SUBCOMMITTEE ON PRINTING HEARINGS ON REGULATIONS REGARDING PUBLIC ACCESS TO NIXON PRESIDENTIAL MATERIALS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP76M00527R000700170018-7
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 4, 2001
• Sequence Number: 18
• Publication Date: March 20, 1975
• Content Type: OPEN

H 2108
Approved For Relea 1 / l.J-F Pj 052 RJ.001700187 March 20, 1975
per prisoner per year, would be over $78
billion. Of course, this is simply not prac-
ticable, yet equal application of the law
would demand such action.
A survey taken by the Drug Abuse
Council shows a narrow margin between
the number of adults who favor reducing
criminal penalties and those who favor
imposing stiffer ones. Thirty-nine per-
cent favor the elimination of criminal
penalties for the sale and/or possession
of small amounts of marihuana, and pri-
vate use of it, while 40 percent believe
there should be tougher laws for posses-
sion of small amounts. Only 13 percent
favor retaining the present laws. Pro-
gressive legislation is much slower in
evolving on this issue than are attitudes
of the American public. Some progress
is being made however. In October of
1973 Oregon became the first State to
remove all criminal sanctions for mari-
huana possession. Their new law classi-
fied possession of up to 1 ounce of mari-
huana as a "civil violation" rather than
a criminal act, with a maximum penalty
of a $100 fine. The Ford Foundation com-
missioned a survey to determine how
the new law was working in Oregon after
1 year. It determined:
First, there has been no significant in-
crease in persons smoking marihuana in
Oregon;
Second, those who do smoke mari-
huana actually reported a decrease in
usage-40 percent reported a decrease
and only 5 percent an increase;
Third, Oregonians strongly support the
decriminalization approach-58 percent
approve of the new law, only 39 percent
favor strong penalties.
The New Jersey Prosecutors Associa-
tion recently reported a resolution re-
garding, the prosecution of marihuana
offenses. It removes criminal penalties
for the possession of any amount of mar-
ihauna, and instead treats this posses-
sion as a "disorderly persons offense,"
carrying a maximum sentence for the
first conviction of a fine of $500 and for
any subsequent conviction a maximum
sentence of 6 months and/or a fine of
$500. The New Jersey Prosecutors, As-
sociation Committee to Study Prosecu-
tion of Marihuana Offenses resolution
follows:
RESOLUTION
The Senate and Assembly of the State of
New Jersey have undertaken study and review
of the "New Jersey Controlled Dangerous
Substances Act". Because of this Interest-and
because the prosecutor's role as chief law
enforcement officer of the County dictates
that the prosecutors of New Jersey engage in
a continual review of law enforcement pri-
orities and practices, the New Jersey Prosecu-
tors Association, on January 31, 1975 ap-
pointed a committee to study and draft
recommendations concerning the prosecution
of marijuana offenses in New Jersey.
That committee has completed its study
and has proposed recommendations con-
tained in a report annexed hereto, and made
a part thereof,
Now, therefore be it resolved that the re-
port of the aforesaid committee be accepted
and approved and the following recommen-
dations be and are adopted by the New
Jersey Prosecutors Association:
1. That possession of marijuana be clas-
sified as a disorderly persons offense carry-
ing a maximum sentence for the first con-
viction of a fine of not more than $500.00 and
for any subsequent conviction a maximum
sentence of 6 months and/or a fine of not
more than $500.00.
2. That possession of marijuana with In-
tent to distribute be classified as a misde-
meanor carrying a maximum sentence of 5
years and/or a fine of not more than
$25,000.00.
3. That distribution of marijuana be clas-
sified as a misdemeanor carrying a maximum
sentence of 5 years and/or a fine of not more
than $25,000.00.
4. That the same provisions respectively
also apply to the offenses of possession of
hashish, possession of hashish with intent
to distribute and distribution of hashish.
Although the New Jersey proposal does
not decriminalize personal use and pos-
session to the extent my legislation does,
it is a progressive piece of legislation and
a step in the right direction.
On March 10, 1975, I Introduced H.R.
4520 known as the Javits-Koch bill, with
the following 18 cosponsors : Ms. ABZUG,
Mr. BADILLO, Mr. BROWN of California,
Mr. JOHN BURTON, Mr. CONYERS, Mr.
DRINAN, Mr. EDWARDS of California, Mr.
FRASER, Mr. HARRINGTON, Ms. HOLTZMAN,
Mr. MCCLOSKEY, Mr. Nix, Mr. RANGEL,
Mr. ROSENTHAL, Mr. ROYBAL, Mr. STARK,
Mr. SOLARZ, and Mr. WAXMAN. If enacted
the legislation would decriminalize the
personal use and possession of mari-
huana. The bill was first introduced by
Senator JAVITS in the Senate and myself
in the House on April 20, 1972. It would
remove all penalties for the possession of
marihuana for personal use In a pri-
vate home; It would also allow not-for-
profit transfer of marihuana and the
possession of reasonable amounts of
marihuana in public when such posses-
sion is incident to private use. Marihuana
smoking in public would continue to be
a crime.
The bill "decriminalizes" rather than
"legalizes." The Shafer Commission
found that "neither the marihuana user
nor the drug itself can be said to consti-
tute a danger to public safety," and
unanimously recommended the elimina-
tion of all criminal penalties against the
user. The decriminalization approach
has been endorsed by a growing num-
ber of respected groups. They include:
The American Bar Association; Ameri-
can Public Health Association; Con-
sumers Union, publishers of Consumer
Reports; National Conference of Com-
missioners on Uniform State Laws; Na-
tional Advisory Commission on Crimi-
nal Justice Standards and Goals; Na-
tional Council of Churches; the Gov-
erning Board of the American Medical
Association; National Education Asso-
ciation; Central Conference of American
Rabbis; B'nai B'rith; Canadian Commis-
sion of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use
of Drugs-Le Dain Commission.
I invite my colleagues to consider co-
sponsorship of this measure as a reason-
able alternative to current law.
(Mr. KOCH asked and was given per-
mission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD and to include ex-
traneous matter.)
[Mr. KOCH's remarks will appear
hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.]
(Mr. KOCH asked and was given per-
mission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD and to include ex-
traneous matter.)
[Mr. KOCH's remarks will appear
hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.]
NEW ROCHELLE LEAGUE OF WOMEN
VOTERS
(Mr. OTTINGER asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD and to include
extraneous matter.)
Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Speaker, the
League of Women Voters of New
Rochelle, N.Y., is celebrating its 50th
anniversary year-50 years of service to
the community of New Rochelle and its
citizens; "50 years of a unique idea,"
chapter President Dorothy K. Rosen-
baum recently told the chapter's
members.
I take great pride in honoring the New
Rochelle League in the House of Repre-
sentatives because it is I who feels hon-
ored to represent a group of women
whose predecessors were pioneers in the
fight for women's rights. The New
Rochelle League was founded in late 1924
by, a1nong others, Carrie Chapman Catt
who was a New Rochelle resident and
president of the National American
Woman Suffrage Association. Mrs. C'att
was also instrumental in founding the
National League of Women Voters in
1920.
The New Rochelle League of Women
Voters is the proud owner of two items
of historical significance: a gavel used
by Carrie Chapman Catt when she was
president of NAWSA and presented to the
League later by Mrs. Catt, and a receipt
for leaflets signed by Susan R. Anthony.
Currently, the New Rochelle League
is involved in such important areas as
voter registration, housing, urban plan-
ning, environmental quality, financing
education, and recreation.
I am pleased to recognize the great
contributions of the New Rochelle League
of Women Voters in this, their both an-
niversary year.
(Ms. ABZUG asked and was given per-
mission to extend her remarks at this
point in the RECORD and to include ex-
traneous matter.)
[Ms. ABZUG's remarks will appear
hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.]
YOUTH CAMP SAFETY ACT
(Mr. DOMINICK V. DANIELS asked
and was given permission to extend his
remarks at this point in the RECORD
and to include extraneous matter.)
Mr. DOMINICK V. DANIELS. Mr.
Speaker, on March 11, 1975, the House
Education and Labor Committee by a
vote of 37 to 0 reported H.R. 46, the
Youth Camp Safety Act. This bill is a
long overdue first step in insuring the
health and safety of over 10 million
American youngsters attending approxi-
mately 10,000 camps during the summer
months.
State laws to safeguard our children in
camps are woefully inadequate. More at-
tention is currently given to preserving
and protecting wildlife than is focused
on the well-being of young people who
attend camp.
Today the distinguished chairman of
the Education and Labor Committee, Mr.
PERKINS, will file the committee's report
Approved For Release 2001/11/01: CIA-RDP76M00527R000700170018-7
 March 20, 1975
ApproveC1V _,pp&ftg~ ~1SSPP 2~0ppp1ieU 1RSIA-u~ppp7?gVp~O0527R000700170018' 2107
KE }U5E- 07
provements out must have Federal as-
sistance in order to be able to engage in
the kind of community development ac-
tivities they must have; and,
Those communities with growth and
development potential but which have
had no credit resources and must have
Federal aid to take advantage of their
opportunities.
'This $5-billion program which I am
supporting is meant to aid those com-
munities which have credit needs. It
would make it possible for communities
which are otherwise eligible for Federal
assistance under other Federal publib
works capital improvement programs but
cannot obtain that assistance because
they do not have the non-Federal funds
those programs require. In such cases a
grant from the Economic Development
Administration can be substituted for
the local and/or State funds usually re-
quired.
In addition, grants for 100 percent of
project costs may be made through this
program.
Implementation of an investment pro-
gram such as this means job creation
and will help maintain other jobs
threatened by the continued weakening
of our economy.
It is my belief that public works capital
improvement. and investment programs
make sound sense in human and eco-
nomic terms. They have the potential for
generating jobs directly and indirectly
which can be both short and long term.
At the same time, they place in local
communities needed capital improve-
ments which can enhance a community's
potential for diversified economic, social,
and cultural development.
One of the portions of this bill which
I want to especially mention here is see-
tiail 5. This section specifies that the
factors of severity of unemployment and
the income levels of families in proposed
project areas be considered In determin-
ing where grants shall be used.
It is my understanding that the most
detailed statistics available on the family
income levels are those from the 1970
decennial census. These are based on
1969 income figures. The median family
income for the United States at that time
was $9,590 and 10.7 percent of the fam-
ilies in the Nation had Incomes of less
than poverty level.
In Arkansas the median family income
for 1969 was $6,273, or more than $3,000
less than that for the Nation. And, 22.8
percent of our Arkansas families had in-
comes of less than poverty level. That
figure Is more than twice the level for
the Nation.
Census data for the 21-county First
Congressional District of Arkansas,
which I represent, shows that in 19 of
those counties between 23.8 and 43.6 per-
cent of the families had Incomes of less
than poverty level. In 20 of the counties
the median family income was less than
that for the State, which I have already
Pointed out was not even two-thirds of
the median income level for the whole
Nation.
In January and February the unem-
ployment figure for the Nation was 8.2
percent in January. The Arkansas un-
employment figure was 9.9 percent.
Twenty of the 21 counties In my district
had unemployment rates more than 8.2
percent in January. Five had rates be-
tween 25 and 49 percent higher than the
national rate, six had rates between 50
and 74 percent higher, three had rates
between 75 and 99 percent higher, and
the rates for two were more than 100
percent :1lgher than the national rate.
In February, Arkansas, through the
Ozarks Regional Commission, submitted
recommendations to the Secretary of
Commerce for more than $25 million
worth of projects to be funded under
title X of the Public Works and Economic
Development Act. These are very labor
Intensive:. It is my understanding that
many more public works capital im-
provement projects are not planned to
the stags that, given funding, they could
get underway very quickly.
I have long been committed to working
for solutions to our Nation's unemploy-
ment problems and to the need for com-
munity development in the countryside.
This bill I have sponsored today will, I
believe, be a major step in that direction.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PRINTING
HEARINGS ON REGULATIONS RE-
GARDING PUBLIC ACCESS TO
NIXON PRESIDENTIAL MATERIALS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a
previous order of the House, the gentle-
man from Indiana (Mr. BRADEMAS) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. EBRADEMAS. Mr. Speaker, on
Wednesday, March 19, 1975, the Gen-
eral Services Administration submitted
to Congress regulations and an explana-
tory report regarding public access to the
Nixon Presidential materials.
The regulations implement title I of
the Presidential Recordings and Mate-
rials Preservation Act, signed into law by
President Ford on December 19, 1974.
Title I of that act provides that the
Government: First, retain custody of the
Nixon Presidential materials; and
second, provides appropriate access to
them.
The act give Congress the authority
to disapprove of these regulations, by
providing in section 105(b) that the
regulations take effect 90 legislative days
after submission unless they are dis-
approved by either House of Congress
within that period.
Mr. S:,eaker, this matter is of great
public importance and of considerable
Interest to Members of the House. I
would lice to announce, therefore, that
in April, after the Easter recess, the
Subcommittee on Printing will hold
hearings to listen to testimony regard-
ing these regulations. If after these hear-
ings it becomes apparent that part or
all of the regulations are unsatisfactory,
the subs ammittee will recommend to the
full Committee on House Administration
enacted by Public Law 92-184 into per-
manent law on December 15, 1971, pro-
vides the Committee on House Admin-
istration the authority to fix and adjust
from time to time various allowances of
Members, the Resident Commissioner
from Puerto Rico or a Delegate to the
Howie of Representatives. Pursuant to
this authority the committee has issued
Order No. 17 which is effective March 1,
1975
Committee Order No. 17 modifies and
supersedes Committee Order No. 6, but
does not increase the $250 per month
allocation of the unused portion of clerk
hire allowance previously authorized on
May 1, 1973, for the leasing of equipment.
Committee Order No. 17 merely expands
the authorized use of such $250 per
month allocation to include leasing of
computer and related services utilized
in connection with a Member's official
duties without any increase in the
amount of the $250 allocation as author-
ized on May 1, 1973:
OOMM27TEE ORDER. NO. 17
Resolved, That effective March 1, 1975,
until otherwise provided by order 'of the
Committee on House Administration, upon
written request to the Committee on House
Adxn.nistration, a Member, the Resident
Commissioner from Puerto Rico or a Dele-
gate to the House of Representatives may
allocate an amount not to exceed 1260 a
month of any unused portion of his or her
clerk hire allowance for the leasing of equip-
ment necessary for the conduct of his or her
office or for the leasing of computer and re-
lated services In connection with his or her
ofticie.l duties.
MOVEMENT ON MARIHUANA
(Mr. KOCH asked and was given per-
mission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD and to include ex-
traneous matter.)
Mr. KOCH. Mr. Speaker, it is very im-
portant that people recognize that not
only are arrests for marihuana use and
possession continuing, they are growing
enormously every year. In the last 4
years 1,127,389 persons in this country
have been arrested for marihuana of-
fenses. In 1974 alone 420,700 persons were
arrested. Two thirds of the arrests in-
volved amounts of marihuana that were
less than 1 ounce. The overwhelming
majority of those arrested are young and
otherwise law-abiding citizens, but each
is faced with the unrelenting burden of
a lifelong criminal arrest record. The
Shafer Commission found 88 percent of
those arrested on marihuana offenses
were under 26, and 58 percent were under
21.
The personal human tragedy involved
here is great, but it overlaps to affect the
rest of the society as well. Nationally, it'
is estimated that approximately $600 mil-
lion is spent annually arresting mari-
appropriate action to perfect the regula- huana smokers. Over 10 percent of all
tions. defendants charged in Federal courts in
1973 were charged with marihuana vio-
lations. A tremendous amount of valu-
ADJUSTING ALLOWANCES FOR able police and prosecutorial time and
MEMBERS resources are used to prosecute these
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a
previous order of the House, the gentle-
man from Ohio (Mr. HAYS) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. HAYS of Ohio. Mr. Speaker,
House Resolution 457,. 92d Congress,
cases, diverting valuable law enforce-
ment facilities away.from the control of
serious crime. If we Were to place just
the 13 million regular users of mari-
huana in jail for a year, the cost to the
American public, at more than $6,000
Approved For Release 2001/11/01: CIA-RDP76M00527R000700170018-7