CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP72-00337R000300070018-0
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 12
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 10, 2001
• Sequence Number: 18
• Publication Date: August 8, 1979
• Content Type: OPEN

August 3, 1970'pproved For C~I1vGRESSI ONA2L5 f2ECI 'D OKF000300070018-0
' ernal Revenue'Service because of alleged
efforts by the club to influence legisla-
tion.
In addition, I have consistently sup-
ported conservation legislation in which
most members of the Sierra Club are
vitally interested.
In light of my attitude and consistent
support, I was totally shocked to notice
an insert in the bulletin, entitled "En-
vironment 1970 and the Tote." This in-
sert was a 100-percent misrepresentation
of my attitude on environmental matters.
This issue of the Sierra Club Bulletin
listed the votes of every Member of the
House on two rollcalls. The first was 'a
vote on the rule on the national timber
-supply bill. The second was a rollcall
vote on the "previous question" for the
pepartment of Transportation appro-
priation bill. The Sierra Club Bulletin
rated a vote against the rule on the?na-
tional timber supply bill as a favorable
environmental vote, and it also rated a
vote against the previous question as
favorable.
Both of these were purely procedural
or parliamentary questions upon which
the editors of the Sierra Club Bulletin
and others have placed their own inter-
pretations. I disagree with their inter-
pretation and contend that they have
misrepresented my position on the two
issues involved.
Let us examine these two rollcall votes.
I was against the national timber
supply bill, and was committed to vote
against it. But the vote was not on the
bill itself. Rather it was on a resolution
which did nothing more than establish
the conditions under which the bill would
be debated.
Let us read the resolution itself :
H. Rxss. 790
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this
resolution it shall'be in order to move that
the liouse'resolve itself into the Committee
6f the Whole House on the State of the
tThion for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
12Q25) to provide for the more efficient de-
olopment and improved management of na-
iorlal forest con-Vnercial forest land, to es-
tablish a high timber yield fund, and for
other purposes. After general debate, which
Shall be confingd to the bill and shall con-
tinue not to exceed two hours, to be equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee
on Agriculture, the bill shall be read for
amendment under the five-minute rule. it
Shall be'in order. to consider the amendment
in the nature qf;a substitute recpmmended
by the Committee on Agriculture now printed
In the bill as an original bill for the pur-
pose of amendment under the five-npnute
rule, and 'all` points of order against sec-
lions 4 and 5 of said amendment in the
nature of a substitute are hereby waived. At
the conclusion. of such consideration, the
committee shall rise a],drepprt the bill to the
blouse with such amendments as. may have
been adopted, and any Member may de-
mand a separate vote in the House on any
amendment adopted in the Committee of
the Whole to the bill or committee amend-
ment in the, nature of a substitutes The
previous question shall be considered as orci-
ered on the bill and amendments thereto
to final passage without intervening motion
except one motion to recommit with.or.wit#a-
nut instructions.
Mr. Speaker, was this a vote on the
National Timber Supply Act? It was not,
and the Sierra Club is misrepresenting
the situation if it contends otherwise.
For the past 18 years, I have never
voted against a rule unless I considered it
unduly restrictive or defective. I believe
the House should have the right to debate
and consider a matter and then vote on
it. To defeat a rule is to deny debate and
free expression. There is no place in a
democracy for "gag rules" which stifle
debate and discussion.
I resent being classified as against the
environment because I believe in orderly
procedure.
Now let us examine the second rollcall
vote.
During debate on the Department of
Transportation bill, I took the floor and
clearly stated my opposition to including
funds for a supersonic transport. My re-
marks can be found at page H4890 of the
May 28 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. I would
like unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker,
that these remarks which include a col-
loquy between myself, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. MINSHALL), the gentle-
man from Massachusetts (Mr. CONTE),
and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
YATES) be included at the conclusion of
my remarks.
These remarks clearly stated my de-
sire to vote against funds for an SST.
During the teller vote on this subject,
I voted against the SST and in favor of
the Yates amendment to delete funds for
that purpose. While teller votes are not
recorded, it is interesting that an ad hoc
committee which observed Members vot-
ing on the Yates amendment, stated that
I did vote against the SST. This was
reported in the Washington Evening Star
for -June 1, 1970, and I quote a portion
of this article:
The antt-SST gallery watchers also iden-
tified five other representatives who, they
say, voted in favor of the Yates amendment,
then also voted in favor of the motion to
call the previous question.
Those members are Reps. Kenneth J. Gray,
~3 Ill.; Charles S. Gubser, R-Calif.; Rogers C.
B. Morton, R-Md.; William A. Steiger, R-Wis.,
and John Wold, R-Wyo.
Gubser publicly explained prior to the vote
that he would vote for the Yates amendment
because he opopsed the SST but would not
oppose the previous question because he
viewed .it only as a parliamentary motion.
Others in the category apparently felt the
same way.
The record vote referred to by the
Sierra Club was on the "previous ques-
tion" which again is a parliamentary or
procedural matter. The Sierra Club Bul-
letin editors had no justification for plac-
ing their own arbitrary and substantive
interpretation upon a purely parliamen-
tary question. Furthermore, had the edi-
tors read my remarks at page H4890 of
the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, it would have
been obvious that they were misrepre-
senting my position.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to conclude
that my voting record was intentionally
distorted by the editors of the Sierra Club
Bulletin, and I will not so conclude; but
I must say with regret that these editors
did not make a reasonable effort to fairly
present my position.
I note in this published voting record
that my colleague, the Honorable PAUL
"PETE" MCCLOSKEY, is reported as being
117625
paired on the "previous question" vote
for a position which was for the environ-
ment. This is indeed a fair statement be-
cause my colleague has been outspokenly
in favor of conservation. But being pair-
ed for a certain position amounts to no
more than making an expression in the
RECORD of this position. This being the
case, I must ask the Sierra Club why it
did not, in fairness, state the position
which I made during the debate on page
4890. This was also a statement of my
position, and it was made in the House
Chamber. Had the editors looked beyond
the strictly procedural rollcall, they could
not have reported me as voting in op-
position to the environment. They could
easily have determined that earlier in
the day the gentleman from California
(Mr. MCCLOSKEY), and I had both voted
by tellers to delete funds for the SST.
The Sierra Club Bulletin says:
These two votes reveal better than any
previous index the degree to which each con-
gressman has committed himself to conserva-
tion.
In my case, the opposite of the truth
is revealed.
Mr. Speaker, thousands of citizens in
my district have been given a 100 percent
false impression regarding the degree of
my commitment to conservation as a re-
sult of this article. I call upon the editors
of the Sierra Club Bulletin to do the
honest thing, and to correct thisunjusti-
fled distortion of the truth.
The remarks, found at pages H4890-
H4891 of the RECORD, follows:
Mr. GuBSER. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Cali-
fornia is recognized.
Mr. GUBSER. Mr. Chairman, I take this
time for the purpose of urging my colleagues
in the minority who will control the mots, n
to recommit to offer it with a specific dele-
tion of funds for the SST. My reason for
asking that is that I am personally oppoeed
to the SST at this time because I think there
are much higher priority requirements for
our national resources, and I would like
a chance to express mysc on the record
accordingly.
Mr. MINSHALL. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield at that point?
Mr. GuBSER. I am glad to yield to the gen-
tleman from Ohio.
Mr. MINSHALL. As a member of the minor-
ity, I. would like to say to my good friend
from California if that possibility does pres-
ent itself and the parliamentary situation
enables me to present a motion to recommit
with instructions to delete the SST mcney.
I will make that motion.
There is always the possibility that I will
not be recognized, because of House prece-
dents, in defense to a more senior minority
member of the appropriations committee but
shall have such a motion at the Clerk's
desk.
However,, there are certainly parliamentary
procedures and customs that might prevent
me from doing that. I would merely like t)
say I think this program should be delayed
for at least a year under present conditions.
Mr. GuBSER. I thank the gentlemr_I from
Ohio. I certainly hope he does have the op-
portunity he seeks.
I understood that of the motion to recom-
mit does not specifically include this dele-
tion, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. YATES)
will ask for a vote against the previous ques-
tion so that he would then have the op-
portunity of offering an amendment to the
motion to recommit which would delete fund
for the SST.
'Approved For Release 2003/03/25 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300070018-0
 H7626
Approved For Release 2003/03/25 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300070018-0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --HOUSE August
This- would be a very difficult situation,
because it will be nationally interpreted---
and I might add wrongfully Interpreted--
as a vote on the issue of the 1 .4T when in
fact, it is nothing more than t' vote on a
strictly procedural matter.
Here is where a question of legislative
philosophy enters into the problem. We hear
a great deal of talk about minorities these
days, but let us not forget that they are
other minorities than racial.-There are polit-
ical and philosophical minorities as well.
The .maj,.af~oity has the numbers, it has the
chairmanship of every committee, it has a
majority of every committee, arid It has a
decisive power to which it is entitled be-
cause the electorate has bestowed it. One of
the powers and one of the checks and bal-
ances in our system which is given to the
minority so that it can exert a reasonable
influence on public policy is the motion to
recommit. On at least two occasions within
the last week we have seen another, where
because of outside interpretation the motion
to recommit becomes a vote on an issue
instead of a procedural matter. We are abcut
to see another such situation. The sum total
of effect is that it takes away from the ml-
nority the protection and a right provided
udder House rules.
It transfers the minority's rightful au-
thority and power to the majority. This is
an erosion of fair parliarnentar?r procedure
and a dangerous precedent.
I cannot vote against the previous question
for these reasons, but I do want to vote
against the SST. I cannot, adopt the dan-
gerous practice of consistently transferring
the rights of the minority over to the ma-
jority which already has the overwhelming
power to legislate as it sees At.
I sincerely hope that the minority will
give us the chance to record our votes on
the specific issue of the SST,
Mr. CoNTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentle-
man yield?
Mr. Gomm. I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
Mr. Cowry. Certainly I am sure, even
though I am the ranking Republican on
this subcommittee, that if I offer a motion
to recommit to delete the SST, the motion
would be taken away from me.
Mr. YATES, Mr. Chairman, will the gentle-
man yield?
Mr. GuissEs. I yield to the gentleman from
Illinois.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I think we might
appeal to the sporting blood in the House
and let the Members vote on. my amendment
and then let them vote on a rollcail on the
motion to recommit.
Mr. TALCOTT. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. GUBSER. I yield.
Mr. TALCOTT. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding and commend him for
taking this special order to inform and
clarify the positions often taken by cer-
tain groups of lobbyists, particularly the
Sierra Club in two recent incidents.
Twice this year the Sierra Club has
misrepresented the voting records of
many Members of the Congress includ-
ing myself. Each time the club has tried
to excuse its sloppy reporting by claim-
ing: inadequate staff or the system of vot-
ing in the House of Representatives or
both. All three excuses are lame and
misleading.
First, a minimum of time, research,
and scholarship could have produced a
more accurate report of my voting rec-
ord. I believe the Sierra Club relies on
incompetent lobbyists in that they pur-
posefully misrepresent positions to in-
timidate or embarrass certain Members
of the Congress. This method or attitude
should be corrected as it will not be suc-
cessful in the long run.
The gentleman from California (Mr.
GussEa) has quite accurately presented
and explained the parliamentary situ-
ation occurring during the considera-
tion of the national. forest management
bill and the supersonic transport amend-
ment to the appropriation bill. I will not
reiterate in the interest of time. I con-
cur with his analysis.
My views on both bills were misrepre-
sented, My views were easily ascertain-
able. The Sierra Club bulletin is not an
accurate representation of ,Members'
records for or against conservation
measures in general or the records of
Members on these two particular issues.
In complete candor I must say that I
am not opposed to all management of
our national forests. Some management
is probably necessary for their protection
and conservation. But I opposed the na-
tional timber supply bill in the form pro-
posed by H.R. 12025. I said so many times
publically and in-letters to many con-
stituents.
Also I state that I voted and spoke
against the appropriation for the SST on
May 28, 1970. I gave my reasons then.
I believe the editors of the Sierra Club
Bulletin ought to correct their report of
June 1970, I believe they ought to em-
ploy more scholarship in their reports.
Their readers are entitled to fair and ac-
curate reports. Members of the Congress
are also entitled to accurate reports. I
shall look for a correction ins an early
EAST ASIA
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under
previous order of the House, the gentle-
man from New York (Mr. Roslsorr) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
(Mr. ROBISON asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. ROBISON. Mr. Speaker, a sense
of disillusionment and frustration afflicts
us all when we consider our dilemma in
Vietnam. This is not, of course, the first
time we have been deeply divided as a
nation-nor will it probably be the last--
but the ingredients for a spiritual dis-
aster are now all around us, reflecting a
failing of the American people generally
to believe as they once did in the work-
ings of their institutions.
The tragic war in Vietnam-with its
other costs beyond those measurable in
blood and treasure-is not the sole cause
of this situation. By all odds, however, it
must be judged a major contributor to
our national unease; for, out of our ir-
resolution concerning that war, has
arisen what John W. Gardner recently
termed the "serious pathologies of dis-
sent-together with the frightening
trend toward represson."
None of us who serve in this body can
be immune to all this;. But, surely, we are
charged with the responsibility of doing
more than merely succumbing to that
mood or adding to it.
Instead, as Mr. Gardner has also sug-
gested:
3, 1970
Those of us who are in the thick of action
must believe we at least have a chance to
work for a better future.
Mr. Speaker, it was in:y recent privi-
lege, by virtue of your nomination, to
have been a member of the Select Com-
mittee on United States Involvement in
Southeast Asia which t;tlis House sent
to that part of our vasty, troubled world.
I accepted that assignment with certain
misgivings as to what, if anything, we
could accomplish, but a ith the hope-a
very humble hope, I assure my col-
leagues--that out of our mission could
come some light to help guide our future
path.
The select committee has now ren-
dered its report to the House; not, I
think, the best sort of report it was ca-
pable of producing, but still one deserv-
ing more attention than it has so far
received and, absent thr- publicity given
one facet thereof, probably would have
received.
Let me not be misunderstood, for there
has already been too much misunder-
standing about the Con on Island prison
incident and the conditions there that
two of our members found and described
as "shocking." In now making only pass-
ing reference to that di-covery, I do not
mean to downgrade its irdportance-nor
to suggest that any of us hope for any-
thing less than the early elimination of
such conditions. But I do mean to sug-
gest that this incident, which has now
been subjected to the full glare of pub-
lic scrutiny, ought not to be allowed to
obscure all the other matters of sub-
stance we have to report to you, Mr.
Speaker, and to our colleagues.
What are those other matters?
Well, each of the 12 of us will place
different interpretations on the various
things we saw, and heard, in South Viet-
nam, in Laos, in Cambodia, and in the
other parts of Southeast Asia some of
us visited. There will also be differences
among us as to the comparative impor-
tance of those items.
Nevertheless, I believe it can be said
that there is a rough consensus among
us as to certain of those items-a con-
sensus the report, as originally sub-
mitted, does not adequately highlight. In
preparing to try to do that, now, I should
add that I have. circularized an advance
text of these remarks among my fellow
committee members, thus inviting them
to participate in this special order and
to take exceptions, where they wish, to
what I will have to say, so that this rec-
ord may be as accurate as possible under
the circumstances. It should be further
understood that I have no intention of
trying to bind those committee mem-
bers who cannot, or who do not wish to,
participate in this exerci