CORRECTION OF THE RECORD

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP77M00144R000800060001-0
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 7, 2001
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: January 17, 1975
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2002/01/02: CIA-RDP77M00144R00080006000f-0
January 17, 1975 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
Two others are presently severely re-
stricte4 Citrus Red No. 2 is used only to col-
or the skins of p'lorida oranges because there
is evidence it is a weak carcinogen. The use of
Red No. 4, which caused adrenal damage in
dogs, is confined to maraschino" cherries.
Most of the artificial colorings on the mar-
ket are coal-tar derivatives. Originally made
from compounds derived from coal tar, they
are now made yyitli synthetic chemicals iden-
tical to the original coal-tar compounds.
Besides Red, No. 2, at least one other wide-
ly-used coal-tar dye has become controver-
sial. Tartrazine, or FD&C Yellow No. 5, has
been proven to cause allergic reactions in
some people, especially_those who are sensi-
tive to aspirin. Because Tartrazine, whose
production has almost doubled in the past
13 years, is sometimes used to disguise prod-
ucts (egg or butter bread look as it they
contain more of those ingredients if the
coloring is used), it is a special target of
consumer groups.
Richard ' Ronk, head of the F.D.A.'s De-
partment of Color Additives, said that the
agency recognizes the ?tudies that have been
done on the ,allergic responses and the rec-
ommendations by some scientist that the
dye be eliminated from medications that use
.-it for coloring.
He said the F.D.A. has no foreseeable plans
to restrict it, although it might consider re-
quiring food and drug manufacturers to dis-
close the presence of the dye on the label.
Tartrazine is found in pickles, gelatin des-
serts, powdered drink mixes, breakfast ce-
reals, margarine, salt butter, cakes, cake and
CORRECTION OF THE RECORD
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President,
through inadvertence there was an omis-
sion in the text of a bill, S. 99, to estab-
lish a Joint Committee on National
Security, which I introduced on January
15, 1975, and as printed in the RECORD-
page S182. I ask unanimous consent that
the permanent RECORD be corrected ac-
cordingly and that the full text of the bill
be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the bill was
ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as
follows :
S. 99
Be itT enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States . of
America in Congress assembled, That the
Congress declares that-
(1) it has been vested with responsibility
under the Constitution to assist in the for-
mulatign of the foreign, domestic, and mili-
tary policies of the United States.
(2) such policies are directly related to the
security of the United States;
(3) the Integration of such policies pro-
notes our national security; and
(4) the National Security Council was es-
tablished by the National Security Act of 1947
as a means of integrating such policies and
furthering the national security.
The Congress further declares that the in-
tegration of such policies and furthering the
national security also require oversight and
monitoring by the Congress of activities of
the intelligence agencies of the United
States.
SEC. ;;. (a) In order to enable the Con-
gress to more effectively carry out its con-
stitutional responsibility in the formulation
of forei n, domestics and military policies of
the Un4ted States and in order to provide
the Congress with an improved means for
formulating legislation and providing for the
integration of such policies which will fur-
ther promote the security of the United
States, there is established a joint commit-
tee of the Congress which shall be known as
the Joint Committee on National Security,
hereafter referred to as the "joint commit-
tee." The joint committee shall be com-
posed of twenty-six Members of Congress as
follows:
(1) the Speaker of the House of Repre-
sentatives;
(2) the President pro Tempore of the Sen-
ate;
(3) the majority and minority leaders of
the Senate and the House of Representatives;
(4) the chairmen and ranking minority
members of the Senate Committee on Appro-
priations, the Senate Committee on Armed
Services, the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations, and the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy;
(5) the chairmen and ranking minority
members of the House Appropriations Com-
mittee, the House Armed Services Committee,
and the House Foreign Affairs Committee;
(6) three Members of the Senate appointed
by the President of the Senate, two of whom
shall be members of the majority party and
one of whom shall be a member of the mi-
nority party;
(7) three Members of the House of Repre-
sentatives appointed by the Speaker, two of
whom shall be members of the majority
party and one of whom shall be a member
of the minority party.
(b) The joint committee shall select a
chiarman and a vice chairman from among
its members.
(c) Vacancies in the membership of the
joint committee shall not affect the power of
the remaining members to execute the func-
tions of the joint committee and shall be
filled in the same manner as in the case of
the original appointment.
SEC. 3. (a) The joint committee shall have
the following functions:
(1) to make a continuing study of the for-
eign, domestic, and military policies of the
United States with a view to determining
whether and the extent to which such poli-
cies are being appropriately integrated in
furtherance of the national security;
(2) to conduct in a timely fashion a thor-
ough review and analysis of activities of the
intelligence agencies of the United States
in order to determine whether their charters,
organization and operations are consistent
.with the national security needs of the
Government;
(3) to make a continuing study of the rec-
ommendations and actions of the National
Security Council relating to such policies
and activities, with particular emphasis upon
reviewing the goals, strategies, and alterna-
tives of such foreign policy considered by the
Council; and
(4) to make a continuing study of Gov-
ernment practices and recommendations
with respect to the classification and declas-
sification of documents, and to recommend
certain procedures to be implemented for the
classification and declassification of such
material.
(b) The joint committee shall make re-
ports from time to time (but not less than
once each year) to the Senate and House of
Representatives with respect to its studies.
The reports shall contain such findings,
statements, and recommendations as the
joint committee considers appropriate.
SEq. 4. (a) The joint committee, or any
subcommittee thereof, is authorized, in its
discretion (1) to make expenditures, (2) to
employ personnel, (3) to adopt rules respect-
ing its organization and procedures, (4) to
hold hearings, (5) to sit and act at any time
or place, (6) to subpena witnesses and docu-
ments, (7) with the prior consent of the
agency concerned, to use on a reimbursable
basis the services of personnel, information,
and facilities of any such agency, (8) to pro-
cure printing and binding, (9) to procure
S 489
the temporary services (not in excess of one
year) or intermittent services of individual
consultants, or organizations thereof, and to
provide assistance for the training of its pro-
fessional staff, in the same manner and un-
der the same conditions as a standing com-
mittee of the Senate may procure such
services and provide such assistance under
subsections (I) and (j), respectively, of sec-
tion 202 of the Legislative Reorganization Act
of 1946, and (10) to take depositions and
other testimony. No rule shall be adopted by
the joint committee under clause (3) provid-
ing that a finding, statement, recommenda-
tion, or report may be made by other than a
majority of the members of the joint com-
mittee then holding office.
(b) Subpenas may be issued- over the sig-
nature of the chairman of the joint commit-
tee or by any member designated by him or
the joint committee, and may be served by
such person as may be designated by such
chairman or member. The chairman of the
joint committee or any member thereof may
administer oaths to witnesses. The provi-
sions of sections 102-104 of the Revised
Statutes (2 U.S.C. 192-194) shall apply in
the case. of any failure of any witness to com-
ply with a subpena or to testify when sum-
moned under authority of this section.
(c) With the consent of any standing, se-
lect, or special committee of the Senate or
House, or any subcommittee, the joint com-
mittee may utilize the services of any staff
member of such House or Senate committee
or subcommittee whenever the chairman of
the joint committee determines that such
services are necessary and appropriate,
(d) The expenses of the joint committee
shall be paid from the contingent fund of the
Senate from funds appropriated for the joint
committe, upon vouchers signed by the
chairman of the joint committee or by any
member of the joint committee authorized
by the chairman.
(e) Members of the joint committee, and
its personnel, experts, and consultants, while
traveling on official business for the joint
committee within or outside the United
States, may receive either the per diem allow-
ance authorized to be paid to Members of
the Congress or its employees, or their actual
and necessary expenses if an itemized state-
ment of such expenses is attached to the
voucher.
BUSINESS
The ACTING PRESIDENT pr
If not, morning business is concluded.
AMENDMENT OF RULE XXII OF
THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. Under the previous order, the Sen-
ate will proceed to the consideration of
Senate Resolution 4, which the clerk will
state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 4) amending rule
XXIL of the Standing Rules of the Senate
with respect to the limitation of debate.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. Debate on this resolution may con-
tinue until the close of business today or
the hour of 6 p.m., whichever is earlier.
Who seeks recognition?
PROPOSED CHANGE IN RULE xxii
Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President, I am
pleased to sponsor, together with the dis-
tinguished Senator from Minnesota and
numerous other Senators, a resplutio.I
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800060001-0
 S490
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800060001-0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA'T'E January 17, 1975
amending rule XXII, to provide that It is clear, Mr. President, that the
cloture may be invoked on an affirmative Senate has not followed this worthwhile
vote of three-fifths rather than two- advice. Since 1917, the Senate has sought
thirds of Senators present and voting. to limit debate through implementation
With adoption of this resolution, I be- of rule XXII 99 times. In the 93d Con-
lieve we can achieve a fundamental and gress alone, 30 attempts were made. Yet,
needed reform in the Senate by bringing cloture has been invoked only 20 times,
into c'oser balance- two of its most cher- barely once in every five attempts. Addi-
ished rights-the right to debate and-the tionally, no one can determine with ac-
right to vote. curacy the number of informal attempts
Limiting debate is a common practice at cloture, which have been turned back
in representative government. As early in the face of an uncompromising mi-
as 1604, the British Parliament instituted nority. And no one can estimate the
a procedure, through which motion could number of surrenders by Senators with
be made to end debate, known as the legislation of substance which have oc-
previous question. This procedure was curred at the mere threat of filibuster.
borrowed and utilized by the Continental There can be no question that the
Congress. events of the last 58 years with regard to
From 1789, when the First Congress rule XXII indicate a serious imbalance
met to establish rules pursuant to article between the rights of those who would
I, section 5 of the Constitution, until delay and those who would decide. We
1917, the Senate operated without any who support Senate Resolution 4 believe
effective means to limit debate. In 1846, that a proper balance can be struck.
the Senate initiated use of the unanimous We who support this resolution believe
consent procedure to fix a date on which that further steps must be taken to as-
a measure would be put to final passage. sure the orderly transaction of the Na-
In 1870, the Senate adopted the so-called tion's business.
Anthony Rule, limiting each Senator to And wewho support this resolution
one 5-minute speech during the course share the concern of many Americans
of a debate on a particular measure. that Congress must get on with the prob-
Because these procedures required lems of the Nation and not waste count
unanimous consent before they could be less hours, days, weeks, and months
implemented, they were largely Ineffec- hopelessly mired in parliamentary en-
tive in preventing a small group of Sena- tanglements,
tors-or even one Senator-from extend- But how, Mr. President, can we cor-
ing debate on an unlimited basis. This rect this imbalance? Certainly, not by
inherent weakness was dramatically majority cloture. During my time of serv-
demonstrated in 1917, shortly after the ice in this body, I have found on numer-
United States entered World War I. At ous occasions that extended debate can
that time, an important shipping bill was prevent hasty or ill-conceived action
defeated in the Senate by a - filibuster. which could wrought much mischief in
Shortly after this defeat, President Wil- our country. Asa result of this experi-
son called the Congress into special ses- ence, I cherish the right of full debate as
sion and requested adoption of some pro- much as anyone, and I will seek to pre-
cedure to limit debate. As a result, the serve that right as long as I continue to
Senate leadership proposed adoption of serve here. I know the vast majority of
what is now rule XXII. The resolution the other cosponsors of this resolution
was debated, and in an atmosphere of feel the same way. Thus, to argue that
national emergency, approved by a vote the modification of rule XXII we seek
of 76 to 3. Only one day of debate was will end full discussion of every issue that
utilized to consider a measure which has comes before us is to greatly misread
had a profound impact on the effective- both our intent and the thrust of our
ness of the Senate. proposal.
Mr. President, I have given this cursory A shift from 66 to 60 percent of the
history of debate limiting procedures - to Senate necessary to invoke cloture will
point outwhat I believe to be two rele- not eliminate the precious right of full
vant points. First, there is nothing new, debate. But it will make it somewhat
unprecedented, or revolutionary in our easier to more efficiently conduct public
attempts to balance the rights of each business by striking-'a better balance be-
Senator to debate and to vote. Striking, tween the right of debate and the right
a proper balance Is a problem which has to vote at some time. If a three-fifths
vexed legislative bodies for nearly four cloture rule had been in effect for the
centuries. Second, there is no magic in past 58 years, 44, not just 20, of those 99
the two-thirds formula adopted by the cloture petitions would have been suc-
Senate in 1917, as evidenced by the man- cessfui-a considerable improvement,
ner in which rule XXII was initially but hardly any "gag" on free speech.
adopted. Mr. President, a substantial majority
Mr. President, nearly 80 years ago, of the Senate should be allowed to work
Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, of Massa- its will at some point. Not to allow it to
chusetts, made the following observation: do so is to admit that the constitutional
If the courtesy of unlimited debate is guarantee of equal representation will
granted, it must carry with it the reciprocal not apply and that a relative handful of
courtesy of permitting a vote after due dis- Senators, may exercise a legislative veto
cussion. If this is not the case, the system power never contemplated by our round-
is impossible. Of the two rights, moreover, ing Fathers or the words of the Con-
that of voting is the higher and more im- Stitution.
portant. We ought to have both, and debate How substantial a majority should be
certainly in ample measure, but if we are
forced to choose between them, the right of established to invoke cloture? Here 'b-
action must prevail over the right of dis- viously is where honest men can disagree,
cussion. To vote without debating is perilous, as they did when the present rule XXII
but to debate and never vote is imbecile. was first adopted. The two-thirds rule is
the result of well-intentioned men con-
structing what they hoped would be an
effective compromise between the ex-
treme of majority cloture, on the one
hand, and unlimited debate, on the other.
It was an honest attempt to find that
fair balance of which I spoke earlier.
Yet, as the evidence of the past 58 years
indicates, this worthwhile effort has
failed by making the majority neces-
sary for cloture so substantial that it is
nearly impossible to obtain. What we are
suggesting today is a further modifica-
tion of their original effort based on the
experience of the past six decades. We
believe that three-fifths of the Senate
present and voting constitutes an ample
majority, one which should have the
right to act. But we also believe that
three-fifths is not a majority so sub-
stantial as to be impractical of attain-
men, the equivalent, in fact, of having
no debate limitation at all.
Mr. President, article I, section 5 of
the Constitution gives a majority of the
Senate convened the right to modify and
adopt its rules of procedure, regardless
of rules which may have applied in pre-
vious Congresses. In the past, those who
disagreed with this interpretation have
claimed that because two-thirds of the
100 Members of this body carry over from
one Congress to the next, the Senate is
a continuing body, bound by the rules
of previous years. To make this claim,
however, is to state that the Constitu-
tional right of the Senate to make its
own rules applied only to the -First Con-
gress. It is no doubt true that the fram-
ers of the Constitution hoped each suc-
ceeding Congress would be guided by the
experience and collective wisdom of its
predecessors, thereby concurring in rules
and procedures which could continue to
withstand the test of time.
It is difficult to imagine, however, that
these men intended each house of a new
Congress to be restricted in efforts to
amend its rules and procedures by what
a majority of its Members considered to
be outmoded and unworkable procedures.
Yet, based on debates in other years
this is precisely what the opponents of
Senate Resolution 4 would have us be-
lieve.
In-a sense, it is true that rule XXII as
presently constituted has met the test of
time. But it is also evident that the rule
is in need of repair. Close examination
reveals that while the form created in
1917 still remains, the substance has
turned out to be something quite differ-
ent from that which many of its archi-
tects anticipated.
Mr. President, the issues we are de-
bating are large and merit the extended
consideration they will no doubt receive.
They go right to the heart of Senate
tradition and purpose. Cloaked in the
guise of a complicated parliamentary
device, the question of cloture relates di-
rectly to the ability of the Senate to
function fairly, effectively, and, above
all, in a representative manner. The pro-
posal we espouse is a reasonable, care-
fully balanced compromise that offers
some hope of preserving that which is
best in Senate tradition while eliminat-
ing or at least ameliorating part of that
which is worst.
Public confidence in the effectiveness
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800060001-0
 July 9, 1975Approved For RTG&JR3iI: Cif7MW6W00800060001 -0
and Melrose. 'The garden area`was approved really haven't had a chance to grow any-
on the site of the old Melrose dump located thing before, and with the way the price of
in the park. With the help of his crew, Mc- everything has been going up so high it will
Hugh applied loam, compost and fertilizer on be a relief to go out to your garden to pick
the land, then laid out 20 plots, each 20'x30'. some tomatoes, cabbage and collard greens."
Young and old citizens .worked 'the plots, The Highland Paik neighborhood's drive
lugging water in buckets from barrels near to replace eyesores with food-producing
the gardens. McHugh hopes to till and pro- plots was made possible by recent state and
-vide onsite water for some of the plots this city efforts to promote gardening by the
year. There is a long waiting list for the public on government-awned land that
gardens, but until the redevelopment of Pine would otherwise remain unused.
Bank Park is complete, additional space will Yesterday, state and city land officials were
be limited. The city is seeking $3.5 million brought together with gardening and other
from the U.S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation environmental activists at an inner-city en-
to rehabilitate the park. An integral part of vironment conference sponsored by the vice
the "new" park will be an expanded public chairman of the Boston Conservation Com-
garden. mission, Augusta Bailey.
Boston, too, has a success story. In Boston's The meeting-at the Robert Gould Shaw
Back, Bay Fens Gardens, a unique city site community building on Blue Hill avenue,
because of its good soil' and proximity to Roxbury, was attended by 150 persons, who
water, public gardening has flourished since soon found out that a major difference be-
World War II. But -the pens provides garden- tween the state's. and Boston's programs is
ing space for only 200 of Boston's 600,000 money.
residents. Boston is spending a moderate amount of
In the search for more land to garden, money on public gardening,'but the state
Boston has turned to its nearly 3000 vacant says it cannot afford to. For example, the
lots. Unfortunately only a handful,..' maybe newly created division of Land Use at the
six or so of these vacant lots are workable state Department of_ Agriculture has no
in their present state. Most of these sites are money, one - unpaid staff person, Warren
covered with rubble and the soil I. impov- Colby, and a borrowed division chief, Warren
erished. To make, them workable, a great Shepard, whose salary is paid by the pesti-
deal of preparation is needed-but this costs ` dde control division.
money. Unfortunately, to date, little money "What we can do is cut red tape," said
has been found to fund the tilling, the Colby. "We can get the permission from the
laying of 9-12 inches of topsoil, fertilizer and agencies involved-mostly Mental Health
water connections necessary to make these and Correction-for people to garden in ap-
unused lots arable. propriate places"
Yet there is hope. Money to purchase loam So far Colby and Shepard's office has in-
may become available from the city's De- ventoried about 6500 acres of state land for
partmnet of Public Facilities which has some such use. There will be two basic programs,
funds to distribute under the Community one for free use by community gardening
Development Revenue Sharing Program: Per- groups and the other for rental use by com-
tilizer may be available in the form of horse mercial farmers.
manure; The State Department of Agricul- "Of course not much land is in the city,"
ture is looking into the possibility of using Colby said. "But there is the Southwest Cor-
manure wastes from Suffolk Downs Race ridor under the DPU, MDC lands and the
Track to, fertilize vacant lots. large Boston State Hospital complex."
Meanwhile, the Boston Parks and Recrea- It was suggested that persons who wish
tion Department is moving ahead with its to take part in the program contact local
community gardening program. Last year the gardening groups and conservation organiza-
Departm ent loamed' and tilled eleven gar- tions or their little city hall.
dening_sites; 17 sites are on tap for this year, The state secretary of environmental af-
(Any resident may apply this spring to the fairs, Evelyn Murphy, was keynote speaker
nearest Little City Hall for a garden plot. at the conference. "We have to build the
Plots are free; water is supplied by the city.) community priorities into the use of state
But government can do only so much. land from the top," she said.
Community gardening will "flourish only in "That's why I selected the Metropolitan
areaewhere there is vigorous local leadership. District commissioners that I did. The top
Citizens themselves must organize neighbor- man is a technical and economic expert in
hood gardening projects to take advantage the field and highly capable of administra-
of the, land and services offered by local and tion. The various _associate commissioners
state agencies. were selected for the community involve-
The climate conducive for returning to the ment they will bring."
land is present. The rush is on. Hopefully, Boston's program is not wealthy by any
the next few years will seethe greening of means, but it does provide vacant lot clean-
Massachusetts.-MARY ELLEN RIGANO, Free- ups, topsoil, and free roto-tillering of plots
lance writer specializing in land use affairs. on city-owned land, said Larry Vignett of
the Roxbury Little City Hall.
[From the Boston Clone Anr_ 25 19751 In addition, the city is willing to forgo
VACANT a,ol?s luxtvED INTO VDGETABLE GARDEN
the auctioning off of vacant lands for which
PLOTS
(By Stephen Curwood) Tom Duroucher of the Real Property Division.
Fo}' years, weeds, "junk and neglect ruled "Some people are banding together on
four vacant lots in the Highland Park their blocks to__ylb y these vacant lots," said
neighborhood of Roxbury, something, in the' audience, "as they are fre-
inner-city residents say happens all 4 too quen y sold for $100 or $200."
often to their Open spaces.
Another person noted that one season's
In their stead has come the concer
more `than 50 neighborhood residents
are eagerly awaiting the delivery of to
_by the city so they can begin planting
gardens.
ryone seems- excited," said H ert
Perry, property manager of the Roxbur c-
tion Program, the neighborhood grow co-
ordinat ng the gardening effort. " pie
worth of garden produce was worth more
than that.
FOREIGN POLICY COMMISSION
ENDORSES JOINT COMMITTEE
ON NATIONAL SECURITY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a
previous order of the House the gentle-
man from Wisconsin (Mr. ZABLOCKI) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Speaker, you
H 6491
know of my long-standing interest in the
question of achieving effective congres-
sional oversight on the activities of our
intelligence community. As a matter of
fact, my first bill to create a Joint Com-
mittee on Intelligence Matters was in-
troduced in the 83d Congress on July 23,
1953. A revised and improved version of
that legislation has been introduced in
the last two Congresses and would es-
tablish a Joint Committee on National
Security. My current bill, H.R. 54, is
pending before the Committee on Rules.
Identical legislation, S. 99, has been in-
troduced by Senator HuMPHREY.
Against the background of that long
history of interest and effort one can
perhaps better understand my deep per-
sonal satisfaction over the endorsement
this proposal has recently received from
the Commission on the Organization of
the Government for the Conduct of For-
eign Policy. As a member of the Commis-
sion I know the thoroughness with which
this and other suggestions were reviewed.
I know, too, and deeply respect, the
competence of Commission Chairman
Robert D. Murphy, the distinguished
members of the Commission, and its able
and dedicated staff. Their collective ex-
pertise and competence n}akes this en-
dorsement of the Joint Committee on
National Security particularly satisfy-
ing.
In an effort to be of assistance?to my
colleagues in the Congress I am pleased
to insert the Commission report section
on "A New Joint Committee" in the REC-
ORD at this point. -In addition, I am
pleased to insert a column on this same
subject by Charles Bartlett from the
July 4 Washington Star.
The materials follow:
A NEW JOINT COMMITTEE
However useful the recommendations
above concerning committee jurisdictions
may prove, and however powerfully they
may be reinforced by the proposals made
below. concerning committee staffs and
analytic support, those recommendations
leave untouched at least two major prob-
lems. One is that since political, military
and economic aspects of foreign policy have
become interlocked-and since many foreign
and domestic policy issues undoubtedly will
become so-Congress should contain some
forum in which those interrelations can be
directly weighed. This is particularly true in
time of crisis when specialized standing
committees, pressed for action, might benefit
from help in appreciating how particular
aspects of policy decisions relate to those
being considered by other committees.
The second is that the Congress is requir-
ing increased consultation with senior for-
eign policy officials of the executive branch
at the same time that an increasing number
of specialized committees are necessarily con-
cerning themselves with the foreign policy
aspects of their responsibilities. The result
is the potential for a burdensome and un-
sustainable derkLand on senior executive offi-
cials for multiple appearances before Con-
gress-a problem particularly severe when
fast-moving events require the full and di-
rect attention of the same officials in the
conduct of policy.
Neither speed nor policy coordination are
Congress' particular strengths-nor can they
be. The greatest strength of the legislative
process is its unique ability to explore alter-
natives and to weigh and resolve widely
disparate points of view. Its strength in de-
liberation however, does not relieve Congress
of responsibility for reasonable efficiency and
elease. 2002/01/02: CIA-RDP77M00144R0008000600017-0
 H 6492
Approved For te"U ,N 144928 RBP77 "R000800060001Atly 9, 1975
coordinating capacity. Indeed, if Congress is
to play the greater foreign policy role which
this Commission endorses, those capacities
will increasingly be demanded of it. And as
the staff survey of Congressional views indi-
cates, most Members, while regarding policy
coordination primarily as the responsibility
of the executive, also favor changes to im-
prove Congress' own efficiency in the co-
ordination process.
With these problems in mind, the Commis-
sion considered a number of proposals. It
concluded that a single Innovation may be
materially helpful.
"In the Commission's view, a Joint Com-
mittee on National Security should be es-
tablished. It should perform for the Con-
gress the kinds of policy review and coordi-
nation now performed in the executive
branch by the National Security Council,
and provide a central point of linkage to the
President and to the officials at that Council.
In addition it should take responsibility for
Congressional oversight of the Intelligence
Community."
We believe this Committee should serve
as the initial recipient and reviewer of re-
ports and Information from the executive
branch on matters of greatest urgency and
sensitivity directly affecting the security of
the nation. It should advise the party lead-
ers and relevant standing committees of
both Houses of Congress on appropriate
legislative action in matters affecting the
national security, and should assist in mak-
ing available to them the full range of in-
formation and analysis needed to enable
them to. legislate in a prompt and com-
prehensive manner.
The existence and activities of such a
Joint Committee should in no way substi-
tute either for direct consultation between
the President and Congressional party lead-
ers, or for the regular legislative and investi-
gative functions of the present standing
committees in each House. Rather, it should
supplement these-providing a more sys-
tematic and comprehensive exchange of in-
formation, analysis and opinion than has
proved possible under the existing commit-
tee and leadership system.
For both operational and security reasons,
the Joint Committee should be small-con-
taining not more than 20 Members. It should
include the leaders-of the key foreign, mili-
tary, and international economic policy com-
mittees from each House, and several Mem-
bers-at-Large appointed by the party leaders
to represent them and to enhance the Com-
mittee's representativeness of the Congress
as a whole.
The Commission recommends that the
Joint committee be vested with the follow-
ing specific jurisdictions and authorities:
Receipt, analysis and referral (along with
any recommendations it may consider ap-
propriate) of reports from the President un-
der the War Powers Act.
"Receipt and review of analytic products
of the intelligence community.
"Oversight (in conjunction with the ex-
ecutive branch) of the system of information
classification discussed above.
"Establishment and maintenance of facili-
ties and procedures for storage and handling
of classified information and materials sup-
plied to the Congress.
..,Establishment of a code of conduct to
govern the handling by Committee members
of classified or sensitive information."
The successful experience of the Joint
Committee on Atomic Energy illustrates the
usefulness of legislative authority in helping
assure a Committee's effectiveness. The Com-
mission does not recommend that the pro-
posed Joint Committee be vested with broad
authority to report proposed legislation to
the House and Senate. In general, any leg-
islative recommendations of the Joint Com-
mittee should be reported to relevant stand-
ing committees for their consideration. The
Commission finds, however, two narrow and
specific areas in which the Joint Committer
might usefully have authority to report leg-
islation directly to the floor of each House
just as the Joint Committee on Atomic En-
ergy is empowered to do.
We propose that the Joint Committee.'
"Consider the creation of a statutory sys-
tem of information classification, and (if in-
telligence oversight is assigned to it).
"Be granted authority for annual auth-
orization of funds for the intelligence
community."
The Commission believes strongly that
more systematic arrangements for Congres-
sional oversight of the intelligence com-
munity are needed on a permanent basic..
It believes that such oversight should Vs
conducted by a Joint Committee of the Con-
gress, and preferably one capable of assess-
ing intelligence products and activities in
the context of our total foreign policy. The
Commission therefore believes the proposed
Joint Committee on National Security would
be the appropriate body for that task.
"In the event that this Committee is not
established, however, the Commission rec_
ommends that a Joint Committee on Intelli-
gence be established to assume the task of
Congressional oversight of the intelligence
community,"
The Commission well understands that
establishing a Joint Committee on National
Security, and making it function effectively,
would be difficult. While the Congressional
survey indicates majority support among
Members for greater joint efforts in Congre u ,
it also suggests many doubts and practical
problems. The Commission has carefully
considered these difficulties. It concluder,
nevertheless, that the likely impact of the
Joint Committee upon Congress' capacity to
play a more meaningful foreign policy role
fully justifies the efforts and concessions
necessary to create it and to make it work..
[Froni the Washington Star, July 4, 1975]
NEW APPROACH NEEDED ON FOREIGN POLICY
(By CharlesBartlett)
The Irony of Congress' demands for an
enlarged role in foreign affairs is underlined
by the Murphy Commission's experiences
with that great Montana Democrat, Mike
Mansfield.
The Senate majority leader was an ela-
thuslast for the move to create a commission
to study the conduct of foreign policy three
years, ago. This was Congress' initiative and
Mansfield was named, along with 11 other
able citizens, to the panel. The initial meet-
ings were held in his office to facilitate Ills
attendance.
But the tug of Senate duties gradually
eroded Mansfield's participation in the com-
mission's strenuous inquiry. Finding it im-
possible to attend any of the meetings since
Congress met in January, he missed all the
final deliberations. He was represented by- an
aide, Donald Henderson, who was usually
unaware of where the senator stood on the
issues which came before the commission.
The other members of the commission
were somewhat surprised, therefore, to i(e-
celve, after their report had gone to the
printer, a stinging dissent from Mansfield.
Assailing the report as "thin gruel in a
thick bowl," the Senator was particularly
critical of the commission's lack of stress
on Congress' role in foreign policy. The whole
thrust of the report will work, he com-
plained, to enshrine the "preeminence" of
the executive branch.
This is not accurate. The report's greatest
emphasis is on the fact that the foreign
policy of the future is going to involve con-
siderably more public and congressional par-
ticipation. The public will be involved be-
cause foreign economic issues will bear
heavily on domestic life. These Issues will
concern all members of Congress, the report
asserted- -
But the problem is how to get Congress
involved in a constructive way. Nelson
Rockefeller was blunt in declaring that Con-
gress' recent contributions have "disorga-
nized, fragmented, and often ,,immobiIizecl
American foreign policy." He pointed out
that domestic and foreign lobbies often exert
great influences on foreign policy issues and
that the disunity in Congress does not in-
spire confidence abroad that this country
will hold a steady course.
The competition to get into the foreign
policy, act is intense today. One veteran in
dealings with Congress on these issues is
Ambassador William Macomber, who writes
in his new book, "The Angel's Game," that
the State Department must deal now "with
all the Congress, committee by committee,
group by group, individual by individual."
In Macomber's view, the only hope is to
find ways to make Congress and the execu-
tive "complement each other more and frus-
trate each other less."
This is the attraction of the Murphy Com-
mission's advocacy of a Joint Congressional
Committee on National Security Affairs. This
could become a body with the. potential to
meet the need for an inner core of well-
informed legislators, a group with whom the
Secretary of State could touch base quickly
and often. It could become a repository of
the detailed information Congress will need
to make valid judgments in times when the
issues are complex.
Mansfield, faithful to his notion of a Con-
gress in which every member is his own
leader, complains that the joint committee
will heavily intrude upon existing arrange-
ments and deal the younger members out of
these critical deliberations.
But it may be that Mansfield's spotty
participation in the workings of the Murphy
Commission points up the real weakness of
the joint committee proposal. The commit-
tee's Senate members will perhaps be too
busy to give it the time it deserves.
TERRIBLE THINGS ABOUT
(Mr. KOCH asked a
gLawrVM per-
mission to extend- elks at this
point in the RECORD and to include ex-
traneous matter.)
Mr. KOCH. Mr. Speaker, on May 25
Ruth Gage-Colby, writing on the letter-
head of the New York Metropolitan
Branch of the Women's International
League for Peace and Freedom, addressed
a letter to the 75 Members of the Senate
who had urged the President to stand
firm with Israel. The letter criticized
Israel's request for $2.5 billion in aid and
took issue with the Senators' support of
Israel.
Subsequent to that letter I have at-
tempted to gain some clarification from
the Women's International League and
the Women Strike for Peace, which Ms.
Gage-Colby said she represented, on the
organizations' respective policies toward
Israel.
While my original letter was addressed
to Ms. Ruth Gage-Colby, I did not re-
ceive a response from her. It would ap-
pear that all correspondence on this mat-
ter has been taken over by the national
office of the Women's International
League and its executive director,
Dorothy R. Steffens. Ms. Gage-Colby re-
portedly could not respond because she
was in Mexico City.
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800060001-0