PLASTIC SURGERY FOR S. 17

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP77M00144R000800020023-0
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 31, 2001
• Sequence Number: 23
• Publication Date: March 11, 1976
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2001/09/03 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800020023-0
S 3324 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE March 11, 1976
and the eventual loss of their own city's
identity.
The question is not whether economies
should be made, but how they are to be
achieved.
A suburb of Fort Worth, Tex., provides
an excellent example. There, a proposed
consolidation would achieve an annual
$33,000 saving. However, this economy is
apparently to be accomplished by elim-
inating two positions in that suburban
office. Ironically, these positions have
been vacant for some time. Thus, the
savings could conceivably be realized
simply by Instructing the postmaster to
leave them vacant since the post office
was managing quite nicely without them.
I am deeply concerned, too, by the
Postal Service's action during the past
year to revoke the second-class mailing
privileges of scores of colleges and uni-
versities throughout this country. These
institutions have mailed their catalogs
and other course listings at second-class
rates since 1907. Legislative language
written in 1912 granted that "all peri-
odic,a1 publications of * * * a regularly
Incorporated institution of learning, or
? * * a regularly established State insti-
tution of learning supported in whole or
In part by public taxation * * * shall be
admitted to the mails as second-class
matter." In 1970, of course, the Congress
legislated a sweeping reform of the postal
system, and the Postal Service should
today note that it chose not to change
or withdraw this second-class privilege.
The Postal Service has, however, uni-
laterally decided to abrogate statutory
language and congressional 'Intent.
Again, far too little thought has been
given to those who will be most affected
by its decision.
As of last autumn, the Postal Service
has revoked the second-class privileges
of more than 200 schools. The financial
Impact of those actions has been ex-
treme, as examples from my home State
suggest.
The Governor of Texas, the Honorable
Dolph Briscoe, has estimated that if all
of the State's public institutions of higher
learning were to lose their second-class
privilege, the increase in annual mailing
costs Would amount to $7 million. If the
schools were to switch to much slower
third- or fourth-class service, mailing
costswould still be increased by $2 mil-
lion.
For the University of Texas at Austin,
computing the higher costs is no longer
Idle speculation. It already has had its
second-class privilege revoked, and it
now expects to spend $53,000 a year in
additional mailing expenses if it is to
maintain present delivery schedules.
That cost will, no doubt, be passed on
to both the taxpayers and the students
enrolled at Austin. I believe this experi-
ence?and scores of others in States
across this land?only exemplifies the
costs which the Postal Service is impos-
ing on higher education, precisely at a
time when other educational expenses
are soaring.
Last summer, I was pleased to cospon-
sor Senator EAGLETON'S S. 2015, legisla-
tion which would stop the Postal Service
from revoking this second-class privilege.
More than half of our colleagues have
joined in cosponsoring that legislation.
Since then, the House has passed its
amendments to the Postal Reorganiza-
tion Act and included a provision to re-
store and protect the second-class priv-
ilege for colleges and universities.
The Senate Post Office Committee is
currently preparing its own amendments
to the act. I would hope that it would
include this provision on second-class
rates in its legislation. It is a matter of
vital importance to higher education in
this country, and I am confident the
Congress fully intends to have this priv-
ilege restored.
MANSFIELD'S SENATE
Mr. HUGH scam Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that an editorial
from the New York Times citing the out-
standing accomplislunents of the Senator
from Montana during his tenure as
majority leader be printed in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[From the New York Times, Mar. 10, 1975]
MANSFIELD'S SENATE
It is too early to bid farewell to Mike Mans-
field who is retiring next January as Mon-
tana's senior Senator and as Senate majority
leader. Spare, vigorous, alert, he could well
serve the Republic as wise counselor and
special envoy in various public and private
capacities for many years to come.
But it is timely to take note of the way
Mr. Mansfield helped to change the Senate
during his record-making sixteen-year ten-
ure as majority leader. The Senate would
have changed in any event because the
greatly enlarged Democratic majority pro-
duced by the "class of '58" was too big, too
liberal, too venturesome to be controlled by
the close-to-the-vest operations of his re-
nowned predecessor, Lyndon B. Johnson.
Moreover, the civil rights revolution that
Johnson himself initiated as Senate leader
caused a steady erosion of the once-domi-
nant conservative Southern Democratic bloc.
Senator Mansfield's contribution was to
welcome change and gently hurry it along.
By treating every member as his equal, by
appealing to the better rather than the worse
side of. each man's nature, and by keeping
everyone informed rather than ignorant of
the leadership's goals and tactics, he inade
the Senate a much more open and more
democratic institution. He made consensus
a reality rather than a slogan.
If by this civilized style of leadership, Mr.
Mansfield contributed to making the Senate
somewhat less productive in terms of bills
passed and partisan power exercised, the re-
sult was fairl close to what the authors of
the Const n had n mind when they
conceived e Senat They saw it as a
place f th sobeg secon thought and for
the ful ula ion of,mftiority as well as
majority we. ansfield passes to his
success ? the le ership post a worthy
legacy of 1 itutio al self-confidence and
mutual trust.
PLASTIC SURGERY FOR S. 1?
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, yesterday's
editorial page of the Washington Post
carried an especially perceptive article
by Congressman MIKVA of the recent at-
tempts to produce a "compromise" ver-
sion of S. 1. Because I think this article
merits further attention, I ask unani-
mous consent that the article be printed
in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the REcoan,
as follows:
PLASTIC SURGERY FOR S. 1?
(By ABNER J. MrKvA)
After months of intense national debate
about the merits of 5.1, the bM to reform
the federal criminal laws, it appears a pivotal
point is near as the Senate Judiciary Com-
mittee approaches a final decision.
Thanks to a variety of critics, some of the
worst atrocities of 5.1 have been exposed. But
even so, efforts to defang the S.1 monster
should not obscure the fact that a monster
without some of its fangs is still a monster.
Unfortunately, there is an apparently new
and growing campaign to gloss over the in-
herent and pervasive defects in S.1 and to
speed the bill to final Senate approval.
Most' recently, the Washington Post an-
nounced its support for &I.?minus a num-
ber of its "worst" provisions. This followed
by several weeks a similar endorsement of
5.1 by the former chairman of the National
Commission for Reform of the Federal Crim-
inal Laws, former California Gov. Edmund G.
Brown. Gov. Brown now maintains that 5.1.
incorporates a "very substantial portion" of
the national commission's recommendations
and that the "few" repressive sections of Si
will no doubt be amended in committee or
on the Senate floor.
As a former member of the "Brown Com-
mission" (as the National Commission is
frequently called), I have admiration and re-
spect for Pat Brown's leadership on criminal
law reform. Unfortunately, I cannot share
Gov. Brown's current view (which is held by
others, too) that 5.1 warrants passage be-
cause it includes a major portion of the
Brown Commission's recommendations. Nor,
are there grounds for the optimism that the
blatantly, repressive sections of 5.1 will be
adequately sanitized by amendments in com-
mittee or on the Senate floor.
Back in 1971, after four years of study, the
Brown Commission produced a thoughtful
compromise, reflecting a variety of views. The
real strength of the anal product was that
it struck an overall balance that tended to
outweigh the deficiencies of any particular
provision. It was a compromise that produced
a product greater than the sum of its parts.
But the fact that the Brown Commission's
findings were a compromise, that they did
not at all add up to an ideal civil libertarian
document, cannot be overlooked. Therefore,
S. 1, at best, represents nothing more than
a bad compromise of an earlier compromise.
From a civil libertarian point of view, if
Brown was somewhere nem' the 50 yard line,
S. 1 is now in the end zone?and the wrong
end zone, to be sure.
So even if S. 1 includes major portions of
the Brown Commission recommendations, it
means that S. 1 would only be approaching
the original compromise of five years ago.
But what about the admittedly repressive
features of S. 1 not in the Brown Commis-
sion compromise? Is it realistic to expect
that all, or even most, of these features
would be deleted by amendments? In all
probability, the answer is no.
S. 1 is a 753-page bill replete with both
well-known and not-so-well-known evils?
evils that in the heat of debate, will be over-
looked or compromised. Such provisions as
the official secrets act, the abolition of the
insanity defense and the numerous infringe-
ments of free speech in the name of national
security are well known and likely to re-
ceive the Judiciary Committee's attention.
But there are scores of lesser known provi-
sions in S. 1 that are just as damaging to
personal liberty and that May well escape
close scrutiny. a 1, for example, greatly ex-
Approved For Release 2001/09/03 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800020023-0
Approved For Release 2001/09/03 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800020023-0
March 11, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE S 3323
resuspension of plutonium by Wind and
movement. Now, a three-inch boulder con-
taining some radium is not very likely to be-
come airborne. If it does, inhalation of the
boulder just would be a bit difficult. So Much
for the ridiculous assertions about that top
foot of the earth and its radium content.
RADIOACTIVE WASTE
I won't bore you with that very long time
that radioactive waste must be isolated from
people. Bverione by now limows all about
that. Instead I prefer to regale ytt?u with some
of the marve: outs proposals of theNuclear en-
ergy advocates for dealing with *,is preb-
tem.
Since this stuff is dangerous enoughlto wipe
out every tram, woman, and child onearth
many times over if it gets around, manstklaave
proposed careful burial of the waste. "Hilt,"
say Some of the nuclear advocates, "why btiay
it and guard it? This material is too valuabin
to bury. Instead will use it in many, manYL
ways in our economy, in: our industries, and
even in our homes." One early suggestion was
to make plutonium-powered coffee pots.
(Look, morn, no electric cord for the perco-
lator.)
There is certainly one marvelous solution
for solving the radioactive waste problem?
just use it everywhere in the USA. I shall
leave to you to calculate the. expectancy that
1% won't get out with this superbly bril-
liant scheme.
WHY ARE NUCLEAR PROPONENTS SO AT EASE
ABOUT RADIATION?
In closing, :et me examine why the nuclear
proponents aae so relaxed about the health
hazards of radiation. Dr. B. F. Schumacher
the brilliant economist-philosopher, has said
it isn't science and technology that any
thinking person should oppese. Science and
technology can indeed do Marvelous things
for us. But Dr. Schumacher has suggested
he'd like to see "Science and technology with
a human face"
A million cancer deaths is, after all, just
a number. Scientists deal with numbers all
the time, so 1,000,000 isn't a disturbing
number per se. In my earlier medical
career, I used to work with cancer and
leukemia patients extensively. I served as
personal physician to some ao or 40 of them
in the last ore to six months of their lives.
It might help if every scientist and engineer
bad that opportunity as part of his (her)
education. It is good to know what lives, and
breathes, and dies behind a statistic.
Later, I spent two years doing studies on
trace elements in a variety of mentally
retarded children at Sonoma State Hospital.
I had a coupla of days a Week in. the wards,
seeing the human results of genetic damage.
These children didn't look at all like sta-
tistics.
In 1969. after my colleague, Dr. Tamplin,
and I had said that 32000 extra cancer
deaths per year in this country would be
caused if people received the allowable dose
of radiation from nuclear energy, we rec-
ommended that; the radiation standards
should be made much tighter. Dr. Michael
May, then Director of the Lawrence Liver-
more Laboratory where I worked, visited me
In my office. Clearly he had experienced in-
tense pressure from the AEC. In all my
experiences with Dr. May, I had found him
to be a fine person and a first-class scientist.
"Jack." he said, "I defend absolutely your
right, in fact your duty, to calculate that a
certain amount of radiatiOn will cause
32000 extra deaths per year from cancer."
But to my disappointment, he then
asked: what makes you think that 32000
would be too many? I mutt presume he
was thinking in. terms of the hoped-for
benefits of nuclear power . . . technology
without a human face.
-Mike," I said. "the reason is verY
elm-
pie. If I find myself thinking that 32000 can-
cer deaths per year is not too many, 1'11 dust
oft my medical diploma, take it back to the
Dean of the afedicai School where I grad-
uated, hand the diploma to the Dean and
say, 'I don't deserve this diplomas"
AMENDMENTS TO OCCUPATIONAL
SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT
Mr. teurtT/S. Mr. President, since en-
actment of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act in 1970, pressures being ex-
erted by the Federal Government on bus-
iness, especially small business, have in-
creased sharply. In some cases, busi-
nesses have been forced to close because
they coils' not cope with the economic
consequences of complying with OSHA
regulations. Not only have many areas
lost valuable employment, but they have
also lost the economic support of these
'Small businesses.
'?.Small businesses are the Nation's No.
1 source of jobs, generating millions of
dollars in revenue each year which is
fed %hack into the economy through
wage*, costs of operation and nurchas-
ing poter. Small businesses constitute 47
Percent bf all nongovernmental, nonfarm
jobs, ant more than one-half of all
AmericarAdepend directly on small busi-
nesses for eir livelihood. I have been a
critic of t Occupational Safety and
Health Ad tstration since its incep-
tion because o the strain by overregula-
tion it has pla on small business. It is
for this reasa that / am especially
pleased that my ;.11eague from Nevada
is introducing thi ill which would give
small businesses ss e breathing room
under the OSHA re pe and voluminous
regulations.
This bill, for whic I
support by other Sena ,
that for firms employi
less, OSHA personnel co
on request to point out
make suggestions. This
strongly urge
would provide
25 persons or
d make visits
eblems and
Id be done
without fear on the partCk the small
businessman of being cited' Ind would
not constitute an inspectict. In the
measure, small businesses wou also be
eligible for financial assistance tder the
1970 act without having been c ed for
violations of the rules. When et tons
were issued, OSHA personnel will he to
give the small businessman notice o he
financial assistance that is available
him under the act.
Both areas included in the bill are
needed, and both would alleviate the
burden on the small businessman and
also to a degree on the OSHA inspectors
themselves. By visiting a firm on a con-
sultative basis. both the businessman and
OSHA could ,he saved the headaches
which often accompany citations which
are issued and the ensuing bitterness be-
tween the Federal agency and the public.
It seems to me the change would better
serve the public, which should be the in-
tent of all governmental functions. Pro-
viding financial assistance to small busi-
nesses after violations were pointed out
would allow firms to make changes and
come in line with the OSHA regulations
without having to be further penalized
with fines. This could save the Govern-
ment money, since the assistance given
the firms would go for changes totally,
and not partly to pay the fine.
The major contribution that small
businesses make to this country should
be cause for concern that the Govern-
ment not jeopardize their existence. Yet,
the massive bureaucracy is tragically
suffocating small businesses through
regulations, restrictions, and require-
ments which precede endless amounts of
Paperwork and redtape.
I urge passage of this bill not for the
benefit of special interest groups, but for
the small merchants in this country who
need relief from Government overregu-
lation, a situation in many cases which
they cannot cope with and which is
threatenheig their very existence.
SECOND-CLASS MAILING PRIVI-
LEGES FOR OUR COULEGES AND
utrivEnsrms
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, during
the past several weeks, the Senate Post
Office and Civil Service Committee has
been holding hearings on the Postal Re-
organization Act Amendments of 1976.
The Postal Service has taken a number of
highly controversial actions during the
past half-decade, and I am pleased that
the Congress is taking this opportunity
to review and address them.
All of us have become quite familiar
Stith the problems of the Postal Service
since its reorganization. Many of our con-
stituents firmly believe that they are now
getting far less service for far greater ex-
pense. While I fully understand that the
Postal Service has not been immune from
the inflation our economy has experi-
enced during the past several years, /
believe our citizens are asking legitimate
questions about the Service's manage-
ment practices and decisions.
During the past several months, thou-
sands of rural communities have un-
easily awaited word for their fate.
Though the Congress in 1970 explicitly
stated its intent that service not be di-
minished and no office be closed because
of its unprofitability, the Postal Service
seems totally oblivious and determined
to close a number of small offices across
the Nation. While a resolve to reduce the
Pestal Service's operating deficits must
be supported, I cannot accept the seem-
ing insensitivity of the Service as it or-
ders the closings of these offices.
For that reason, I was pleased to join
cosponsoring the distinguished Minty Leader's bill, S. 2962, which will re-
quire the Postal Service to consider a
nuuer of factors before it makes a de-
cii;iol on the fate of the offices in our
srnall?ommunities. I was pleased, too,
with tli district court's ruling last week
requirinL the Service to observe proce-
dures it ts published which should in-
sure that Some of these factors are con-
sidered.
In addition, numerous suburban com-
munities are being told that their post
offices are being considered for possible
consolidation with the central city's fa-
cility, a move they fear will only be the
first step toward a reduction in service
Approved For Release 2001/09/03 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800020023-0
Approved For Release 2001/09/03 : CIA-RDP77M00144B000800020023-0
March .11, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENA S 3325
pands federal authority to order Involuntary
confinement of mentally ill persons who have
been acquitted of all federal charges or have
completed their prison terms. S. 1 grants ap-
pellate judges the power to increase sen-
tences imposed by the trial judge. And S. 1 so
stretches the conspiracy laws that mere
thought becomes a crime in certain situa-
tions.
Last November, Reps. Robert Kastenmeier,
Don Edwards and I introduced a civil liber-
tarian alternative to S. 1. One of the reasons
for introducing a new bill at this late date
was to point 'out the difficulty, it not impos-
sibility, of purging S. I of all its pernicious
provisions. This new bill, which exceeds 700
pages in length, makes over 1,000 changes in
S. 1. And even with all these changes, several
remnants of what might be called the Nixon
administration-John Mitchell philosophy of
criminal law reform escaped attention and
remained in a "thoroughly" revised bill.
There is an urgent need for Criminal law
reform in this conntry. There was such a
need in 1967, too, when the Brown Commis-
sion began its work, and in 1971 when the
commission reported its recommendations.
But a new urgency is to dispel notions that
decent reforms can emerge from "a better
S. 1." S. 1 started as a monster and no
amount of plastic surgery is going to change
its character.
want to see it, tells them things they don't
want to hear, and tries to sell them things
they don't want to buy.
But without advertising, the economy
would crumble, Bell claims.
"The economy of this country is built upon
the companies being able to market services.
Everybody would lose if advertising did not
remain a free and viable force in this coun-
try," he said.
And so, as trade association for some 300
advertising agencies and their clients, one of
AAF's chief duties is "to apprise the public
of the value of advertising and its importance
to our economic system."
This function is tied closely to the federa-
tion's government lobbying efforts "to ward
off legislation which threatens to limit or
cripple the responsible advertising of goods
and services."
In recent years, Bell says, the $30 billion-a-
year advertising trade has been saddled with
unreasonable restrictions, which he attrib-
utes directly to an increase in complaints
from uninformed consumers.
He points to the Federal Trade Commis-
sion as the most ardent enemy, charging it
has overstepped its role as watchdog for
truth, fairness and accuracy in the business.
The latest example of the government's
'misuse of regulatory powers," Bell said, is
n FTC proposal that would require the
alor ingredients of some products to be
spelled out in ads.
Such a rule would force advertisers to pay
for more time and space in order to deliver
their message, he said. "If you have to add
a lot of technical information, most of Which
the public will not understand, it will defeat
the purpose of advertising without really
helping the consumer."
The industry is also concerned about talk
of banninig certain types of ads from the
)electronic media. Proposals by consumer
groups to do away with all advertising on
children's programs and to ban TV ads for
liquor and over-the-counter drugs, are "un-
necessary, unproductive and not beneficial
to the consumer," Bell said.
He said recent history has preyed ad re-
strictions ineffective in changing national
trends. Cikarette smoking, for example, has
not decreased, despite the 5-year-old ban on
radio and TV cigarette ads, Bell noted.
The relationship between the ad industry
and government is not entirely antagonistic.
The AAF supports several government regu-
latory programs, including one that rou-
tinely requires businesses to back up their
advertising claims.
Much of the advertising controversy today
focuses on television, where the ads peem to
elicit the strongest reactions from consumers,
although they take only 28 percent advertis-
ing dollars spent.
The criticism of TV ads focuses on what
"clutter," too many commercial interrup-
tions. Many alternatives have been tried
(such as grouping commercials at the be-
ginning and end of shows, and funding pro-
grams with federal subsidies), Bell said. But
the industry has been unable to find an
acceptable alternative.
Despite the tremendous expense?commer-
cials during the Superbowl cost $200,000 a
minute?advertisers have found TV relatively
cheap because it can get their message across
to tens of thousands at one time, usually
bringing the cost to about $2 or $3 for each
potential customer.
Since the federation was formed in 1905,
the ad industry has gone a long way in regu-
lating itself, Bell claims. The wild claims of
medicine doctors and of miracle drugs found
in many turn-of-the-century advertisements
have all but disappeared, he said.
The National Advertising Review Board
was created four years ago to hear charges
of false advertising and to put pressure on
advertisers to comply with standards.
GOVERNMENT OVERREGULATION
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, much
emphasis has been placed during the
past few months on overdomination by
the massive Federal bureaucracy On
business and the public. Free enterprise
Is almost to the point of becoming an
endangered species in this country be-
cause of the mountains of redtape con-
sisting of restrictions, regulations, and
rules under which citizens are required
to live and operate their businesses.
I have joined a group of Senators in
conducting a series of colloquies during
the 'past .2 months on the subject of reg-
ulatory reform, which is desperately
needed to halt overregulation by the Fed-
eral Government. During those collo-
quies, numerous examples have been pre-
sented which illustrate the near strangu-
lation, in some cases, of free enterprise.
A story in Wednesday's editions of the
Washington Star reports another ex-
ample of overregulation. The advertising
industry is regulated to a great degree by
the Federal Trade Commission and new
rules are being proposed, according to
the article, which will further hamper
the general industry. Mr. Howard-H. Bell
of the American Advertising Federation
objects to the heavy hand with which
the Government is regulating the in-
dustry, a characteristic which holds true
in other areas as well.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the Star article be printed in
the RECORD.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
ADMAN OBJECTS TO HEAVY HAND OF
GOVERNMENT
The big problem with the advertising busi-
ness, says Howard H. Bell, of the American
Advertising Federation, is that most Ameri-
cans do not understand its importance.
Granted, Bell admits, ads have become all-
pervasive. And he says it's only natural for
people to raise objections to something that
often invades their lives when they don't
Bell admits there are still gray areas?
What are good advertising techniques? When
Is a product over-glamorized? How much sex
appeal can he displayed before an ad becomes
offensive?
But those are matters of taste, Bell con-
tends. "Certainly the government can't leg-
islate taste, it's far too personal. . . ."
FUTURE OF AMERICA'S SPACE
? PROGRAM
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, it has long
been my contention that continuing cut-
backs in appropriations for the Nation's
space program are pennywise but pound
foolish. It has been my contention that
the United States, having once gained an
overwhelming leadership over the Rus-
sians in space technology, could maintain
that leadership even with reduced spend-
ing if it is on a constant level.
It has been my privilege to watch the
great space advances take place at Mar-
shall Space Flight Center in Huntsville,
Ala., where the Nation's space programs
were shaped. It has also been my privi-
lege as a member of the Alabama State
Legislature and as Lieutenant Governor
of Alabama to help develop legislation to
permit the State to build and maintain
a research institute at the University of
Alabama in Huntsville where many
space-related research programs were
carried out for NASA and its Centers.
Our space program is most frequently
related with adventure and experience
of moon and interplanetary exploration,
but the fact of the matter is that the
benefits which we have enjoyed in our
daily lives as a result of space-related
inventions and technology have more
than repaid the United States for the
cost of the space programs. And the har-
vest has only just begun. The invest-
ments which we have already made, and
the programs which are envisioned for
the future should go far to help ease the
worsening energy crisis. They will bring
vast rewards in better methods of farm-
ing, in discovery of new mineral de-
posits, and in new methods of industrial
techniques. Every American will enjoy
in his daily life ever-increasing benefits
from a continuing viable space program.
But I am alarmed at efforts to down-
grade space to the point that NASA can
no longer conduct the type of eiperi-
mentation which has brought so many
earthly benefits from space-bound proj-
ects. Many Members of Congress who
have helped lead our Nation into the
space age have this same concern. No one
is more knowledgeable than our col-
league, the senior Senator from Utah
who is chairman of the Senate Commit-
tee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences.
Senator Moss has addressed himself
many times to the dangers we face
through neglect of our investment of
space technology. The March 1976 is-
sue of Government Executive, contains
an article by its editor, John F. Judge,
based on an interview with Senator
Moss. The article, "Is the U.S. Losing
Its Investment?" gets to the heart of this
matter, and I commend its reading to all
Members of this body.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the article be printed in the
RECORD.
Approved For Release 2001/09/03 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800020023-0
Approved For Release 2001/09/03 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800020023-0
S 3326 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE March 11, 1976
There being no objection, the article
was orde.red to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
IS THE UNITED STATES LOSING ITS
INVESTMENT?
By John F. Judge)
In less than two decades, the U.S. has
become totally dependent on space. Al-
most unnoticed by the public, satellites
have gradually become indispensable in
communications, weather forecasting, navi-
gation and a large assortment of land uses
including agriculture.
Moved to the back burner since the space
race days of the early ' 1960's, the whole
realm of space research, technology and oper-
ations has lost its front page command?
and with this, lost the attention of most
elected officials.
In a very real sense, most of the Federal
government are creaturee of the Congress.
When that body ignores an element, that
entity oftn drifts off into a world of its
own, feeding on itself at taxpayer expense
and usually far from its original reason for
existence.
The end result is almost the same as
when the Congress, in the name of some
greater good visible mote during election
years than, at any other time, sweeps in and
out and leaves an agency's budget in sham-
bles.
Both are extremes and both occur.
And there are the in-betweens. ,
The National Aeronautics and Space
Administration is a case :in point. Once the
glamour agency and a reaper of headlines,
it is now a fairly well disciplined, cost con-
scious and effective organization. It has
settled into the pragmatics of space and is
doing so with a high degeee of success.
So quiel,ly has it happened that most of
the U.S. citizenry takes for granted many
of the direct and indirect economic, techni-
cal and social benefits derived from space
and the work of the space agency.
UTURE SHOCK
And once again, an agency is being
hobbled by the budget process basically
because its spending in one given year is
directed to reaping rewards in future years.
The harvest, in most cases, is not really that
far away?it is just down' the line enough to
be past several elections.;
Senator Frank E. Moss ED-Utah) as Chair-
man of the Aeronautical and Space Sciences
Committee has been keeping an eye on space,
among other things. "Over the past several
years the Congress, the Executive Branch,
liberals ando conservatives alike have come to
agree that NASA, being a research and de-
velopment agency, operatees most efficiently
on a relatively constant budget from year to
year.
"Roller coaster fluctuations in research pro-
grams rest It in waste?whether the changes
are budgetary increases or decreases.
"Yet this year, having slashed the Space
Shuttle (See Box) and Scuttled the Large
Space Telescope, the Adininistration has ap-
parently discarded altogether the constant-
level approach to NASA's budget," says Moss
in recent remarks at thee National' American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Annual Meeting.
Since real spending power has been rela-
tively constant, the NASA program planners
have a realistic view of What they can and
cannot expert for the coining fiscal year.
"Furthermore," says Moss, "this constant
level budget approach has created within
NASA a very sober attitude toward new pro-
gram proposals. When you must rob existing
programs to fund new ones, new ideas re-
ceive a very careful scrutiny.
EFFICIENT AdENCY
MOSS CIE1/FIS that other federal agencies
could benefit from the NASA approach to
spending. Yet the rationale for curbing the
space agency's real spending power is the need
to trim federal spending.
But Moss claims that NASA has been bit-
ing the budgetary bullet for several years.
"The agency's real spending power is down
to about a third of what it was in 1968. NASA
knows what fiscal stewardship is all about.
If other agencies have been excessive in their
spending in the past, let them follow the
path that NASA has already taken.
"Meanwhile, I say let's not take NASA to
task for the excesses of other agencies."
Moss is convinced that the past NASA pro-
grams, as expensive as they were, have long
since returned more than what was invested
in real growth to the economy?in jobs, in
technology, and in too many other areas to
count.
"Certainly we need to trim the fat out of
the federal budget, but we also have to be
sure we do not shortchange the nation's
future in the process. We must realize that
some federal activities are income-producing
in the long run?and NASA is one of these.
"In a way NASA's budget is part of our
nation's portfolio of blue chip investments.
We have to invest now to prosper in the
future," says Moss.
CUTTING ESSENTIALS
The Senator's position is this. In his view,
NASA serves two primary functions with
respect to space. One Is to develop benef15
from space and the other is to obtain funda-
mental knowledge from space.
The two cuts are in major projects aimed
carefully at achieving those two functions.
One, the Space Shuttle, offers revolutionary,
advances in the practical benefits from space.
The other, the Large Space Telescope, offers
equally revolutionary opportunities to ex-
pand our knowledge of the universe.
"Consider the Large Space Telescope It is
probably the single most important basic
science project that the scientific community
asked the Administration to fund this year.
"This one instrument would allow astron-
omers and scientists to see many times
farther out into space than man has ever
seen before.
"Not many civilizations have had the op-
portunity to purchase and witness such a
genuine quantum leap in a basic science.'
MCBS notes that a medical experiment
aboard Apollo-Soyuz proved very success-
ful. Human kidney cells that produce
enzymes that dissolve blood clots in veins
and arteries were separated from nonpro-
ducing cells in space. The separation method
only works in a weightless environment.
Says Moss, "This may eventually lead to
effective treatment of people having blood
clot conditions such as phlebitis. NASA
scientists also tell me that unique research
on the aging process of the human body
will be feasible in the spacelab and such
medical benefits alone may make the Space
Shuttle well worth the nation's money."
Yet funding for the shuttle has been slashed
irt the current budget requests.
BUDGET STRUCTURE
MOSS, himself the third ranking Democrat
on the Senate Budget Committee is a fervent
booster of the new budget process now being
implemented on Capitol Hill.
He calls it Congress' "success story for
1975."
"Congress has begun to make the hard
decisions on competing priorities . . . Fund-
ing for programs must now be based on both
the basic need and on the relative availability
of funds to meet that need compared to other
national priorities."
Obviously Moss believes that the space
programs coming out of NASA fit national
priorities now and have not lost the priori-
ties they once possessed.
The Senator from Utah also strongly sup-
ports the moves to reorganize the Senate's
Committee system. So much so that he is
one of the Members urging that the Senate
complete the initial steps before the next
election so that "the new Congress can
get on with the needed changes." Right now,
three separate committees are involved in
space and technology matters.. . and energy
legislation is another' major area where the
Senate committee structure has acted as a
roadblock to needed legislation."
It happens in space too. NASA has one
program moving along?called Scasat?which
is basically a partnership among several fed-
eral agencies, research institutions and the
private sector.
The program will be the subject ,of an up-
coming article in Government Executive but
basically, the program is a real, working
partnership among the participants. It is
being designed to the needs of the users?
in the case NASA has no intention of sending
up a satellite that merely sends back data
that is warehoused.
In effect, if successful, and there is no rea-
son why it should not completely succeed,
there are immediate and direct benefits to the
economy of the U.S. and most of the world.
But because each of the participating agen-
cies must turn to Congress to obtain funds,
each from its own series of Senate and House
committees and subcommittees, a single neg-
ative reaction from even a subcommittee
involved with one of the partners can en-
danger the whole program.
Moss says that the Congressicatal budget
system now being developed, and the Sen-
ate committee reorganization would solve
such problems. And that they need solving
is well recognized. Seasat has global impli-
cations some of which impact directly on the
problems of moving vast quantities of crude
oil on the surface of the world's oceans.
Moss is not unaware ? of many domestic
problems. He is involved in the current Sen-
ate hearings into Medicare and other federal
medical program abuses. To the point of
actively proposing that Health, Education &
Welfare establish a sort of Inspector-General
function to penalize states and local juris-
dictions which do not work to correct the
abuses now coming to light.
His involvement in medical and health care
stems from his membership on the Special
Committee On Aging. The Senator is also on
the Senate Commerce and Post Office & Civil
Service Committees.
Moss is not alone in his concern that the
U.S. may be losing its potential for the full
exploitation of space on this aide of the
Atlantic. The signs from overseas are that
other nations fully recognize what can be
drawn from this area in the future.
Charles C. Hewitt, Executive Director of
the National Space Institute claims that
"recent figures are exceedingly alarming in
that the U.S.S.R. seems to be developing a
sharper awareness (than the US.) of the
potential benefits An space for both civilian
and military purposes.
"Also, European countries are now allo-
cating ever larger percentages of their na-
tional ' budgets for space research. They
understand how technical development
maintains economic balance and growth . .
The U.S. may be lagging behind philosoph-
ically arid strategically."
Data 'developed by Dr. Charles S. Shel-
don II, Chief of the Science Policy Research
Division and Senior Specialist in Space and
Transportation Technology for the Library
of Congress indicates that the Soviet Union,
with a gross national product half that of
the U.S. maintains a space program at least
as large as that of the U.S. at its 1966 peak.
One possible result is that the 'U.S., in the
near future, may move into a more compet-
itive stance with respect to space and embark
in another -"race", although this would be
in a modified form.
But Senator Moss in his insistence on a
balanced and consistent space effort--pred-
icated on a sensible budget?says that the
Approved For Release 2001/09/03 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800020023-0