SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS, 1975 - CONFERENCE REPORT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020005-7
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 12
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 17, 2001
• Sequence Number: 5
• Publication Date: December 10, 1974
• Content Type: OPEN

AIR 16
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020005-7
December 10, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 20965
ucts obtained from the United States by
hard currency but, rather, from Russian
products in a barter deal?
Secretary KISSINCER. My impression is they
will pay for it by currency,
Senator BYRD. Does the waiver in the Jack-
son compromise apply to all Communist na-
tions or only to Russia?
Secretary KISSINCER. It applies to all non-
market economies, in other words, to all
Communist nations.
I mean the right to waiver applies to all
of them, but it will have to be exercised in
each individual case Separately.
Senator BYRD. But the right to waiver in
the compromise applies to all Communist
nations?
Secretary Kissi GER. That is right.
Senator BYRD. Including, I think you
this morning, China?
Secretary KlssiNOra.. That is right.
Secretary KISSINCER. Will you repeat t
question, please?
Senator BYRD. Yes.
jurisdiction is likely to have a counterpr
ductive consequence.
If I change my mind on this, I will let you
know.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. Presi-
dent, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING, OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk
proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
COMMUNITY SERVICES ACT OF 1974
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
with the understanding that the bill will
be laid temporarily aside until no later
than the hour of 1 p.m. today, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate now
proceed to the consideration of H.R.
14449.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
will be stated by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 14449) to provide for the mo-
bilization of community development and as-
sistance service and to establish a Commu-
nity Action Administration in the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare to
administer such programs.
The Senate proceeded to consider the
bill.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I suggest the absence of a quorum. The
clerk will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk
proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
RECESS UNTIL 1 P.M.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I know this will come with some disap-
pointment to the occupant of the chair,
but I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate stand in recess until the hour
of 1 o'clock p.m. today.
There being no objection, the Senate,
at 12:31 p.m., recessed until 1 p.m.;
whereupon, the Senate reassembled when
called to order by the Presiding Officer
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS,
1975-CONFERENCE REPORT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the
previous order, the Senate will resume
consideration of the supplemental ap-
propriations conference report, which
will be stated by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as
follows:
The report of the committee of conference
on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses
on the amendment of the Senate to the bill
(H.R. 16900) making supplemental appro-
priations for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1975, and for other purposes.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, I
move that the Senate concur in the
amendments of the House to the amend-
ments of the Senate numbered 11, 39, 43,
44, 53, 66, and 85.
The amendments are as follows:
Resolved, That the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Sen-
ate numbered eleven to the aforesaid bill, and
concur therein with an amendment, as
follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be in-
serted by said amendment, insert:
Labor-Management Services Administration
Salaries and Expenses
For an additional amount for the Labor-
Management Services Administration, Sal-
aries and expenses, $8,150,000, including
$1,500,000 to be derived by transfer from
Manpower Administration, Program Admin-
istration.
Resolved, That the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Sen-
ate numbered thirty-nine to the aforesaid
bill, and concur therein with an amendment,
as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be in-
serted by said amendment, insert:
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION
Hereafter, with the approval of the Joint.
Committee on the Library, the Architect of
the Capitol may utilize personnel paid from
appropriations under his control for per-
formance of administrative and clerical
duties in connection with the maintenance
and operation of the United States Botanic
Garden, to such extent as he may deem feas-
ible.
Resolved, That the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Sen-
ate numbered forty-three to the aforesaid
bill, and concur therein with an amendment,
as follows:
In lieu of the sum named in said amend-
ment, insert: $25,500,000
Resolved, That the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Sen-
ate numbered forty-four to the aforesaid bill,
and concur therein within an amendment,
as follows:
In lieu of the sum, named in said amend-
ment, insert: $9,150,000
Resolved, That the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Sen-
ate numbered fifty-three to the aforesaid
bill, and concur therein with an amendment,
as follows:
In lieu of the sum. named in said amend-
ment, insert: $25,000,000 -
-- Resolved, That the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Sen-
ate numbered sixty-six to the aforesaid bill,
and concur therein with an amendment, as
follows :
In lieu of the matter proposed to be in-
serted by said amendment, insert:
Provided, That the aggregate salaries of all
employees- detailed on a nonreimbursable
basis under the authority of the Presiden-
tial Transition Act of 1963, during the period
beginning with the enactment of this Act,
and ending February 9, 1975, shall not exceed
$70,000.
Resolved, That the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Sen-,
ate numbered eighty-five to the aforesaid
bill, and concur therein with an amendment,
as follows:
In' lieu of the matter proposed to be in-
serted by said amendment, insert:
SEc. 205. None of the funds appropriated
by this or any other Act which are available
during the fiscal year 1975 for travel ex-
penses, including subsistence allowances, of
Government officers and employees may be
obligated after the date of the enactment of
this Act, at a rate for the balance of the
fiscal year which exceeds 90 percent of the
budget estimates for fiscal year 1975 for
such expenses which were submitted for ap-
propriations or otherwise provided by law:
Provided, That none of the limitations on
travel included in the regular appropriations
for fiscal year 1975 shall be exceeded.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, reserving
the right to object, that leaves only
amendment No. 17?
Mr. McCLELLAN. Amendment No. 17
is not included in this motion. This does
constitute all the amendments pending
except amendment 17. This will clean the
slate, so to speak, as to amendment No.
17, which is subject to debate.
Mr. ALLEN. I have no objection to
agreeing to amendment No. 17. I under-
stand that an effort is going to be made
to amend the motion of the Senator from
Arkansas to concur as to No. 17.
. Mr. McCLELLAN. As to 17-I under-
stand. But this particular motion does
not include 117. All other amendments
are included.
Mr. President, amendment 85, which
is in disagreement, is the compromise
reached with the house on the Roth
amendment, the cutback passed in the
Senate on travel expenses for the fiscal
year 1975. The conferees were sympa-
thetic to the original proposal but be-
cause of many problems and difficulties
in administering it and at the same time
still maintain essential functions, it be-
came apparent that many exceptions
would have to be made under the original
proposal. These were considered, but be-
cause of the required effort to reach and
anticipate all problem areas, the con-
ferees .decided to accept the House
amendment with no exemption. This
amendment as now written would re-
quire about a five percent reduction for
the balance of the fiscal year. The con-
ferees also discussed the necessity to
check further into the travel costs as we
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020005-7
 S 20966
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020005-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE December 10', 1974
continue with our work in the Appro-
priations Committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the motion of the
Senator from Arkansas.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I
shall make only a few brief remarks to
further elaborate upon the very adequate
explanation that the chairman of the
full Appropriations Committee, Senator
MCCLELLAN, made yesterday.
The total appropriations allowed in
conference for chapter II of the fiscal
year 1975 supplemental appropriations
bill for the Departments of Labor and
Health, Education, and Welfare, and re-
lated agencies is $5.8 billion. This sum is
$420 million above the budget estimates,
$15 million under the total sum recom-
mended by the Senate, and $58 million
above the amount allowed by the House.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent to place in the RECORD a table show-
ing the comparative figures in detail.
There being no objection, the tables
were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
Over the House bill--------- +$133,742,000
Under the Senate bill------- -15, 500, 000
.CONFERENCE CHANGES FROM THE BUDGET
ESTIMATES
Labor programs____________ -$2,520,000
Health services_____________ -3,000,000
Health resources ------------ {-676,000
Elementary and secondary
education --------------- -32,143,000
Impact aid_________________
Education for the handi-
Current Status of Chapter II of the 1975
Supplemental
capped ------------------
Occupational vocational and
adult education ----------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR-MEW
Library resources -----------
Budget estimates -----------
$5,421,469,000
Salaries and expenses -------
Amount in House bill-------
5, 706, 800, 000
Nutrition for the elderly----
Amount in Senate bill------
5, 856, 04:2, 000
Youth development-_-_-___
Conference agreement------
5, 840, 542, 000
Over the budget request____
+419,073,000
+102,500,000
4-10,162,000
+5,000,000
-718, 000
+~25, 400, 000
-2,000,000
Increase (+) or decrease (-), conference bill
compared with--
Agency and item
(1)
Budget Recommended Recommended Conference Budget
estimate in House bill in Senate bill agreemen estimate House b II Senate bill
(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
CHAPTER II -
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Manpower Administration
Program administration__________________________________________________________ Not considered -$1,500,000 ------------------------------------------------ -+$1,500,000
Comprehensive manpower assistance (by transfer)_________________ ________________ Not considered (-5,600,000)________ ---------- (+5,600,000)
Labor-Management Services Administration
Salaries and expenses_______________________________________$9,650,000 Not considered 6,150, 000 $6,650,000 $3,000,000 +$6,650,000 +500,000
(By transfer) ------=---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1, 500, 000) (+1, 500, 000) (+1,500,000) (+1,500,000)
Employment Standards Administration
Salaries and expenses____________________________________________________________ Not considered 480,000 480,000 +480,000 +480,000 --------------
(By transfer) ------------------------- ------___________------ . (6,800,000)---------------- (5,600,000) (5,600,000) (-1,200,000) (+5,600,000)________________
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Salaries and expenses (by transfer)________________________________ (600, 000) Not considered (300, 000) (300, 000) (--00.000) (+300,000) _______-__.__
Departmental Managemen.
Salaries andexpenses (bytransfer) __________________-_______________ Not considered (-300,000) ---------------- (+300,000)_______ ________ (+300,000)
Total, Department of Labor____________________________ 9,650,000 ________________ :_5,130,000 7,130,000 -2,520,000 +7,130, 130,000 +2,000,000
(By transfer) ____________________________________cc____ (7,400,000)(------------ ._) (5,900,000) (7,400,000)(-------------- ) (+7,400,000) (+1,500,000)
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Health Services Administration
Health services______________________ -
Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration
Saint Elizabeths Hospital_________________________________________
Health Resources Administration
5,722,000
1,789,000
1, 789,000 1, 789, 000 1,789,000 -----------------------------------------------
Health resources:
1. National health statistics_______ __atba__________________. 24,000,000
2. Health services research and evtions:
(a) Grants and contracts_______________________________ 40,800,000
(b) Research training_________________________________ 1,200,000
3. Health manpower:
(a) Health professions student loans______________30,000,000
(b) National health service scholarships_________________ 22,500,000
(c) Nursing student loans______________________________ 18,000,000
(d) Program management_____________________________ 10,757,000
Total-= ---------------------------------------147,257,000
OFFICE OF EDUCATION
Elementary and Secondary Education
1. Grants for the disadvantaged (title l)____________
Advance appropriation--------------------------------------
2 ' Supplementary services _____________________________________-_
3. Strengthening State departments of education ----_-_--_
4. Bilingual education_____________________________________
5. Civil rights advisory services_________________________ __
6. Equipment and minor remodeling________________________
7. Nutrition and health__________________________________________
8. Dropout prevention ____________________________________-_
9. Support and innovation grants (advance appropriation). _____-----
10. Libraries and instructional resources (advance appropriation)-----
---_
21, 511, 000 21, 511,000
21,511,000
39, 705, 000 34, 705, 000
1,200,000 1,200,000
10, 217, 000 9,217,000 9,217,000 -1, 540, 000
+1,000,000 ________________
-1,000,000 ----------------
1, 885, 000, 000 1, 876, 000, 000 1, 876, 000, 000 1, 876, 000, 000 -9,000,000 --------------------------------
1, 9DO, DOO, 000 1,900,000,000 1,900,000,000 1,900,000,000 ------------------ _-----------------------------
146,393,000 125, 000,000 120, 000, 000 120, 000, 000 -26,393, 000 -5,000,000 ----------------
39,425,000 39,425,000 39,425,000 39,425,000 ---
70, 000, 000 90, 000, 000 85, 000, 000 +15, 000, 000 +15, 000, 000 5, 000, 000
70,000,000
5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 --------------------------------
28500,000 15, 000, 000 28, 500, 000 21, 750, 000 -6,750,000 +6,750,000 -6,750,000
1:900,000 ---------------- 1,900,000 900,000 -1,000,000 +900,000 -1,000,000
4,000,000 ------------------------------------------------ -4,000,000 -------------------------------
172,888,000 172,888,000 152,888,000 172,888,000 -------------------------------- +20,000,000
137,330,000 137,330,000 137,330,000 137,330,000 ________________________________________________
Total, fiscal year 1975 appropriations ------------------- =----- 2,180, 218,000 2, 054, 425, 000 2,160, 825, 000 2,148, 075, 000 -32,143, 000 +93, 650, 000 -12, 750, 000
Total, fiscal year 1976 appropriations ------ ------------------ 2,210, 218,000 2,210,218,000 2,190,218,000 2,210,218,000 -------------------------------- +20,000,000
School Assistance in Federally Affected Areas
1. Maintenance and operations:
(a) Payments for "A"children _____________________c-_-=___ 223,900,000 223,900,000 223,900,000 223,900,000 ---------------------- _________________________
(b) Payments for"B"children -------------------------------------------------- 38,900,000 354,616,000 354,616,000 354,616,000 +315,716,000 --------------------------------
(c) Special provisions_____________________________________ 14,500,000 14,500,000 14,500,000 14,500,000 ------------------------------------------------
(d) Payments to other Federal agencies __---_-_-__-c_43,000,000 43,000,000 43,000,006 43,000,000 ------------------------------------------------
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020005-7
36; 000,
21,511,000 -2,489,000---------------------------------
34,705,000 -6, 095, 000 -5, 000, 000 _ _ _------------
1,200,000 --------------------------------------- ----- __
36,000,000 +6,000,000 +2,800,000 ----------------
22,500,000 ---------------- +1,000,000 ________________
 December 10, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
Agency and item Budget Recommended Recommended
estimate in House bill in Senate bill
(1) (2) (3)
2. Construction--------- -------- ---------------------
Total _
---------------------------------------------------
S 20967
Increase (+) or decrease (-), conference bill
compared with-
Conference Budget
agreement estimate House bill Senate bill
$20,000,000 $20,000,000 $p, 000, 000
340, 300, 000 656, 016, 000 656, 016, 000
1. State grant program ---------------- 47,500,000 85,000,000 125,000,000
Advance appropriation for 1976____________________________ 50, 000, 000 100, 000, 000 100, 000, 000
2. Special target programs:
(a) Deaf-blind centers____________________________________ 12,000,000 12,000,000 12,000-, 000
(b) Early childhood projects_______________________________ 14, C00, 000 14, 000, 000 14,000,000
(c) Specific learning disabilities____________________________ 3,250,000 3,250,000 3,250,000
(d) Regional resource centers__________________9,243,000 9,243,000 9,243,000
3. Innovation and'development -___________________________ 9,916,000 9,916,000 9,916,000
4. Technolog and communication:
(a) Media services and captioned films______________________ 13, 000, 000 13, COO, 000 13, 000, 000
(b) Recruitment and information___________________________ 500,000 500,000 500,000
5. Special education manpower development______________________ 37,700,000 37,700,000 37,700, 000
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020005-7
Total, fiscal year 1975 appropriations_______________________ 147109,000 184,609,000 224,609,000 199,609,000 +52,500,000 +15,000,000 -25,000,000
Total, fiscal year 1976 appropriations________________________ 50:000,000 100, 000, 000 100, 000, 000 100, 000, 000 +50, 000, 000 --------------------------------
1. Adult education-grants to States______________________________ 63,319,?000 63,319,000 67,500,000 67 500,000 +4,181,000 X4+4, ,181,000 ________________
Advance appropriation for 1976____________________________ 63,319,000 63,319,000 67,500,000 67,5CO,000 +4,181,000 181,000 _______________
2. Ethnic heritage studies1,800,000 1,800,000 +1,800,000 +1,800,000 ___________
Total, fiscal year 1975appropriations ___________"__.......... 63,319,000 63,319,000 69,300,000 69,300,000 +5,981,000 +5,981,000 ----------------
fiscal year 1976appiopria ... 63,319,000 63,319,000 67,500,000 67,500,OC0 ,+4,181,000 +4,181,000
School
School libraries_________________________________________________ 90,250,000 95,250,000 95,250,000 95,250,000
Salaries and expenses-------- -------- 718,000 ---------------- - 750,000 ---------------
Social Security Administration
Limitation on salaries and expenses_______________________________ (20, 242,000) Not considered --------------------------------
Human Development
+5,000,000 --------------------------------
-718,000 ---------------- --750,000
1. Nutrition programs for the elderly______________________________ 99,600,000 125,000,000 125,000,000 125,000,000 +25,400,000 ----------------------------
2. Youth development___________________________________________ 12,000,000 Not considered 10,000,000 10,000,000 -2,000,000 -----
+10,000,000 _______________
Total_____________ 111,600,000 125,000,000 135,000,000 135,000,000 +23,400,000 +10,000,000 ---------
Total, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare------------ 5, 411, 819, 000 5, 706, 800, 000 5, 850, 912, 000 5, 833, 412, 000 +421, 593, 000 }126, 612, 000 -17, 500, 000
Consisting of: - - -
Appropriations forfiscal year 1975------------------- 3088,282,000 3,333,263000 3,493,194000 3,455,694000 +367,412,000 }122,431,000 -37,500,000
Appropriations for fiscal year 1976___________________ 2:323,537,000 2,373,537:000 2, 357, 718, 000 2,377,718:000 +54,181, 000 +4,181, 000 +20,000, 000
Total, Chapter 11 ------------------------------------------ 5, 421, 469, 000 5, 706, 800, 000 5, 856, 042, 000 5, 840, 542, 000 +419, 073, 000
}133, 742, 000 -15, 500, 000
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, the
total amount of the Labor-HEW chap-
ter is very large this year because a num-
ber of the education programs were not
authorized at the time we were consider-
ing the regular Labor-HEW bill. Because
we had to wait for the action of the au-
thorizing committees, it was necessary
to postpone the funding of these pro-
grams until this supplemental appropri-
ations bill. I would also like to point out
that almost half of the funds included.
in the supplemental will be used for the
1975-76 school year. Out of the total $5.8
billion in the Labor-HEW chapter, $2.4
billion represents advance appropria-
tions for fiscal year 1976. This is a major
initiative in advapce funding. The ra-
tionale for including these funds in a
1975 appropriations bill instead of a 1976
appropriations bill is that the States and
localities will be given more lead time to
plan for the use of these school funds.
The committee is very hopeful that this
action will result in more benefit for each
Federal dollar invested.
In the Department of Labor, the ad-
ministration made an unusual proposal
to create a number of minor adjust-
ments, and the committee and the con-
ferees generally agreed with the thrust of
these amendments, which would basi-
cally, begin to implement the new and
expanded pension reform legislation as
well as increase funding to strengthen
the laws prohibiting job discrimination
against the handicapped. The conferees
also agreed to an amount of $480,000 to
reduce the backlog of compensation
claims for injured Federal workers.
In the area of health the conferees
agreed with the Senate in providing in-
creased educational opportunities for
students at medical, dental, nursing, and
related schools.
The principal areas of difference be-
tween the House and Senate bills involve
education programs. Here the Senate
conferees were successful in sustaining
significant increases in the ,areas of bi-
lingual education, school equipment and
minor remodeling, and education for nu-
trition and health. The Senate conferees
were also successful in sustaining a sig-
nificant increase for the State grant pro-
gram assisting in the education for the
handicapped. Other Senate increases sus-
tained in conference included grants to
States for adult education and ethnic
$20,000,000 -----------------------------------------`-------
656,016,000- +$315,716,000 _---------- ---------------
100,000,000 +52, 500, 000 }015, 000, 000 -$25, 000, 000
100,000,000 +50,000,000 --------------------------------
12,000,000 ----------------------------
14,000,000
3,250,000 ----- a------------------------------------------
9,243,000 ----------------
9,916,000
13, 000, 000
500,000 -------------------
37,700,000 ------
the necessary supplemental expenses for
the Department of Labor and HEW for
fiscal year 1975.
HANDICAPPED CHILDREN INFORMATION PLAN
On a related matter, Mr. President, the
Congress, in this bill, has provided a sub-
stantial increase for education services
to handicapped children. However, all the
money in the world will not help if we
cannot get information on materials and
services available out to the parents and
children. The committee would expect
HEW to come up with a plan for getting
this information ou.t on a timely and ef-
fective basis. Next year's budget hearings
would be an appropriate forum for dis-
cussing the Department's plans.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will report the amendment in disagree-
ment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as
follows:
heritage studies. Resolved, That the House recede from its
Mr. President, in closing, let me state disagreement to the amendment of the Sen-
that I thought that chapter II of the ate numbered 17 to the aforesaid bill, and
Senate bill was significant in approach- concur therein with an amendment, as fol-
ing the problem of funding school pro- lows:
grams too late. The conference report be- In lieu of the matter stricken and inserted
fore you today provides an amount that by said amendment, insert:
should be very helpful, especially in the "ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
area of education. The amounts provided "For carrying out, to the extent not other-
for some items are not entirely to my wise provided, title I Part A ($3,702,762,000)
satisfaction or the satisfaction of the Part B ($30,338,000) and Part C ($30,000,-
000), title III ($120,000,000), title IV, Part B
Senate conferees. Nevertheless, I believe ($137,330,000) and Part C ($172,888,000),
that there will be adequate funds to meet title V, Parts A and C ($39,425,000), title VII
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020005-7
 Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020005-7
amendment, which will insure that HEW
retains its authority to enforce title VI
of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and title IX
of the Education Amendments of 1972.
Without our amendment, 10 years of
work to eliminate discrimination in
American life will have been undermined.
The Holt amendment would prohibit
the Federal Government from requiring
the classification or assignment of teach-
ers or students on the basis of race, re-
ligion, sex, or national origin, and the
reporting of such information to HEW.
Secretary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare Caspar Weinberger has clearly rec-
ognized the dangers in this amendment
by stating in a letter to Senator MAGNU-
soN on December 2, 1974, that although
the effect of the language might be am-
biguous, In HEW's view "most courts
would hold that the amendment ends our.
basic authority to enforce civil rights
laws." The Secretary in his letter, a copy
of which has been sent to each Senator,
urges us to change this amendment.
I should point out to the Senate that
the Holt amendment was considered by
us in late November and turned down by
a vote of 43 to 37. We are now confronted
with substantially the same language on
this conference report. The Scott-Mans-
field amendment does not attempt to
strike out the Holt amendment but seeks
to clarify the congressional intent that
all Federal antidiscrimination laws are
to be enforced. This is a minimum com-
mitment to equal justice under the Con-
stitution which we all should support.
Finally, I should point out that this is
not really a busing question, but one that
deals with the enforcement of our basic
civil rights laws against discrimination.
I urge my colleagues to support this
S 20968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE . December 101, 197.E
and sec. 808 of the Elementary and Second-
ary Education Act, Part J of the Vocational
Education Act of 1963, section 822 and sec-
tion 823 ($200,000) of Public Law 93-380,
section 417(a) (2) of the General Education
Provisions Act, title IV of the Civil Rights
pct of 1964 and title III-A ($21,750,000) of
the National Defense Education Act of 1968,
$4,380,203,000; Provided, That of the amounts
:appropriated above the following amounts
shall become available for obligation on July
1. 1975, and shall remain available until
June 30, 1976; title I, Part A ($1,882,212,-
000) Part B ($16,538,000) and title IV, Part
,11 (8137,380,000) and Part C ($172,888,000)
of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act, and section 417(a) (2) of the General
Education Provisions Act (41,250,000) : Pro-
vided further, That the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rich shall receive grants for the cur-
rent fiscal year pursuant to sections 121, 122,
and 123 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (as such Act exists on
the date of enactment of this Act) in
amounts equal to not less than the amounts
received by the Commonwealth of Puerto
itico for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974,
pursuant to sections 103(a) (5), 103(a) (6),
and 103(a) (7), respectively of the Elemen-
tary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (as
such Act existed immediately before the
effective date of the amendments made to
title I of such Act by the Education Amend-
ments of 1974) : Provided further, That none
of these funds shall be used to compel any
school system as a condition for receiving
grants and other benefits from the appropria-
tions above, to classify teachers or students
by race, religion, sex, or national origin, or
to assign teachers or students to schools,
classes, or courses for reasons of race, re-
ligion, sex, or national origin."
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, I
move that the Senate concur in amend-
ment No. 17.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
on behalf of other Senators, I will have
to suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceed-
ed to call the roll.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I ask unan-
imous consent that the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I ask unan-
mous consent that the privilege of the
floor may be accorded to Patricia Shakow
and Charles Warren, of my office, during
the consideration of this conference re-
port on supplemental appropriations.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
course, the leadership-that is, on both question about the fact that any Presi- I also offer, and ask unanimous consent
sides of the aisle-will offer an amend- dent who believes in the Constitution of to have printed in the RECORD at this
ment to the amendment which is in dis- the United States would be duty bound point, a letter sent on December 6 to our
agreement, which will then, if adopted to veto It, and I hope very much that colleagues by Senator MANSFIELD and
by the Senate,, go back to the House as the President will, notwithstanding the myself.
an amendment with an amendment, ask- tremendous difficulty it would cause in There being no objection, the letter
ing for the concurrence of the House. many directions. We can avoid that, Mr. was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
BROOKE) has carefully and in detail recommenaea by the leadership, to be
pointed out that the language of the con- presented by Senator SCOTT, which we
ference report on the so-called Holt have adopted in other areas, making it
amendment would virtually nullify title clear that we do not seek to invalidate
VI of the Civil Rights. Act of 1964,. for the Constitution. I hope very much that
which so many of us expended so much the Senate will go that route in order to
effort and energy, and which was one Of do justice, sustain the Constitution, and
the great achievements in the interest of save this bill.
validating the Constitution of the United . Mr. HUGH SCOTT. Mr. President, on
States; that it would nullify title VI of behalf of myself and the distinguished
this landmark Civil Rights Act by re- majority leader and Senator frolil Mon-
stricting the power of the Department of tana (Mr. MANSFIELD), I move to concur
Health, Education, and Welfare .to ob- in the am dment of the House to the
twin what is essential in the way of in- amendment of the 'Senate, with an
formation in order to enforce the various amendment, as follows, which I send to
unconstitutional discrimination proven- the desk and ask for its immediate con-
tions which are built into this law. sideration.
If schools cannot be required to clas- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
sify studwits and teachers according to amendment will be stated.
race, sex, or national origin, it will be The assistant legislative clerk read as
impossible to obtain the basis for any follows:
case or to show any pattern or practice, At the end of amendment numbered 17 in
except on the tedious case-by-case disagreement, strike the period, insert a
method which has been so ineffective comma in lieu thereof, and add the follow-
in civil rights enforcement generally and ing: "except as may be necessary to enforce
which itself brought on the Civil Rights nondiscrimination provisions of Federal
Act-of 1964. ' law".
The Federal Government, obviously, Mr. HUGH SCOTT. Mr. President, this
cannot justify withholding funds for is an amendment to the so-called Holt
it is segregation on the grounds of sex,
leave out the highly controverted and
deep American question of color and
race, unless it can prove a case, and it
certainly cannot prove any kind of ge-
neric case, and that is the way these
cases develop, unless some such records
are kept. It hits programs quite separate
and apart from, indeed, remote from,
the questions of race and color, because
we have the sex problem, Which is very
widespread, is a major issue in our coun-
try, and is dealt with by the Civil Rights
Act of 1964.
We have, for example, the problem of
bilingual education, where we have just
materially increased the amount of the
appropriation, because we believe so
deeply that those who are Spanish
speaking, mainly, should be brought into
the great area of American life through
having enough stimulation in instruc-
tion to gain competence in both lan-
guages.
Mr. President, what I think is more
important than anything else is to make
it clear that we are not voting on a bus-
ing amendment, either pro or antibus-
ing. All that we are trying to do, Mr.
President, is retain a basis for evidence
which is very neatly destroyed if this
amendment should remain in the con-
ference report and be agreed on as part
of this measure.
Mr. President, there have been some
implications that th8 President of the
United States might consider vetoing
this bill on the ground that it is a little
more money than he would like. I hope
he does not do that on a money ground.
But, Mr. President, should this amend-
ment be found in the Will that goes to
Washington, D.C., December 6, 1974.
DEAR COLLEAGUE: Next week, the Senate
will vote on the Conference Report on the
Supplemental Appropriations bill. This meas-
ure contains language originally proposed
by Rep. Bolt and adopted by the House
which could, in effect, repeal the 1964 Civil
Rights Act with regard to education.
The amendment does not really deal with
busing and regardless of your feelings on that:
issue it would be extremely unwise to take
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020005-7
 Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020005-7
December 10, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
any action which might nullify Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of
the Education Amendments of 1972 which
forbid Federal payments to schools and col-
leges discriminating on the basis of race,
religion, sex or national origin. The language
of the Conference Report would prohibit the
Federal government from requiring the clas-
sification or assignment of teachers or stu-
dents on the basis of any of these categories,
and the reporting of such information to
HEW. As Secretary of HEW Weinberger has
stated, without such data, the Department
would be unable to make key decisions as
to where Title VI and Title IX actions might
be needed.
With the full support of the Administra-
tion, we have offered an amendment to this
provision which would clarify our intent that
all Federal anti-discrimination laws are to be
enforced while still retaining the Holt
amendment's admonition to HEW not to un-
duly harass schools and colleges. We believe
it would be tragic to make such a sweeping
repeal of landmark civil rights legislation on
an appropriation bill, without any committee
consideration, and we urge you to support
our amendment next week. Attached is a
copy of Sec. Weinberger's letter opposing the
amendment.
Sincerely,
MIKE MANSFIELD,
Majority Leader.
HUGH SCOTT,
Republican Leader.
Mr. HUGH SCOTT. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that a letter from
the Assistant Attorney General, Vincent
Rakestraw, supporting the Scott-Mans-
field amendment to the supplemental ap-
propriations bill, be printed in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., December 10, 1974.
Hon. JAMES O. EASTLAND,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S.
Senate; Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter concerns
H.R. 16900, a supplemental appropriations
bill for fiscal year 1975 which affects, among
other portions of the Executive branch, the
Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare. This bill has been submitted by a com-
mittee of conference. The bill presently con-
tains a provision of particular interest to the
Department of Justice, with respect to both
our responsibilities and those of the federal
courts. For this reason, I have written this
letter and, also, taken the liberty of sending
a copy of this letter to each member of the
Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate.
The provision which concerns us is a
proviso, popularly known as the Holt Amend-
ment, which states:
"Provided further, That none of these
funds shall be used to compel any school
system as a condition for receiving grants
and other benefits from the appropriations
above, to classify teachers or students by
race, religion, sex, or national origin; or to
assign teachers or students to schools, classes,
or courses for reasons of race, religion, sex,
or national origin."
It is our understanding that, as expressed
in a letter of December 2, 1974 from Sec-
retary Weinberger to Senator Magnuson, this
proviso may be interpreted to foreclose the
authority of the Department of Health, Edu-
cation and Welfare to enforce its respon-
sibilities under Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) and Title IX
of the Education Amendments of 1972.
While judicial interpretation of this pro-
vision cannot, of course, be predicted, our
concern involves two potential consequences
of the proposed amendment.
First, the Congress has recently expressly
and specifically addressed the problems it
found in the field of school desegregation by
the enactment of the Education Amend-
ments 1974, P.L. 93-380 (approved August
21, 1974). Title II of that legislation, the
Equal Educational Opportunity Act of 1974
(see 20 U.S.C. 1701) speaks to equal educa-
tional opportunities and the transportation
of students. In that legislation, the Congress
declared "it to be the policy of the United
States that * * * all children enrolled in
public schools are entitled to equal educa-
tional opportunity without regard to race,
color, sex, or national origin." (20 U.S.C.
1701).
In our view, the proposed amendment is
inconsistent with this recent declaration by
the Congress. In particular, if the proviso
were judicially interpreted as suggested
above, the Department of Justice and the
federal courts would be required to assume
the entire responsibility within the federal
government for compliance with constitu-
tional provisions and federal laws concern-
ing school desegregation. This would both
require a substantial increase in the re-
sources of the Department of Justice to dis-
charge this, function, and would impose on
the federal judiciary a great increase in the
demands placed on it since, under the pro-
vision, actions concerning school desegrega-
tion could be taken by the Executive branch
only in federal court.
Second, the Holt Amendment raises consti-
tutional questions of importance which, in
our judgment, have not yet been sufficiently
considered. The effect of the Amendment, if
it is interpreted as suggested above, would be
to negate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 with respect to enforcement authority
of HEW, but only in the area of education.
Such a selective limitation, especially given
the particular history of civil rights pro-
visions, might raise constitutional questions.
In our judgment, these issues should be
thoroughly explored and considered before a
proviso such as this is enacted.
To avoid these difficulties, we suggest you
might consider making clear, by amend-
ment or otherwise, that. the proviso is not
intended to affect any actions or proceed-
ings designed to implement the non-dis-
crimination provisions of federal law.
The Office of Management and Budget has
advised that there is no objection to the sub-
mission of this report from the standpoint
of the Administration's program.
Sincerely,,
W. VINCENT RAKESTRAW,
Assistant Attorney General.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I suggest
that we should have a roilcall on this
particular important amendment by the
leadership, and I suggest the absence of
a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to call the roll. .
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unan-
imous consent that the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, in behalf
of the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
THURMOND) and myself, I send to the
desk an amendment to the amendment
of the Senator from Pennsylvania and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read as
follows:
5,20969
At the end of the amendment, strike the
period, and add the fofowing: "upon a de-
termination by a court of the United States
that such discrimination exists."
Mr. HELMS. Mr'. President, as I say, I
have submitted this amendment in be-
half of the distinguished Senator from
South Carolina (Mr. THURMOND) and
myself.
The amendment that we are offering
is very clean and straightforward. It
simply provides that none of these funds
shall be used to require any school sys-
tem, as a condition for receiving grants
and other benefit, from the appropria-
tions in this bill (H.R. 16900), to classify
teachers or students by race, religion, sex,
or national origin;' or to assign teachers
or students to schools, classes, or courses
for reasons of race, religion, sex, or na-
tional origin unless a court of the United
States has first determined that discrim-
ination on the basis of such criteria, in
fact, exists in that school system.
The purpose and intent of this amend-
ment is to insure that before the De-
partment of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare takes any action-including, but not
limited to, withholding funds-regard-
ing any school system concerning any
possible discrimination, there must first
be a determination by a court of the
United States that such discrimination
exists. If there is such a determination
by a Federal court and if the appellate
process has been exhausted, then, of
course, HEW has the full authority
granted it under previous congressional
enactments. However, under this provi-
sion. HEW may not act summarily with-
out a court determination.
This provision simply affords our
school systems a fundamental American
right-the right to be presumed innocent
until proven guilty and the opportunity
to have its day in court, I would not deny
this due process to any man, and I cer-
tainly would not deny it to the school-
children of our country.
I urge the adoption of this amend-
ment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I ask for
the yeas and nays on the amendment
presented by the Senator from Pennsyl-
vania (Mr. HUGH SCOTT).
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, a parlia-
mentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator will state it.
Mr. HELMS. Is there a previous order
as to a voting time today?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is
none.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent, that the vote on my
amendment to the ,amendment not occur
prior to 2 o'clock.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I wish the Senator had cleared that mat-
ter with the leadership on both sides. An-
other matter is to come before the Sen-
ate at 2 o'clock today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection? -
Mr. ROBERT C.:BYRD. Mr. President,
I must object.
Mr. HELMS. I will withdraw the re-
quest.
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020005-7
 Approved-For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020005-7
S 20970
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE December 10, 1974
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection
Is heard.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the distin-
guished Senator from South, Carolina
(Mr. THURMOND) is on his way to the
Chamber, and would like to address him-
self to this amendment. I hope the lead-
ership will allow some time for those
comments by the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is
no time limitation.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I may have misunderstood the Senator's
request. Will he state it again?
Mr. HELMS. We do have a previous
order? We had a previous order as to
voting on this amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is-
no previous order.
Mr. BROOKE. The request was to de-
fer the vote on my amendment to ap-
proximately 2 o'clock.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Then I did
understand the Senator correctly. I
would have to object to that.
Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, as I
understand, this matter was to be taken
up at 1 o'clock without any unanimous-
consent agreement, and the vote would
then follow the vote on the Rockefeller
confirmation. Is that not correct?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. The Senator
is correct.
Mr. BROOKE. And there is no time
limitation on any amendment, and no
unanimous-consent agreement for any
time for any vote on any amendment?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. The Senator Is
correct. Let me state to the distinguished
Senator from North Carolina, I have no
objection to voting on the amendment
now. I just want to renew our under-
standing of the fact that at 2 o'clock to-
day the Senate will go Into executive
session to consider the nomination of Mr.
Rockefeller. Debate will ensue thereon,
and the Senate will vote on the nomina-
tion at 3 o'clock.
Mr. BROOKE. Is it the Senator's de-
sire to have a vote on this amendment
prior to 2 o'clock?
Mr. HELMS. Not necessarily. I am
mainly interested in the Senator from
South Carolina (Mr. THURMOND), who is
on his way to the Chamber, having
enough time to consent.
Mr. BROOKE. So we will just talk on
it, and then come back to it after the
Rockefeller nomination?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. That is cor-
rect.
Mr. JAV~.TS. Mr. President, the Sen-
ator from Massachusetts will shortly be
speaking in opposition to the amend-
ment to the amendment. As I was here
when It was read, I would just like to
address one or two thoughts to it, that
will take a very short time.
Mr. President, the real,issue of this
debate and the vote will be whether or
not any residual power shall exist in the
Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare with respect to the enforcement
of the CivilRights Act of 1964, because
all the amendment does is say that only
the courts may, when they find unlawful
segregation, order facts and figures, et
cetera, to be produced, which would be
inhibited by the Holt amendment.
That defeats the scheme of enforce-
ment devised by Congress in 1964, and
also introduces elements of social insta-
bility, because you can have tremendous
reactions, social unrest, demonstrations,
and even riots if they have to wait 2, 3,
4, or 5 years until the court eventually
decides before getting any facts and
figures on which to base any action un-
der the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
So, while I know the Senator offering
the amendment meant it to be an olive
branch of a sort, all it does is lock in the
very purpose of the Holt, amendment,
and this Is something which we must, in
all good conscience, be against, as it de-
stroys the whole fabric of the legislation
which we constructed In 1964, with all
the attendant dangers and difficulties
which we sought to deal with when we
enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Mr. BEALL. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. JAVITS. I yield.
Mr. BEALL. I can appreciate the op-
position to some aspects of the Holt
amendment, but I think there also
should be concern about the fact that
HEW In many Instances, under cover of
promotion of civil rights, in my opinion
is harassing local school systems in ask-
ing them to produce the information
that is not readily available, and which,
as a matter of fact, is very difficult and
often very expensive for them to provide,
and threatening, if they do not provide
this information in an unreasonably
short period of time, to cut off their
funds.
It seems to me there should be some
balance in all of this, and I would like
to ask the Senator if there is some way
that we could develop language in this
bill to provide the kind of balance that
some of us think is necessary, on the one
hand assuring that we are not going to
have segregation in the school systems,
but on the other hand assuring also
that the Department of Housing, Edu-
cation and Welfare, In an effort to im-
pose Federal control over - the operation
of what should be locally operated
schoolsin an effort to. increase the pow-
ers of the Federal bureaucracy over local
and State governments, is not going to
use civil rights as a cover for carrying
on these kinds of actions that they seem
to be embarked upon in my own State,
which we alluded to when we discussed
this matter on November 19, 1974, on
the Senate floor-see CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD, pages 19637-19643.
Mr. JAVITS. If I may just answer that,
and then I would like to turn it over to
Senator BROOKE. There are four ways
which we have. One is the power of legis-
lative oversight.- My colleague serves on
the committee which deals with educa-
tion, and we have said before, and I say
again, I am the ranking member, and I
will work with him hand in hand to have
a hearing on any such arbitrary exercise
of power. We generally can correct it that
way.
The second way is through appropria-
tions and appointments. We have to con-
firm in our committee all nominees to
that particular department. We deal with
authorizations for appropriations, and we
have the power on the floor respecting
appropriations. So that is item No. 2.
The third item is the courts which are
available to anyone who feels he, is being
harassed or improperly treated, even by
an interlocutory order of injunction.
The fourth is the public forum. Sen-
ators get up here, as the Senator from
Maryland has, and denounce a Govern-
ment department or a Government bu-
reaucrat, the press, radio, television.
local citizenry, zero In an that- and, gen-
erally speaking, It is a very effective way.
Now, there may be others, but there are
at least four ways.
I yield.
Mr.- BEALL. May I comment on those
four points before we get Into further
discussion? I appreciate those sugges-
tions, and I appreciate the offer the Sen-
ator made several weeks ago when we
were discussing this matter to have a
-meeting of the Education Subcommittee
to look into it, and I think it should be
done regardless of the outcome. But I
would also point out that legislative over-
sight generally takes place after the fact,
and in the instances in which I have some
concern it is after the fact.
The legislative oversight might be
helpful in preventing excesses in the fu-
ture but, as a matter of fact, the excesses
has already occurred, so this is an after-
the-fact operation so far as that remedy
Is concerned. It also does not spare a dis-
trict of the work and expense that some
GS-12 might-demand. Apparently, HEW
feels they have authority to demand any
and everything without even first deter-
mining the validity of individual com-
plaints. -
Mr. JAVITS, Mr. President, may we
ask the Senator from Washington, Is the
committee opposed to the Holt language?
What is the committee's position?
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, this
is the Item in the Labor-HEW chapter of
the bill which has caused a great deal of
controversy over the last few weeks. This
item Is referred to as the Holt amend-
ment and deals with the classification of
students and teachers in elementary
schools.
There has been a great deal of con-
fusion on this matter-and I would like
to try to clear the air for the Members.
When the so-called Holt language was
first added to the supplemental bill on
the floor of the House, many were not
aware of its real impact. As Is our usual
procedure, the Senate committee asked
HEW to provide a clear, factual explana-
tion of the language as well as its effect
on HEW programs. At this point, the De-
partment . transmitted a document--
which I will place in the record-which
said that some portions of the language
were damaging, while other parts would
not be Interpreted to have any effect on
the civil rights program. This is HEW's .
own document-and It was prepared In
the Office of the Secretary. I ask unani-
mous consent to have printed In the REC-
ORD this document.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection it Is ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. MAGNUSON. The Members will
recall that the Senate committee recom-
mended deletion of the House language
on the grounds that this does not belong
on an appropriations bill. This is a com-
plex legislative issue that should be dealt
with separately. The majority of the Sen-
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020005-7
 Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020005-7
DDecember 10, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S. 20971
ate agreed with the committee's position
and did not restore the language.
During the conference session on the
supplemental, the House conferees of-
fered a compromise. This compromise
was based on the document HEW pre-
pared. Although the Senate was some-
what reluctant to accept any compro-
mise, it was obvious that support in the
full House made it necessary. The agree-
ment was reached to knock out the dam-
aging language.
No sooner had the conferees reached
agreement when HEW reversed itself and
Secretary Weinberger rushed up a new
piece of paper-with a new interpreta-
tion of the language. This was as much a
surprise to me as it was to everyone else.
I ask unanimous consent that this doc-
ument may be printed in the RECORD.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 2.)
Mr. MAGNUSON. I am aware that
some Members wish to either modify or
delete the language in question-and
send it back to the House. Considering
all the confusion that HEW and others
have caused on this issue, this might be
the best, most prudent course of action.
I would hate to see a provision that
may carry such a profound impact, be
passed under a cloud of confusion.
Many people might be for the Holt
language, or some of us against it, in-
cluding the Senator" from Massachusetts
and myself, but we just though it did not
belong on this appropriation bill.
EXHIBIT I
EFFECT OF THE HOLT AMENDMENT
The Holt amendment to the' Supplemental
Appropriations Act would prohibit the use
of any funds appropriated under the Act to
compel any school system, as a condition to
receiving funds under this Act, to classify
teachers or students by race, religion, sex, or
national origin; to assign teachers or students
to schools for reasons of race, religion, sex, or
national origin; or to prepare or maintain
any records, files, reports, or statistics per-
taining to those classifications.
This amendment would adversely affect
civil rights enforcement with respect to the
programs included within this Supplemental
Appropriations Act. Perhaps the most damag-
ing portion of proposed amendment is the
clause prohibiting the Department from
compelling school districts to prepare and
maintain records pertaining to the race, reli-
gion, sex, or national origin of students and
teachers. Such records are essential to iden-
tify discriminatory practices by school dis-
tricts receiving Federal financial assistance
and to monitor the elimination of such prac-
tices. Without such data the Department will
be unable to make responsible enforcement
decisions without a prohibitive increase in
enforcement personnel and attendant costs.
Furthermore, depriving the Department
of the means of systematically obtaining
from school systems data concerning race,
sex, or national origin will impede the con-
gressional purpose in a number of programs
for which funds are appropriated under this
Act. For example, in providing assistance to
school districts for dealing with problems
incident to desegregation (42 U.S.C. 200c-2),
the Department would virtually be required
to obtain such data in order effectively to
carry out the congressional purpose of the
statute. Similarly, data regarding national
origin is necessary for the Department in
administering the Bilingual Education Pro-
gram under title VII of ESEA.
The amendment also prohibits the use of
funds to compel the assignments of students
and teachers "for reasons of race, religion,
sex, or national origin". Although It is not
clear what particular activities were in-
tended to be prohibited by this language,
we do not read the language to prohibit the
Department from requiring school districts
to take steps to eliminate desegregation and
remove the effects of past discrimination. To
so read the language would imply a present
purpose by Congress to repeal, in significant
part, title VI of the Civil Rights Act, title IX
of the Education Amendments of 1972, and
section 204 of the Education Amendments of
1974, as those provisions relate to the pro-
grams for which funds are appropriated un-
der this Act. Consideration of race, in de-
veloping and implementing remedial action
has long been held by the courts as well as
by this Department to be an essential ele-
ment ofprograms designed to ensure com-
pliance with the Equal Protection require-
ments of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amend-
ments title VI, and similar statutes. Identical
considerations would apply to the use of
data related to sex, religion, and national
origin in correcting discrimination on those
bases.
EXHIBIT 2
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,
December 2, 1974.
Hon. WARREN Q. MAGNUSON,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor and
Health, Education, and Welfare, Com-
mittee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Supplemental
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1975 (H.R.
16900) as reported out of the Conference
Committee contains the following pro-
viso relating to the classification and assign-
ment of teachers and students for reasons of
race, religion, sex, or national origin:
"Provided further, That none of these
funds shall be used to compel any school
system as a condition for receiving grants
and other benefits from the appropriations
above, to classify teachers or students by
race, religion, sex, or national origin; or to
assign teachers or students to schools,
classes, or courses for reasons of race, reli-
gion, sex, or national origin."
Although the effect of the above language
is somewhat ambiguous, In our view most
courts would hold that the amendment ends
our basic authority to enforce civil rights
laws, particularly title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, which prohibits use of Federal
funds for programs that discriminate as to
race, color, or national origin, and title IX
of Educational Amendments of 1972, which
carries a similar prohibition with regard to
sex discrimination in education programs.
Although the Conference deleted language
from the original Holt Amendment that
would have prohibited the Department from
requiring school systems to prepare or main-
tain "any records, files, reports, or statistics
pertaining to the race, religion, sex, or na-
tional origin of teachers or students", the
prohibition relating to the classification of
students and teachers was left intact. That
provision would prohibit the Department
from requiring grantees to collect and report
certain statistical information relating to
the treatment of minorities. Without such
information the Department would be un-
able to make the key decisions as to where
to direct our investigative resources under
titles VI and IX. Nor would be be able to
investigate the numerous complaints of dis-
crimination against minorities and women
without access to data classifying students
and teachers.
In addition to .those problems, however,
the above proviso would prohibit the De-
partment from compelling any school sys-
tem, as a condition to the receipt of Federal
funds, to "assign teachers or students to
schools, classes, or courses for reasons of
race, religion, sex, or national origin". Al-
though this language is somewhat ambigu-
ous, in our view it would restrict the De-
partment from enforcing the requirements
of titles VI and IX in those cases where a
reassignment of teachers or students might
be necessary to eliminate discriminatory
assignment practices.
This is a highly complex legal issue and
one that is certain to be presented to the
courts. If the courts give full effect to the
proviso, the Department could not carry out
its responsibilities under titles VI and IX.
Doubtless there are various interpretations
courts could adopt; but it might take two to
three years to get a final interpretation. In
the meantime we could not violate the Holt
Amendment and therefore we would not be
able to enforce titles VI and IX to the extent
indicated.
Sincerely,
CASPAR W. WEINBERGER,
Secretary.
Mr. JAVITS. The Senator himself has
joined in this amendment, has he not?
Mr. MAGNUSON. I have joined with
the Mansfield-Scott amendment.
Mr. BEALL. This is very interesting,
but I would like to pursue the original
line of questioning.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I yield to
the Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. BROOKE. As I understood the
committee vote, we voted against the
Holt amendment not just because it was
legislation on an appropriation bill but
also because we opposed the Holt lan-
guage on its merits.
Mr. MAGNUSON. That was my posi-
tion.
Mr. BROOKE. That was your posi-
tion, my position, and that was the posi-
tion of the majority.
Mr. MAGNUSON. That was my per-
sonal position.
Mr. BROOKE. It came up on the floor
of the Senate, where there was a lengthy
debate and a vote rejecting it. The Sen-
ate's position was made perfectly clear.
Then it went to conference where un-
fortunately the House language was in-
serted again. And here we are now again
for the second time.
Now, if we can get to the Senator's
question.
Mr. BEALL. I want to comment on the
further suggestions made by the Senator
from New York. He suggested further
that we have the power of appointment.
I would suggest that that is true. Ap-
pointments come up here for confirma-
tion periodically.
In the case in which I have some in-
terest, representing the State of Mary-
land, we had meetings between the local
-school officials and the proper appointed
department heads. But the word never
seems to get from the executive suite
down to the third floor where the
bureaucracy is or up to Philadelphia
where the regional office is because what
was agreed to at one point in a meeting
was not implemented in the actual carry-
ing out of the policies. So that Is not a
very good answer to our question either.
The Senator suggests the courts. Well,
the matter now is in the courts because
the school board, after being harassed
by this bevy of Government officials, fl-
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 :.CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020005-7
 S 20972
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020005-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE December 10, 1974
nally has asked that it be taken to court
because that is the only place they can
get a resolution.
Finally, the Senator has suggested
there is public forum. Sure there is a
public forum, that is what this place is,
and that is what we are trying to do
today. But it seems to me we ought to
be able to provide an answer to a spe-
cific situation where there has been un-
necessary harassment on the part of the
Federal bureaucracy, and I am suggest-
ing-
Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. JAVITS. I have the floor, but I
yield to the Senator.
Mr. BROOKE. If the Senator will yield,
as I recall the Senator is very much con-
cerned about the alleged harassment in
Anne Arundel County in Maryland.
Mr. BEALL. That is correct, and other
instances in Maryland.
Mr. BROOKE. That is correct.
After the defeat of the Helms amend=
ment, the Senator from Maryland pro-
posed an amendment of his own on the
floor of the Senate.
We had a very lengthy debate and, as
I recall, we also asked for a quorum call
so we could possibly work out some lan-
guage which would take care of the
rather unique condition which we felt
might exist in Anne Arundel County.
Now, at that time we tried to have a
colloquy on the floor which would make
legislative history so that HEW would
understand that we would not tolerate
harassment from what the Senator from
4Maryland has called, the bureaucrats of
HEW, not only in Anne Arundel County
but any place in the country.
I thought we gave all the assurances
we could possibly give to the Senator
from Maryland that all of us would do
whatever we could to see that HEW got
the message loud and clear, and if there
was harassment in Anne Arundel
County that it would cease and desist.
The Senator insisted at that time that
this matter be taken to a vote; he took
it to a vote, and the amendment was
defeated. But we still wanted the sub-
committee to have hearings, so that the
subcommittee would use its influence,
and everyone else would use their
influence.
In addition to what the distinguished
Senator from New York has said about
protections, I just want to point out to
the Senator from Maryland the letter
which was signed by HUGH SCOTT and
MIKE MANSFIELD, the majority and mi-
nority leaders. I would like to point out
just the third paragraph of that letter
written on December 6, 1974, pertaining
to the Scott-Mansfield language, which
said:
With the full support of the Administra-
tion, we have offered an amendment to this
provision which would clarify our intent that
all Federal anti-discrimination laws are to
be enforced while still retaining the Holt
amendment's admonition to HEW not to un-
;duiy harass schools and colleges. We believe
it would be tragic to make such a sweeping
aepeal of landmark civil rights legislation
on an appropriation bill, without any com-
mittee consideration, and we urge you to
support our amendment next week. Attached
is a copy of See. Weinberger's letter opposing
the amendment.
I would point out that it Is the intent
of the majority and minority leaders
,that there be no undue harassment of
schools and colleges by HEW or any oth-
er Federal bureaucrats.
So I think that, in addition to what
the distinguished Senator from New
York has said, with the adoption of the
Scott-Mansfield language there would be
a protection which the Senator desires
to have for Anne Arundel County or any
other counties that might feel they are
being harassed by HEW.
Mr. BEALL. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. BROOKE. Yes.
Mr. BEALL. I appreciate the Senator's
concern for this county in Maryland, and
other counties in similar situations
around the country.
I am skeptical, however, of HEW's
ability to hear because I do not think
they get the message unless we write
it into the law, because there have been
other attempts to send messages to HEW
to try to get them to apply their policy
in a balanced manner equally across the
country, but I do not think these at-
tempts have succeeded.
What concerns me now is the fact that
as well intended as might be this
language, the so-called Scott-Mansfield
language, it allows HEW to do almost
anything they want to do, because they
can go in and ask for any statistic, they
can require any school board to spend
any amount of time, require the labor
of any number of people in compiling
data that they say, that one employee
down at HEW says, is needed to enforce
nondiscrimination provisions of the Fed-
eral law.
Mr. BROOKE. Short of harassing any
school board.
Mr. BEALL. If the Senator will re-
member our discussion of a few weeks
ago, I chronologically laid out the situa-
tion in this one county in the State of
Maryland where vague complaints were
made to HEW about disciplinary pro-
cedures in ofle of the schools. It so hap-
pened that the school had a black
principal.
HEW never has investigated that com-
plaint as determined the validity of the
complaint; instead, they have embarked
upon this pilot investigation, requiring
the county to compile all the informa-
tion, and; they have threatened the
county with the loss of Federal funds.
I pointed out at one point they sent
the county school superintendent a let-
ter and said, "If you do not furnish this
information within 15 days, you are go-
ing to lose your Federal funds."
The school superintendent came to us,
and we asked for a clarification of HEW,
and it took HEW 30 days to reply to our
letter.
We have had further instances where
they have made requests and it was de-
termined by the school people in Anne
Arundel County that as of now it would
require six administrators working full-
time for 6 months to furnish HEW with
all the information they were requiring
and they have still yet to make a de-
termination on the original charge.
If this is not harassment, I do not know
what it is. This is an example of bu-
reaucracy being unreasonable and I
think In this particular legislation there
is a great big loophole where one bu-
reaucrat, one employee downtown, can
drive a wedge and require the local school
system to come up with any information
that he thinks he needs and which may
not necessarily be needed to help enforce
the Federal law.
Again, I think the civil rights cause
has been a very noble fight. I think we
have made tremendous progress in the
last 20 years in this county to assure that
people of differing races and religions get
equal treatment under the law, but I do
not think we ought to allow the civil
rights laws to be used by bureaucrats
who are anxious to broaden their own
areas of responsibility, to be used as a
cover to bring about more Federal in-
volvement in the operation of local school
systems.
I am concerned that we do not have
the proper balance today. I do not want
to undo in any way what has been done
over the last 20 years with the tremen-
dous strides which have been made, but
I do want to make sure we keep our eye
on the road, that we fight discrimination
but not allow Federal bureaucrats im-
posing unreasonable requests on local
school systems.
Mr. BROOKE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BEALL. Yes, I am happy to yield.
Mr. BROOKE. There Is nothing which
the Senator has said that I cannot agree
with wholeheartedly, and I do not be-
lieve the Senator can feel that by the
adoption of the Helms amendment we
can continue to make the great strides
in progress in civil rights that the dis-
tinguished Senator from Maryland has
said that he so strongly supports.
I believe the Senator from Maryland
when he says that. I have the greatest
respect and admiration for him and his
integrity when he says he applauds the
fact that we have made great progress
in civil rights.
Mr. BEALL. And I hope I have been a
part of that progress.
Mr. BROOKE. And he has been a part
of it and I commend him for it.
But, certainly, the Senator from Mary-
land must understand that if we adopt
the Helms amendment we are taking a
giant step backward in the whole field
of the enforcement of civil rights.
Now, what language does the Senator
from Maryland have that would give him
the protection that he so desires to see
that there would be no harassment?
And I do agree that there should not be
harassment: I do not want to see the Fed-
eral bureaucracy harass anybody in the
name of civil rights.
I think the Senator is absolutely cor-
rect that if we had such legislation I
would be voting for it myself. But what I
am saying to the Senator is that we have
tried to establish, by the colloquy on this
floor, legislative history to make clear
the intent of this Congress to HEW, and
to any other Federal bureaucracy. But
we also want to make it clear that we
want to enforce the civil rights laws that
are on the books, and certainly not take
away from that Federal bureaucracy,
and particularly from HEW, the only
tools with which they can work in order
to enforce civil rights.
I have great respect for JESSE HELMS;
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020005-7
 Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020005-7
Ilecember 10, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE S 20973
he is a friend of mine. We debate on the
floor and I understand what he wants to
do, but all I am saying to him Is this, that
if we do not have the tools with which to
work, then the civil rights law is a nul-
Iity.
How can one enforce the rights of
women if we cannot tell. how many
women there are?
How can we enforce the rights of
blacks or Indians or anybody else If we
cannot tell how many there are?
And the Helms amendment would take
away from us the opportunity to get that
data and that information which Is so
essential in the enforcement of civil
rights laws.
If the Senator has any language that
would stop harassment, I am for it. But
we have not come up with it and it cer-
tainly is not contained in the Helms
amendment or any other amendment
that has been suggested on this floor.
Mr. BEALL. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BROOKE. Yes.
Mr. BEALL. I agree it is important that
data be collected. I think it is very im-
portant that this be done. But, at the
same time, I think that commonsense
must be employed that there has to be
balance in all this and I think we have
slipped over to the other side now. I
think we are moving Into the area of
imbalance.
I do have some language, as a matter
of fact-
Mr. BROOKE. How would the Senator
do it? How would the Senator say we can
enforce the civil rights law if we are un-
able to accumulate and to keep records
and have the data which is so essential?
Mr. BEALL. I think we should estab-
lish administrative procedures and
guidelines so the people in the school
systems have another chance to refute
these charges. I
As it is now, they can only turn in
desperation to the courts. This is very
lengthy and expensive, and a last resort.
There is a need for adequate ad-
ministrative procedures for school sys-
tems to present their case to the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare.
They are at the mercy of the bureaucrats
who threaten them with loss of Federal
funds unless they do exactly what the
bureaucrat wants them to do, and that
Is not always the best thing that should
be done, nor is it always necessary to
promote the cause of civil rights.
I am concerned that we do not have
this kind of balance and I think we have
seen recently the kind of excesses that
do a great injustice and undermine the
cause of civil rights.
Now, I will suggest that at the con-
clusion of the Scott-Mansfield language
we add a sentence, and to some extent
this Is taking care of the problem in
which I have an interest, at least it will
provide some restraint.
At the conclusion of the Scott-Mans-
field language:
Provided, however, That none of the funds
contained herein shall be used to compel
any school system, as a condition for receiv-
ing grants and other benefits, to participate
in any pilot investigation of the problems of
discrimination in disciplinary action.
Mr. BROOKE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr.. BEALL. Yes.
Mr. BROOKE. Is that not the Identical has had, a chance to speak out on this
language that the Senate voted upon and issue.
defeated on November 19, 1974. It would give us Che opportunity to
Mr. BEALL. It most certainly is. The hold the hearings that have been sug-
Senator has a very good memory. I con- gested by the Senator and the distin-
gratulate him. guished Senator from New York. It would
Mr. BROOKE. So the Senator is ask- give Congress a:n opportunity to speak
ing to reconsider an amendment de- on this issue before HEW took unilateral
feated by the Senate less than 3 weeks action that may or may not be desired.
ago? It will give us the opportunity to deter-
Mr. BEALL. Yes, I am. The Senate has mine if we want county's to use educa-
done this on many occasions. tion resources and information collect-
Mr. BROOKE. The Senator has not ing massive data, before ;IEW concludes
amended that language at all? its investigation of a single complaint.
Mr. BEALL. No, I believe the Senate That is the intent of my amendment.
deserves another chance at this. Mr. BROOKE. If the Senator will yield,
Mr. BROOKE. This is really a motion it seems to me that the only evidence we
to reconsider the Beall amendment, is have of any -alleged harassment is that
that correct? which the Senator from Maryland refers
Mr. BEALL. Well, not really, it is in a to, which takes place in Anne Arundel
different context and circumstances. County, Md. If that is true, it is most
Mr. BROOKE. But it would have the regrettable. But the hearings, if I under-
same effect? stood correctly, would be 'to determine
Mr. BEALL. It would have the same whether there was harassment in Anne
effect; it is the same amendment. Arundel County, and whether there was
Mr. BROOKE. So the Senator did not harassment in any other State in the
learn anything from the previous debate Union.
and colloquy? I thought that is what we had hoped to
land learned a lot from that Senator debate, that Mr. BBEALL. The o from Mary- achieve in the hearings, and then see
from hprobably there is more support for his what could be done to stop that harass-
position than at that time because there ment.
were very few people interested in it at Mr. BEALL. I think we were to go a lit-
the last date. Many felt it was only a tle further. It was my understanding that
local matter, but now realize its national. we were trying to determine whether
implications. there was a discrimination in discipli-
Mr. BROOKE. I do not see too many nary practices based on mere statistical
more interested In It today than before. differences.
Mr. BEALL. The Senator from Mary- Mr. BROOKE. That is right.
land has also not seen that HEW has Mr. BEALL. I believe there should be
shown much interest in our discussion, some determination made of the indi-
either, and no improvements have been vidual complaints before we have HEW
forthcoming since our previous debate. requiring school systems to turn them-
Mr. BROOKE. I told the Senator selves inside out to meet certain condi-
from Maryland that I would accom- tions imposed by unreasonable people.
+pany him-and others said they would Mr. BROOKE. If my distinguished col-
'do the same thing-and walk down league - believes that all these things
and have Caspar Weinberger meet should result from the hearings, then why
with us to help his unique situation in is he so insistent upon having his amend-
Anne Arundel. I do not believe it exists ment to change the law voted upon now,
anywhere else. rather than wait until such time as we do
Mr. BEALL. There are currently no have the hearings? The effect of the Sen-
other pilot studies in effect, that I know ator's amendment, as is the effect of the
of, pilot investigations of the problems Helms amendment, would be to change
of discrimination in discipline in the existing law. The only reason for chang-
country, although some are contem- Ing existing law is that the law is not
plated, and I think this is one place working or is not working well, or that
where we can say to HEW, "Stop, wait you have some legislation that would im-
a minute, get some direction from Con- prove upon it.
gress" before proceeding down this Mr. BEALL. I believe my language is
road, because they are overstepping the temporarily improving upon the law.
bounds. HEW is embarking on new pilot investi-
Mr. BROOKE. Will the Senator gations. It gives the Congress the chance
yield? to have the kind of oversight that is
Mr. BEALL. Yes. necessary to determine if excesses are
Mr. BROOKE. I certainly-and I being carried out.
think the Senator understands-did not - Mr. BROOKE.. But we have had no
Intend to be facetious when I asked the opportunity to have hearings to deter-
Senator had he not learned anything mine, No. 1, whether there are excesses;
from the debate of several weeks ago. No. 2, what should be done if there are
The only thing I point out to the Sen- excesses.
ator is: Has he not seen that his lan- Mr. BEALL. I believe the Senator has
guage would just do almost entirely the the cart before the horse, using a figure
same thing that the distinguished Sen- of speach.
ator from North Carolina would do un- Mr. BROOKE., The horse is present
der his amendment? legislation, is it not? The existing law
Mr. BEALL. No, because my language is the horse, as I. understand it. The cart,
would stop him from doing something it seems to me, that the Senator is com-
they are about to do in one instance, ing along with is that he wants to change
keep them from spreading this same existing legislation.
abuse around the country until Congress I want to know why the Senator wants
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020005-7
 S 20974
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020005-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE December 10, 1974
to change existing legislation now be-
fore we know what is best.
Mr. BEALL. I want to maintain the
thrust on integrating the schools and
making sure that people of all races,
creeds, and colors are treated the same
all over this country. I also want to pre-
vent this bureaucracy from intruding
into the operation of the local school
systems to the point where the local
school systems have lost control.
I want to keep them from making
unreasonable requests of local school ad-
ministrators. I`want to keep them from
requiring that 6 administrators spend 6
months of their time coming up with
some inane information that somebody
thinks might be useful at some future
date.
I believe this is too costly a process to
impose upon already hard-pressed local
school districts.
I feel the Congress ought to speak out
on that before we give a blank check
to HEW to go ahead and embark on
these dreams that they have.
Mr. BROOKE. Under existing law, we
have already given authority, power, and
responsibilities to HEW. HEW Is carry-
ing them out.
My colleague from Maryland is saying
that at least in Anne Arundel County
HEW is not carrying out the legislation
in a proper and acceptable manner. Is
that correct?
Mr. BEALL. That is correct. I think
there are other examples of this across
the country. I do not believe the Con-
gress is exercising oversight over HEW.
Mr. BROOKE. The Senator says he
thinks there are other examples but he
has no evidence of that. Is that correct?
Mr. BEALL. Yes, we do. We have had
examples in other discussions before the
Education Subcommittee and in other
discussions in the Chamber. We have put
examples into the RECORD. A couple of
weeks ago the Senator and I discussed
this matter in the Chamber.
Mr. BROOKE. Why did my distin-
guished colleague agree, then, to nar-
row his language so that it would only
include Anne Arundel County, if he knew
that the situation existed in other areas?
Mr. BEALL. If the Senator will re-
member our discussion, I declined the
offer to use the words Anne Arundel
County, Md.
Mr. BROOKE. It was not my offer.
Mr. BEALL. It was one that the Sen-
ator appeared to agree to. If the Senator
will remember our discussion of a couple
of weeks ago, one of our colleagues came
to us and said, "Will you accept the
words `Anne Arundel County'?" I said,
.,No.,,
The Senator indicated he might ac-
cept Anne Arundel County. I want this
to apply countrywide. Just because we
have an example in Maryland, I believe
we should restrain HEW from having the
similar actions all over the country un-
til the Congress has had the opportunity
to speak out.
Mr. BROOKE. Even though the Sena-
tor does not know that this situation
exists anywhere else in the country, oth-
er than in Anne Arundel County?
Mr. BEALL. The Senator from Mary-
land has reason to believe, because of
the testimony he heard from other Sen-
ators on the day that the Senator and I
discussed this matter, that HEW is con-
templating similar action in other
States.
Mr. BROOKE. Does the Senator want
us to legislate on what he has reason
to believe someone is contemplating
doing?
Mr. BEALL. Yes; because, in my ex-
perience in dealing with the bureaucracy,
I believe we have to be concerned about
what we know them to be contemplating
doing.
Mr. H.UMPHREY. Will the Senator
yield?
Mr. BROOKE. I shall yield to my dis-
tinguished colleague from Minnesota, but
first let me say that I hope that the Sen-
ator, who believes so strongly in civil
rights, recognizes, unlike many others,
that this amendment Is not a busing
amendment or an antibusing amend-
ment. And I hope that he will not
jeopardize the progress that has been
made in the field of civil rights, of which
the Senator is justly proud, forcing his
amendment today merely to take care of
Anne Arundel County where he has evi-
dence that there has been harassment by
some bureaucrat-
Mr. BEALL. Bureaucrats.
Mr. BROOKE. Bureaucrats, two or
three bureaucrats in Anne Arundel
County. I do not believe that the Senate
will jeopardize our civil rights laws, be-
cause of that possible harassment by two
or three bureaucrats in Anne Arundel
County, Md. I just do not believe it.
Mr. BEALL. If the Senator will yield.
I appreciate his comments. He is over-
simplifying the situation.
Mr. BROOKE. I do not believe I am.
Mr. BEALL. I believe the Senator is. I
think the Senator has failed to recognize
that this iswhat I consider to be a very
dangerous step on the part of the bu-
reaucracy to use civil rights, the good
name of civil rights, in their efforts to
collect more responsibilities and author-
ity into the central government repre-
sented in HEW in Washington. I think
we ought to have some check on this. I
believe the Department Is being unrea-
sonable.
It is important, to the extent that we
can, that we try to preserve the ability
and the authority of local people to
maintain control over the operation of
their schools in the counties and the
States across this country. I think that
my amendment in no way jeopardizes
the splendid efforts that have been made
to achieve racial balance in this country.
It only provides some restraint on an
overzealous Department in imposing
further burdens on already hard-pressed
people. It would require that they come
before the Congress and tell us what they
are about with respect to their pilot in-
vestigations and what procedures will be
used. -
Mr. BROOKE. The hour of 2 o'clock is
close upon us. I would just like to say
to my distinguished colleague that I
think that this has been a very healthy
and rewarding colloquy, because it as-
sures me that my distinguished colleague
from Maryland will vote against the
Helms amendment, Obviously, the Helms
amendment does not do what my col-
league wants done.
It certainly would not address Itself
solely to the HEW bureaucracy.
It assures me also that my colleague
wants to continue the great progress that
we have had in the field of civil rights.
I think that after the confirmation of
Gov. Nelson Rockefeller we will have an
opportunity, when the Scott-Mansfield
language is brought before the Senate
and a possible amendment to that ' is
placed on it by my distinguished col-
league from Maryland, to have a further
opportunity to debate this subject.
Mr. BEALL. I am sure we will. I wel-
come the opportunity, because I believe
it could prove to be a healthy debate,
pending the outcome of our discussion.
I would not want the Senator from
Massachusetts to be too assured from
my comments that I may vote one way,
or the other. This presents many of us
with a dilemma. On the one hand, we
support civil rights but on the other
hand we are determined to put an end to
the abuse in HEW. I am thinking my
own language, perhaps, provides the
ideal solution.
I would hope the Senator from Mas-
sachusetts would be able to accept and
endorse this language, because it would
provide some answers, as far as I am
concerned.
Mr. BROOKE. I would not presume
to record my colleague on any vote. I
will wait to see how he votes. But I do
know how he feels about civil rights. I
am sure if he has understood this debate,
as I am sure he has, he will recognize
that the Helms amendment would be
disastrous to the civil rights laws of the
country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour
of 2 o'clock has arrived. Under the pre-
vious order, the Senate will now go into
executive session-
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that the Sen-
ator be allowed to proceed for 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, I ad-
dress these remarks to the distinguished
majority whip. I wonder whether we can
obtain a unanimous-consent agreement
to vote on the Helms amendment and the
Scott-Mansfield amendment after the
vote on the Rockefeller nomination. Is
there a possibility of a unanimous-con-
sent agreement?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I will do everything I possibly can. I am
not sure what the prospects are. I will
try.
Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that during the con-
sideration of these amendments, Ralph
Neas, a member of -my staff, and Bert
Carp and Ellen Hoffman, of Senator
MONDALE'S staff, have the privilege of the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BEALL. Mr. President, I ask unan-
imous consent that Joseph Carter, of
my staff, also have the privilege of the
floor.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020005-7
 Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020005-7
"December 10, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
reserving the right to object, in connec-
tion with what matter?
Mr. BEALL. The matter under con-
sideration.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. The Rocke-
feller nomination?
Mr. BEALL. No, the Helms amend-
ment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, when
the supplemental appropriations bill was
voted in the Senate a short time ago, an
amendment by the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. HELMS), was defeated by a
vote of 43 to 36. The amendment was
characterized as an antibusing amend-
ment, and since I have consistently. op-
posed the use of busing to achieve racial
quotas, I supported it.
A variation of that amendment, which
was originally introduced by Congress-
woman HOLT, was approved by a House-
Senate conference.
However, a close reading of the Holt
amendment, even as it has emerged from
conference, reveals that it is far more
sweeping than was originally thought.
The amendment contains provisions that
would strike at the heart of some of our
landmark civil rights legislation, in par-
ticular the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title
VI of the 1964 act provides that-
No person in the United States shall, on
the basis of race, color, or National origin, be
excluded from participation in, be denied the
benefit of, or subjected to any discrimina-
tion under any program or activity receiving
Federal financial assistance.
The idea that all Americans, regard-
less of race, sex, or creed are entitled to
have an equal opportunity for education
and employment is deeply embedded in
our law. The concept sprung from the
conscience of America. Civil rights is
an inviolate moral-as well as -legal-
commitment. Aside from title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, there Is also IX
of the. Education Amendment of 1972,
which carries a similar promise of equal-
ity with regard to sex.
The Holt amendment, in my view,
would make it exceedingly difficult for
the major provisions of law to be en-
forced. The provision of the amendment
that most concerns me prohibits agencies
of the Federal Government from requir-
ing that teachers and students be classi-
fied in the schools by race, religion, sex,
or national origin, as a condition of re-
ceiving Federal funds.
On the surface, that provision has con-
siderable appeal; however, its practical
effect, as Secretary Weinberger has-
noted, will be to impede the enforcement
of our civil rights laws. It is not a provi-
sion directed at busing, for busing is only
one of a series of remedies the Govern-
ment has at Its disposal. I have made it
clear that I oppose busing.
The Holt amendment, by saying that
the keeping of 'records is not required,
makes it impossible for the Government
to determine if discrimination exists. If
there are no records, there is no way to
identify the possible sources of discrimi-
nation. Nor is it possible to determine
where Federal funds should go in such
fields as bilingual education, which will
depend, at least in part, on knowing
where the Spanish-speaking students are
located.
The Holt amendment, therefore, places
an intolerable and crippling burden on
the Federal Government, which would be
charged with enforcing our civil rights
laws and then be denied the information
which would enable it to do so.
I continue to oppose the use of busing
as a tool to overcome inequalities in edu-
cation. I believe it is highly inflammatory
and that it has been largely counter-
productive. Earlier this year, during the
debate on the education bill, the Senate
passed my amendment on equal educa-
tion opportunities, which would have
provided incentive grants to the States
to encourage them to increase the level
of financial support they give to some of
our poorer school districts. I have subse-
quently reintroduced that measure as a
separate bill, S. 3797. In my view, this is
one way to get at the problem of inequal-
ity in education, and it would do so with-
out the disruptive and divisive effects of
busing, which have caused us to divert
our attention from the quality of educa-
tion and to direct .it at costly and bur-
densome side issues. .
Therefore, Mr. President, although I
continue to oppose the specific remedy
of busing, I support the Mansfield-Scott
amendment, which will enable us to
maintain the integrity of our civil rights
laws. We may quarrel about how those
laws should be enforced, but we must not
take actions to weaken them.
Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, during con-
sideration of this bill, I expressed my
deep concern about two of the commu-
nity development-related provisions.
Specifically, I was concerned that the
community development transitional
fund had been slashed from $50 to $10
million, and that no additional funds
would be appropriated for the section
312 inner city housing rehabilitation
loan program even though the present
appropriation is based on a $20 to $25
million HUD underestimate of the fund-
ing available.
I am gratified that the conferees did
decide to restore the community devel-
opment transitional fund. Even the $50
million which now will be available -is
hot likely to,be enough for all the cities
whose urgent needs cannot be met
through the new community develop-
ment fund distribution formula. To cut
this amount further simply would not
have been responsible legislating. It
would have led to temporary discontinu-
ation of various ongoing community pro-
grams, with the predictable result of pro-
gram delays and higher costs for accom-
plishing the same goals over a longer
period. It would have been particularly
harsh on some of our large, problem-
plagued cities most in need of viable
community development, programs, as
well as small towns not receiving auto-
matic program funding. The confer-
ees' action will not eliminate all such
problems, but it will reduce their inci-
dence and magnitude..
On the other hand, I was extremely
disappointed that my amendment to ap-
propriate an additional $25 million for
the section 312 rehabilitation loan pro-
gram was dropped by the conferees. The
5,20975
House of Representatives originally in-
cluded $70 million in the HUD appropri-
ations bill for this program. That fund-
ing provision was deleted later, based
solely upon the Senate Appropriations
Committee's understanding that carry-
over and loan repayment funds for this
fiscal year "will make possible a program
level of up to nearly $70 million without
any additional appropriation," in the
words of the committee report. Since
that time, however, HUD has verified
the fear I expressed during the debate
on the HUD appropriations bill-that
the amount of money available for this
program was overestimated.
My floor amendment adopted by the
Senate would have remedied this situa-
tion by providing the section 312 pro-
gram level which Congress originally
had Intended. by deleting my amend-
ment, the conferees have indicated their
apparent. indifference to and acquies-
cence with HUD's mistake In estimates.
The effect of this Congressional inac-
tion is to reduce the funding level In the
section 312 program to such an extent
that it hardly can remain a separate pro-
gram for fiscal 1975, as Congress had in-
tended despite administration objec-
tions. That is extremely damaging in
view of the program's positive past rec-
ord, the justifiable emphasis we are cur-
rently placing on preserving existing
housing, the crucial role it can play in
the preservation of our cities, and the
necessity to stimulate housing-related
industries. This act of budget cutting is
not anti-inflationary, because the funds
would have stimulated an industry that
is lamentably far from a demand-aggra-
vated inflation situation. If anything, it
will push housing costs up, because fewer4
acceptable housing units will be avail-
able.
I shall continue to try to remedy this
error in our policy.
FELLER TO -]3E VICE PRESID
OF THE UNITED STATES
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the
previous order, the hour of 2 o'clock hav-
ing arrived, the Senate will now go into
executive session to consider the nomi-
nation of Nelson A. Rockefeller to be
Vice President of the United States,
which the clerk will report.
The second assistant legislative clerk
read the nomination of Nelson A. Rocke-
feller, of New York, to be Vice President
of the United States.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under
the previous order, there will be 1 hour
of debate, to be equally divided between
and controlled by the Senator from Ken-
tucky (Mr. Coox) and the Senator from
Nevada (Mr. CANNON), and the vote
thereon will occur at 3 p.m.
Who yields time?
Mr. COOK. Mr. President, I suggest
the absence of a quorum, the time to be
equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk
proceeded to call the roll.
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020005-7
 Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020005-7
S 20976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE December 10, 1974
Mr. COOK. Mr. President, I ask unani-
mous consent that the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield me 4 minutes?
Mr. COOK. I yield 4 minutes to the
Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, in con-
sidering the nomination of Nelson
Rockefeller to be Vice President of the
United States, there are two major ques-
tions that ought to concern us. One is:
What qualifications should be expected
of the person who will stand "only a
heartbeat away" from the Presidency?
The other is: Does Nelson Rockefeller
possess these qualifications?
Today, perhaps more than ever before
in our history, America needs inspired
leadership. We need leaders with out-
standing competence, integrity, and
dedication. We need leaders who can re-
store the confidence of American citi-
zens in their Government. We need lead-
ers with great practical experience,
courage, imagination, and enthusiasm
to focus on our problems in new ways
and bring people together to find new
solutions. Nelson Rockefeller is that
kind of leader.
The Congress has a tremendous re-
sponsibility under the 25th amendment
to the Constitution. It is a responsibility
that must not be evaded or cast aside for
narrow, partisan considerations. We
have an obligation to the electorate, and
to the Nation as a whole, to make sure
that the person we confirm as Vice
President is not only qualified to fill that
office, but to assume the Presidency it-
self, if necessary.
There can be no question about it:
Nelson Rockefeller is qualified. His rec-
ord of public service spanning nearly
four decades reflects a profound eq}nmit-
ment to family and personal ideals of
stewardship, civic responsibility, and the
ethic of public service. Few men in pub-
lic today can match his experience and
outstanding achievements in the whole
field of public affairs-in international
relations and diplomacy, as an executive
in State and local government, in the de-
sign and administration of innovative so-
cial programs, as a patron of the arts,
and as an adviser to Presidents.
As few other men in our Nation, Nel-
son Rockefeller is uniquely qualified to
be Vice President, and if necessary, Presi-
dent. Throughout the confirmation proc-
ess, his competence has not been ques-
tioned, Some have questioned his judg-
ment in certain incidents, and I cannot
agree- with every decision Nelson Rocke-
feller has made. But the confirmation
process was prolonged not on the issues
but on the fact that Nelson Rockefeller
and his family possess immense wealth.
Regrettably, the Rockefeller fortune
became the central focus of the confir-
mation hearings. In this regard, Nelson
Rockefeller was totally candid. He re-
vealed his holdings and his income tax
records. He agreed to place his fortune in
a blind trust. He was cooperative with
the Committee on Rules and Adminis-
tration in the Senate and the Judiciary
Committee inthe House. Nelson Rocke-
feller. has been subjected to closer scru-
tiny than anyother candidate for Vice
President or President.
The scrutiny has revealed an im-
mensely wealthy man of extraordinary
generosity. But neither wealth nor pov-
erty should be bars to public office. His
gifts to associates in Government were
revealed to be perfectly legal. Yet it is
a practice which the nominee has agreed
to cease.
His family's participation in the book
on Arthur Goldberg is regrettable, but
I do not believe it is of sufficient gravity
to deter the confirmation of Nelson
Rockefeller.
I am convinced that these questions
are far outweighed by the overwhelming
evidence of the public life and service
of Nelson Rockefeller. His career has been
characterized from the first by the high-
est standards of competence, integrity,
and dedication to the public welfare. He
is an outstanding leader, capable of re-
storing the confidence of American citi-
zens in their Government-confidence
that- seems to be eroding today. Governor
Rockefeller has been a friend of mine
for many years, and I speak from ex-
perience when I say that few men have
greater integrity or higher ideals.
I am proud to vote to confirm the nom-
ination of Nelson Rockefeller, and I urge
my colleagues to do likewise.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
COTTON). Who yields time?
Mr. COOK. Mr. President, I yield 2
minutes to the Senator from Oregon..
Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, for
the second time in little over a year this
Congress must assume the awesome re-
sponsibility of confirming or rejecting
a nomination to the office of the Vice-
Presidency of the United States.
Domestic problems and foreign uncer-
tainties demand a complete executive,
not the condition in which we now find
ourselves-without a Vice President,
without the use of a right-arm. Thetime
has come for the Congress to fill the Vice-
Presidential void.
The magnitude of our decision is meas-
ured by the events which have transpired
since the November 27, 1973, Senate con-
firmation of Gerald Ford to be Vice
President. By virtue of the 25th amend-
ment we are again entrusted with the
power of election normally exercised by
the people of this Nation. But these are
not normal times, for we live in an urgent
era of peril-a time that requires not off-
hand experimentation but the sure grip
of experience, a time that must be ruled
by clarity and understanding, not by rid-
dle and ambiguity, a time like no other
that must be marked by decision and not
division.
Nelson A. Rockefeller more than ful-
fills these demands-his life provides the
very- example which illustrates unflag-
ging dedication. His experience serving
our country spans nearly 40 years and
crisscrosses the globe with missions un-
der the direction of Presidents from
Franklin Roosevelt on.
That which has been accomplished by
Nelson Rockefeller are the deeds which
might fill the careers of a dozen men. He
is knowledgeable, in fact -an expert, in
Latin American affairs; he served. as
chief executive of New York State, gov-
erned the well-being of millions of peo-
ple, and shaped that great State's history
forever; he has headed commissions and
committees probing this Nation's prob-
lems in the search for answers. Unfor-
ttmately, Mr. President, some men have
come to the Vice-Presidency bereft of
this experience yet eager to advance a
political career; plainly, Nelson Rocke-
feller comes to this office with knowledge
at hand and a pledge to advance, not a
career, but the interests of a country.
While thenomination of Nelson Rocke-
feller shall necessarily bypass the Na-
tion's voting booths, the Governor has
nonetheless been subjected to the cruci-
ble of congressional committee, and con-
sequently his credentials have been close-
ly scrutinized. More often than not the
critics have been confounded, if not by
answers which refute erroneous charges,
then by honesty which, while admitting
past error, establishes an openness and
firmness of character needed today and
essential for the tasks weface tomorrow.
If the Lasky book controversy incites
criticism of Governor Rockefeller's lapse
in attention to minute campaign details
in 1970, the Governor's admission of mis-
judgment stresses the equally important,
the essential, quality of candor.
Loans and gifts to private individuals
and public servants do not necessarily
translate into purses attached to strings
ready to be pulled for favor. While there
are questions, in the end this largesse
indicates to my mind a generous, and
yes, an admittedly wealthy spirit. But
it is ironic that this dispersal of small
portions of a vast fortune has developed
into a liability, when it is obvious that
the very reverse-greed and lust for
money-was the ruination of one Vice
President still very vivid in our memories.
The Rockefeller fortune extends be-
yond vaults and banking, institutions;
instead, Nelson Rockefeller's wealth of
abilities Is more important to the Nation.
Abundant experience in both foreign re-
lations and particularly domestic affairs
is Mr. Rockefeller's talent which can be-
come the Nation's good fortune.
Few men have approached the - Vice
Presidency with as much distinction as
Nelson Rockefeller. Few men have re-
spected the honest conduct of govern-
ment and politics as Nelson Rockefeller.
While he is a man uniquely gifted for
the times in which we live, he is also a
leader capable of changing those times
for the better. -
Nelson Rockefeller has been more than
a witness to history; he has been a vital
participant. His further participation as
Vice President will shape this Nation's
future for the better. While it shall be
Governor Rockefeller's most important
challenge, I wholeheartedly believe he
shall discharge his duties with great
verve and vigor. I shall vote for con-
firmation.
Mr. COOK. I thank the Senator from
Oregon.
Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to
the Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. HUGH SCOTT. Mr. President, It
is said that even the weariest river winds
somewhere safe to sea. So I hope that we
are now approaching the sea of tran-
Approved For Release 2001/11/16 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700020005-7