberators" to leave them and the Hatch Act alone.

The Hatch Act was enacted in 1939 to protect federal workers from political coercion and to prevent the federal service from becoming a political machine. Besides making it illegal to use "official authority or influence to coerce the political action" of federal employes, it bars the employes from soliciting camf)aign funds from other federal workers, irom using their omces for political purposes, from taking an active part In partisan campaign management and from running for office on a partisan ticket.

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the act in 1973. The court said

March 9, 1916 CO.c GRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 5817

it agreed with Congress "that the rapidly expanding government work force should not be employed to build a powerful tnvlnclble and perhaps corrupt political machine."

"The 1936 and 1938 campaigns convinced Congress," the court said, "that these dan· gers were sufflclently real that substantial barriers should be raised against the party in power-or the party out of power, Sor that matter-using the thousands or hundreds of thousands of federal employes, paid for at public expense, to man Its political structure and polltlcal campaigns:• Since then the thousands of federal employes have become millions and the effect of turning such a multitude Into a political machine would be even more far reaching.

Who ts behind this plan to un-Hatch the Federal workers? No doubt some of its sponsors 1n Congress truly feel that public employes are "second-class" citizens being denied the opportunity to participate more fully ln the political process. But the main thrust 18 coming from union leaders, who feel that the Hatch Act hampers their efforts to turn the federal bureaucracy into a giant union, and who want to use the federal work force to further the political aims of union leadership.

Removing Hatch Act restrictions against political activity is a major goal of the AFLCIO, whose lobbyists were buttonholing representatives outside the chamber the other day before the House voted 288-119 for a wholesale watering down of the act.

We hope the Senate will see the folly of returning the federal service to a "spoils" system. Surely members of Congress are aware that there is no groundswell among federal workers to get rid of the protection the Hatch Act provides them.

[Prom U.S. News & World Report, Sept. 22, 1975]

SECO!.'D-CLASS NONSENSE

(By Howa1·d Flieger) As often occurs before a presidential elec

tion campaign, Congress is being asked to repeal, or soften, the Hatch Act.

In case you've forgotten, that is a law making it illegal for Government employes to take an active role in political campaigns, to ring doorbells, raise money or rally support for any party or candidate.

Advocates of repeal-they include politically active unions--claim now, as they have in the pa.st, that the Act, which dates back to 1939, puts strictures on the freedom o! federal employes; that it relegates them to the status o! second-class citizens.

This ls pl.a.in nonsense. Government workers have the same right

to register and vote as anyone else has. They are free to express their political pref

erences and to support the candidate of their choice with cash if they want.

They can be-and usually a1·e-as politically minded and outspoken as the next person. Their franchise is unfettered. Anyone who thinks there is no politicking among Civil Service employes is naive.

Nobody argues that the Hatch Act is perfect. But it does effectively prevent t,hat ,vhich it was designed to prevent: It makes certain that no candidate or party can convert the huge federal bureaucracy into a political machine.

The Act has sheltered the rank and file from any spoils system of patronage rewards for the party faithful. No office holder can go through the Government hiring and firing at will on the basis of politics. No one can tell Civil Service employes how to vote and keep them in line with threats of payda.y reprisals.

They cannot be coerced into party work. They cannot perform the nut.s-and-bolts fobs o! a campaign such as soliciting funds, ma.nning headquarters telephones or serving

CXXII--368-Part 5

as chauffeurs to ferry voters to the polls on behalf of any ticket.

Does this make them second-class citizens? Hardly. The odds are tha.t those publlc servants who are sincerely interested ln Government performance-and that means the vast majority of them-welcome the shield that stands between them and party affairs.

It was a fear the federal payrolls would be used to perpetuate political control that produced the law in the first place.

The U .s. Supreme Court, in upholding the constitutionality of the Hatch Act two years ago, said Congress had concluded when it passed the original "that the rapidly expanding Government work force should not be employed to build a powerful, invincible and perhaps corrupt political machine.

"The experience of the 1936 and 1938 campaigns convinced Congress that these dangers were sufficiently real that substantial barriers should be raised against the party in poweror the party out of power, for that m.atterusing the thousands of hundreds of thousands of federal employes, paid for at public expense, to man its political stntcture and political campaigns.

"A related concern, a.nd this remains as important as any other, was to further serve the goal that employment and advancement in the Government service not depend on political performance, and at the same tlme to make sure that Government employes would be free from pressure and from express or tacit invitation to vote in a certain way or perform political chores in order to curry favor with their superiors rather than to act out of their own beliefs."

Congress felt safeguards against politicizing the bureaucracy were prudent back when federal employes were counted in "the hundreds of thousands."

It is difficult to follow the reasoning of those who argue such insurance 1s no longer needed-now that the number of Govemment workers (not counting the military) has grown to more than 2.5 million.

[From the Richmond {Va.) Time -Di5patch June 16, 1975]

KEEP THE HATCH ACT

Federal employee unions, already enjoying the muscle power of growing membership and increased militancy, have set their stghts on a new power goal: repeal of the Hatch Act.

The Hatch Act, pas ed by Congress in 1939, prohibits federal workers from actively participating in partisan politics, such as running for political office ( except as an independent), campaigning for a political candidate or raising money for a political party. It does not prevent an employee from voting, expressing his political opinions both privately and publicly, contributing money to a political campaign, or displaying a political picture, sticker, badge or button.

But the public employe unions, and their supporters in congress, are not satisfied with the law now on the books. They want federal workers to be able to jump headlong into partisan politics and to use their formidable power to get into office the candidates o! their choosing.

The danger in repeal is not all from below-that is, from the worker level. A major purpose of the passage of the Hatch Act was to thwart government officials !rom bringing political pressure on government employes.

The ~IO is putting its brawn behind Hatch Act repeal, but Nathan T. Wolkomlr, president of the relatively small (118,000 members) National Federation of Federal Employes, sees the threat that repeal would bring. Referring to the alleged plan by Frederic V. Malek, an aide to former President Richard Nixon, to politicize the civil service, Wolkomir told a congressional committee thu t repeal would open the bureaucracy to

•a terrlfic tnfl.ux of abuses. It would end up with what I call a Frederic Malek-type takeover o! the federal government through political pressures." He declared that the AF.L-CIO's effort for repeal •,a nothing more than the old AFL-CIO pitch for muscle and power.'•

Letter carriers, who, along with otl:er postal workers, a.re in the forefront of the repeal fight, unsuccessfully challenged the Hatch Act in a case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 28, 1973. The court, with the three-man liberal bloc dissenting, upheld the law as an entirely constitutional congressional act ....

One reason for enactment of the Hatch Act in 1939, the Supreme Court said, "was the conviction that the rapidly expanding gov· emment work force should not be employed to build a powerful, invincible and perhap~ corrupt political machine. The experience of the 1936 and 1938 campaigns convinced Congress that these dangers were sufficiently real that substantial barriers should be raj,sed against the party in power--or the party out of power for that matter-using the thousands or hundreds of thousands of federal employes, paid for at public expense, to man its political structure and political campaigns."

So there are two excellent reasons for retaining the Hatch Act: (1) to protect the public from the possible virtual takeover of the government by federal employes, and (2) to protect the public from the political manipulation of the huge federal work force by Federal . officials.-Richmond (Virginia) Times' Dispatch.

.lINORITY VIEWS ON H.R. 8617 The legislation is labeled by its proponents

as a measure to "restore" the "rights" of Federal civll1an and Postal Service employees to participate in this nation·s "political pro"cesses.''

What it would in fact do, however, is to open up the entire Federal government to partisan politics by Federal employees and concentrate excessive political power ln the hands of their leaders. It would cripple and emasculate the Hatch Act-the cornerstone of the merit system-which has served this nation so well in banning partisan politics from the merit system and in shielding Civll Service workers from the pressures and threats of politicians.

H.R. 8617 is a giant step backward. If enacted, it will have a most corrosive and erosive effect for it will inevitably lead to political favoritism. Our present merit system will then return to the spoils system of the pre-Hatch Act period.

At a time when the American people -al-. ready hold their government in such lo~ esteem, any action by the Congress which would further lower the people's confidence in that government would be a grave disservice to the nation. We must strive to prese1·ve the nonpartisan integrity and impartiality of the public service and its employees. H.R. 8617 would do just the opposite and should be defeated.

WHY THE Hz\TCH ACT WAS ENACTED

The Hatch Act was enacted into law in 1939 amidst a climate of political corruption in the Federal workforce. Under the New Deal, the Works Progress Administration (WPA) funded wholly or partially over a million public works jobs in areas of high unemployment. Public indignation grew over reports of widespread financial solicitation by Democratic Party officials from WPA workers as a condition of continued WPA employment, salary advancement, and favorable job assignment.

As a. result of these allegations of political corruption, the Senate created a special investigating committee headed by Senator l\Iorris Sheppard of Texas. The Sheppard

5818 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENA TE March 9, 1976 Committee's report of January 3, 1939, contained numerous documented cases of political coercion that occurred in 10 states. Committee investigators obtained affidavits from WPA workers which showed extensive solicitation of financial contributions from WPA workers by WPA supervisors closely associated with local political organizations which, in turn, were affiliated with the National Democratic Party.

Continued employment on WPA projects, as well as promotions and favorable work assignments, were often contingent upon direct financial contributions to local pa1·ty organizations or the purchase of tickets to various fund-raising functions.

In Kentucky, for example, the committee found that $70,000 bad been raised for the Governor's campaign from State employees whose salaries had been partly or wholly derived from funds pa.id by the U.S. 'ITeasury, and that $24,000 had been raised for a Senator's campaign from WPA employees and from other State employees receiving Federal money.

The committee found particular abuses by administrative personnel in the WPA in Kentucky; specifically, they had made a systematic canvass of certified WPA workers, that workers had been hired and fired on the basis of political affiliation, and that WPA worke1·s had been solicited for political contributions.

Based on these findings, the Sheppard Committee recommended that Congress pass legislation to prohibit the political coercion of all Federal employees. The spectacular evidence of patronage politics prompted Congress to respond quickly and the Hatch Act was enacted in the same year.

HATCH ACT ASSUP.ES IMPARTIAL GOVERNMENT

The law was designed to protect Federal employees from being coerced to participate in partisan political activity such as fund raiSing, campaigning, and soliciting votes. Further, the statute made it illegal to use "official authority or influence to coerce the political action" of Federal employees. Federal employees were insulated from becoming pawns of any political party, thus insuring that the laws of the land would be administered impartially by employees who owed their appointments and tenure in the Federal Government only to the merit system and not to any partisan political party.

This was the purpose and intent of the law. It has served both employees and the public well.

HATCH ACT IS MORE NEEDED TODAY

Now, 36 years later, proponents of H.R. 8617 seek to remove these time-tested protections of Federal employees. We in the Congress are being asked to ignore the sordid political past which prompted the enactment of the original law.

This is a mistake. The proponents of this wholesale change in the law argue that times ha.ve changed since 1939, that employees are more sophisticated, and, therefore, repeal of the important Hatch Act provisions is necessary:

Times have changed-but let us examine to what extent they have changed.

For example, it is estimated that in 1939, there were 920,000 Federal employees as opposed to 2.8 million today; the total budget in 1940 was $9.5 billion as opposed to $324 billion in 1975; public assistance-welfare and government payment to individualstotaled $1.5 billion in 1940 while the estimate in 1975 is close t-0 $147 billion; and the average salary of a Federal employee in 1939 was $1,871 as opposed to $14,480 today.

Indeed, times have changed. The Federal government is vastly larger than it was in 1939 when the Hatch Act became law-it employs three times more workers and has a budget 34 times larger. Accordingly, the potential for abuses in the Civil Service merit

system ls far greater today than it was 36 years ago.

The question is, has human behavior changed to the extent that employees are no longer vulnerable to coercion--subtle or otherwise-from ambitious partisan political employees who hold important positions 1D government We do not think so. In fact, the Hatch Act is more necessary today than when it was first enacted into law.

LEGISLATION WILL NOT STOP COERCION

If Federal employees have become more sophisticated since the 1930's, they have also become more cynical. In 1967, a full 25 percent flatly told the Survey Research Center of the University of Michigan-an impartial, widely respected professional organizationthat they would not report the illegal activities of coworkers or supervisors.

In an increasingly sophisticated and cynical post-Watergate atmosphere, it becomes more and more unlikely that such subtle political activities as indirect coercion of employees will be reported.

Though a. few union leaders boasted in House subcommittee hearings this year that their organizations could combat coercion in the public sector as successfully as it has been done in the private sector, subtle coercion is extremely difficult to prove. It is unlikely that even the most strenuous of union efforts would curb indh·ect coercion-the subtle pressure that any Federal employee would inevitably feel were his supervisor a politician. Furthermore, unions would not be able to assist the hundreds of thousands of Federal employees who are not union members. Thus, Federal employees, stripped of their protection, will be "sitting ducks."

RANK AND FILE OPPOSE CHANGE

The impetus for this bill does not come from Federal employees themselves, who will lose most by the passage of this bill.

Given a choice between the Hatch Act and H .R. 8617, employees would prefer the Hatch Act. Congressmen representing the nation's second and third largest civil servant constituencies report that their own surveys and mail show an overwhelming proportion of the rank and file Civil Service employees do not want the bill. Of 20,000 individuals who responded to a questionnaire which Representative Joseph L. Fisher (D.-Va.) mailed to his Northern Virginia constituents (including one-third to 40 percent who were civil servants), 59 percent expressed opposition to any change In the Hatch Act. His mail indicated that Civil Service employees who wanted the status quo outnumbered others eight or ten to one. ·

Representative Gilbert Gude (R.-Md.) told the Senate Post Office and Civil Service Committee: "I think his (Congressman Fisher's) poll clearly shows what I felt was the ca.se in my district and what I think is the c~e generally with Civil Service employees across the country."

Still another House Member, Representative Elizabeth Holtzman (D.-N.Y.), said the results of a questionnaire she sent to her constituents showed the vote was two to one against weakening the Hatch Act. "I think that my constituents accurately perceive the need for continued protection to the public and the Federal Civil Service afforded by much of the Hatch Act," she commented. Her incisive remarks on H.R. 8617 ( Congressional Record, November 18, 1975, Pages 37067-68) underscore the dangers in partisan political activities if engaged in by Federal employees.

Clayton Jones, President of the Federal Executive Institute Alumni Association, reporting on the results of his organization's questionnaire, said that out of 3,000 career Civil Service employees who were polled by mail, only two individuals expressed support for legislation to change the Hatch Act.

In its 1967 study, the Survey Research Center of the University of Michigan found

strong sent iment among Federal employees for keeping the Hatch Act unchanged. In surveying the attitudes of Federal employees toward the Hatch Act, 14 categories of responses were allowed. The category which ranked number one with the highest response was: "The Hatch Act should remain as iS; do not favor changes." Obviously, Civil Service employees do not want to throw out the present Hatch Act.

Joseph Young, the veteran columnist of the Washington Star who has covered the "government beat" for more than 25 years, made this observation:

"Federal and postal employe union leaders are all in favor of overhauling the law restricting the political activities of government workers, but it's doubtful that most employes are.

"The unions favor overhaul because it would increase their clout with Congress and the political party in power in the White House.

"But it would mean the end of the merit system as we know it today.

"The attacks on the merit system that occurred during the Nixon adminiStra.tion would be mere child's play compared to what would happen if the Hatch Act were radically changed."

Nathan T. Wolkomir, President of the largest independent union of career employees-the widely respected National Federation of Federal Employees--said:

"There is no question in my mind that this a further attempt by the AFL--CIO to have terrific political impact on the Hill."

And John Mccart, head of the AFL-CIO's public-employee section, agrees:

"I suppose that to the extent we make our people more aware of the political process, you could say that we could acquire more political clout. But what's wrong with that? Our union's whole history is related to politics."

And so, if the AFL--CIO has its way, union will soon be engaged in exacting political favors from union members in the Federal service.

Our Nation's history, though, shows that "politics" should have no place in the impartial adminiStration of Federal laws-no place in the Civil Service-regardless of the AFL-CIO desire to open the public service to unrestricted political activity.

Employees do not want this or any other change in the Hatch Act. Mr. Wolkomir testified that his union, the NFFE, conducted a poll of its members which showed 89 percent expressing strong support for continuing the Act "as is." In its 1974 convention, NFFE unanimously adopted a resolution "that the NFFE continue to vigorously oppose efforts to weaken the protection provided by the Hatch Act. EVEN THE PRESENT PROVISIONS ARE VIOLA'IED

If the incentive to engage in abuses of the merit system were sufficiently great, even the most stringent enforcement mechanism conceivably would not deter such abuses. Even in the absence of powerful incentives, some abuses of the merit system appear inevitable.

More than a few witnesses testifying before the House panel considered this legislation, complained of discrimination in appointments and promotions, discrimination against minorities, and favoritism toward members of fraternal organizations. Since these witnesses were for the most part responsible individuals, elected to posts of some importance, their statements cannot be dismissed as puffery or paranoia. The conclusion that m.ust be drawn is that there is some abuse of the merit system.

Even the Hatch Act, with its sweeping proscriptions against political activity and its stiff mandatory penalties, is persistently violated. ~

A Hatch Act violation which made the front pages in 1971 was the case of six offi-

lvlarch 9, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENA TE 5819

clals of the General Services Admlnlstra.tlon who were charged with sollciting subordinates to buy tickets to a. "Salute to the President Dinner." The Civll Service commission found the six, all Civil Service employees, had violated the Hatch Act.

The Survey Research Center found that at least 1.5 percent of all Federal employees have been asked by their supervisors to contribute money to political campaigns, while another 1.2 percent have been requested to participate in political activities in violation of the law.

Some would claim this P.vidence demonstrates that the Hatch Act prohibitions against partisan politicking are not working and should be repealed. Little thought ls needed to see that repeal would only worsen the situation. Repeal the prohibitions and abuses becomes more profitable; if !t is more profitable, more abuses will follow.

FEDERAL WORKERS NOT "SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS"

Proponents of H.R. 8617 have advanced the specious claim that the Hatch Act reduces Federal employe'es to t.he status of "second-class citizens," depriving them of their First Amendment rights of free speech and free association.

The right to participate in political activities ls not, and Il'ever has been, absolute. In U.S. Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers, the Supreme Court recently sustained the constitutionality of that provision in title 5, United States Code, which prohibits Federal employees from taking an active part in political management or in political campaigns, the very provision H.R. 8617 would rep·eal.

The Court held that: "A major thesis of the Hatch Act is that

to serve this great end of government--the impartial execution of the laws--it is essential that Federal employees not, for eXAIDple, take formal positions in political parties, not undertake to play substantial roles in partisan political campaigns and not run for office on partisan political tickets. Forbidding activities like these wm reduce the hazards to fa.Ir and effective government.

"There is another consideration in this judgment: It is not only important that the government a.nd its employees in fa.ct avoid practicing political justice, but it is also critical tha.t they appear to the public to be a voiding it, if confidence in the system of representative government is not to be eroded to a. disastrous extent.··

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held tha.t the interests of society must be balanced against the interests of the individual. In this case, it is reasonable, and the lesson of history shows it is necessary, to curtail the political activities of Federal employees in the interests of society and also in the interests of employees. The Fisher poll shows that Federal employees know this. Impartial administration of the law without regard to personal convictions or political affiliations is required for a fair and efficient government.

Even if intensive involvement in politics does not taint an employee's administration ot the law (an unlikely situation), it would certainly taint the public's perception of government affairs. More than a few citizens, one suspects, would be less willing to comply voluntarily ·with Internal Revenue Service regulations, were the Regional Director of the Revenue Service also the manager of a. governor's campaign.

Moreover, the interests of the vast majority of Federal employees, those with no burning desire to become involved in partisan affairs, seem to require that restraints be placed upon the ambitions of their more politically inclined co-workers.

POLrrtCAL RIGHTS OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

Nor are the First Amendment rights of Federal employees impaired. While there are

prohibited activities under the Hatch Act, there are at least as many permissible activities. An employee may register and vote in any election; express his opinion privately and publicly on political subjects and candidates; display a political picture, sticker, badge, or button; participate in the nonpartisan activities of a civic, community, social, labor, or professional organization; be a member of a political party and participate in its activities to the extent consistent with the law; attend a polltical convention, rally, fund-raising function, or other political gathering, sign a petition as an individual; be politically active in connection with a. question not specifically identified with a political party, such as a constitutional amendment, referendum, approval of a municipal ordinance or any other question or issue of a similar character; and serve as an election judge or clerk, or in a slmllar position to perform nonpartisan duties as prescribed by State or local law.

In addition, the Civil Service Commission has determined that in certain municipalities in Maryland and Virginia. in the viclnlty of the District of Columbia, or a municipality in which the majority of voters are employed by the Government of the United States, it is in the domestic Interest of employees for them to participate in local elections. In these designated municipalities. an employee 1s permitted to run in a partisan election if he runs as an independent candidate.

Employees who reside in areas which do not qualify under the criteria above, may also run for public office and engage in political activity, but only in a nonpartisan election.

The Hatch Act does not deny a citizen his right to manage a political campaign or to run for partisan office. Nor does it deny the qualified citizen the privilege of a secure, well-paying post in the Civil Service. The act merely recognizes that one cannot administer the law impartially while advocating a partisan platform, that one has no inherent right under the Constitution to be a Federal employee and a political activist at the same time.

Nathan Wolkomir, President of the National Federation of Federal Employees, has capsuled the issue more bluntly:

"Claims that the Hatch Act makes "second-class citizens" of Federal employees ls just so much eyewash. Federal employees are not denied reasonable and appropriate participation in the political process. Oddly, many of those who moan most loudly about this moth-eaten cliche fail to exercise the basic and most elementary action of a citizen, namely, to register and vote."

Robert E. Hampton, Chairman of the U.S. Civil Service Commission, testified before the Senate Post Office and Civil Service Committee that a record number of people in recent yea.rs have expressed interest in Federal employment and most of them were well aware of the Hatch Act restrictions on the political activity if they accepted a Federal job. Evidently, these individuals don't think the Hatch Act makes them "second-class citizens," Chairman Hampton said, and the political restrictions are not a deterrent to their seeking Federal employment.

POST'\L WOF.KE!t VERSUS SEARS ROEBUCI<: EMPLOYEE

The question has been raised a to how a Postal employee differs from an employee of Sears Roebuck. Why should the political activity of the Postal employee be restricted while that of the Sears employee is not?

There ls a major difference between these two types of employees. Government employees, unlike private enterprise employees, are prominently identified with public programs and the impartial implementation of legislation which may have been bitterly contested by partisan forces. Briefly put, the Postal employee ( or any Government employee) is a

representative of the U.S. Government, not of a political party. His work is of major importance to all citizens.

The Postal employee in particular is the one government employee with whom many people in our country come into contact every day. He is the one who delivers the Social Security check; he ls t.he one who delivers bill payments to small businesses with a critical cash-flow; he ls the one who delivers the advertisements for one-day-only sales; he ls the one who delivers the polltical campaign advertisements for parties and candidates. In short, he ls a person who is intimately a.ware of a postal patron's interests and business.

He could, if partisan considerations were involved, engage in a form of coercion by "accidentally" delaying delivery of mall in a way which would benefit his candidate. For example, a political brochure "accidentally" delivered on November 5 is of no value to the candidate who malled it. And late delivery of a Social Security check can cause real hardship for those dependent upon its prompt arrival.

As set forth above, such actions would have a serious effect not only on the efficient delivery of the ma.ll but also on the public's perception of the manner in which government business ls conducted. The public servant would seem to be more an employee of a political party.

Indeed, a Philadelphia official of the National Association of Letter Carriers whose members, the official points out, deliver mail to every home in America, has been quoted as saying:

"Our people have the ability to meet and contact people that other people don't have. We could be effective if we were unshackled. We do some talking right now, but we're not supposed to."

The Sears employee, on the other hand, is an employee of a private, competitive business. The public does not pay his salary, does not expect him to be Impartial, does not look to him to execute public laws and programs, and does not depend on him for the many basic services which a.re now provided by the government. A dissatisfied Sears customer can always turn to another store.

In regard to government services, such as the Postal Service, however, the "customer" does not have a similar option. It is, therefore, inappropriate to compare a Postal em4 ployee with. an employee of a private, competitive busmess.

COERCION DIFFERS FROM DISCRIMINATION

Enforcement of the Hatch Act anticoercion provisions is an extremely difficult task and cannot in any way be compared with the enforcement of antldiscrimlnation laws.

Racism is ugly, a social toxin, universally condemned. Political participation is a virtue a social tonic, as prized by many American~ as racism ls abhorred. Discrimination ma.y be documented with the statistician's tools, eradicated with a sweeping directive. Coercion can be established only after exhaustive investigation and painstaking cross-examination, and must be eradicated case by case.

Too, coercion is a far more subtle thing. A vague remark, the wave of an arm, effusive praise, or its sudden absence, is sufficient to influence the activity of a Federal employee properly concerned with his own future. And who can fault him? He is aware that his supervisor, when making an appointment or transfer, may choose one of three equally qualified candidates. Under these circumstances, merit system abuse is almost impossible to establish. As one witness said: Substantiating charges of subtle coercion ls "like trying to put your finger on a greasy marble."

Who can demonstrate that one was selected because he contributed generously to a campaign the supervisor managed? That another was passed over because he had once sported a button touting the opposition? And if oue candidate for a promotion tells his super-

5820 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 9, 197'6 visor, when no one else can hear, that the increased salary will make it much easier for him to pitch in come election time, who will ever know?

Fifty-two percent of Federal employees interviewed by the Survey Research Center felt that "promotion decisions and job assignments would change if Federal employees were allowed to be more active in politics." Few who feel this way would dare attend a fund-raiser for the opposition party, if their supervisor happened to be the State party chairman. And many who ordinarily would not even contribute to a political party might seriously consider putting up posters or driving people to the polls, just to give their boss a hand.

And what about the employee whose union bolds one view, and pressures him to actively support it, while his supervisor holds a different view?

Ironically, enforcement of the law merely compounds the problem; if a supervisor who had abused the merit system was not successfully prosecuted, every employee who had ever entertained the notion that partisan activity counts would then be convinced that his darkest suspicions had been correct all along. PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF IMPARTIAL GOVERNMENT

Even if intensive involvement in politics does not taint a public employee's administration of the law, it would certainly taint the public's perception of government affairs.

Consider the public's perception of government affairs if the following Federal employees were engaged in partisan political activity. The illustrations were cited in t;11e Senate Post Office and Civil Service Committee hearings by Carl F. Goodman, General Counsel of the Civil Service Commission:

"A 'superior' is known to be actively campaigning for candidate X. One of his subordinates, who is generally known to be personally close to the superior, or who is known to be the superior's 'right-hand-man,• but is actually not a superior to the employees, approaches other employees in front of the building, or in a parking lot, or at t~e~ residences (H.R. 8617 prohibits fund sol!c1-tation in Federal buildings) and solicits contributions for candidate X.

"The solicited emplo3c:e must decide if it is expedient for them to contribute, being aware of the possibility that the superior may learn whether or not a contribution was made.

"They would also be aware that it would be extremely difficult, if not for all practical purposes impossible, to prove that any particular employee is promoted or passed over for promotion because he made a political contribution, or failed to.

"There is no evidence to indicate that the superior instructed or even suggested to the subordinate that contributions should be solicited • • * unlikely that such evidence could be obtained."

• • • * "' "An employee is aware of a vacancy whic:11

would be a promotion for him. He also is aware that the person who will make the selection is actively supporting a particular candidate. Add to that the fact that another employee who will be in competition for the vacancy is also working actively on behalf of the same candidate.

"Our first employee must now make a decision with respect to his own activity. Can he really afford not to also campaign for that candidate? Or can he afford to exercise his 'right' of choice by actively campaigning for the opposition?

"What is at play here is internal coercionthe employee is caught between the proverbial rock and the hard place.

"Today he need not be concerned about

making this no-win choice-he fs hatched; he is protected."

• * "How about the employee engaged in political management who suddenly finds that the opposition candidate is his boss; or worse yet that the candidate he just successfully helped defeat now is boss and is responsible for his promotions, work assignments, leave, etc.?

"Are all political activists of such pure heart that they can and will completely overlook the fact that subordinates deprived them of elective offices they worked so hard to obtain?"

Still more illustrations can be offered: If the General Counsel of the Civil Serv

ice Commission were known to be an active campaigner and fund-raiser for a political party, who would believe his report as to that party's abuse of the merit system?

What would be the public reaction to an Internal Revenue Service agent who investigates tax fraud, and in the same community solicits campaign funds so he or a friend can run for office?

The Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service in testimony before the Senate Committee, stated:

"I think the American people would quickly lose confidence in the integrity of an internal revenue system which permitted its employees to be avid political partisans one day and expect them to be perceived the next as wholly non-partisan by both political friends and foes."

The list could go on endlessly: the Federal Prosecutor handling fraud cases; the farm agent distributing cash assistance; the Small Business Administration employees approving or rejecting a loan; the contracting officer and the grant officer whose dayto-day decisions are so very important.

In the Executive Branch as a whole, the public's perception of the equitable, impartial, non-partisan integrity of the system is of major importance.

THE LESSON FROM WATERGATE

Representative Elizabeth Holtzman has emphasized,

"If there is one lesson we should have learned from Watergate, it is that we must strive to reduce, rather th9.n increase, political influence in the Federal law enforcement and investigative agencies. This bill would, instead, authorize and invite the politicizing of the Justice Department, FBI, U.S. Attorney's Offices and Internal Revenue Service, as well as the CIA, National Security Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency. The dangers are two-fold: that law enforcement and investigative powers will be used to serve political ends, and that law enforcement and investigative offices, which should be wholly merit operations, will instead return to the spoils system. In addition, the administration of justice must not only be free of political influence in fact; it must be perceived as fair and impartial as well."

It is significant that in its final report in June, 1974, the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities-the Senate Watergate Committee-recommended that Congress amend the Hatch Act to place all Justice Department officials-including the Attorney General-under its purview. At present, certain Justice Department officials are exempt from Hatch Act coverage. The Watergate committee, however, stated it believes that all Justice Department officials should administer the nation's laws totally removed from all political considerations.

The Watergate Committee's recommendation to extend the Hatch Act to all Justice Department employees, including the Attorney General, is also in the report of the Wat ergate Special Prosecution Force . issued

in October 1975. Deputy Attorney General Harold R. Tyler, Jr., said such an action would add "a certain amount of public confidence."

FALLACIOUS COMPARISON WITH OTHER COUNTRIES

Proponents of H .R. 8617 assert that the United States is the only free world country to so severely restrict the political activities of its government employees.

But compared to Japan, which prohibits all forms of political activity and political expression, with the single exception of the vote, the United States is a paragon of liberalism and tolerance. As one might expect , for the past 30 years Japan has benefited from a strictly professional and scrupulously nonpartisan Civil Service, while the United States has had more than its share of blemishes, particularly at the State and local level.

We do not think the United States should restrict the political activities of its employees to the same degree as Japan. We are two different nations, with different governments, histories, cultures, customs, and legal codes.

If the Civil Service laws of Japan should not serve as a model for the United States, neither should those of Britain, Germany, Canada, France, or any other i:.ation. Aside from the obvious historical differences, our system of checks and balances is fundamentally different from other countries.

Though the differences between the United States and other free world nations are many, the most significant, for our purposes, is this: for every administrative office filled by a political appointee in other countries, dozens are filled with appointees in the United States. This is no fl.aw in our system of government, but a necessity. The will of the nation, as interpreted by the Chief Executive, could not otherwise be translated into action. But political appointees can undermine the administration of the law as well as promote it, if the partisan pressures they inevitably exert result in the politicization of the Civil Service. No other nation possessing Civil Service is susceptible to this risk.

MAKING THE HATCH ACT CLEARER

Some critics claim that the Hatch Act, which incorporates into stat•1.te over 3,000 administrative decisions, is vague and overbroad. The answer to this criticism is that the Federal employee who is determined to participate in politics to the extent permitted by law does not have to spend his weekends in the darkened aisles of vast law libraries, paging through volume after volume of musty Civil Service reports. All the work has been done for him.

Commission determination are summarized in the Civil Service Regulations, which list 13 permissible and 13 prohibited activities in clear, comprehensible language.

If the regulations are themselves indecipherable-and in the opinion of the Supreme Court, they are not--the appropriate prescription is an editor's pen, not H.R. 8617. .

If an employee is worried that the activity he would like to engage in may be prohibited by the Hatch Act, he can obtain advice from the Information Office of the Civil Service Commission and remove the last traces of doubt as to the legality of his action.

Since the regulations are, in fact, widely distributed and reasonably clear, it is unlikely that many employees refrain from participating in permissible activities because they fear running afoul of the law.

mONY OF H.R. 8617

It seems ironic that in the present postWaterga.t e at mosphere, some Members of

1V.larch 9, 197'6 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 5821 ' Congress are urging prosecution of violations of the merit system, while they are, at the same time, urging repeal of the Hatch Act, thereby inviting untold abuses of the merit system. This bill can only heighten the public cynicism toward our institutions.

In recent weeks, concern has been voiced by some Congressional critics that the nomination of a politically experienced official to a sensitive agency might "politicize" that agency. How ironic, therefore, if these same critics now remain silent when a. bill like H.R. 8617 threatens to politicize not one agency but the entire Federal government with its 2.8 million Civil Service and Postal Service employees.

Although only a handful of Federal employees would seek to become involved in partisan affairs, if H.R. 8617 becomes law, all will be subjected to the subtle coercive forces that would be unleased. In the minds of many employees, there is little doubt that such coercive forces would exist.

When asked by the Survey Research Center of the University of Michigan whether repeal of the Hatch Act would "change things like job appointment and job promotion," a majority replied in the affirmative. And every citizen in the country would suffer if the politicization of the Civil Service leads to a deterioration in the quality of service government can provide. Then America would be left with what Chairman Hampton of the Civil Service Commission has described as "a second-class Civil Service.''

H.R. 8617 SHOULD BE DEFEATED

This bill, if enacted, will be disastrous for the Federal employees, the Civil Service merit system, and the American public.

It will strip away the protection which the employees have enjoyed under the Hatch Act for the pa.st 36 yea.rs.

It will seriously damage the integrity of the merit system and the efficiency of the nonpartisan, independent Civil Service.

And it will be most unfair to the American people who will be saddled eventually with a second class Civil Service open to the evils of the old spoils system.

H.R. 8617 should be defeated. HmAM L. FONG. HENRY BELLMON.

Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Mr. President, I commend my distinguished friend from Hawaii for the remarks that he has made in opposition to the bill before us. This measure, in my opinion, is not in the interest of the Government or the interest of the Government employee. In fact, it appears to me, as the distinguished Senator from Hawaii has mentioned, to be a leap backward toward the spoils system which we have been attempting to eliminate over the pa-st century.

The Senate will recall that President Garfield was assassinated by a disappointed office seeker, and his successor, Chester A. Arthur, recommended legislation to establish a merit system.

As I recall, some additional steps were taken by Theodore Roosevelt while he ·was President and in recent years it has become the general policy of the Government to place as many non-policymaking jobs as possible under the merit system.

Frankly, I believe having political activists performing the day-to-day chores of the operation of the Government would further erode the confidence citizens have in our Government. In my opinion, Government employees want the protection provided by the civil service laws, including the Hatch Act. Although

the suggestion that civil service employees are second-class citizens has been alleged over a long period of years, it does not seem reasonable to me that the Congress can enact legislation whereby an employee can be protected in his employment and at the same time be permitted to engage in all phases of partisan political activity.

Moreover, if additional employees join labor organizations and questions of strikes by Government employees arise from time to time, we could be putting the Government in a position where labor leaders could exercise undue influence over policymaking in Government and even be able to shut down the operation of our Government. A bipartisan commission on political activities of Government personnel had hearings on this question in 1967 but I do not recall Congress taking any action on its general recommendations. I appeared and testified as a Congressman representing the nearby 8th District of Virginia. Later I polled citizens of my district to determine how they felt about permitting Federal employees to participate in partisan politics.

A majority of those responding indicated they favored participation at a local level but not at State or Federal levels. The question was asked, Should the Hatch Act be amended to permit Federal employees to participate in partisan politics: First, locally; second, at the State level; third, at the Federal level; and fourth, retain present law? Sixty-four percent favored participation locally, 45 percent at the State level, and only 31 percent at the Federal level, while 53 percent favored retaining the present law.

It would be my opinion, Mr. President, that this poll taken in 1969, still reflects the opinion of Government employees. I might add that the congressional district included part of Fairfax County, all of Prince William and Loudoun Counties in Virginia and a number of more rural counties. Yet, the district had a sizable nwnber of Federal employees working within the District of Columbia, Fort Belvoir, Quantico, and other nearby facilities.

It is my understanding that the four Senators representing the States adjoining our seat of Government-Maryland and Virginia-are opposed to the general provisions of this bill. We represent areas with large concentrations of Federal employees, and in opposing this proposal, in my opinion, we are acting both in the public interest and in the interest of Government employees.

The civil service employee is afforded protection because he is not a political activist and the Government does not suffer the loss of confidence it would have by having the day-to-day operation performed by partisans.

We all know, however, Mr. President, that the Federal employee can now vote in all elections, and, in fact, is encouraged to vote by being excused for a limited period of time from his official duties when necessary in order to do so. He can also discuss his political preference with his friends and neighbors.

This is a phrase that is used from time

to time, but I believe that in private conversations, a-s long as he is not on a soapbox, he can express his political point of view. In fact, he is able to participate in a wide variety of ways, but is not permitted to be a candidate for office, to manage a political campaign, or to make political speeches for or against candidates for political office. An exception is made, as I understand it, in the general Washington area where employees can be candidates for local office on a nonpartisan ba-sis and can support the Candidate of their choice. I also understand that the same course of action is permitted with the consent of the Civil Service Commission in areas throughout the country where a majority of the citizens are Federal employees.

This is a part of the present law I believe should be changed. When we permit an employee to seek office or to support candidates for local office on a nonpartisan basis, the candidates are opponents of other candidates seeking office under the Democrat or Republican banner. In effect, it creates a third party at the local level and in three-way races, candidates are elected who may not be the choice of a majority of the local people.

I believe it would be preferable to permit a Government employee to seek office as the nominee of one of the major parties and eliminate the fiction of nonpartisanship when, in fact, the non-partisans are the equivalent of a third political party.

Therefore, Mr. President, I have left at the desk a proposed amendment that will be offered at the proper time, and I ask that it be printed.


Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. This amendment would strike out all after the enacting clauses of the measure before us and to substittue a provision whereby Government employees can participate as partisans at the local level. This is in accord with the recommendation of the Commission on Political Activity of Government Personnel ref erred to above.

I am sure all of us want our Govern~ ment operated as efficiently as possible, giving due consideration to the welfare of Government employees but I believe, Mr. President, that this can be accomplished when the rank and file of the Federal workers are not active political partisans but career employees carrying out the decisions made at the policymaking level by elected officials or those appointed officials who share the basic political views and philosophy of those who appoint them.

It is often said that the Chief Executive of the country cannot control the vast governmental bureaucracy even when we have a merit system but his control would be much less effective if the rank and file of Government employees were active partisans who might or might not, at a given time, be a member of the same party or share the same philosophy as the party in control of the affairs of Government, those elected to govern.

I understand that should this measure

5822 CONG~SSIONAL _ _- RECORD-· SENNJ;E /Jf arch 9, -1976 pass. the President intends to vet.o it and I would urge him to do so because. in my opinion. it would jeopardize the efficient operation of Government. It is not in the public interest. or the interest of the employees themselves. ·

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, as of December 1975. the U.S. Federal civilian employees numbered 2,904,805. Almost 3 million individuals are prohibited from taking an active part in their Nation's political activities.

Almost 3 million American citizens are specifically prohibited from:

Serving as a member of a national, State, or local political party or club.

Soliciting, receiving, or handling funds for partisan political purposes.

Participating in fundraising activities. Taking an active part in a political

campaign. Becoming a partisan candidate for

elective office. Soliciting votes in support of. or ln

opposition to, a partisan candidate. Driving voters to the polls. Endorsing or opposing a partisan can

didate for public office. Serving as a delegate or alternative or

proxy at a party convention. Addressing a caucus or rally, or inltl•

ating or circulating a partisan nominating petition.

Under current law, a Federal employee is in violation of the Hatch Act by having a partisan candidate's bumper sticker on his/her auto. or a candidate's sign in his yard, even though that sticker or sign may have been placed there by the Federal employee's spouse or family member. The Hatch Act, in fact, not only restricts the Federal employee from participating in political activities. but in reality it actually prohibits the Federal employee's family from certain political involvement as well.

The bill coming before us now, during the beginning of our Nation's Bicentennial celebration. will once again provide our Federal employees with their rights as established by the Constitution of the United States. The provisions of this legislation will once again permit all Americans the right to take part in the procedures of their Government-a Government established for the people. by the people-not just a Government for the people but by some of the people. This bill will once again permit all citizens the right of free speech and free association which the Constitution guarantees.

While permitting the Federal employees private citizen involvement, H.R. 8617 will protect them from abuses and coercion. It explicitly prohibits coercion of subordinates, and protects them from improper political pressure even more specifically than does existing law. It prohibits contributions in return for votesbetween employees-and on Federal property. It prohibits political activity while on duty or while in uniform. Today, approximately 3 million American citizens are denied the right to participate in the p0litical process by which their country's Government is established.

As one Federal employee told me, "I have no political ambition at present.

However, I would like to aid in the choice of my elected representatives and campaign for them as every other American citizen is permitted to do. Because I work for the Federal Government does not mean that I have to be a second class citizen."

That is the point I want to reemphasize. For the past 20 years. we have been striving to implement and maintain the rights of individuals as set forth in the Constitution. We have been working to insure that all American citizens, regardless of color. creed, or religion. are provided equal rights in America. Can we then continue to maintain a Government which cannot prohibit citizens in general from engaging in political activities-yet nonetheless controls the offduty activities of its employees?

ADDITIONAL CONFEREES-S. 2662 Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President. ear

lier conferees were appointed on S. 2662. I ask unanimous consent to add to the list of conferees the naines of the Senator from Idaho (Mr. CHURCH) and the Senator from Missouri (Mr. SYMINGTON) .


ORDER EXTENDING TIME WITHLN" WHICH TO FILE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE Mr. HARRY F. BYRD. JR. Mr. Pres

ident, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance has until midnight tonight to file its report on the extension of the debt ceiling.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection. it is so ordered.

FORTY-FIVE PERCENT OF NATIONAL DEBT WilL HAVE BEEN CREATED IN 7 YEARS Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. Presi

dent, at a meeting of the Finance Committee on March 4 the committee considered H.R. 11893. This legislation would increase the temporary debt limit from the present $595 billion to $627 billion.

The administration testified that the national debt subject to the limitation will reach $621 billion on June 30, 1976.

Witnesses, and documents submitted by witnesses, from the Department of the Treasury estimated that by the end of fiscal year 1977, the national debt will equal $707 billion.

During this committee hearing I had a lengthy colloquy with Edwin H. Yeo m. Under Secretary of Treasury for Monetary Affairs, an able and splendid public official, and Dale R. Mccomber, Assistant Director for Budget Review, Office of Mangement and Budget.

My questioning was not in tended to be critical, but rather was intended to de-velop the facts regarding the Government's :financial situation.

I am deeply concerned that by the end of the next fiscal year, 45 percent of the total national debt will have been created

in a 7-year period. fiscal 1971 through fiscal 1977.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to ·have printed in the RECORD my questions to the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury and his replies.

There being no objection. the questions and ~eplies were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Senator BYRD. Let me see if I understand the situation accurately. You have testified that the national debt will be $621 billion on June 30, 1976. You have testified that it will go to $707 billion at the end of fiscal year 1977. That is an increase of $86 billion.

What has been the official adminlstration estimate of the deficit for the new fiscal year?

Mr. YEo. That is based on the current fiscal year.

Senator BYRD. The current fiscal year, yes, but I am speaking now of fiscal 1977?

Mr. YEO. $43 billion. _ Senator BYRD. Isn't that a totaUy mislead

ing figure? l\.fr. YEo. No, sir. I do not believe it ls. Sena.tor BYRD. Well, your own figures say

that and you have Just confirmed to me earlier in the session, that the debt Will go up $86 billion in a 15-month period. That includes a three-month transition period.

Mr. YEo. We have the effect of the transition quarter. The total amount to be financed in the transition quarter we estimate to be $18.9 billion.

Senator BYRD. Any way you look at it, if your figures are accurate, the debt will increase $86 billion in a 15-month period, is that not correct?

Mr. YEO. That is correct, Sena.tor. Senator BYRD. Yet, we are being told the

deficit will only $43 billion in a 12-month period. I say that the people are being misled. From the beginning, I felt that $43 billion was not an accurate figure, that it was too low, these figures today show all the more that it is not a.n accurate figure.

Mr. YEO. Senator, the figures that we have provided are congruant with our estimate for fiscal year 1976, the transition quarter, fiscal year 1977 period. Now, I will concede, sir-

Senator BYRD. That is correct. It is a 15-month period.

Mr. YEO. I would concede that the distinction or the addition of the transition quarter and the extension of the off-budget :financial requirements.

Sena.tor BYRD. This is a deficit in the Fed-eral fund, ls it not? '

Y..r. YEo. That is correct. Senator BYRD. That means that you take

your 1·eceipts from the Federal funds and your expenditures from the Federal funds category, and you subtract one from the other and you get the deficit. The difference you have to add to the debt, is that not correct?

:Mr. YEO. That is correct, sir. Senator BYRD. If you are going to have $43

billion as a deficit for fiscal year 1977 and then you include the transition period, and you end up with a $86 billion deficit, that means the transition period would be $43 billion, which, of course, it isn't.

Mr. YEO. Let me go through this first on a unified budget basis.

Senator BYRD. The unified basis has nothing to do with the increase of the debt.

Mr. YEo. That is correct, but on the unified budget basis our estimat.e of the deficit for fiscal year 1977 would be $42.957 billion. On the Federal fund basis our estimate of the deficit is $55.4 billion.

Sena.tor BYRD. Then that ls a.nother way of saying that your trust fund, Social Security Trust Fund, wm be in surplus by about $12 billion.

March 9, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 5823 Mr. YEO. In addition, that is right. In ad

dition to what we have. senator BYRD. Before we leave that, is that

what your surplus is, $12 billion in the Social Security Trust Fund?

Mr. YEO. $12.6 million. Senator BYRD. $12.5 million for FY 1977. Mr. YEO. Yes, sir. senator BYRD, Yet you ask for an increase

in the social security taxes? Mr. YEO. An increase in the social security

tax is based on the overall position of the Social Security Trust Fund.

Senator BYRD. I am rather surprised that you anticipate a surplus of $12.6 billion in the Social Security Trust Fund.

Mr. YEO. Those a.re all the trust funds, Senator.

Senator BYRD. Well, the bulk of it is the social security.

Mr. YEO. I wlll give you a breakdown, sir. Mr. McOMBER. I do not have the precise

figures as such. Senator BYRD. As a practical matter, the

bulk of it is the social security? Mr. YEO. It is scattered in a number of

funds. Senator BYRD. You have only two big trust

funds, social security and highway. The retirement is a small one. You must be expecting a big surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund.

What will the deficit be for fiscal year 1976?

Mr. YEo. It will be $1 billion. Senator BYRD. So, you are going from a bil

lion dollars-Mr. YEO. Well, there is a $2.5 billion sur

plus in fiscal year 1976, a $1 billion deficit in the transition quarter-quoting my figures here-and $12.6 billion in 1977 is estimated.

Mr. McOMBER. That is for all the trust funds.

Senator BYRD. For the trust funds, you are going from a surplus of $2.5 billion for the fl.seal year '76 year to a $12.5 billion amount for fiscal '77, but your federal fund deficit will be $86 blllion for the 16-month period?

Mr. YEO. Our Federal fund deficit wlll be $87.4 billion, including the transitional quarter, $15 billion for the transitional quarter, $55.4 billion for the fiscal year '77.

In addition to that, we have in fiscal year 1977 off-budget outlays to be financed according to my data at $11.1 billion in the fiscal year 1977, and $3.9 billion in the transitional quarter.

I think you wlll find, Senator, that those figures add up to the changes in the debt that we anticipate.

Senator BYRD. If you do not mind let us go through those figures again and see whether we get the $86 billion.

Mr. YEO. Why do we not do it then? If I could, Senator, we have a Federal fund deficit in the transition quarter of $15 billion. We have a. Federal fund deficit in fiscal year 1977 of $55.0 b11lion. That is a total of--

Senator BYRD. $70 billion? Mr. YEO. We have an off-budget outlay

situation in the transition quarter deficit of $3.9 billion and in the full fiscal year 1977, $11.1 billion.

Senator BYRO. That makes it $16 billion in round figures which gives us 86 billion but that is, I say again, that is a long way from the $43 billion that the public has been led to believe there will be.

Mr. YEo. Sena.tor, I cannot in any way dispute, and I am not, the thrust of your comment. There is no question that in ou1· mind that this is the prospective financing that we have to do and it is an accurate measure of the debt management problem that we are attempting to deal with.

It is in large part why we are asking the committee for increased latitude in the manner of which we can handle this debt.

Senator BYRD. Did I understand you to reply to Sena.tor Brock that the refinancing to be required would run to the rate of $30 billion a. month?

Mr. YEO. Yes, sir, that is correct. I qualified my response to him by saying

that that is our estimate. It is in part a function of the maturity

of the ne.w debt that we sell--Senator BYRD. Would that be through the

entire fiscal year that you are speaking of? Mr. YEO. Well, for the first two monthS

well, let me give you an example of what happened for the first two months of this year.

We borrowed an average of $9.5 billion per week. For the comparable period in 1975, ihe figure was $5.5 billion per week. You are quite correct, Senator, depending on what we do in terms of the maturity of the new securities we will. For example, if we sold them all in a. three-month period, just using the hypothetical example now, that that would, of course, create an even more significant financial picture. Now, if we sell it on a balanced basis the impact, the weight of that as measured in terms of how much we have to do each week or each mouth is reduced. That is one of the reasons we want this latitude.

Sena.tor BYRD. Would it be reasonably accurate to say that during fiscal year 1977 that you will need to refinance at the rate of $1 billion a day?

Mr. YEo. Yes, that ts the prospect. Senator BYRD. In other words, $300 billion

annually? $300 billion? Mr. YEO. On the basis of the amount that

we have to raise and on the basis of the debt maturing during that year, this is a.gain a qualified answer by the q~estion of what we do now, but it could be as high as that.

Senator BYRD. Well, how do you envision the interest rate, say a year from now?

Mr. YEO. I beg your pa.rd.on? Senator BYRD. How do you envision-what

do you envision the interest rates will be a year from now?

Mr. YEO. Senator, I am not prepared to make a forecast of interest rates a. year from now.

I would not even want to make an inference as to what the interest rate will be a year from now. I think you can understand my position in terms of not being able to make such a prognosis.

Senator BYRD. Well, let me make an observation and maybe you can indicate whether you agree or disagree with it. It seems to me that 1976 will be a relatively stable yea.r and I think it will be a good year businesswise.

When we come to 1977 or going into 1978, that is when this country is going to have a. real serious problem. I am speaking now of the inflationary nature of things. Would you care to comment on that, sir?

Mr. YEo. Yes, Sena.tor. I would agree with you that the prospect

for 1976 is excellent. I believe that we have the capacity and the policies to avoid the types of problems that have charaeterized the later stages of the expansion in the recent past.

I believe that we have made significant progress within the country in terms of people understanding that inflation is bad for business.

Senator BYRD. I think the people understand it, but I do not think Washington understands it. I do not believe my colleagues in the Congress understand it.

Mr. YEo. Senator, I think that we have towe have the capacity to a.void the kind of problems that we have had.

Senator BYRD. What capacity to a.void what?

Mr. YEo. I think that the monetary policy that we are pursuing, the fiscal policy that

we are endeavoring to pursue and the debting management--

Senator BYRD. The fiscal policy that we are endeavoring to pursue? Let us examine that. Let us take the flsca.1 policy we were pursuing for fiscal year 1971 when the Federal fund deficit was $30 billion; for '71 it was $29 billion; for fiscal year '73 about $25 billion; for fiscal '74, $17 billion; for fiscal '75, $50 billion.

Then for fiscal year 1976 it will be $79 billion.

During those six years, the tot.al deficit has been $231 billion.

Now, I do not regard that as an outstanding record. Then for 1977, including the transition quarter, it will be $86 billion.

We are not on a sound basis and I think that this country will have to pay the price for it at a. later date. It will pay the price in my judgment at a later date beginning somewhere in late '77 or '78. I am glad that you a.re more optimistic than I am, but you still have not given me very much cause for your optimism.

Mr. YEO. Well, Sena.tor, I would agree with your characterization regarding the size of the deficit of the past.

Sena.tor BYRD. And the past is not as bad as the present and the future. The present is worse by far compared with anything in the history of the nation. Nothing could compare with it, and next year is not going to be much better-almost as bad.

Mr. YEo. Well, there is a. key in terms of the past, the stimulus that I think we all realize is excessive resulting from the size of the deficit and the manner in which it was financed, but I must confess that I feel more optimistic regarding the future than you do, Senator. I think that I share your concern and your analysis regarding the past.

I hope we have learned from the past, both in terms of the a.mount of stimulus_

Senator BYRD. This fiscal year you will have a $79 billion deficit, and in the next 15 months you will have an $86 billion deficit.

Mr. YEO. Well, you know, Senator, there are some who feel that the deficit is inadequate, based on the condition of the economy. I do not share their view. I think that it is appropriate, that the President's budget is appropriate for the condition of the economy, assuming that it is financed in such a way that additional stimulll beyond the capacity of the economy is not provided. I think that is the key variable.

Senator BYRD. I think that we are going to have a. difficult time getting it under control.

Mr. YEO. Senator, we have argued, as you know, time and time again against the size of the deficit posed.

Sena.tor BYRD. Well, that is why I am surprised to hear your comments today.

Mr. YEo. But I do think that the President's budget is appropriate.

Sena.tor BYRD. Well, that is a good party line, I suppose.

:Mr. YEO. No, I mean it. I think it is aupropriate to the conditions of the econon{y, given the way in which it ls financed, and now, philosophically, I would like to see us-and I think that we can-move to a balanced budget. I think that that ought to be, and is, our target.

Sena.tor BYRD. You are moving in precisely the opposite way, Mr. Secretary, and your figures show that.

Mr. YEO. Well, Senator, I do not think that we are moving exactly in the opposite way. I think that we a.re moving in the direction of a. balanced budget.

The question is whether the Congress will let us have a balanced budget, and, hopefully, by fiscal 1979 or earlier, I think that it is not a matter, if I could say so, sir, of converting the Treasury Department. We are converted.

Senator BYRD. Well, I thought you were

5824

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

converted until I heard your testimony this

morning.

Mr. YEO. I can assure you that we have not

had a relapse. We believe that the budget

that has been prepared by the President is

an appropriate one for the circumstances we

are operating under.

As an objective, we would like to see a bal-

anced budget as the economy moves toward

a greater utilization of its capacity. I would

agree with your characterization regarding

the size of the budget deficit of the past.

Senator BYRD. A disturbing thought to me,

Mr. Secretary, if you add up these deficits,

you will find that by the end of 1977, if your

figures are correct, and they will probably be

higher than what you predict, but, anyway,

let us assume that they are correct. That will

mean that 45 percent of the total of the na-

tional debt, estimated to be $707 billion,

will

have been created in seven years and three

months.

To me, that is a very alarming figure.

I ad-

mit it is not alarming to the C ongress, and

I admit that it is not alarming to a lot of

people.

But to me it is a very alarming figure, that

$317 billion out of a total debt of $707 bil-

lion, 4 5 percent of the total debt, will have

been created in seven years and three

months.

Mr. YEO. Senator, I find, as I have tried to

communicate, I find this to be a cause of

concern myself. That is why, given the size

and dimension of what we are talking about,

that is why it has to be financed in the bal-

anced fashion.

Senator BYRD . I am not objecting to that

at all.

I

am just objecting to the size of the

deficit.

Senator BYRD . I realize, of course, that is

not the T reasury D epartment which has the

final say-so on these matters.

It is not the

T reasury D epartment that is creating the

deficit. So, I

am not quarreling with you on

that at all.

I

am speaking mostly of the Con-

gress, although

I think that it also applies to

the Executive Branch, because unless the Ex-

ecutive Branch is willing to submit a budget

which comes somewhat within the range of

the balanced budget, the Congress is not go-

ing to go in that direction.

So, I say again that I do believe that it is

alarming that 45 percent of our national debt

will be created in the period of seven years

and three months.

Thank you, gentlemen, very much.

The committee will adjourn until 10:00 to-

morrow morning, when we will have the

Trade Commission Authorization Sales bill.

ORDER FOR ADJOURNMENT UNTIL

10 A.M. TOMORROW

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,

I ask unanimous consent that when the

Senate completes its business today it

stand in adjournment until the hour of

10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

ORDER FOR THE RECOGNITION OF

SENATOR MOSS AND SENATOR

MANSFIELD TOMORROW

Mr.

ROBERT C. BYRD.

Mr.

President,

I ask unanimous consent that on tomor-

row after the two leaders or their desig-

nees have been recognized under the

standing order, Mr. Moss and

Mr. MANS-

FIELD

be recognize for not to exceed 15

minutes each and in the order stated.

The PRESIDING OFFICER.

Without


O RD ER FO R A PER IO D FO R THE

T R A N SA C T IO N O F R O UT IN E

MORNING BUSINESS AND TO CON-

SIDER H.R. 8617 TOMORROW


I ask unanimous consent that following

the orders for the recognition of Sena-

tors on tomorrow there be a period for

the transaction of routine morning busi-

ness of not to exceed 30 minutes, with

statements limited therein to 5 minutes

each; at the conclusion of which the

Senate resume consideration of the bill,

H.R . 8617, and act to restore to Federal

civilian and Postal Service employees

their rights to participate voluntarily, as

private citizens, in the political processes

of the Nation.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without


PROGRAM

Mr.

ROBERT C . BYRD . Mr. President,

I will state the program.

The Senate will come in at 10 o'clock

tomorrow morning. After the two leaders

or their designees have been recognized

under the standing order, Mr. Moss will

be recognized for not to exceed 15 min-

utes, after which Mr. MANSFIELD

will be

recognized for not to exceed 15 minutes,

after which there will be a brief period

for the transaction of routine morning

business of not to exceed 30 minutes with

statements limited therein to 5 minutes

each; at the conclusion of which the

Senate will resume consideration of the

then unfinished business, H.R. 8617, the

Hatch Act measure. Rollcall votes are ex-

pected to occur on amendments thereto.

A lso, during the next few days it is

anticipated that the Senate may operate

on a double track system with the Fed-

eral E lections Commission bill, hope-

fully, to be scheduled on one of the

multiple tracks.

ADJOURNMENT TO 10 A.M.

TOMORROW


if there be no further business to come

before the Senate, I move in accordance

with the previous order, and pursuant to

Senate Resolution 402, as a further mark

of respect to the memory of Hon. Wright

Patman, late a Representative from the

S tate of Texas, that the Senate stand in

adjournment until the hour of 10 o'clock

tomorrow morning.

The motion was agreed to; and at 5:10

p.m., the Senate adjourned until tomor-

row, Wednesday, March 10, 1976, at

10 a.m.

NOMINATIONS

E xecutive nominations (received

March 5) referred on March 9, 1976:

In

the Army

The following-named officers for temporary

appointment in the A rmy of the

United

S tates to the grade indicated under the pro-

visions of title 10, United S tates Code, sec-

tions 3442 and 3447:

March

9,

1976

To be major general

Brig. Gen. William E. Eicher, ,

A rmy of the United S tates (lieutenant col-

onel, U.S. Army).

Brig. Gen. Harry A . Griffith, ,

A rmy of the United S tates (colonel, U .S .

Army).

Brig. G en. John N . Brandenburg,

, A rmy of the United States (lieutenant

colonel, U.S. Army).

Brig. G en. A rthur J. G regg,

1,


Army) .

Brig. Gen. Richard E. Cavazos, ,


onel, U.S. Army) .

Brig. Gen. Raphael D . T ice, ,


Army) .

Brig. Gen. Hugh F. T. Hoffman, Jr.,

, A rmy of the United S tates (colonel,

U.S. Army) .

Brig. G en. O scar C . D ecker, Jr.,


colonel, U.S. Army) .

Brig. Gen. Ennis C. Whitehead, Jr.,


U.S. Army) .

Brig. Gen. Roscoe Robinson,

Jr.,



Brig. Gen. Ernest D. Peixotto, .


onel, U.S. Army) .

Brig. Gen. William B. Steele, .


Army) .

Brig. G en. John L . O steen, Jr., -


U.S. Army) .

Brig. G en. Charles

I.

McGinnis,

, A rmy of the United S tates (colonel.

U.S. Army).

Brig. Gen. William R. Todd, .


A rmy).

Brig. G en. D avid E . G range, Jr.,


U.S. Army) .

Brig. Gen. R ichard L . Prillarnan, -


U.S. Army).

Brig. G en. Robert J. Lunn, ,


Army) .

Brig. Gen. Jack L. Hancock, ,

A rmy of the United S tates (lieutenant colo-

nel, U.S. Army).

Brig. G en. Fred C . Sheffey,

t-

Jr.,


U.S. Army) .

Brig. G en. John K. S toner, Jr.,



Brig. Gen. Alexander

M. Weyand,


colonel, U.S. Army).

Brig. G en. G lenn K. O tis, ,


onel, U.S. Army) .

Brig. Gen. Richard G . Fazakerley,


U.S. Army) .

Brig. Gen. George L . McFadden, Jr.,

, Army of the United States (colonel,

U.S. Army) .

Executive nominations received by the

Senate, March 9, 1976:

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

R obert E . Barnett, of the D istrict of C o-

lumbia, to be a member of the board of

directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation for a term of 6 years, vice Frank

VsTille, term expiring.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Michael P. C arnes, of Texas, to be U.S.

attorney for the

northern district of Texas

for the term of 4 years vice Frank D. McCown.

resigned.

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-x...

xxx-...

xxx-x...

xxx-x...

xxx-x...

xxx-x...

xxx-x...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-x...

xxx-xx-x...

xxx-xx-x...

xxx-xx-xx...

xxx-xx-x...

xxx-xx-...

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-x...

xxx-xx-xx...

xxx-xx-x...

xxx-xx-x...

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-x...

xxx-xx-x...

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-...

xxx-xx-x...