SENATOR ABOUREZK ON 'BREAKING UP THE OIL INDUSTRY'

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP77M00144R000800020027-6
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 31, 2001
• Sequence Number: 27
• Publication Date: January 28, 1976
• Content Type: NOTES

S 666 Approved For Rele M 4 ?09-1MRG11DB00020027- anuary 28, 1976
of hearings that I cochaired with Sen- a clearer understanding of some of the prob- development, and they've just been ruled out
ators MCINTYRE and NELSON through lems confronting all of you, let me be quite of order on doing the research.
the Small Business Committee in May, specific and give you a few case histories. This bias reflects the situation of 15 years
October, and November 19'15. As Sena- Item: A small, innovative company con- ago, when universities were growing by leaps
tracts the RANN Directorate of the National and bounds, and most of the research capa-
tor KENNEDY notes, small business needs Science Foundation in February. They want bility of the nation was to be found in them.
help. I hope the Members of this body help in developing a new electrical insula- But what has been happening more re-
will take time to read the Senator's fine tor which promises to save the utilities mil- cently? That educational establishment
statement. lions of dollars annually in power transmis- which was built up during the 60's has con-
I ask unanimous consent that Senator sion costs. They are told that the review tinued to turn out scientists and engineers
KENNEDY'S speech be printed in the will be completed in four to six weeks. In who for the most part have found jobs in in-
RECORD. May, they contact NSF again, and are told don is that aelarge reality aofion the o present
scientific tua-
There being no objection, the speech that their proposal has not yet been sent out
for review. They call again in July. They call and technical expertise is now to be found in
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, In August, in September, in October. Fi- small, innovative, and (when they can be)
as follows: nally, in desperation, the following January, profit-making companies.
SPEECH PRESENTED BY SENATOR EDWARD M. they request action in a formal letter, and But the National Science Foundation has
KENNEDY AT SMALL BUSINESS MEETING, follow this up with phone calls in February. two very good features which I want to em-
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, JANU- A full year has now gone by. In March they phasize. One is that they are set up to han-
ART 21, 1976 learn that their proposal has been turned dle large numbers of small proposals; the
down. Fortunately, in the meantime, they other is that they have no in-house research
Dr. There yto be ou h Steverere It gives great have obtained private funding for a similar capability of their own. with pleas and t thank you you this morning project. They develop the insulating mate- The first of these is a very important as-
and I want ex recs. you for appreciation Inviting to Dr. Dr. rial, which promptly receives an award as one poet of an agency, which is too often over-
End also to express. my appreciation of the most significant new technological -looked. Because the job of a funding agency
Eggers of the wart of the rc Nndproducts of the year. is to spend money, and it is only natural to
to Milton Stewart of tht Research Council ssionsItem: A small, research oriented firm sub- look for ways to spend that money most f oar Small Business and the Profe, for mits a proposal to ERDA for the modeling of efficiently. So if I can give a big contract to zing o or have this heiriwo It is obvious that a particular process for coal gasification. Af- a giant corporation and spend 6 million dol-
thT have done as b work well. ter a long run-around and an expensive "com- laI's, why should I go through the same
hLs mefacin h been small called
and discuss de- petition", they are informed that ERDA is amount of paper work, and maybe five times
problems facing the sg to do business - not interested in such models. Why weren't the bother, to spend 60 thousand dollars on
the Federal firms trying to do with they told this in the first place? some small company I never heard of that
the in on government. It is not the first
thee Item: A company wants to use equipment thinks it has a bright idea? Well, NSF man-
as s won't
you know, woriginally bought on the NSF contract for ages, somehow, to spend its money this way,
last. S g on n of these this topic,probbland e lems, it
astwork under contract with a private funding and maybe the other agencies have some-
a deea of veil long
standing, and progress slow. organization in the case of a university or thing to learn. ling d Yet iws a them has bsol pons be found, slow, non-profit institution, NSF normally will The second feature of the NSF-the ab-
essential that solutions be small give title to equipment which has been pur- sence of any in-house research-makes it
et it solving
for in companies the problems a the small chased under a grant. They refuse to do this unique among the government agencies
R&D tooward so and so we shall be taking a long for a profit making concern. Instead, they funding R&D-and this too is a very impor-
step tlving some of the critical propose to take the equipment away and tant difference. With other agencies, the
cooblems facing the nation. Because this give it, free of charge, to a university. story is all too familiar: A company conies
country must find realistic, imaginative, yet gI could go on, but I am sure that I don't up with a clever idea, and applies to ERDA,
environ smut cr tealnergy list of ses, food to convince the people in this room say, for funding. The proposal will be re-
crises-and tai means energy ermu fond that there are inequities and inefficiencies in viewed by the individuals at ERDA who are
ways to p that means that of must find our present system. Our task must be to im- the most knowledgeable on the subject. But
ways effectively, put science and technology to work prove the situation. And I cannot emphasize these reviewers are then also competitors for
more and to put the fruits too strongly the importance of action-im- whatever limited funds are available (and
our research h into the market place more e mediate action-on the part of the respon- funds are always limited-even at ERDA!).
rapidly. sible agencies, to restore some measure of the Is it reasonable under these circumstances to
And in this el effort the small re a and good will necessary to re- expect them to render an unbiased verdict?
search and deveelopmlopment companies havea r vitalize the innovative research which this Is it reasonable to expect a company to di-
critical ro1Q s play. This is the scour of our country so sorely needs. vulge its clever idea-and ideas are often all
economy which automobile,brought us the, vacuum tube, The situation that we have today reminds these companies have going for them-to an
the of a and few the decades. . Without the e with- me of one which arises annually, at the start agency which has a stake in keeping its own
In the e span span of of the football season, in the "Peanuts" facilities at top potential?
imagination and drive of the small, o comic strip. Every year Lucy offers to hold a I think it's clear that we've got our work
tips companies, this country and the the world rld football for Charlie Brown, and invites him out out for us. But there is, an important
would be immeasurably poorer. So It Is only to kick it. And every year she pulls it away and vital role that the Congress can and
fair for you to ask: "What has the Federal at the last minute, and Charlie Brown takes must play in this process, and -I want to
Government been doing for us?" a terrible flop and lands flat on his back. And share with you some of my thoughts on that
The Congress of the United States passed every year Charlie Brown says: "Oh, no, not score.
the Small Business Act over twenty years ago. this year. Your're going to pull the ball away My good friend and colleague in the United
There is a section in it which charges the at the last minute and I'll land on my back." States Senate, Tom McIntyre, has spon-
Small Business Administration with three And Lucy says: "This time I've changed, sored-and I have been happy to co-spon-
specific duties: Charlie Brown. I wouldn't do a mean nasty sor-legislation designed to assist small busi-
(1) To assist small businesses in obtaining thing like that! Have faith, Charlie Brown." nesses to participate in the nation's energy
R&D contracts from the Federal government And he gives in and tries to kick that foot- R&D programs, particularly in solar energy.
(2) To assist them to obtain the benefits of ball one more time, and she yanks it away This bill would establish the position of As-
R&D performed by others, and and he falls on his back. sistant Administrator for Small Business at
(3) To provide them with technical assist- Well, many of the smaller companies are ERDA, who would be charged with encour-
ance, still lying on their backs, and they're too aging small business participation in ERDA's
In 1968, the Select Committee on small tired and hurt to pick themselves up and try programs. It would insure that Federal fund-
Business of the House of Representatives held again. But there are others who are willing trig of energy R&D would not result in a
hearings and recommended that SBA "ag- to give it another try, only they're going to decrease of competition or in increased bar-
gressively implement the statutory provi- be looking for some sign that this year riers to the entry of new companies into the
sions" and report back by May 1, 1969. Fo1- Lucy means business. And that's going to energy Industries. It would set aside 20% of
low-up hearings were held in 1972 and re- take some positive action from some of the ERDA's funding dollars for small business.
ported disappointing progress. Federal, agencies. These are necessary and useful provisions,
Just this past year the Senate Select Com- But there are deeply engrained institu- and I hope we will pass this legislation in
mittee on Small Business held hearings-at tional barriers that prevent the small buss- time for its impact to be felt during the
which I had the privilege of testifying-on ness community from interacting success- present budget cycle.
the role of small business '-n the development fully with many of these agencies. For At the same time, I believe that there is
of solar energy. They found a situation dis- example, there is the unwritten rule-and more that we can and should be doing. The
tressingly similar to that of seven years ago. this is most clearly evident at NSF-that in SBA could be doing more to carry out - its
Last month I chaired a workshop, similar the spectrum from research to development, Congressional mandate to assist small busi-
to this one, in Massachusetts, co-sponsored industry does the development and universi- nesses in obtaining R&D grants. One diffi-
by the Associated Industries of Massachuetts ties and non-profits do the research. Now culty is that SBA lacks the trained tech-
and the Smaller Business Association of New just where does that leave the small buss- nical personnel to do this job adequately.
England. I came away from that meeting with nesses? They are toQ small to do much of the This can and should be corrected by the Con-
Approved For Release 2001/09/03 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800020027-6
 January F?8, 1976 ApproveE45Kd C#Wb0R1/g .b_R 711ff0I44R000800020027-6 S 665
U.S. CRIMINAL CODE: THE IMPORTANCE OF S. 1 There being no objection, the article thermal lands in the United States are held
To the Editor: was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, by an oil company.
As chairman of the National Commission as follows: ]raven without these indications, basic eco-
for Reform of :Federal Criminal Laws, I have noinic principles demand that, in a competi-
watched with deep concern the efforts of BREAKING UP THE OIL INDUSTRY tive market, fuels that substitute for one
some civil libertarians and representatives of (By JAMES ABomtEZx) another not be controlled by one company.
the press to kill S. 1, the pending bill to re- WASHINGTON-This country does not have But eight oil companies already have across-
codify Title 1S of the U.B. Code. That bill an energy policy. The President wants-a non- the-board positions in every other fuel.
incorporates a very substantial portion of the competitive.private sector to make basic en- As "energy conglomerates," the oil com-
recommendaticns of our commission, and 95 ergy decisions. The Congress supports Gov- par,ies can protect their investment In de-
percent of its provisions constitute a major ernment regulation. Neither side has the ciining oil reserves by limiting competition
Improvement over existing Federal criminal power to impose its will. The result is the from coal, or uranium, or geothermal steam.
;law. Those provisions have been found ac- confused energy bill that passed Congress The price of coal will depend on develop-
ceptable by all who have studied the legisla- last year. meat decisions made by Exxon, Conoco,
tion and they are really beyond the realm This bill sets no coherent policy. Govern- Mobil, etc. Oil companies already have over
of serious controversy. Inept price controls create as many problems 44 percent of the country's privately held
I,-of course, agree with some of the bill's as they solve, but without Government reg- reserves. Since these acquisitions, coal reve-
critics that there are a few sections of S. 1 ulation we open the door to control of sup- noes have risen by over 300 percent while
which may be characterized as repressive, but ply and price by a handful of giant com- output has risen around 13 percent. :island
these are limited to a small number and in panies whose concern for profit and expansion Creek Coal Company, as a division of Occi-
all likelihood will be taken care of in the far exceeds their concern for the public. dental Petroleum, increased its profits from
Senate Judiciary Committee or by amend- 11 cents per ton in 1972 to $12.95 per ton in
Inept the $ mate floor. The contention There is another way-a way that can 1975-12,000 percent.
that the whole bill moat be defeated because bring market forces back into the energy The process by which the oil companies
th
Of thns at
tse few ecbill is, in my opinion, with industry, limit the need for Government in- control our energy picture is not hard to see.
trusion, and serve the public far better than So we turn to governmental pricing despite
out semblance of validity. our present nonpolicy.
Recognizing the urgency of criminal code its drawbacks. And with no guarantee that
revision-at thissession of Congress, Senators What I some talking about is simple comp to competition will keep the market working in
McClellan and :Elruska, the sponsors of S. 1, tition and snew antitrust legislation to the public interest we will continue to adopt
have informed me of their willingness to ac- bring about that competition. regulations in a vain effort to treat the symp-
cept some modifications which would meet Last fall, 46 Senators voted to break up toms rather than the cause of the problem.
the objections of the press and other critics. the largest oil companies (vertical divesti- We a can deal with the cause of the problem
With a similar sense of responsibility, Sen- Lure). Thirty-nine Senators voted to stop through antitrust legislation. Bills to end
ators Kennedy and Hart are working toward oil firms from buying up alternative fuels vertical integration and get the oil industry
securing the amendments necessary to make (horizontal divestiture). Divestiture is a real out of alternate fuels are pending before the
this bill perfectly acceptable to their liberal possibility, and desperately needed. Senate Judiciary Committee. When these bills
constituencies. Real competition does not exist in the en- appeared in the Senate as amendments to a
There are some areas of the: criminal law ergy industry. Twenty big oil companies con- natural-gas decontrol bill, they received sub-
which presently pose serious problems for trol 94 percent of our domestic oil reserves. stantial support. -
the sponsors of code revision. The most ob- The fact that none of these companies con- Separating production from other func-
vious examples are national security, wire trols more than 10 percent of the market tions will create a competitive market for
tapping, gun control, traffic in drugs and misleads some people Into believing that the crude oil. Competition among producers and
capital punishment. While Congress must Industry is competitive. People do not realize refiners will be on the basis of price and
eventually resolve these issues, it is certainly that these oil companies operate through a efficiency rather than market power.
unnecessary for the whole code to be held up complex web of crisscrossing business deals At the same time, we must prevent the oil
until totol agreement can be reached. They that tie them together at dozens of points. companies from taking over our other fuels.
might more properly be left to separate legis- Groups of companies join together to pro- We need separate and independent companies
lation to be introduced, debated and enacted duce oil on leases they share. These "joint competing for our energy dollars, not a. web
at a later date. ventures" are common throughout the in- of -energy conglomerates" controlling a
A great deal of misinformation has been dustry. Most companies participate in doz- whole spectrum of fuels. An energy con-
ens of such groupings. They are likely to be glomerate will not encourage its coal or geo-of the Senate spread Judiciary about S. 1.. the have ers lt e led partners of every other company in the busi- thermal subsidiary to undersell its oil unit.
t nemCommittee
and imp have ness-in joint production or in joint owner- Breaking up the oil industry into inde-
tioion, the comp pree chancey ive of its s i passage sage in somewhat ship of pipelines. pendently competing companies will cause
modified form have been greatly enhanced. The big companies have agreements to re- some immediate shuffling. It may increase the
Defeat would be a severe blow to criminal no oil for one another, and no money value of stock in the-new companies. Over a
law reform in this country. hanges hands. Their directors sit next to period of time, it will mean prices in line
one another on the boards of the banks that with efficient costs, and a mix of fuels that
EDMUND G. BROWN. ..
California.) _ we have the gloved handshake of the~gen control, all we have is self-interested plan-
tleman's agreement. When one company does ping by a few corporate managers whose job
is to expand size and
not kno
rofits
h
it
p
.
w w
ere
s interests end and an-
SENATOR ABOUREZK ON "BREAK- other's begin, real competition does not exist. In the matter of energy, we are dealing
Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, this companies has producing, transporting, re- reach or any fluctuations, in behavior by en-
body and retailing operations. They use this ergy consumers, so their decisions often do
body is very familiar with the historic "integrated" structure to keep the price of not f t our needs and we find ourselves in a
debate which many of us participated in crude oil high, by selling to their own re- constant argument over energy policy goals.
last fall concerning the divestiture of fineries. Control over pipelines enables the
the major vertically integrated oil com- companies to manipulate distribution. It is
ponies. I argued in favor of this action, not the level of concentration, but owner- THE IMPORTANCE OF SMALL
as did the distinguished Senator from ship of crude oil, shared business deals, and BUSINESS RESEARCH
South Dakota (Mr. ABOUREZK) In yester- vertical integration that permits monopoly Mr. HATHAWAY. Mr. President, on
day's New Yor}:Times, a critique of the control in the industry.
Congress energy bill and the issue of di- As if this "shared monopoly" in the oil in- January 21, my good friend and col-
duatry is not reason enough to call forth league, Senator EDWARD M. KENNEDY of
vestiture by Senator ABOUREZK appeared. antitrust action, we now find the integrated Massachusetts, delivered a speech at a
I ;believe the need to divest the major in-, oil giants acting systematically to acquire conference on small business research
tegrated oil companies has not dimin- their competition. held by the National Science Founda-
ished one bit since this body considered In the last twelve years, the major oil con- tion. In that speech Senator KENNEDY
such legislation last fall, and' that Sena- cerns have moved into all current and po- aptly describes the problems that small
ator ABOUREZK's critique reaffirms that tential alternative fuels. The 18 largest oil entrepreneurs face when dealing with
need quite well. companies produce 60 percent of our natural- the Federal research and development
gas supply. Sixteen of the 18 own oil-shale
I ask unanimous consent that the agencies,
t u huge coal reserves; 16
article, "Breaking up the Oil Industry," have p
develop-
be printed in the RECORD for the benefit u aniumprocess suthree own solar-energy ing new technologies cannot be eunder-
of my colleagues, companies; and the only producing geo- stated. It was strongly stressed in a series
Approved For Release 2001/09/03 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800020027-6
 C 994 Approved For Rele p&N %/ gjA j[14 MO0020027-unitary 28, 1976
tion has become a right valued above almost 10850, a new bill to revise Title, 18 which was
all others. The liberal opponents of S. 1 have prepared in large part by the American Civil
overlooked two factors of great Importance. Liberties Union. It tracks S. I closely, and
First, mere defeat of S. 1 would leave intact departs materially from the bill only in the
many of the provisions to which they are op- relatively few areas where major disagree-
posed since they are carry-ovens from exist- meat by the ACLU with the $enate bill was
ing law. Second, and more important, the only to be expected. The provisions in ques-
critics have been ignorant of, or have ignored, tion deal with: the insanity defense, treat-
the fact that at least ninety percent of the ment of classified. material, marijuana, the
provisions of the bill constitute law reform sentencing structure, death sentence, ob-
that is virtually beyond the realm of serious scenity and the like. It may be anticipated
controversy. In consequence, while amend- that the liberal view of the framers of H.R.'
ment may be essential; total rejection would 10850 may incite as violent opposition from
be tragic. To vote S. 1 down would doom the conservative elements inside and outside of
country to a continuation of totally unsatis- Congress as some of the repressive measures
factory criminal law at the federal level and of S. 1 did from the liberals.
a dearth of reform in many state and local The introduction of the ACLU legislation
jurisdictions. Is bound to increase the polarization among
it has taken a full decade from the launch- members of Congress and hurt the cause of
ing of the effort to secure revision during the revision, yet two points may be made in its
administration of President Johnson to bring favor. The bill follows the provision number
the matter to a congressional vote. If a re- ing of S. 1 and consequently makes easy an
vised code goes down to defeat, it is highly examination of the sections in which the
unlikely that a new effort at revision can be sponsors of the two bills run at cross pur-
consummated in less than another decade. poses. More importantly, a comparison should
Meanwhile, crime marches on, and civil bring out forcefully how much agreement
liberties suffer as much under the present resides on each side .with respect to the vast
chaotic system.as they would, in all likeli- majority of the provisions of both bills. Only
hood; under the most extreme provision of on a limited number of highly controversial
S. 1. issues does significant disagreement exist. "
The Wall Street Journal editorialized on
August 22, 1975, on the subject of S. 1 and
condemned it roundly. In calling for the
rejection of the bill, it stated, among other
things, that "[t]he entire bill in its present
form goes well beyond present law in re-
stricting First Amendment rights, reducing
public access to knowledge of the workings
of government and revising civil rights prec-
edents."
The following comment was offered in
reply by Professor Louis B. Schwartz, Ben-
jamin Franklin Professor of Law at the Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania and director of the
National Commission on Reform of Federal
Criminal Laws:
"On the other hand, 95 percent of S. 1 is a
competent non-controversial ordering and
modernizing of the antiquated arbitrary
hodge-podge that is our present criminal
justice system. If there ever was a counsel
of despair, of throwing out the baby with the
bath water,.It is the suggestion in your edi-
torial that S. 1 be abandoned rather than
amended, as it easily can be to remedy its
tion, fails to call attention to the important
fact that the vast majority of the bill pro-
visions constitute law reform that, Is virtu-
ally beyond controversy. The ABA criticism
and simultaneous support of S. 1 cannot be
dismissed as uphelpful, but the Association
has done considerably less than sound a
tocsin summoning Congress to get on with
essential legislation without further delay.
THE BAR'S RESPONSIBILITY
In light of the wreckage that crime is
causing throughout the country (one family
out of every four victimized); of the finan-
cial burden that crime and its prevention
Imposes upon us annually (around $100 bil-
lion, or a tenth of the gross national prod-
uct) ; and of the unique capability of lawyers
to provide leadership in a field in which they
have more expertise than almost all others,
the apparent lack of concern of the profes-
sion Is difficult to explain.
We are apparently ready to stand by and
allow Congress to resolve some of the most
important criminal law issues of our times
with scarcely a word of advice, support, or
even opposition, from the organized. bar.
Within the framework of revision of Title 18
as a whole, rest among others the following
great questions of the day:
Are sentences of imprisonment to be left,
as heretofore, to' the whim of a judge who
may be guided entirely by the theory that
only severity of punishment will block crime,
or should sentencing be placed on a more
uniform, scientific basis conforming to mod-
ern principles of penology?
Should we continue to fight drug abuse
only with the savagery of heavy punishment,
or with up-to-date principles of crime pre-
vention and control?
Do victimless crimes and minor infractions
of law deserve the inordinate share of police
time and effort now devoted to them at the
cost of serious diminution of the protection
of society from crimes of violence?
Must we continue to suffer the present an-
nual slaughter by homicide rather than give
up the absolute right of everyone to bear
all kinds of arms for whatever purpose?
Is prison forever to be the only method
of punishing crime, or might a modern sci-
entific effort be made to utilize probation as
a supplementary method?
Must we accept recidivism as unconquer-
able rather than try to arrest it by a whole-
hearted system of rehabilitation?
The mere delineation of those Issues should
make clear how hopeless it would be to ex-
pect a single piece of legislation to resolve
every one of them satisfactorily. It seems
obvious that several of the questions demand
separate legislation carefully drafted and fol-
lowed by time for what may be prolonged
debate. To attempt to package all the solu-
tions in an omnibus treatment, as have the
framers of S. 1 and H.R. 10850, simply invites
the possible rejection by Congress of any re-
vision whatever.
It is here that one might have expected the
leadership of the profession to offer guidance
to the Congress. Instead of being content to
stand by and witness the crushing to death
of this important legislation between the ex
tremists of the right and those of the leit,~
the American Bar Association might well
have called for the elimination of the con-
troversial provisions and the enactment of -
the portions of S. 1 on which nearly every-
one can agree.
That is not to say that the provisions of
the code governing wiretapping, drug abuse,
capital punishment, obscenity and gun con-
trol should be ignored. Obviously, they are
At the 1975 annual meeting of the Ameri-
can Bar Association, the Section of Criminal
Justice secured virtually unanimous ap-
proval by the House of Delegates of a resolu-
tion endorsing S. 1 in principle, subject to a
series of thirty-eight suggested amendments.
In a few instances the Section preferred the
counterpart section of H.R. 333; In several
it disapproved of the S. 1 provision in Its en-
tirety (treatment of the Insanity defense,
control of prostitution, crime in federal en-
claves) ; but in most the S. 1 approach was
approved, subject to amendments to make
it conform to the Standards Relating to the
Administration of Criminal Justice. Very few
of the proposed amendments could be char-
acterized as sweeping.
The Section of Criminal Justice studied
the Brown Report and S. 1 over a period of
four years. It is certainly to be commended
for its recognition of the importance of pur-
suing federal criminal law revision, and un-
defects." T House of Delegates are disappointing in Bev-
is prison forever to be the only method of eral important respects. '
punishing crime? The subject matter of S. 1 deserved some-
He then gave a sampling of the numerous thing more than a mere legalistic analysis
improvements incorporated In S. 1 which of the language of a complex bill. One may
would be jettisoned If the Journal's counsel well wonder how helpful anyone could find
were followed: the main paragraph of the long resolution
like "A rational scale penalties under which of the House of Delegates. It reads in part
offenses are subject t to to like ke sentences;
"Systematic distinction between first of- as follows:
fenders and multiple or professional crimi- "Be it resolved ... that the American
nals; Bar Association endorses in principle the
"Appellate review of abuse of discretion in provisions of S. 1 and its counterpart H.R.
sentencing; - 3907, now pending in the 94th Congress, 1st
"An improved basis for extraditing crimi- Session, as a desirable basis for the reform
nals who flee the country; of the federal criminal laws; noting however
A system of compensation for victims of that the Commission on Correctional Facili-
violent crime; ties and Services urges the particular import-
"The first democratically adopted state- ance of amendments to reflect the general
ment of the aims of the criminal justice sys- principles set out in Recommendations 28,
31, 33 and 34 in Appendix A hereto and the
for of tern officials the guidance
reecho al cgenci enforcement relevant sections of the ABA Standards Re-and Professsor or Schwartz concluded: rtz delating to the Administration of Criminal
o Justice. .. .
"In short, although there are a dozen spe- Furthermore, the most criticized omissions
cific amendments required to make S. 1 ac- or inclusions of S. 1 are almost ignored. The
ceptable, the overall aim and substantial ac- ABA taken no posit}on on the absence of
complishment of the bill is to promote re-
rovision for gun control; it has ducked the
p
spect for the law by making the law re- question of capital punishment, taking ref- in great need of reexamination and revision.
spectable. should The reform of the federal criminal uge in the fact that it is sub fudice in the The bar should call for new legislation in
code should be rescued, not killed." Supreme Court; it has withheld recom-. those areas without delay. There is no per-
H.R. 10850 mendations on the S. 1 handling of the drug suasive reason, however, why the other por-
Belatedly, on November 20, 1975, Repre- problem, pending a study by the association tions of Title 18 should be hung up until
sentatives Kastenmeier (D. Wise.), Mikva (D. "in depth." In addition, the Section report, agreement on the controversial portions is
Ill.) and Edwards (D. Cal.) Introduced H.R. and consequently the House of Delegates' ac- reached.
questionably its proposed amendments would
strengthen and improve the Senate bill. Yet
its recommendations and the action of the
Approved For Release 2001/09/03 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800020027-6
 January 28, 1976 Approveqt6grdJvhsnp /(}& j BWAMP144R000800020027-6 s 663
committee on Improvements in Judicial and law and order, and so little effective po?ates the preference of a large majority of
Machinery, I wish to announce that the action, that the public is becoming con- the members of the Commission on how the
hearing for the consideration of S. 1110, vinced that nothing will ever be done to controversial issues could best be resolved.
the Judicial Tenure Act, scheduled for restore citizen 'safety from crime. Cynicism The strength of H.R. 333 rests in the fact
the Jud al 1976, in room 6202, for prevails, and any suggestion that legislation, that every section of Title 48 had been
whether federal or state, might promote jus- carefully examined by the Commission,
sell Senate- Office Building, has been tice and reduce crime Is likely to be greeted brought into harmony and revised to con-
moved to room 457, Russell, Senate Office with derision. form- to the best thinking of the day, Specif-
Building. In the case of members of the bar, how- ically, the Commission report followed
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, the Com-
mittee on Government operations will
hold a 3-day symposium entitled "Our
Third Century: Directions" on February
4, 5; and 6. The symposium will consist
of four public discussions concerning the
development of long-range policy alter-
natives by Government and the private
sector. Participants in the discussions
will include present and former govern-
ment officials, scholars of government,
historians, scientists, and representa-
ad hoc chairlr.
public is invii
irksen
he symposium. The
ever, such a negative attitude is unjustified. closely the recommendations of the Ameri-
The profession is well aware of the impor- can Law Institute, asset forth in the Model
tance and efficacy of state adoption of the Pei,al Code, and the American Bar Associa- -
Model Penal Code. It should be equally tlo't Standards Relating to the Admi:aistra-
supportive of revision of Title 18 of the tloii of Criminal Justice.
United States Code, the massive compila- The heart of the Brown Report, preserved
tion of all federal legislation dealing with in "3.R. 333, Is the creation of a sentencing
crime. No excuse should be accepted for a str=icture which specifies maxima for certain
lawyer's ignorance of the compelling neces- cla sified grades of crimes and to which
sity for an immediate rewriting of that whol- each specific federal offense is tied. Every
ly outdated and ineffective compilation of felony sentence involving a maximum would
criminal lbw. have a mandatory parole component, reduc-
Many provisions within the title as it now tag to that extent the period during which
stands are so unreasonable as to offend all the prisoner could actually be detained under
sense of justice. There is gross disparity the sentence. The Commission took the post-
among the maximum sentences permitted tior that the upper ranges within the ordi-
for similar crimes; the provisions for proba- nary maximum were to be reserved for the
tion are inadequate; the treatment of the especially dangerous offenders. It also di-
problem of recidivism is thoughtless and recited that in sentencing, prison should be
unplanned; and the provisions governing resorted to only if the judge was satisfied
infractions and minor offenses are as chaotic thai: it was a more satisfactory disposition
as the rest. - than probation.
Related offenses are not gathered together E.R. 333, among its other key provisions,
in Title 18 alone but are scattered through confines consecutive sentencing to cases
fifty titles. Senator Roman Hruska (R. Neb.) where "exceptional features provide j ustifi-
has pointed out that there are in excess of cation" and requires the court to set forth
seventy different provisions dealing with its reasons in detail; provides for appellate
theft, and for the requisite state of mind for review of sentences; stiffens the govern-
criminal offenses, seventy-eight different meat's burden of proof in conspiracy cases;
terms are employed. He adds that such im- relaxes the inordinate severity of prison pen-
precision of language increases the chances al6'::s for hard drug offenses and rules out
of the guilty going free and the innocent inct rceration for petty marijuana offenses;
being convicted. balls production, marketing and possession of
By revising the criminal code, we will handguns-except for military and police use;
gain an infinitely more effective system of and provides curtailment of federal involve-
combating crime and create an example for meat in situations having "no substantial
the states which should spur them toward federal interest."
criminal law reform. Federal crime is only Uader the existing American penal sys-
the tip of the lawless iceberg, but until it is tem, increases in violent crime and recidi-
dealt with on an enlightened and effective visna have become a part of our way of life.
basis, it will be useless to expect much ad- The Brown Report and H.R. 333 have ac-
vancement on the part of the states. cep:ed the thesis of modern penologists that
Unfortunately, a combination of circum- constant increase in the severity of punish-
stances has caused a sharp division of opin- mett is not an intelligent way to attain a
ion on the pending federal revision legisla- reduction of crime.
S. 1-REFORM OF THE CRIMINAL
LAWS
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, yes-
terday, I had intended to Include in the
CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD the entire con-
tent of an article on S. 1 entitled "The
Battle Over the Criminal Code" by Mr.
^Cheodore Voorhees which appeared in
the current issue of Judicature, the
magazine of the American Judicature
Society. The article explains very well
I think the present posture 'of the issues
contained in S. 1 and suggests what must
be done to insure that certain defects of
the proposal be corrected in order to
warrant its approval by the Congress.
The article did not appear in full, how-
ever, as I had intended.
Similarly, I noted the appeal in behalf
of S. 1 in a letter printed ' in the New
York Times from former Gov. Pat Brown,
who served as the Chairman of the
President's Commssion on the Reform of
the Criminal Laws. 0
Again, it should be observed that there
do exist serious defects in the bill as it
is now written. It is the purpose of the
legislative process to remedy these de-
fects and if reform of the criminal laws
is to occur during this Congress, those
defects must be remedied.
Mr. President, these materials are well
~ orth reading on this issue and I ask
unanimous consent, therefore, that the
complete article by Mr. Voorhees, to-
gether with the letterfrom former Gov.
Pat Brown, be printed in tlke RECORD.
There being no objection, the material
was ordered to be printed inthe RECORD,
as follows:
IT COnLD DECIDE THE WAR ON CRIME-THE
BATTLE OVSR THE CRIMINAL CODE
(By Theodore Voorhees)
There has been so much talk In recent
years about crime prevention, penal reform,
tion which may hinder or even block the
adoption of a new federal code. The follow-
ing simplified explanation of the back- Ir the Senate, Senator McClellan (D. Ark.)
ground of the bills pending In the House put together a bill which, again, was largely
and Senate presents the basic controversy based upon the report of the Brown Com-
which must be resolved If this much-needed mission. A number of the provisions of his
legislation is to have any chance of passage, draft, however, reflected his more conserva-
Both Senate bill S. 1 and H.R. 333 grew S. 1 had 13 sponsors, including, In addi-
out of a Study Draft of a revised Title 18 tion to Senators McClellan and Hruska, who
prepared by the National Commission on were members of the Commission, such lib-
Reform of Federal Criminal Laws, popular- eral backers its Senators Scott (R. Pa.) and
ly known as the Brown Report after the Bayi (D. Ind.). Hearings were held on the
commission chairman, former California bill )ver the course of a year, and the tran-
Governor Edmund G. (Pat) Brown. That script ran to more than 8000 pages. (A coun-
report, released in 1971, was the product of terpart to S. 1 is H.R. 3907.)
four years of study by the congressionally- S. 1 seeks to restore capital punishment
established Commission after it had received and make it mandatory In a narrowgroup of
the advice of many of the recognized crimi- homicides. It is silent on any form of gun
nal law experts of the country. control but acids additional years of impris-
The Commission's recommendations were onm'';nt to already heavy maxima when guns
endorsed by all shades of political and pro- are uised in connection with an offense or
fessional opinion. By stating some alterna- when organized crime is involved. It retains
tives in areas of major controversy (such as a pri -on penalty for non-commercial private
drugs, gun control, capital punishment and possession of Marijuana but reduces the pres-
wire tapping) and leaving resolution of such ent heavy punishment considerably. It pro-
problems to Congress, the Commission was vide., severe penalties for traffic in hard
able to present a unanimous report. While drugs.. It narrows the defense of insanity.
opinion among its members differed sharply The foes of the Senate bill have coricen-
with respect to those difficult issues, on trate:l much of their fire on provisions which
ninety per cent of the provisions there was have been interpreted as curtailing First
general agreement. . Amendments rights. They foresee wiretap-
in the House, H.R. 333 was first intro- ping on an expanded scale and protest the
duced in 1973 by Representatives Kasten- excuse of national security as its justifica-
meier (D. Wisc.) and Edwards (D. Cal.). It tion, The bill has met intensive opposition
follows the Brown Report closely and Incor- from the political left, to whom demonstra-
Approved For Release 2001/09/03 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800020027-6