Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 19, 2016
Document Release Date: 
April 14, 2005
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
February 7, 1975
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP77M00144R001100190004-9.pdf5.81 MB
16432 Approved For gomtt299W611444 141164115721094144Roollooi9opo47qtary 7, 1975 added as a cosponsor of Senate Resolu- tion 48 urging continuing efforts on be- half of the missing-in-action in South- east Asia. SENATE RESOLUTION 66?ORIGINAL RESOLUTION REPORTED AU- THORIZING ADDITIONAL EXPEND- ITURES BY THE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS (Referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.) Mr. RANDOLPH (fpr Mr. JACKSON), from the Committee on Interior and In- sular Affairs, reporting the following resolution: S. NEC, 66 Resolved, That, in holding hearings, re- porting such hearings, and making investi- gations as authorized by sections 134(a) and 136 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended, in accordance with its jurisdiction under rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee on In- terior and Insular Affairs, or any subcommit- tee thereof, is authorized from March 1, 1975, through February 29, 1976, in its discretion (1) to make expenditures from the contin- gent fund of the Senate, (2) to employ per- sonnel, (3) with the prior consent of the Government department or agency concerned and the Committee on Rules and Adminis- tration, to use on a reimbursable basis the services of personnel of any such department or agency, and (4) to consent to the assign- ment of personnel of other committees of the Senate to assist in carrying out the purposes of section 3 of this resolution. Travel and other expenses, other than salary, of any personnel from other committees assigned to the committee pursuant to this paragraph for the purposes of section 3 of this resolu- tion may be paid under this resolution. SEC. 2. The expenses of the committee under this resolution shall not exceed $817,- 000, of which amount (1) not to exceed $35,000 shall be available for the procure- ment of the services of individual consult- ants, or organizations thereof (as authorized by section 202(1) of the Legislative Reor- ganization Act of 1946, as amended). SEC. 3. Expenses of the committee under this resolution shall be paid from the con- tingent fund of the Senate upon vouchers approved by the chairman of the committee. SENATE RESOLUTION 67?A RESO- LUTION CONCLHNING THE SAFETY AND FREEDOM OF VAL- ENTYN MOROZ, UKRAINIAN HIS- TORIAN (Referred to the Committee on For- eign Relations.) Mr. GRIFFIN (for Mr. TAFT (for him- self, Mr. BEALL, Mr. BUCKLEY, Mr. GRIF- FIN, Mr. HUMPHREY, Mr. MATHIAS, Mr. RIBICOFF, Mr. HUGH SCOTT, Mr. WEICKER, and Mr. WILLIAMS)) submitted the fol- lowing resolution: S. Res. 67 Whereas Valentyn Moroz, historian, writer, and spokesman for the cultural integrity of the Ukrainian people, is currently impris- oned in the Soviet Union on the charges of anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda; and Whereas such charges are without basis as in his valiant attempts to preserve and de- fend the rights of the Ukrainian people and the culture of the Ukraine and to defend the principle of basic human rights, Val- entyn Moroz has done no more than exer- cise rights granted him by the Constitu- tion of the United Soviet Socialist Repub- lics: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate requests the President to express the concern of the United States Government for the safety and freedom. of VaLentyn Moroz, historian, writer, and spokesman for the cultural in- tegrity of the Ukrainian people. SEC. 2. The Secretary of the Senate shall transmit copies of this Resolistion to the President and the Secretary of State. Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, on Au- gust 22, 1974, the distinguished Senator from Ohio (Mr. TAFT) introduced Senate Resolution 392, which requested the President to express the concern of our Government for the safety and freedom of' Mr. Valentyn Moroz. It will be recalled that Mr. Moroz is a Ukrainian historian and writer who has been imprisoned in the Soviet Union on charges of anti- Soviet agitation and propaganda. Although I have been, and continue to be, a strong supporter of the ideals of detente with the Soviet Union, I have been disturbed by reports concerning Mr. Moroz treatment in prison. Last year I joined with the distinguished Sen- ator from Ohio in cosponsoring Senate Resolution 392 but, unfortunately, the Congress adjourned without considering it. Because he is unable to be here today, Senator TAFT has asked me to reintro- duce his resolution. Accordingly, I do so on his behalf and on behalf of eight of our colleagues. I ask unanimous consent that a state- ment prepared by Senator TAFT be printed at this point in the RECORD. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered. STATA'MENT Or SENATOR Tarr Mr. President, as I noted during the last session when I introduced this resolution re- garding the great Ukrainian writer and his- torian, Mr. Valentyn Moroz: I have long supported the administration's policy of improving our relations with the Soviet Union. But I have also believed that we cannot, as a price for improved relations, be silent about Soviet abuses of basic human rights. The resolution I introduce now is concerned with such an abuse: The impris- onment of Mr. Valentyn Moroz. Today, Mr. Moroz languishes in prison, serving a 11-year term for "anti-Soviet agita- tion and propaganda." He thus joins a dis- tinguished group of Soviet writers and intel- lectuals who have felt the weight of Soviet oppression for their defense of basic human rights. The conditions of his imprisonment are such as to raise grave questions about his physical and mental well-being. Mr. Moroz, a defender of human rights, is the most noted and uncompromising spokes- man within the Soviet Union for the rights of the Ukrainian people and for the main- tenance of the Ukrainian culture and na- tional heritage. The Ukrainian culture and national history is independent of that of the Russian people. It is a long and distin- guished history, and Ukrainian culture ranks among the great net:Gnat world cultures. But the Ukrainians have always had to struggle against the politically dominant Russians for the maintenance of the Ukrainian tradi- tion. Under the Soviet Government, the cam- paign to eradicate the Ukrainian national heritage?and the heritage of other national groups within the Soviet Union?has been prolonged and intense. It continues today. And no one has been more valiant in his ef- forts to oppose this unjust campaign than Valentyn Moroz. I ask my colleagues to join me in express- ing our humanitarian concern for Mr. Moroz, for the conditions of his imprisonment and for his freedem. In his attempts to defend the culture of the Ukraine, Mr. Moroz has done no more than exercise the basic human rights guaranteed to him by the Soviet con- stitution. There can be no justification for depriving him of his liberty for exercising these rights. I sincerely hope that the Senate will approve this resolution, and that Presi- dent Ford will express our concern on this matter to the Soviet Government in the strongest possible terms. Today, Mr. Moroz's situation remains un- certain. He has apparently ended the hunger strike he began to protest his terrible prison conditions, but we do not know if those conditions have materially improved. Accord- ingly, I believe it is once again appropriate to ask my colleagues to join me in expressing our concern for this gallant defender of human rights. I am pleased that my distin- guished colleagues, Mr. Beall, Mr. Buckley, Mr. Griffin. Mr. Humphrey, Mr. Mathias, Mr. Ribicoff, Mr. Scott of Pennsylvania, Mr. Weicker, and Mr. Williams have joined as cosponsors of this resolution. SENATE RESOLUTION 68?A RESO- LUTION ESTABLISHING A PROCE- DURE FOR REQUIRING AMEND- MENTS TO BILLS AND RESOLU- TIONS TO BE GERMANE (Referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.) Mr. PASTORE (for himself, Mr. BENT- SEN, Mr. BROCK, Mr. BROOKE, Mr. BUR- DICK, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. FELL, Mr. RAN- DOLPH, and Mr. SYMINGTON) submitted the following resolution: S. RES. 68 Resolved, That rule XVIII of the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended-- (1) by inserting after "QUESTION" in the caption a semicolon and the following: "GERMANENESS": (2) by inserting "1." before "If"; and (3) by adding at the end thereof the fol- lowing new paragraph: "2. (a) At any time during the consideration of a bill or resolu- tion it shall be in order to move that no amendment which is not germane or rele- vant to the subject matter of the bill or reso- lution, or to the subject matter of an amend- ment proposed by the committee which re- ported the bill or resolution, shall thereafter be in order. Such a motion shall be highly privileged and shall be decided without debate. "(b) If a motion made under subpara- graph (a) is agreed to by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Senators present and voting, then an amendment thereafter pro- posed (except amendments proposed by the committee which reported such bill or reso- lution) which is not germane or relevant to the subject matter of such bill or resolution, or to the subject matter of an amendment proposed by the committee which reported such bill or resolution, shall not be in or- der. A motion to reconsider the vote by which such motion was so agreed to or was not so agreed to shill not be in order, and, if such motion was not so agreed to, it shall not be in order to make a second motion under subparagraph (a) with respect to such bill or resolution. "(c) When a motion made under sub- paragraph (a) has been agreed to as pro- vided in subparagraph (b) with respect to a bill or resolution, points of order with re- spect to questions of germaneness or rele- vancy of amendments shall be decided with- out debate, except that the Presiding Officer may, prior to ruling on any such point of or- der, entertain such debate as he considers necessary in orderr to determine how he shall rule on such point of order. Appeals from the decision of the Presiding Officer on such points of order shall be decided without debate. Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100190004-9 7, / 9 p roved FoOpogikcissgalit5A1_2/11t/tRetRERJEW14144R001100190004-9 s to?: I Februai y Cut in India idual Rates Credit for I- ome insulation aa tit( .al Revenue Disbursed_ One Tiaie Economic Stimulus i-brd Proposal) Individual fax Calt of 12% geared to low inaome individuals liaise lave: tment Tax credit to 12 ia Revenue bursed 0305 CALENDAR YEAR It. venu Raising iVleasutes: Cazoline. Ta of 300 a gollona), luxuryTE tee on Alcohol, and 'Tobacco Energy Rein ted Tax Reforms__ Cleneral Tai;; Reforms 1 Revenue Raised itn,nn Disbursing Measures: Individual Gasoline Tax Rebate 1400 gals.. Increased B tsiness Tax Deductions_ Cut in Individual Rates Credit for Lome insulation Raise inves:rnent Tax to 10% Raise Base for Small Business Tax Rate -- $16. 50 until 1983, when the standard for fuel econ- . 50 omy would reach the range of 23 to, 25 miles- per-gallon. This program would be a strong 28. 70 incentive for consumers to purchase and manufacturers to produce more fuel efficient cars. Abolition of the highway trust fund Abolishes the Highway Trust Fund and makes the billions of dollars collected annu- ally from the Federal gas tax available to help finance various types of transportation or other national needs. A trust fund designed for highway construction is anachronistic in our present economic condition. It has dis- couraged the development of other modes of transportation which are far more energy- efficient than cars. The fund now has a bal- ance of $8 billion, but work has either been completed or is underway on `A percent of the nation's 42,500 mile Interstate Highway System. 36. 23 Repeal of deductibility of Sm .e and local gas taxes Repeals the Federal income tax deduction now allowed for state and local gasoline taxes, retroactive to January 1, 1975. This deduc- tion is a Federal subsidy on gasoline sales. National policy now emphasizes fuel con- servation. The subsidy works against that policy. Moreover, the income tax deduction for state and local gasoline taxes, like other deductions, benefits only those taxpayers Y'hose incomes are high enough to warrant itemized deductions. Those taxpayers are the "ones least in need of selective tax bene- fits. Also, this deduction deprives the Fed- eral Treasury of about $600 miTion annually. \ Increased luxury taxes 12. 00 44.70 .25.80 5.80 3.78 . 85 00 k 87 16.'60 .80 2. oda 2.50 f tal Etevenue Disbursed____ 37.37 'Presume a cut in gasoline consumption of 10% (7. 0,000 barrels a day) at 200 a gallon and of 14% (one million barrels a day) at 300. 0,77 ND FUTURE CALENDAR YEARS package mill be in fiscal balance as of calendar 19 S. at which time revenues from phasing out the oil depletion allowance will be $417 mil on higher than in 1976 and the tax credit f,.r home insulation will be termi- nated By alendar 1980, the oil depletion allowance r ease out will be raising another $) .1 billion ,bove 1978 revenues. :a Si. ARY OF DILLS INTRODUCED :Ft SENATOR PERCY batable gasoline tax Provides Lid- a new fuel conservation tax on gasoline wit a rebates to consumers for essen- tial driving The tax would be 20 cents a gal- in 1975 snd would increase to 30 cents a gitilon on , arivary 1, 1976. Revenue raised would be p aid into the general fund of the Treasury. A a annual tax credit for essential driving woi Lai be provided on the first 450 gallons of ;asoline purchased by an indi- vidual in It e first year, and the first 400 gal- lons purche ted in subsequent years. A driver could receia a a Lax credit ol up to $90 in the first ).ear ( t) cents times up to 450 gallons used and up to $120 in subsequent years 1;30 cents ti ries up to 400 gallons) . The credit is obtained by filing a Federal income tax return, wilt flier or not a driver has any in- nte tax Lability. Auto ejj tiency tax incentive program an automobile efficiency tax in- centive pro; -ram by taxing new car purchases on the k;a.S.i: of gasoline mileage. Based on an initial fuel economy standard of between 15 and It mile a-per-gallon, which is the average gas mileage range for 1975 model cars, a new or pills; would be subject to a tax or payment di tending on fuel efficiency. A pur- ctiaser of a sew car that delivers more than Ii nthes-pe --gallon would receive a payment from the F: deral Treasury an a sliding scale, on to $300 :or a car that gives 23 miles-per- gallon or is ore. Conversely, a purchaser of a :new cat' in c, delivers 15 miles-per-gallon or less 'would .ay a tax that starts at $200 and UtCreaSeS ii. steps to a maximum of $1,000 on a car ti it delivers 9 miles per gallon or less. The sc de for taxes and payments would increase by 0 miles-per-gallon every two years IncreaseA tax on alcohol by 00% and in- creases tax On tobacco by 100t1-. These taxes, which have not been increased in over 20 years, are leviekon the producer. The current tax on alcohol- wanes with alcoholic con- tent: from 170 per gallon for spirits that are less than 14%, alcohol by volume to $10.50 per gallon for, spirits that are 50% alcohol by volume. The current tax on to- bacco varies with types and size. The tax on small cigarettes is $4.00 per thousand, the tax on large cigarettes'is $8.40 per thou- sand. The current tax on anzall cigars is 750 per thousand and the tax On large cigars is from $2.50 to $20.00 per thousand depend- ing on retail price. Reduce "small business" t-ax-rate Increases the base on which thlt normal corporate tax is levied from $20,000 iO $100,- 000. Under current law, a tax of 22 percent is levied on the first $25,000 of ccrpbrate Income and a tax of 48 percent is levied-on all income above $25,000. Small businesses have been particularly hard hat by inflation and, because of the nature of their business, are generally less able to take advantage of increases in the investment tax credit. This measure will be of primary benefit to small corporations. Due heating fuel oq Requires that number 1 and number 2 heating fuel oil be colored with an oil soluble dye to deter tax fraud. Under existing law, diesel fuel is taxed at the rate of 120 per gallon (40 federal and at state). An extensive black market :las developed in which untaxed heating oil is substituted for taxable diesel fuel. It has been estimated that up to $500 million in Federal revenues are lost every year because of this fraud. A similar program was Instituted in Canada in 1973 and resulted in a 58.5 increase in revenues in the first year of oTeration. ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS OF BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS S. 63 At the request of Mr. BEALL, the Sen- ator from South Carolina (Mr. TmuR- MOND) was added as a cosponsor of S. ?3, a bill to amend the Internal :Revenue (lode of 1954 to provide an exemption 5som income taxation for certain income of condominium housing associatior s, '-Lorneowner associations, and coo perati--e dousing corporations. s. 275 At the request of Mr. STEVENS, the Senator from Alaska (Mr. GRAVEL) IV LS added as a cosponsor of .3. 275, a bill to m-iend the Internal Revenue Code 4 1954 to allow a deduction for expensos nourred by a taxpayer in making r -- Pairs and improvements to his resident e. S. 319 AND S. 320 At the request of Mr. TALMADGE, the Senator from Oregon (Mr. HATFIELL nd the Senator from Iowa (Mr. CuLvE))) were added as cosponsoas of S. 319, a dill to provide a priority system for cer- tain agricultural uses of natural gas; and S. 320, a bill to provide natural gis for essential agricultural purposes. S. 445 At the request of Mr. HUGH SCOTT, tie Senator from Alaska (Mr. GRAVEL) W18 added as a cosponsor of S. 445, a bill to assure that an individual or fami y, whose income is increased by reason of a general increase in monthly social se- curity benefits, will not, 'oecause of smh general increase, suffer a loss of or re- duction in the benefits the individuals or family has been receiving under cer- tain Federal or federally assisted pro- grams. S. 472 At the request of Mr. JAvirs, the Sc 1- ator from Nevada (Mr, CANNON) was added as a cosponsor to S. 472, the Fall Employment and Job Dovelopment Act of 1975. S. 489 At the request of Mr. ABOURE2K, U le Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Mc- GOVERN) was added as a cosponsor of tie bill (S. 489) to amend the Clayton ct to preserve and promote competiti on among corporations in the production of oil, natural gas, coal, oil shale, uranium, geothermal steam, and solar energy. S. 564 At the request of Mr. Hum Scot T, the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. SCHWEIKER! was added as a cosponsor of S. 564, a bill to provide public finarc- ing of primary and general elections tor the Senate and House of Representa- tives... Si:NATE RESOLUTION 12 At the request of Mr. ROTH, the Se 1- ator from Massachusetts (Mr. Bizoox was added as a cosponsor of Senate Res- olution 12, amending the standing rues of the Senate providing for open met t- inas of conference committees. SENATE RESOLUTION 20 At the request of Mr. KENNEDY, tie Senator fiamn South Dakota (Mr. ABOUREEK) and the Senitor from Con.- aecticut (Mr. RiarcoFF) were added as cctponsors of Senate Resolution 20, 'e- lating to the Vladivostok agreement a-id strategic arms control. SENATE RESOLUT ON 48 At the request of Mr. SPARKMAN, tie senator from Delaware (Mr. BIDEN) NI as Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100190004-9 Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100190004-9 February 7, 1975 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 1663 "(d) The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to amendments subject to the rules of germaneness and relevancy con- tained in paragraph 4 of rule XVI and para- graph 2 of rule xxii." Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, 1 year ago the Senator from Texas and I sub- mitted a resolution amending the stand- ing rules of the Senate in an attempt to expedite the business of the Senate. We were concerned that it has become the rule rather than the exception that our sessions run from January through December and yet our work still remains unfinished. We decided that much of the trouble lies with the matter of germaneness. We have no intention of circumscribing in any way the right of debate, but we feel that nongermane floor amendments which, in many instances, take days and weeks to consider and yet are brushed aside in a matter of moments in confer- ence could somehow be handled in a more judicious manner. The purpose of this resolution is to make it possible to prohibit the introduc- tion of nongermane amendments only and if two-thirds of those present and voting so decide. This motion would be nondebatable and nonrenewable whether decided one way or the other. If the Senate, by two-thirds vote of those present and voting, decided that no nongermane amendments would be in order, thereafter no nongermane amend- ments could be offered for the remain- der of the consideration of the pending business. On the other hand, if such motion failed, then nongermane amendments would be in order for the remainder of the pending business. Neither the Senator from Texas nor myself are wedded to this particular plan and we would hope that the Rules Com- mittee, to which in all probability this resolution will be referred, will give this matter serious consideration. If a better way is found to expedite the business of the Senate, the Senator from Texas and I will be only too glad to support it. But there can be no question that our duties have become more complex, that our work has become more burdensome, especially in these troubled times, and some way has to be found which will make the legislation process more effec- tive. Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the distinguished senior Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. PASTORE) as a joint sponsor of a Senate resolution which would establish a new Senate rule for germaneness of amend- ments. The Senator from Rhode Island and I discussed this amendment during the closing weeks of the first session of the 93d Congress when nongermane amend- ments were often delaying the considera- tion of important legislative initiatives. The Senator from Rhode Island, as we all know, has been concerned with the ques- tion of germaneness for some time. The Senate rule of debate during the first 3 hours of legislative business bears his name and he has given the Senate con- sistent leadership on matters of pro- cedure and debate. I am honored, therefore, to jointly sponsor with the senior Senator from Rhode Island a Senate resolution which would allow the Senate to prohibit non- germane amendments by a two-thirds vote. The resolution would not restrict any Senator's right to debate a motion but would merely allow a two-thirds majority of the Senate to prohibit amendments that are not germane to the pending business. Too often, Mr. President, we in the Senate find ourselves embroiled in issues to quote Shakespeare, "full of sound and fury and signifying nothing." We heat- edly debate nongermane amendments delaying the Senate for days, and then find these amendments summarily dis- missed in conference because of the rules and attitude of the other body concern- ing nongermane amendments. Perhaps there will be times when the Senate will want to debate a non germane amend- ment simply to expose an issue or to stimulate interest in a particular prob- lem, and this rule will not prevent those debates from taking place. But when the overwhelming majority of Senators feels that an issue should be dealt with quickly?nongermane amend- ments could be prohibited and the pend- inging business could be given the Senate's full, undivided attention. The motion to restrict nongermane amendments could be offered at any time during the consideration of a bill. The motion would not be debatable and could not be offered more than once to a par- ticular bill or resolution. If two-thirds of the Senate were to agree, then all amendments would have to be germane according to the decision of the Chair. I believe this is a fair proposal but I would be happy to consider any other suggestions for dealing with this issue that Senators might have to offer. I hope that the Rules Committee will hold hear- ings on this proposal and that some de- vice can be found that will speed up our consideration of important measures and make the legislative process more efficient. SENATE RESOLUTION 69?A RESO- LUTION DISAPPROVING THE PRO- POSED DEFERRAL OF BUDGET AUTHORITY (Referred to the Committee on Appro- priations, the Committee on the Budget, and the Committee on Public Works.) Mr. RANDOLPH (for himself, Mr. MUSKIE, Mr. :BENTSEN, Mr. BURDICK, Mr. CANNON, Mr. GRAVEL, Mr. MAGNUSON, Mr. MONTOYA, Mr. MOSS, Mr. WILLIAMS, Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD, and Mr. CULVER) Sub- mitted the following resolution: S. RES. 69 Resolved, That the Senate disapproves the proposed deferral of budget authority for Federal-aid highways, which deferral (D75-? 17) was set forth in a special message trans- mitted by the President to the Congress on September 20, 1974, under Section 1013 of the :Empoundmant Control Act of 1974. Mr. RANDC)LPH, Mr: President, while Americans debate the most effective means of reversing the economic reces- sion, the Federal Government has at its disposal the ability to create thousands of jobs in a relatively short time. Because our national economy con- tinues to decline and demands urgent attention, I introduce today a resolution overruling the Presidential deferral of $10.7 billion in Federal-aid highway funds. This is the second such resolution be- ing submitted today. The other would revoke the impoundment of $5 billion for the construction of municipal waste treatment facilities. Mr. President, throughout my public career I have seen the ability of public works construction to produce employ- ment at the same time it produces useful public facilities. Improved highways are needed in all parts of the country and can be built with income-producing jobs. The Federal Highway Administration has computed that each billion dollars invested in highways produced 151,040 jobs. These include jobs directly involved in roadbuilding, plus those with suppliers and in communities that are generated as a result of the construction. It is im- mediately apparent, therefore, what po- tential lies in the impounded funds. I fully recognize that there are many unanswered questions concerning high- way funding and the ability to put the money to work with a minimum of delay. The Committee on Public Works has scheduled a hearing for February 27 to review the budget request of the Federal Highway Administration for fiscal year 1976. This hearing is being conducted as part of our responsibility under the Con- gressional Budget Act. It is my intension to utilize the hearing also to consider the resolution I submit today and the issues it raises. Mr. President, I believe, however, that there is sufficient information presently available to warrant proposing at this time the rejection of the Presidential deferral of Federal-aid highway funds. In addition to the tangible benefits re- sulting from roadbuilding, our positive action on this resolution and the one freeing water pollution control funds would be the long-awaited sign to the American people that the Congress is moving to reverse the deterioration of the economy. I have received information indicating that more than $2 billion in highway work could be placed under contract by the end of June, in addition to the $2.3 billion already programed for that pe- riod. This could create well over 300,000 jobs?or even more if the money is con- centrated in projects that have a higher labor usage than the average. With the release of additional highway money, there are many types of projects which can be started with little delay. I envision that such quick-start work could take place in areas such as road recon- struction, bridge work and safety im- provements. Part of the ability to accelerate the highway program lies in the fact that the roadbuilding industry is now operat- ing at slightly less than 50 percent of its capacity. The shortages of mate- rials that hampered construction pro- grams a year ago have eased considerably so that there would be few delays for this reason. The deferral message sent to the Con- Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100190004-9 Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100190004-9 S 1654 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE Februcmi 7, : 975 gress b v President Ford impounds a total* of $10. / billion. This amount includes all of the authorized highway money for fiscal y.ear 1976, or about $6.4 billion. A substantial portion of this is programed for release on July 1 to finance the pro- gram c uring the next year. Of more con- cern tc us now is the remaining $4.3 bil- lion ii. impounded funds which were author .zed for fiscal year 1975 and prior years. ,7'assage of the resolution I intro- duce today would release all of this money much of which could be placed to good use in the near future. Mr. ?resident, the distribution of im- pounded highway money is not uniform throng lout the country. Some States which liave been able to move ahead have relatively little in the total impound- ment. others, mainly those in which ex- pensive Interstate projects have been delayee, have hundreds of millions of dollars charged to them. So that Mem- bers will knew the situation for their States I have prepared a table showing a State-1 ,v-State breakdown of impounded highway money. This does not include funds epportioned for fiscal year 1976 or approx .rnately $500 million in im- pounded funds that are not apportioned to the States on a formula basis. I ask unanimous consent that the table be printec in the RECORD at this point. Ther? being no objection, the table was orciered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: 043. 38 709. 23 207.29 517, 38 364. 89 729. 04 162.32 752. 31 095. 81 961.00 909.98 096. 46 604. 73 092.29 094. 65 664. 66 825. 74 641. 12 696. 74 324. 15 267. 69 916. 71 604. 61 730. 13 951. 16 754. 41 874. 16 275. 06 068. 58 708.24 134.22 227. 35 918. 16 853. 93 222. 18 176. 18 017. 28 393. 52 102. 12 959. 97 284. 43 804.47 123.20 717.05 010. 96 397. 74 005. 76 056. 24 096. 17 AlabariL4 $12, 711, Alaska 2, 210, Arizona 60, 317, Arkanso4 12, 583, California 62, 697, Coloract 41, 666, Connecticut 204, 207, Delawar 13, 486, Florida 34, 250, Georgia 55, 964, Hawaii 92, 457, Idaho 15. 505, Illinois 309, 502, Indiana 54, 145, Iowa 53, 857, Kansas 32, 874, Kentucl v 2, 079, Lomsiai a 69, 359, Maine 17. 595, Marvlan -1 284, 058, Massach usetts 263. 931, Mich iga n 79, 999, Minnesc t a 68, 287, Mississh,oi 29, 443, Missour, 19, 730, Montan. , 61, 345, Nebraskt 30,229, Nevada 1, 760, New HE inpshire 17, 337, New Jersey 182, 284, New DA ,xico 12, 430, New Yo 499, 725, Nor to Carolina 59, 425, North fakota 20, 492, Ohio 173, 777, OkIahoria 28, 599, Oregon 86, 243, Pen n syl /ania 139, 757, Rhode 13iand 47, 918, South C arolina 10, 734, South Dakota 20, 473, Ten ness e 43, 406, Texas 79, 048, Utah 39, 701, Vela/ Lon 703, Virginia 19, 802, Washim on 63. 887, West V rginia 28, 049, Wiscons n 49, 289, Wyoming $30, 709, 016 37 District of Columbia 197, 943, 257 10 Puerto Rico 19, 188, 421 29 Total 3, 777, 333, 517 07 Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, tie Committee on Public Works will develIp new highway legislation this year. In it we hope to chart the direction of tIle Federal-aid program in the years ahei d.. There is an immediate need, however, to stimulate our economy. The Americ n people expect action from the Congre ,s, and the adoption by the Senate of tl is resolution would be our affirmat response. SENATE RESOLUTION 70?A RES, l- LUTION DISAPPROVING THE PR:,- POSED DEFERRAL OF BUDGI T AUTHORITY (Referred to the Committee on Appr - priations, the Committee on the Budge. t, and the Committee on Public Works.) Mr. MUSKIE (for himself, Mr. RA '. - DOLPH, Mr. BURDICK. Mr. CANNON, 1"?: r. GRAVEL, Mr. MAGNUSON, Mr. MONTO? Mr. Moss, Mr. WILLIAMS, MT. ROBERT C. BYRD, Mr. C'ULVER, and Mr. GARY W. HART) submitted the following resol i- tion: S. REs. 7u Resolved, That the Senate disapproves t proposed deferral of budget authority Water Program Operations Constructi Is Grants, which deferral (D75-9) was set foi in the special message transmitted by t..e President to the Congress on September '0, 1974, under Section 1013 of the Impour. f- ment Control Act of 1974, Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, in defe '- rat No. D75-9, dated September 20, 19"1, President Ford proposed to defer the wt.- ligation of $9 billion in clean water funds?a major part of the program ..o restore America's once beautiful lales and streams. The Congress authorized $18 billion f the fiscal years 1973-1975 under title II of the Water Pollution Control A 't Amendments of 1972 to provide grar for the construction of municipal wok,- e water treatment works. When we wro..e the law in 1972, the cost of accomplis - ing this objective was estimated to be $_.5 billion. Current estimates of the mi imum facilities needs are in excess of VO billion. The Environmental Protectien Agency is authorized by the act to all the funds to the States in accordance with a formula based on the "needs" f such facilities. Grants are then made 'o muncipalities for the construction .f the waste treatment facilities. The Fe 1- eral share of these construction projec s is set at 75 percent. The Congress authorized $18 billion f the program in 1972. However, only ::9 billion had been allocated for fiscal yea -.3 1973, 1974, 1975. On January 24, 1975, the Preside. t authorized release of $4 billion of tie total, leaving $5 billion in deferral statt This $5 billion could be putting Amer .- cans to work; $5 billion to give America: 3 the quality environment they have askf d for; $5 billion to stimulate sagging coii.- struction industry; $5 billion for a meal. - ingful, productve program. This deferral should be immediately disapproved by the Senate; I am today introducing the necessary resolution and ask for early Senate action. While this withholding of funds to fight inflation was occurring the econ- omy started a downward turn. A ..eces- sionary cycle began. High unemployment has developed as a result of the down- turn in our economy, Unemployment in December was 7.1 percent which means that nearly 6 million workers are cur- rently out of work. A large part of this unemployment-11/2 percent?is Li the construction industry.. This mean: that approximately 900,00(1 workers or 15 per- cent; of construction employment cur- rently out of work. Mr. President, if the administration had not impounded these waste water treatment construction funds, many projects ',you'd be under way now which could be providing employ- ment for construction workers. Russell Train, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in re- cent testimony before the Environmental Pollution Subcommittee of the Senate Public Works Committee said, We estimate that the program provided over 40,000 on-site jobs and more than that number of off-site jobs last fiscal year (1974) . This figure represents jobs on only those projects which are actually ender construction and is not nearly reflective of what the obligatioci of the entire $18 billion?$13 billion presently available for allotment and $5 billion currently deferred?could accomplish. It is esti- mated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics that each $1 billion of contract con: true- tion for waste treatment plants creates 22,000 on-site jobs. This, allotment and obligation of the $14 billion available would create 310,000 on-site new con- struction jobs and nearly double that number for off-site jobs and jobs in other industries. Mr. President, almost a quarter of a million Americans could be employ,ed in worthwhile jobs?jobs helping to meet an important national objective. Amer- icans want clean wate:r?they have amply demonstrated it in countless local elec- tions throughout the last several :Tears. They want meaningful employment? make-work jobs shou: d only be the very last resort. Release of these impounded funds provides both cpportunities. The impact of impoindment was char- acterized in a recent GAO report tvhich stated: The President's impo andmen I coulo seri- ously hamper achieving the goal of elim- Mating discharge of pollutants into navi- gable waters by 1985 once administratii e and legislative requirements are met. This deferral must therefore be dis- approved for two reasons: First. Delay in funding seriously tam- pers the national goat of elimination of discharge of pollutants into navi 4-able waters by 1985 and, Second. Job opportunities are unneces- sarily curtailed in a period of rising un- employment. While the Supreme Court considers the legality of Presidential impoundments, we must move now to .:?elease these funds under the authority of section 1013 kb) 0) of Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100190004-9 II 1078 Cee Approved For REI6mARERT1A ak:laPr37_,Mpf86n00110019pe litigation which may arise from an adopted rule. Legislative review of administrative decisions has precedents in Congress, several of the States, and in other coun- tries. From 1948 to 1973, all executive reorganization plans were required to be reviewed by Congress with either House authorized to disapprove within a certain period of time. The Budget and Im- poundment Control Act of 1974 estab- lished similar procedures for propos budget adjustments by the Presid . Five States have established req d procedures for legislative review of d action on administrative regulation In Great Britain statutes delegating er to make regulations of general appli bil- ity have usually required regulati s to be laid before Parliament for n tive or affirmative action. The more dely used negative action provides at if within a stated period either H se re- solves that the regulation be ulled, it shall have no effect. Similar equire- ments exist in Australia, Ca a, and New Zealand law. My bill would not destroy t admin- istrative process; it will ma it more responsive. It does not sub tute con- gressional decision for admi trative de- cision; it assures that those ew admin- istrative rules which clearl go beyond congressional contemplatio are never inflicted on the public. Most employees of the Government try to do a good and conscientious job and they indeed do so. We need their services and we respect them for it. But, those officials who are overzealous and think that they?not Congress?make the laws need to know that there is the eye of Congress looking over their shoulder and, which, when necessary, will spot the ex- cesses so that Congress can remedy them. The judicial process is not the way to solve the problem because that process Is not available in all instances due to excessive cost, and is cumbersome and does not get to the heart of the problem itself. Traditional legislative oversight and repeal legislation is not the answer. That is ex post facto and not suited to dealing with routine rulemaking excess. Therefore, I propose to let Congress at least have the opportunity in advance of disapproving of rules which it believes exceed the original congressional intent and which could subject citizens to criminal punishment. This bill does not commend itself solely to those who call themselves "liberals" or solely to those who call themselves "con- servatives." It commends itself to those who are concerned about the place and plight of an individual in the face of a vast and sometimes unresponsive bu- reaucracy. It commends itself to those who believe that the basic principles of Magna Carta, the Declaration of Inde- pendence, the Constitution and its ac- companying Bill of Rights are still valid?that no person should be deprived of liberty or property without someone elected by and answerable to the citizen being involved in the adoption of a de- cree that can place him in jail or impose a fine upon him. This bill is not the final answer to ad- ministrative and bureaucratic problems. It is a first step that needs to be taken. I shall, in the future, propose other legis- lation dealing with the administrative process to make it more responsive, more open, more accessible, swifter?which is frequently a problem when needed regu- lation is unduly delayed and snarled in a game of legal technicalities?and more consi with the needs of a modern y founded on enduring principles of freedom, democracy, and republican government. ELIMINATION OF CHAUFFEUR- DRIVEN LIMOUSINES The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentle- man from Indiana (Mr. HAnnt,roN) is recognized for 10 minutes. Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing legislation today to elimi- nate the unnecessary and possibly illegal annual expenditure of taxpayers' money for the chauffeur-driven limousines used by about 770 lower-level Government of- ficials in the Washington area. My bill, which is identical to one being introduced by Senator PROXM/RE, would reduce the number of persons assigned these limousines to about 27: The Presi- dent, the Vice President, the head of each executive department, the Chief Justice of the United States, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President pro tempore of the Senate, the majority and minority leaders of both Houses, the majority and minoritY whips of both Houses, and the U.S. Representative to the United Nations. Federal law already explicitly limits the use of these vehicles to the President of the United States, his cabinet mem- bers, and principal diplomatic, and con- sular officials. Yet, by virtue of an all too liberal interpretation of the law by the executive agencies, some 800 persona ride to and from their jobs daily in Govern- ment-owned cars driven by Govern- ment-paid chauffeurs. The cost to the taxpayer, in drivers' salaries alone, is about $13 million, These are hard times, The President has called on Us all to make sacrifices in a time of national difficulty. I agree with the President that sacrifices are neces- sary, as I agree with the President that unnecessary GovernmenV expenditures must be eliminated. These cars certainly fall in that, category. An expenditure for such a purpose is never justifiable; in these times it is just plain onerous. We are faced today With a depressed economy and an energy shortage. The American people are being asked to endure hardships and suffer deprivations they have not seen since World War U. How can we make such demands of the public if the sacrifices stop at the Government's own door? Government should be out front, point- ing the way. But not in a chauffeured limousine. In early 1.973, I began the slow, pain- ful process of extracting information about these chauffeured cars from one ruary 25, 1975 executive department, the Department of Defense. What I learned was that the DOD furnishes too many cars to too many persons and at too great expense to the American taxpayer. At present, the DOD figure is 44 chauf- feured cars. When I began my investiga- tion, it was 52. As I read the law, it should be no more than four: the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. The average annual cost per car, including chauffeur salaries and overtime, is more than $14,000. The average anual busfare should be less than $500. The cost to the taxpayer to provide these 44 persons with a free ride to work will be more than $635,000 this year. Although DOD has slightly reduced the cost from the 1973 high of $676,000 by shifting to smaller cars, that clearly is not enough. The Honorable James R. Schlesinger, on assuming the duties of Secretary of Defense in July of 1973, made these re- marks: We must be prepared to accept adjustment and change. There are luxuries that we shall have to do without. D am in complete agreement with the Secretary's remarks, and I would apply them to the entire Federal Government. These chauffeur-driven cars are one of the luxuries we ought to do without. I urge prompt and affirmative action on this bill. DISAPPROVAL OF DEFERRAL OF FUNDS FOR MARINE-RELATED PROGRAMS The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentle- man from Oregon (Mr. AuCorw) is ognized for 15 minuteS. Mr. AuCOIN. Mr. Speaker, at a time When the specter of famine haunts so many areas of the world, and when hun- dreds of millions of people at home and abroad are looking to the sea as a poten- tial source of food to supplement their diets, I find it alarming that the ad- ministration has proposed a deferral of funds which would give important as- sistance to the development of our ocean resources. Instead, this Nation should be doing all it can to increase our food- producing capability. Yesterday, I introduced a resolution to disapprove the administration's pro- posed deferral of budgetary authority for operations, research, and facilities of the National Oceanic and Atmos- pheric Administration for fiscal year 1975. I am particularly concerned about the administration's deferral of $600,000 in grant-in-aid funding under the Anad- romous Fish Conservation Act and the Commercial Fisheries Research and De- velopment Act, as well as the deferral of $1,034,000 for the sea grant program. These programs, Mr. Speaker, are of great significance to the Nation's long- run ability to harvest the sea. There are many examples of what these programs mean, Mr. Speaker, but let me use Oregon as an illustration. It serves as an excellent example. Oregon's portion of the $600,000 grant-in-aid funding has-been used in this way: Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100190004-9 Feb rtcaPy 25, 1 roved R:t8.filmes398WiteRRINDIL71716M1h4R001100190004-9 a 1077 Becker ra s for mayor, he reported large amounts id "anorignious" contributions. Furthermore, hdtieemployed Wyatt's own public relationgtijnan in the 1973 election c nnpaign, witioh was the most lavish and vicious milluicipal election campaign in many years-perhaps Un- precedent td in San Anton 's history. A good part of the Becker caltiaign was ran out ca a committee hea "it by Jim Dement, a large San Antonio b der. In recent times. Dement himself *pears to have had some connections With Wyatt's b isiness empire. Some say ? at Dement oas received construction - nancing through Wyatt-dominate institutim Wilatev sr Wyatt's reason for tapping Becker vas, and whatever Becker's reason Lo- taking up Wyatt's fight, the point is that if Wyatt was going to save his Pipeli le business in Texas, he had to break his contracts. He used every resource it his command?influence in the legislature, and influence and pres- sures on he San Antonio City Council. These efforts of Wyatt's were certainly helped along by unreported campaign contributans. and by his numerous busi- ness conn actions of one kind or another. The web ct influence Wyatt cast over the city did n A cause the city public service board to ireak its contract, however, and Coastal faced the hard reality of having to choose between honoring its contracts and losint: massive amounts of money in the process, or letting its customers go short. A few / ionths after Wyatt's desperate bid to break the San Antonio contract, Coastal carted a vicious curtailment program .n San Antonio. The city had little or no warning of what was about to happen, and had less than.e. 10 day mIPPly of fuel oil to run its generating plants with. San Antonio came to the brink of utter catastrophe. All of this demonstrated very well that Oscar Wyatt did not intend to lose any money, contract or no contract.. He aimed to pring San Antonio to its knees, by fair means or foul. When he could not boy he legislature or frighten his eustomer into compliance with his de- mands. h2 coldly and cynically decided to drive them to the very brink of dis- aster. A :older heart cannot be found than Osc ar Wyatt's. His decisions and actions it restrospect look like those of a master criminal. Who suffers? Not 'Wyatt, es cent in the sense that his ego is hurt try adverse publicity. Only his Customer. are hurt?because they thought ihat Wyatt would live up to a contract Mat one and all, including his own alit() ::ney, said was ironclad?con- tairtill II 3 "escape clauses" of any kind. Oscar Wyatt does not know the mean- of in ,egrity or honesty. ?TATEM t;NT ON THE sm.. TO ES- T.\ HF,L11 THE ADMINISTRATIVE letili SNAKING CONTROL ACT 'ehe SI oiAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gen- leutan mm Georgia Mr. LEVITAS) IS recognize?i for 5 minutes. Mr. LEVITAS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill which would con- trol Federal agency rulemaking. Embodied in the principles of Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and its Bill of Rights is a basic concept that government must be by consent of the governed and that due process of law is essential. Would any average citizen seriously argue that a person should be deprived of liberty or property under de- crees which no elected official has partic- ipated in promulgating? Yet, today the fact is that vastly more rules are mad 3 by the decree of an unelected bureaucracy than by the elected Members of Con- tress. Last year alone approximately 6Vet() administrative rules were adopted byV7 Federal agencies, departments, and?ureaus. In most instances, a con- sequettee of violating these administra- tive ruftit is imprisonment or tine or both. One ottiy has to glance at the daily Federal Mister to realize that Federal agencies he evolved into a fourth branch of Goitgrnment with hosts of reg- ulations that cry the force of law with- out, benefit ofit g-islative consideration. While it may be true that Congress has previously given-0 k abandoned?to the bureaucracy the power to enact these administrative laws, tlt does not itself justify continuing this Practice. There is definitely a need to haveldministrative rulemaking to fill in the detailed gaps between the broad principles Et;nHaodied in acts of Congress, but this does-cot mean that Congress should leave it tto civil servants or appointed officials pass thousands upon thousands of far- ch- ing laws that can put citizens in ,jeop dy of liberty or property without hay anyone elected by the people or answe able to them involved in the process. As the size and reach of the Federal bureaucracy has grown, the need to re- examine its force and power has come upon us. Curbs on administrative legis- lation, which may have not been needed in years gone by, may be needed today. We have too many examples of adminis- trative excess and zeal, going far beyond any congressional intent. Congress now has the responsibility of facing up to a reexamination of the necessity of con- gressional control over the administra- tive process. When an act of Congress contains the pithy section which reads something like this: The Secretary shall have the power to pro- mulgate regulations to carry out the pur- poses of this act ... Then the citizen is at his peril. Con- gress has passed the buck, and the citizen must deal with people unaccountable to him and frequently unresponsive to him. Congress has done this far too often, and thereby has opened Pandora's box of administrative rules. A "lawmaking" process follows upon these words quoted above, which process never again permits the Congress effec- tively to determine whether its intent has been followed. After going through a series of pro- cedures and hearings--all by civil serv- ants or appointed officials?a rule conies forth. To test the valichty of that rale, a citizen must go to court, or, at his peril, face prosecution. The standards adopted by the judiciary for review of administrative rules are lax indeed, are rarely effective and never go into the is- sues of policy contained therein. The frustrations of gcing through Ihe administrative process; the feeling that no one listens or cares; and the practical inability of an individual to face up to the faceless bureaucracy is all part of the scene?a scene that needs changing to make the rules and the bureaucracy more responsive to Congress and ti- mately, thereby, to the people. Under my proposal, whenever an id- rninistrative rule is adopted by an agency under procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act?section 553 of title V. United States Code?and a violation of the rule could result in a criminal sanc- tion, then either House of Congress would have 30 days in which to pass a resolution disapproving of the adopted regulation. Passing of such a resolution by either House will have the effect of preventing the regulation from becoming operative. My proposal will provide for an ex- pedited procedure for bringing the re ,o- lution to the floor of the House or the Senate. Modeled after the procedures for consideration of recision and deferral messages from the President, it would allow prompt and efficient consideration and action by either body. The procedure for ccnsideration Lii- tially requires that all affected rules be placed before both Houses for a period of 30 days. If within tins period of time a Member of either body introduces a resolution disapproving the specific rule, he resolution can be voted on, or can referred to a committee, in which Lit- event an additional 30 days is allowed onsideration and action by the par- House. A majority vote would be in order to refer the resolution appropriate ccmmittee which n have a specified time to re- back to ',he 'ority vote to; dopt the res - proposed nullify the; roposed rule ocedure provided by this ch would be entitled ? ve :Rul emaking Control In most, or even in to be followed to its the numerous at les bu reaucracy would I' considered by e not controv er - clearly be con- purposes and lenged. Still ill be sum- fo ticu need to an would t port its House. A olution wo The full legislation?w "the Administi Act"?would n many, cases hav end nor require th promulgated by th have to be individ Congress. Most rules sial, and most others V4 sistent with congressior will not, therefore, be c others which are challenge manly dealt with and acce ed, or in- frequently. summarily rejected. Only a few will require close scrutiny by Con- gress, and in those instances they eLlr.- tainly deserve such scrutiny. Finally, my proposal provides that if Congress .fails to adopt a negative resolu- tion, such inaction will not be deemed to be an expression of approval; thus. avoiding interference with any future Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100190004-9 Approved For Release 2005/12/14 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100190004-9 0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE February 24, 1975 S. 181, A BILL PROMOTING PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN ALL BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT Mr. CASE. Mr. President, today I would like to make additional comments about S. 181, a bill to promote public confidence in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the Govern- ment of the United States. - On behalf of Mr. HART of Michigan, Mr. WEICKER, and myself, I introduced this bill on January 16, 1975. Since that date 20 Senators have joined as cospon- sors. They are: Senators Dick Clark of Iowa, Jacob K. Javits of New York, Richard Stone of Florida, Mike Mansfield of Montana, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, William D. Hathaway of Maine, Gary Hart of Colorado, William Proxm ire of Wisconsin, Alan Cranston of California, Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania, Adlai Stevenson of Illinois, Bob Packwood of Oregon, Frank E. Moss of Utah, Frank Church of Idaho, Lawton Chiles of Florida, Quentin Burdick of North Dakota, Mark Hatfield of Oregon, James Aboureek of South Dakota, Pete Domenic' of New Mexico, and Charles McC. Mathias of Maryland. S. 181 would require full public dis- closure of personal financial interests by the President, the Vice President, Mem- bers of Congress, and the judiciary. In addition, Federal employees earn- ing more than $25,000 a year and all ? candidates for Federal offices would be covered by this bill. And this does bring up two questions. I have been asked how many persons S. 181 would affect and would it not bring forth another of those great showers of paper?so much so that it might be nec- essary to build a building in which to store disclosure records. By rough calculations S. 181?if it were to become public law today?would affect more than 100,000 persons. Now about the great shower of paper that these people might generate in dis- closing their personal finances, I can only say that I think most of us can give a full accounting in less than two typed pages. I know that I can. While I am not expert in modern storage techniques, what I know about newspaper filing suggests to me that our financial records can be put on micro- film and made readily available without causing a great space crisis. Our yearly records would be modest in comparison to a year's editions of the New York Times which the Library of Congress tells me occupies only about half of a drawer in a microfilm storage cabinet. In fact, the Library of Congress has the Times back to 1851 on microfilm and this fills only 50 storage drawers. While I am glad to be able to answer these questions, because they indicate to me that we are seriously thinking about disclosure legislation, I want to return for a few minutes to the theory behind the bill. As I have said before disclosure is pre- ventive. If a person knows that his fi- nances will be subjected to public scru- tiny, he will "stop and think" before tak- ing an action that involves a possible conflict of public and private interests. Second, disclosure is a way of getting the facts on the table so that the press and the public can make their own judg- ments. Third, disclosure will strengthen the election process by providing citizens with the additional facts that they need to more fully assess candidates?both newcomers and incumbents. We have been close to getting this leg- islation passed before. In fact, a bill very similar to S. 181 was approved by the Senate during the 93d Congress, I hope that we will see 5, 181 passed and signed into law in the 94th Congress. PRESIDENT FORD PROP "ANTI" CHILD FOOD ASS CE ACT TO CONGRESS Mr. FfUMPEREY. Mr. President, in his fiscal year 1976 budget message to the Congress, President Ford has proposed that the following federally financed child nutrition programs be eliminated: First. The national school lunch pro- gram, as operated since 1946; Second, The school breakfast pro- gram; Third. The special milk program; Fourth. The special food service pro- gram for children; and Fifth. The special food supplement program for women, infants, and chil- dren?WIC. Also, included in these program elimi- nations is the termination of year around nonschool feeding programs, such as day care, food assistance, and the summer child feeding programs. The President's fiscal year 1976 budget further calls for complete elimination of USDA-donated foods for institutions, such as mental institutions, hospitals, and other institutions providing special care for adults. The President's proposed Child Food Assistance Act of 1975 calls for the elimi- nation of the above-mentioned school and child nutrition programs and would replace them with a single "block grant" program to the States. Furthermore, the $2.3 billion now estimated for all of these child nutrition programs in fiscal year 1976, would be reduced to about $1.7 bil- lion under the President's block grant program. Also, under the President's program, the block grants provided States would be restricted entirely to fi- nancing school and child feeding pro- grams for children whose family incomes are below the poverty level. This, of course, means the Federal financial as- sistance for school lunches now pur- chased by those children who families haVe incomes above the poverty level would be completely terminated. It is estimated that this alone would probably result in 7 to 10 million paying students dropping out of the school lunch pro- gram. In addition, in my judgment, the President's proposal would further?not lessen?economic segregation and dis- crimination in our Nation's schools. And it is for these reasons, Mr. Presi- dent, why Mr. Ford's program deserves the title of the "anti" Child Food Assist- ance Act of 1975. While I am the first to admit that one Nation's school and child nutrition pro- grams need improvement, the President's proposal does not provide for such im- provement. The President's proposal not only constitutes a major threat to the nearly 30 years of general progress we have made in these national child nutri- tion programs, but it even poses a threat to the nutritional standards now estab- lished for poor children. Under the Presi- dent's ? roposal, each State could set its nutriti al standards, with a maximum not t xceed one-third of a child's rec- om ded daily allowance?RDA. Exist- in andards under the National School eh and Child Nutrition Acts provide hat one-fourth of a child's RDA be met through the school breakfast program and one-third be met through the school lunch. Mr. President, I do not know who is advising Mr. Ford regarding these mat- ters, but I suggest he get some new ad- visers, and stop wasting the time of Congress with such a rediculous, ill con- ceived, absurd proposal. I wish to serve notice on President Ford here and now that he is in for a fight if he chooses to press for passage of his "anti" Child Food Assistance Act of 1975. And HUBERT HUMPHREY will be in the forefront of that fight. I also wish to serve notice that I intend to again press for consideration of my universal School Lunch and Child Nu- trition Act this session of Congress. If President Ford wants to streamline some of these programs, he can do so by join- ing with me in urging prompt enactment of my universal program. Mr. President, I wish to share with my Senate colleagues an analysis of President Ford's "anti" Child Food As- sistance Act of 1975, recently conducted by the American School Food Service As- sociation. I ask unanimous consent that this analysis be printed at the RECORD. There being no objection, the analysis was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: ASFSA POSITION ON THE PROPOSED RFEAL or MasTING CHILD NIITRITION LEGISLATION STATEMENT OF THE PROPOSAL President Gerald Ford proposes legislation that would repeal and supercede all existing child nutrition legislation and substitute a single consolidated block grant program. The proposal would provide subsidies Only for poverty children which would eliminate fi- nancial assistance to all other children in- cluding those now eligible for reduced price meals. The proposal specifically eliminates the National School Lunch Program as operated since 1946, the Breakfast Program, the Special Milk Program, the Special Food Service Program for Children and the Nutri- tion Program for Women, Infants and Chil- dren (WIC). Even the program for poverty children would be cut back. The nutritional standards currently specify that 1/4 of the child's Rec- ommended Daily Allowance (RDA) will be met by the breakfast program and % of the child's Recommended Daily Allowance will be supplied by the school lunch. The new legis- lation will provide a maximum of % of the poverty child's Recommended Daily Allow- ance. Minimum nutritional standards will be eliminated and states will be free to set their own standards if any. ASFSA POSITION It is the position of the American School Food Service Association that there are strong Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100190004-9 Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100190004-9 Febrvary 24, 1975 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SE NATE S 2479 is desig bed to reduce wasteful energy use, create j ,os. and lessen economic hardships. Let me lust list them. The first measure would e tablish mandatory thermal (heating and coo, ing efficiency standards for all new homes ond commercial buildings. It is an- ticipatel , that this program will save the equivale at of 500,000 barreels of oil per day In 1935. rhe Secretary of Hs:rasing and -Urban Develop: nent in consultation with engineer- ing, aro eitectural, consumer:labor and in- dustry s eprsentatives would elk responsible for neve oping thermal efficienct standards. Stanaar t3 for residential dwelling$ would be promulg Lted and implemented soi$hin one year, as i performance standards r corn- turrets!ittInd other I other residential build s de- veWed Lnd implemented as soon the .after as erect cable. State and local govermaltents would a sume primary responsibility fo n- forcing standards through local buil dig E:odes, wt- the icond measure would establisli$, within , he Federal Energy Administration,, a gut program for States to assist low- income sersons, particularly the elderly, in winteriz rig their homes. This is modeled after a s iccessful pilot project that was con- ducted In the State of Maine during 1974. Annual sppropriations of $55 million would be autherized to fund the three year grant program and enable States to purchase winteriz. Awn materials for dwellings of low- income sersons. The 1 icit measure would authorize the Preesden . to require energy efficiency labels on all n w major appliances and motor ve- hicles. 'I lis program would 'insure that con- qumers ,re fully apprised of the efficiency of Varie is appliances and motor vehicles end wot id encourage the manufacture and greater s tilization of more efficient products. While these are noteworthy and positive proposal.. I do not believe they are an ade- quate c aiservation program. But it is a etart. ;31nee aere is now a convergency of Con- .gression[ i and Executive opinion, I would guess th it some form of energy conservation frscentivs a in buildings and industry will noon be snacted in law. The fifteen percent tax cred l, for energy conserving investment its dome .. proposed by the President, is like previous legislative, though I and many others vs euld favor a much larger credit or Long-cent, low interest loans to proyide :stronger incentives. A law requiring vehicles and app, tances to be labeled for energy use is likely, and it will have the important side effect of requiring standardized energy con- stant-Aim tests which will help future public and leg slative judgment on energy use regulatir n. Some sort of mandatory energy efficiency standards for buildings and in- dustry a as likely too, though the industry .standard e especially, may be slow in ap- pearing necause of the need to develop etandard , where experience is very scant. If he, Pres ident fails to persuade the Con- gross to telay implementation of the Clean /kir Art,. As I fervently hope, we will prob- -seas' ena l; mandatory auto efficiency stand- -axis Ila , v in Congress feel as I do that there el in ate use to trade public health for in- tut,tt-T e,:ceptance of a simple and easily tutalnah e performance standard on auto- mobiles, much as 20-mile per gallon'fuel ef- aciency. l think we will feel it our duty to make tin i standard mandatory without corn- prOMASUI i the responsibility of the industry to do its best to minimize air pollution. A ..9*eig :t.t or fuel efficiency tax might also be enact id to shift consumers toward less wasteful vehicles. I would expect also a variety ef directed studies about energy conserve son in various sectors, but most lroportar tly. I hope that we will mandate serious a ed practical revision of the tax and regal-atm v codes, and utility rate regulation, to prom 'se energy efficiency and recycling. The Senate was considerably more bold thee the House last session in passing energy co e- servation legislation. However, as I am 813", you've read, there has been a virtual revol - tion in the attitudes and alignment of pos..: in the House, with the arrival of 91 new Co ,- gressmen. Many of these new Members a '- rived with strongly environmentally prote, - tive views. The attitude changes are pr - flounced in both the House Interstate at I Foreign Commerce Committee, which be - dies much regulatory legislation, and in t, s Ways and Means Committee, responsible f r tax initiatives. I think the roadbloc 3 against taking many sound steps 'toward e - - ergy conservation have been removed. But what are the constraints I have me- - toned? Some are familiar. Congress is s committee of more than 500 Members. TI. e President can change tariffs by a stroke f the pen?but any major policy initiatoi by Congress must hinge on extensive neg , - tiations between dozens of strong-mind, A individuals and committees. Of course, Con - ress can often rely on the easier task if mply agreeing to, or slightly modifyiret, e cutive proposals. But rightly cr wrong% . it a simple fact that while the Congre -3 was eveloping the many conservation pc - icy tiatives I listed, the executive NV , 3 consi ing energy conservation as a matt .r, of pur voluntary actions like remembeo - ing to t off lights. There was no apparel, s. conceptiot that energy conservation repr .. sents an i vtlittoc tment decision, and can on .r be pursued the right regulatory and ts climate?and , at, in fact, past policies sy - tematically d ouraged conservation as 1 needed to be chtlinatically changed if "ye. - untary measures' ere ever to make sent. So the initiatives ad to come from ties 500-Member co e. and progress vs,,,s slow. Congress can ne be a rapid 'realist -^e of new policy, of cour but with the new composition I mentione bove, and at lea e a two-year head start o seriously fads s this problem, I expect the Xongress will he much more than an analyzi \body for ee - ecutive policy this term. There are other, deeply route onstrairr , which are shared by both the Ex utive as 1 Legislative Branches. First Is th . trugg. : to strike a balance between the ed f te policy and action, and the reluctance o as ? ply coercive pressures to aspects of in vl!- ual or commercial "lifestyle." This has -- faced, of course, in the argument over "m ? datory" or "voluntary" conservation steps. also is involved in debates over whether .. not federal policies should be able to ove - ride state or local regulations. I am vet' sensitive to the argument that we must n -. move to federal coercion under the bann. ' of conserving energy. But some of the wars. - lugs sounded in the past seem silly to m . The Executive Branch has been talking_ f. o months of "voluntary" aoplian,ee eners , labeling. But what is voluntary about a sy ' ? tam agreed upon by a few major mansafa - turers, especially if you happen to be a MP company hoping to enter the market? Asl ? ing energy conservation steps of some build- ers or manufacturers in terms of "volunta; ' cooperation," and then not providing any a ? surance that the investment will be matelnei by competitors, is simply unfair. We mu . avoid coercion, and we must be aware the , enthusiasm for energy conservation ins ' blind us to coercive tendencies in propos( i steps?but we also must be aware of all ti - existing promotional and coercive tendei cies in government and commerce that ha, promoted waste. We have a long way to r in eliminating these. Another deeply-rooted problem is our tot inability to organize long-range planning c - a rational level. I think state and local go, - ernments have been far more effective I e this area. I have emphasized that energy col servation is an investment strategy--as muce a part of our energy supply plans as n?icleer power or oil shale development. The pay- offs and trade-offs between the various in- vestments will come in twenty, thirty or more years from now. And yet Presidents area Con- gressmen measure theist success or failure In terms of two, four, six, or eight years. And, in neither Branch, is too much plan- ning desired, for fear it will ''limit futbre options"?usually politcal options. A po- tential example of our weakness is the popu- lar feeling running against installation of electrical heating. We all know some version of the efficiency figures for resistance heat- ing vs. oil or gas furnaces. It seems logical to eliminate resistance heating?but what if there is no gas or oil? If, in thirty years, our only energy sources will be central generating stations, should we be starting a trend away frcm the heat- ing systems which can make use of them? No one can count on the answer because we have no "plan" which Indicates any com- mitment either way. As the problems get tougher, and longer in time scale for solu- tion, the lack of future planning becomes more and more tragic and looks more and more like a crude political expedient in both the Congress and Executive. In Congress we have established an Office of Technology As- sessment to project the long-term effects of various policy options. The Office of Tech- nology Assessment has just begun a major energy assessment, I will be inti- mately involved with through my appoint- ment to the Technology Assessment Board and my service on the Science and Technol- ogy Committee in the House. A last constraint I west to mention is our traditional blindness to the effects of eco- nomic dislocations caused by federal policy changes. It is much easier to promote a new Industry than to provide for an orderly dis- mantling of an old one. It is no wonder la- bor and industrial organizations sometimes oppose moves that seem very socially desir- able?they've learned too often that the laws promoting a change in industrial emphasis 'usually leave out any sections providing for retraining and relocation assistance for workers and businesses displaced. We've got to get over the idea that our nation is so rich that anyone can simply establish a produc- tive new life to substitute for the one just eliminated. We in Congress must begin to consider the expenses and harm of social re- location as part of every legislative step we take. Instead of slowing social change we might find, surprisingly, that this attention will speed it up?because iii will eliminate uch of the fear associated with novelty. As I said at the begin.ning, I listed these straints as a way of emphasizing the umentally important role people like you -lvex must play in guiding us through the e rgy crisis years. New ideas must come from etings like these?you can be sure that it proposed by the President or Con- gres it's ? idea that surfaced long ago. And Congress n't execute my plans?we may create a I regulatory framework, bet for the technica atters of building and design- ing we must pend on those in the field? and those in t state and local governments who are usuall loser to the field problems than we are.' So. I conclude asking this: think, with 'Is in the Congress bout the complexity of the energy problem are facing._ Help us by mobilizing as a roup?organizing all the professional exper nee and Imagination you can muster to a vance conservation strategies in building. Y is understand these best. Let us know what f mework you need for your efforts in turrCn this society to- ward an ethic which em asizes quAlity, endurability and compatib ity with, the beauty of the earth. You can e sure I will fight with all my-energy to pro ide you with the support you need for the job that only you can do, Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100190004-9 STAT Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100190004-9 Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100190004-9 /roved For 111053 11 1053 February 25, Roe Rogers Rooney Rose Rosenthal Roush Roybal Ruppe Russo Santini Sarasin Sarbanes Scheuer Schroeder Schulze Seiberling Sharp Shipley Shriver Sikes Simon Sisk Slack Smith, Iowa Smith, Nebr. Solarz Abdnor Archer Ashbrook Bauman Beard, Tenn. Bennett Bevill Brinkley Brown, Ohio Broyhill Byron Clancy Clawson, Del Cochran Collins, Tex. Crane Daniel Dan Daniel, Robert Kindness W., Jr. Krueger Davis Derrick Devine Dickinson Gaydos Gibbons Ginn Spellman Stanton, J. William Stanton, James V. Stark Steed Steelman Steiger, Wis. Stokes Stratton Stuckey Studds Sullivan Symington Talcott Taylor, N.C. Thone Thornton Traxler Tsongas Udall Ullman Vander Vander Veen Vanik NAYS-75 Goodling Grassley Haley Hammer- sclunidt Hansen Harsha Hechler, W. Va, Holland Holt Hungate Hutchinson Jarman Johnson, Colo. Jones, Tenn. Kemp Ketchum Abzug Alexander Annunzio Barrett Bell Boggs Broomfield Brown, Mich. Ichord Burke, Fla. Jenrette Burleson, Tex. Kelly Butler Chappell Collins, Ill. Conlan Cotter Esch Eshleman Landrum Latta Lott McCollister McDonald Mann Martin Vigorito Wampler Weaver Whalen White Whitehurst Whitten Wiggins _., Wilson, Bob Wilson, Charles H., Calif. Wilson, Charles, Tex. Winn Wirth Wolff Wright Wydler Yates Yatron Young, Ga, Young, Tex, Zablocki Zeferetti Mathis Milford Miller, Ohio Montgomery Moore Nichols Pickle Quillen Robinson Rousselot Runnels Satterfield Schneebeli Sebelius Shuster Skubitz Snyder Spence Steiger, Ariz. Stephens Symms Treen Waggonner Wylie Young, Alaska NOT VOTING-40 Fenwick Findley Flynt Fountain Fraser Hagedorn Howard Leggett McCloskey Metcalfe Mills Minish Moorhead, Calif. Moss Murphy, ni. Murtha Nowak Roncalio Rostenkowski Ryan St Germain Staggers TaylOr, Mo. Teague Thompson Van Deerlin Walsh Waxman Young, Fla. So the joint resolution was passed. The Clerk announced the following pairs: Mr. Annunzio With Mr. Jenrette. Ms. Abzug with Mr. Nowak. Mr. Thompson with Mr, Ichord, Mr. Rostenkowski with Mr. Ryan. Mrs. Boggs with Mr. Burleson of Texas. Mr. Barrett with Mr. Taylor of MI Mr. Flynt with Mr. Esch. Mr. Fraser with Mr. Conlan. Mr. Howard with Mr. Kelly. Mr. Roncalio with Mr. Broomfie Mr. St Germain with Mr. But-be Mr. Teague with Mr. Eshle Mr. Alexander with Mr. Bell. Mr. Chappell with Mr. Findley. Mr. Cotter with Mr. Burke of Mrs. Collins of Illinois with lin. Mr. Metcalfe with Mr. Waxma Mr. Minishwith Mr. McCloske Mr. Moss with Mr. Brown of M igan. Mr. Murtha with Mrs. Fenwic Mr. Murphy of Illinois with r. Young of Florida. Mr. Staggers with Mr. Walsh. Mr. Leggett with Mr. Fountain. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. GENERAL LEAVE Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan- imous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks in the RECORD on the House joint resolution just passed, and that I may be permitted to revise and, extend my remarks in the RECORD and insert extraneous material, being certain tables. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? ? There was no objection. CORRECTION OF RECORD Mr. FOLEY. Mr, Speaker, I ask unani- mous consent that the permanent RECORD be corrected as follows: On page H508 of the daily RECORD of February 4, 1975, in the center column, after the words "(12) Personnel provid- ing coverage by still" strike out the words "photographers' Gallery." and insert the words "photography shall be then cur- rently accredited to the Press Photog- -raphers' Gallery." The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wash- ington? There was no objection. PERMISSION FOR COMMITTEE ON RULES TO FILE PRIVILEGED RE- PORT Mr. SISK, Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I ask unani- mous consent that the Committee on Rules may have until midnight tomor- row night, February 26, 1975, to file a privileged report on the bill H.R. 3166. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Cali- fornia? There was no objection. PERSONAL ANNOUNCEMENT Mr. HORTON. Mr. Speaker, the REC- ORD of February 19, 1. ? 75, incorrectly lists me as not having ed on rollcall No. 18, final passage louse Resolution 138, estab ' Select Committee on In- ce. Apparently, the machine did not record my vote. I wish to indicate for the REc- ORD that I was present and voted in the affirmative on this measure. orida. Van Deer- BUDGET RESCISSION BILL Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Corn- mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3260) to rescind certain budget authority recommended in the message of the President of November 26, 1974 (H. Doc. 93-398) and as those rescissions are modified by the message of the Presi- dent of January 30, 1975 (H. Doc. 91-39) and in the communication of the Comp- troller General of November 6, 1974 (H. Doc. 93-391), transmitted pursuant to the Impoundment Control Act of 1974; and, pending that motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that general debate be limited to 1 hour, the time to be equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. CEDER- BERG) and myself. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? There was no objection. The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. MAnow). The motion was agreed to. IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the con- sideration of the bill H.R. 3260, with Mr. Sisit in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. By unanimous consent, the first read- ing of the bill was dispensed with. The CHAIRMAN. Under the unani- mous-consent agreement, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. MAHON) will be recog- nized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. CEDERBERO) will be recognized for 30 minutes. The Chair now recognizes the gentle- man from Texas. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, this is the second rescission bill, and the first during the 94th Congress, to be reported by the Committee on Appropriations to the House under the provisions of title X of the new Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. A total of 40 pending rescissions and 137 pending deferrals that had been sub- mitted to the 93d Congress by the Pres- ident were automatically resubmitted to the 94th Congress. This bill and report reflect the recommendations of the Com- mittee on Appropriations on these 40 rescissions. The committee is recomend- ing approval of either all or some part of 27 rescissions and is recommending that 13 rescissions not be approved. Another package of proposed rescis- sions was transmitted by the President on January 30. These items are not treated in this bill, but the committee had them under consideration and will report its recommendations in the near future. The Presidential message of Jan- uary 30, 1975, proposed 36 rescissions of $1.2 billion in budget authority. RESCISSION TOTALS The estimated total of budget author- ity recommended to be rescinded in H.R. 3260 is $99 million and a decrease in limitation of $20 million. This is $829 million less than the amount proposed for rescission by the President, and this amount will have to be made available for obligation on March 1, 1975, the day after the expiration of the 45-day period prescribed by law. Outlay reductions will total $87 million in 1975 and $25 million In 1976. Appro 'ed For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100190004-9 le Approved For 14!frAmtMi2/1,4.: CIA7RDP77M00144R001100190004-9 CANAL KELORD - OT ISE Feln uary 25, 1975 Mr. Chairman, the rescissions pro- posed diy the President and considered in cantle tion with this bill were handled by 7 if the 13 appropriations subcom- nuttei s in the usual fashion. Of the total of $91 million recommended for rescis- sion tw the committee, $60 million is in Use Defense area and $33 million is withir the jurisdiction of the subcommit- tee wi Jell handles appropriations for the IN/CIPARISON OF Departments of State, Justice, and Cl no- merce. The committee reported this bill on last Thursday and the report and he r- ings have been available since that time. Details on each of the many rescissi ins considered are contained in the messa ;ies of the President, the committee hearii Mr. Chairman, the members of .11.e and in the report which is organized by Appropriation Subcommittee, RESCISSIONS PROPOSED AND ACTIONS RECOMMENDED 1 H emit), Amount proposed for Amount to Ire made Amount mc- available for ommended obligation Rest ission Department or activity rescission for rescission Mar. 1, 1975 No. fr 75- I Department of Agriculture ? Water bank $21. 212, 940 $21, 212, 940 program. 075 11 Oepartment of Defense-Military: 075--12 075 -17 Operation and maintenace, Army__ 41, 000, DOG $20, 500, 000 20, 500, 000 RIO--If Operation and maintenance, Navy. 27, 500, 000 13, 750, 000 13, 750, 000 075-13 0/b-19 Operation and maintenance, 5. 000, 000 2, 500, 000 2, 500, 000 075-44 Marine Corps. 075--ISA' Rib--Ill Operation and maintenance, Air 40, 000, 000 20, 000, 000 20, 000, 000 Force. 075-16 R75 -.71 Operation and maintenance, De- fense agencies. 1, 900, 000 950, 000 950, 000 475 22 Operation and maintenance, Army I, 800, 000 900, 000 900, 000 Reserve. 1175-23 Operation and maintenance, Navy 1, 100, 000 550, 000 550, 000 Reserve. Riri 24 Operation and maintenance, Air 400, 000 200, 000 200, 000 Force Reserve. Rib 2b Operation and maintenance, Army 1, 400, 000 700, 000 700, 000 National Guard. R75- 37 0;5-26 Operation and maintenance, Air 500, 000 250, 000 250, (l00 R75--38 National Guard. R25-27A -: Aircraft procurement, Army. 5, 700, 000 5,700, 000 075-39 R75- 28A 1 Aircraft procurement, Air Force__ 152, 500, 000 152, 500, 000 075-40 total, Department of Defense,_. 278, 000,000 60, 300,000 218,501), 000 075-41 1175-431 Department of Housing and Urban De 0264, 117,000 264, 117, 000 R75--42 Yelopment: Homeownership as- sistance (annual contract authority). 875- 33 Oe pa rtment of Agriculture-Forest Service: 075-10 Forest land management 10, 000, 000 _ _ _ 10, 000, 000 R75-9 State and private forestry coopera- tion 4, 921, 000 4, 921, 000 - - 035 15 Total, Subcommittee on Interior_ 14, 921, 000 __ 14, 921, 000 075-46 R75-29A 1 Department of Health, Education, and Welfare: Health-resources 284, 719, 332 _ 284, 719, 332 - - Department of State: R75 44 075-35 Contributions to international or- ganizations 2, 000, 000 2,1)00,000 0.75-36 International trade negotiations____ 100,000 109, 000 Subtotal, Department of State__ 2, 100, 000 2, 100, 009 Department of Justice: 1173-30 Federal Bureau of Investigation__ 5, 300, 000 5, 300, 000 R75-31 Immigration and Naturalization Service 1, 300, 000 1.300, 000 Federal Prison System: Salaries and expenses, Bureau of Prisons 5, 250, 000 5,250, 000 R75-33 Buildings and facilities 1, 750, 000 1, 750, 000 075-34 Drug Enforcement Administration__ 2, 400, 000 2, 400, COO Subtotal, Department of J ustice... 16,000, GOO 14.700, 000 1, 300, 000 Modifir. by H. Doc. 94-39. Amoun shown is annual contract authority. The maxim um budget authority over a 40 year period is e rrmated in the 1976 budget at $7,815,510,000. Mr. lhairman, I will not take much additional time at the moment, but I would ike to point out that Congress is coeqiial branch of Government. Who.' we enact legislation, we intend that ti (3 legislalation should be carried out by the executive branch in accord- ance v ith the law. The rescissions in- volved liere relate to measures that were passed oy the Congress, and, I believe, in all inst.inces signed into law by the Presi- dent of the United States. So I would say that it is not appro- priate, in my view, for the Executive to committee and mysElf who participated in the preparation of this bill will be pleased to undertake to answer ques- tions. Under leave to insert extraneous ma- terial, I am submi ting the following table which provides a comparison of the rescissions proposed by the President and the actions recommended by the com- mittee: R 3260-SUM /3ARY Department activity 'tmotint to be made Amount Amount mc- available for proposed for ammended obligation rescission for resciasion Mar. 1, 1975 Department 32 Commerce: Social arid Economic Statistics $373, 000 $373, 000 Aden ? iOration. Econom Development Adminis- 2, 000, 000 52, 000,000 tratio , Trade P .justment Assistancre 12, 000, 000 12,008, 000 U.S. Tri ire! Service 250,000 250, 000 Nationa Oceanic and Atmospheric 3, 227, 000 3, 227, 000 Admi , stration. Patent ' ifice 700, 000 700, 000 Subti- tl, Department of Com- 18, 550, 009 16, 550, 000 2, 000, 000 me -0. Total Subcommittee on State, 36, 650, DOI 33, 350 000 3, 300, 000 Jos ee, Commerce, and the Jut ,nary. Department -'the Treasury: Office ei :he Secretary 300,901 310 000 _ Federal aw Enforcement Training 60, 001 60 000 Cente - Bureau -0 Accounts 630, 001 630 000 U.S. Cir '?Irrls Service 3, 000, Pt 3. 000, 000 Internal revenue Service: Sal Has and expenses 530 00-) 530, 000 Act iunto, collection and tax- 9, 230; 00 / _ . 9, 2..30, 000 p tier service. Cm eiliance 10, 240,00) -------------10, 240, 000 ty, _dotal, Treasury Depart- 24, 000, OW 1, 000, 000 23, 000, 000 oent Executive Of e of the President: Special lion office for drug abuse preen ion: Phr tnacological research. 2,7110, 000 2, 760, 000 ___. Spy al fund 2, 240, 000 2, 230, 000 S ,ototal, Executive Office .3 the President, 5, 000, 000 5, 000, 000 ------------ Independen agencies: General Serv- ices Admi -stration: Federal Build- ing Fund ( mitation) (20,022,900) (20,022, 900)_ Total, Sub( mmittee on Treasury, Postal Ser re, and General Govern- ment: Budget Oftority Limitatt - 29, 000, 0011 6, 000, 000 23, 000, 000 (20,022,900) (20,022, 900)...._ Total ,triget authority__ 929, 420, 271! 99, 650, 000 821 770, 272 Lim 'ation (20,022,900) (20, 022, 900) C nd total 949, 443, 172 119, 672, 900 829, 770, 272 Reclassified as a rescis3 :n by the Comptroller General (H. Doc. 93-391). transmit a rescission proposal that or contains funds which have been enact -d into law as a result of the initiative of the Congress. I do not subscribe to t so theory that everything the Executive does is correct and right and defensibo. and that everything the Congress does -v way of providing additional sums r modifying sums is all wrong. Mr. Chairman, I will not use furth r time at this point. Mr. CEl3ERBERG. Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may co .- sume. (Mr. CEDERBERG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. CEDERBERG. Mr. Chairman, we are here today on a question of whether or not we are going ?go along on the Presidential request far rescissions. If I recall correctly. in most instances, as we went to the voters last November, a very large percentage of the Members of this body on both sides of the aisle pledged to the voters that we would take every opportunity to come up with some kind of a balanced bt dget. That seemed Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100190004-9 February 25, lePproved Forc1614191(TARNM4KOMPP-Zik9M4R001100190004-9 H 1055 to be the theme of the political oratory last November. We are going to have an opportunity now to determine whether or not we really want to put into practice what we said then we ought to do. Mr. Chairman, I do not have to remind the Members that the budget deficit as anticipated for the close of the fiscal year, on June 30, is going to be some- thing in the area of $35 billion. As we look at the 1976 budget, the budget defi- cit appears to be in the area of $52 billion. Those deficits are predicated upon this Congress taking certain actions that are recommended by the President, and if these actions are not taken, the result will be an increase in these deficits Here we are today, looking at the re- scissions which have been requested in the amount of $949,443,172. Our various subcommittees looked at all of these Items and could only find $119,672,900 to rescind. I just do not believe that we have done the job that we should have, be- cause I think there are more areas here where we could have gone along with the rescissions. This means that we have failed to rescind $829,770,272. In other words, what we are saying is that we are going to increase substantially the proposed deficit in this fiscal year and in the com- ing fiscal year. So, Mr. Chairman, we have a responsi- bility to take some further action. I wish to call to the attention of the Members something that has been bothering me just a little bit: As we know, we passed the Budget and Control Act last year, and under the Budget and Con- trol Act we put this provision in on rescissions and deferrals. That came about became of our concern about im- poundments by the Executive, and I un- derstand that. But it seems to me that what we ought to do is take a good, hard look at some of the things that we have done and what we have required the Executive to do in the area, for instance, of remissions of such items as $60,000 and $200,000. Let me just read a few of them: It was $2 million for contributions to interna- tional organizations; $100,000 in interna- tional trade negotiations; $373,000 for the Social and Economic Statistics Ad- ministration; Office of the Secretary of the Treasury, $3'10,000; for Law Enforce- ment Training Center, $60,000. These are small items that are not worth the bureaucratic paperwork that is necessary to even bring them up for a rescission. What we ought to do, Mr. Chairman, Is change that act so that the rescissions will have to be rather large and meaning- ful, because are placing an undue burden, in my opinion, on the various agencies aownown that are required to go through all of their agencies, present all this to us, and then we and all our subcommit- tees have to hold hearings on them. They ought to have some administrative lee- way here on items like this so that they do not have to be burdened with this kind of work. Let me give just one example. There Is one deferral, I think it was a deferral of the rescission having to do with, I think, the Tia,juana project down in California. The reason that it had to be deferred or rescinded was became the City of San Diego just is not ready to go along with it. Why not let the agency just say, "OK. That is it." No, they have to present it under the law to us as a de- ferral or a rescission. I think we have gotten ourselves into a lot more paperwork for, I think, no good purpose. As far as I am personally concerned, it seems to me that what we should do is go along with more rescis- sions than we have here. I recognize that there are some areas that are very sen- sitive, and certainly we ought to have been able to rescind a portion of them between now and the end of the fiscal year. Let me just say this: Most of the agen- cies downtown were advised back in about November that they were going to be required to present a certain amount of rescissions from that particular agen- cy. Those agencies presented their re- scissions, and they have been spending at a rate consistent with the fact that the Congress would agree with the rescis- sion. Now here we are, about the 1st of March, a few months left in the fiscal year, and we are going to say, "No. Be- tween now and the end of the fiscal year, you spend it all, whether you can do it wisely or not." I think that is very, very poor administration. Let me give just one other example. There is one in my own subcommittee. The Immigration and Naturalization Service sent up a rescission for $1,300,- 000, out of a $175 million budget. No one can tell me that they cannot rescind $1,300,000 out of $175 million. But an agency always comes in and says, "OK. We are going to rescind. We are going to rescind this $1,300,000, but it will have a serious Impact on our alien program, the finding of our aliens and getting them back." We are all for that program, partic- ularly those in southern California, and those areas recognize the merits of this program. But no. 'The agency comes in and says, "This is the one where, if you rescind that money, we are going to have to slow down that program of finding these aliens that are taking the jobs of Americans.". No one can tell me that that agency could not find that money, or at least a portion of that money, in some other area that Is not as vital and one does not have as much concern to all. These are some of the problems that we are faced with. I know that there are others who are going to speak on the subject and discuss them with us. We are going to have other remissions that are going to come up. It is becoming very difficult to rescind anything or to try to bring any fiscal sanity to the problems that are confronting our Government. Some of these things we could spend the money for, and it would be wisely spent, but it just seems to me in the light of the fiscal conditions we find our country in today that we ought to go further than we have in this particular bill. Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Chairman, I sup- port the budget rescission bill, because it will decrease our expenses in this fiscal year by over $100 million. But, I object very strongly to it, because we are wast- ing the chance not to make more signif- icant budget cuts. As I understand it, this rescission bill approves only about 13 percent of the items considered by the committee for rescission. In turning down over $800 million worth of proposals and accepting only a little More than $100 million worth, the committee has demonstrated that Congress has not learned to control its spending appetite and has no inten- tion of reducing it. Those of us who have a great deal of concern over growing budget deficits can only conclude that Congress was kidding itself and its constituents when it passed the Budget Control Act. Our budgets are more out of control today than when we passed that act, and we ought to tell the people that we have no intention of paying for the things we want. The projected deficit for the fiscal year ending in June, based on our unwilling- ness to make rescissions, and our en- thusiasm to return tax money, may go as high as $50 billion. For the fiscal year beginning in June, the President's fore- cast of $50 billion seems likely to turn into an $80 billion deficit. Nobody likes making cuts in good pro- grams. Nevertheless, if everything is not cut slightly, we will continue to com- pound our deficits. But we have here some programs that can stand a cut. The ' F-111 appropriation, which was not even requested by the Defense Department, has got to be classed as pure waste. I will admit that we have already laid cuts pretty ?heavily on the Defense Depart- ment, since half of the rescissions in that bill come from that Department. NeVer- theless, Defense is a prime candidate for reductions, and the F-111 should go. But each Department should make at least a token sacrifice. Mr. Chairman, this Congress quite obviously intends to make other sizable, and as yet unbudgeted, appropriations. These will occur in the fields of emer- gency jobs, extended unemployment and other so-called recession fighters. Faced with those perhaps necessary, emergency expenses, we are showing the height of fiscal irresponsibility in not accepting the rescission package which was presented to the Congress. When the Budget Control Act was passed, many Members of this Congress, Including myself, stated that Congress now had the mechanism to begin con- trolling its expenses and setting its own priorities but that it might never have the backbone to do so. I think we have demonstrated today that the Congress has the capability but not the desire to be fiscally responsible. We have the way but not the will. Mr. BADILLO. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 3260, which nullifies a number of budget cuts proposed by President Ford. In partic- ular, I am glad to note that the bill re- fuses to uphold a drastic rescission of section 235 housing funds, a large re- duction in Hill-Burton programs, and a substantial cutback in the Commerce Department's Economic Development Administration's budget. Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100190004-9 1U56 Approved For RCeNtnggitwAt gi4t(NR,371_1/19961fisiloo1iool9010Wicti., 1,7:, in several occasions in the past I have ? tar Ly disagreed with the budgetary petor ties of the administration. Re- anite tly 1 have stressed the need to re- oniei our spending priorities to assure Li it ur pressing domestic needs are ade- otiately met. In view of our current inenac mit' crisis, budgetary policies as- :none a heretofore unprecedented im- oorta ice. inflation is eroding the our- ceast -.g power of those with fixed in- come plunging the Nation's senior ittze.s into deprivation: joblessness robs treml ars of our workforce of wages and etieir :amities suffer. Food and energy- aoateti costs have risen enormously, and ia ri sultant transfer of income is con- -IOU mg to the spiral of lower demand, eisidtation cutbacks, and loss of jobs. Now, sore than ever, our budget policies iraist te designed to safeguard the weak enst line about a strong economic re- ierve,r: . Yet, the administration con- met to disregard ominous warning legal- and persists in cutting funding ter eotential domestic programs. Con- ? css :iearly must take the initiative to iitor topsy-turvy spending priorities. The measure before us will help to revert o this trend. It nullifies a proposed eeiti4,7 9,332 rescission of the Hill-Burton progn m, presently utilized for the erec- tion a id modernization of health centers and hie construction of much-needed outoa ient facilities. It also prevents a e2ii4 rescission of 235 housing funds the homeownership program for the pato., as well as a $2 million reduction of EI N's technical assistance moneys, eciled led to aid distressed areas expe- i I g economic adjustment problems. Put while I applaud the work of the tinni --tee in keeping the above programs viable I am unhappy with the cuts that wine I ermitted to stand. The deferral of t$51) a .11ion section 701 comprehensive olaan..ig grants will disrupt New York City's programs in education. economic 4teveic anent and health planning. It will at,, Is ..Ate an adverse effect on planning roe er vironmentat systems, social wel- t :irks and recreation management, floosie g and capital programs. I co- soonsc red legislation disapproving this deferril and wish that it had received tile co oamittee's favorable consideration. onfortunate is the over $7 million eatitac L. in prison program funds. I am oa.rticodarly unhappy about the loss of the $: 00,000 scheduled for community is, tseatment projects. If savings had to Lie effected, they should' have come out of our Inflated defense budget, not do oestic assistance programs. a chairman, I am daily receiving eenon lineations from constitutents who lire de moved. angered and upset by the 1)00 gel ary policies of the administration a ed. -io call on Congress to take the orate and safeguard the national wel- o " I hope that Members of this body _ ri -i to that challenge and take the eee issary steps to assure realistic and ? 1, La te funding levels for our vital domes LC programs. Or. farAGGI. Mr. Chairman, I rise m-ierly to state my opposition to the ? nt's request to rescind $1.3 million lie moneys appropriated for the I.M.- 111`2 z'a t on and Naturalization Service fis- cal year 1975 budget. I am pleased to: ote that the committee did not approve ' his request, and I hope my colleagues ret liz ing the importance of the INS toy trd solving the illegal alien crisis will fo ow suit and vote down this request. America is contending with a silent in- vasion of between 4 and 12 million ill aid aliens who are posing a dangerous th eat to the economic security of this Na' ion and her people. For example. 1 mil on of these illegal aliens are employe( in jobs which are desperately sought by American workers. The Immigration Service is the mary agency responsible for locating ad deporting illegal aliens. Yet despite he severity of this crisis we find this adn ,n- istration directing its misguided but. eet slasher into the wrong victim. Aire (Iv this year the INS has been forced to nt back on its apprehension operations Pie to lack of sufficient funding, and yet we find efforts to trim the budget still I to- then I feel we should be increasing the 'IS budget and thus their ability to be Ler deal with the illegal aliens problen I have introduced legislation HR. _.57 which will provide the INS with 2 'i00 additional personnel to help them s. the influx of illegal aliens, as well as n- tenshy their efforts at locating those w- ing in the United States. For years tie INS has fallen victim to underfunteng and staffing yet they have still mane ed to increase both their apprehension ad deportations, the latter increasing b3 71 percent in the last 3 years. The illegal alien problem is a gr ve one, one whose solution must be foe ad quickly. Adequate INS funding will al Lily them to free the 1 million jobs held by illegal alins and will allow them to e- turn them to American workers. A :e- quate INS funding will allow them to deal with projections that the numlcars of illegal aliens seeking entry into I us Nation will double in the next 5 ye: rs. Adequate funding will show to the LOS that we in Congress do consider them to be one of our most important law a- f orcement units. Today's vote could be a step in -se right direction in our battle against .ie illegal alien problem. We must recogr ze this problem, and intensify our effce ts to achieve its effective control. Mr. EVANS of Indiana. Mr. Chairm a, I suppose that half a loaf is better ti in none, and for that reason, I support se budget rescission bill before us ted . y. I have read the report accompany ig this bill carefully. I respect the comn t- tee's judgment that all but $129.6 mill in of the proposed $949.5 million resciss be restored. But _there will be some sk. ,J- ticism as to whether we have di ie enough in this measure to reduce unn: o- e.ssary Government expenditures. Wi, out indepth oversight, it is my belief ti it skepticism is justified. I note that only one subcommit mentions the expense of official emplo: travel. In two instances where the p ;- nosed rescission included a reduction n such travel, the subcommittee approo the rescission. But yet in a third instan where such travel restriction; were eluded as a reason for reduction spending, the reduction was disapprov I can tell this body that the thought of Government employees traLpsing to con- ventions and meetings in various partt of the country depending on the seasor makes the taxpayers I represent abso- lutely irate. The request for reducticn in militar; maintenance funds was cut in half, de- spite the fact that the rationale for eves: this funding, which is to reduce the back- log of maintenance projects, could not even be supported by the identification of the exact amount of the backlog. In other words, we are mandating the ex- penditure of $60 nellion when we, don't know whether the actual needs ,'all far $10 million or $100 million. Then, despite the fact that toe De- partment of Defense does not seem to want the F-111 bomber, they will get it anyway. Because a miscalculation in costs was made in the beginning with the B-1 bomber, whose costs have aboutdou- bled since the original cost estimates of 1971, the taxpayer will be paying for both the very expensive B-1, and its back-up. the F-111. Wouldn't the wiser cc, irse be to make a determination now as to whether or not the B-1 will ultimately work out? I do not have to remind anyone of voter dissatisfaction with the Federal Government, including the Congress. Whether or not we change ;his situation depends, to a large measure, on how re- sponsibily we spend Federal tax dollars. Mr. OBER,STAR. Mr. Chairman, dur- ing the vote on the final passage of H.R. 3260, rescinding certain budget authority recommendeti by the President, I will be at a meeting in the Senate wing of the Capitol to discuss industrial-monetary exchange between the United States and Sweden with the Swedish industrial dele- gation, led by His Royal Highness Prince Bertil of Sweden and hosted by Senator HUBERT H. HUMPHRE'e. While I will be .present to vote on amendments to this bill, beeause ,of this important meeting will be unable to be present on the floor during the vote on final passage of HE. 3260. Had I been present I would have voted "aye." Mr. MILLER of Ohio. M. Chairman, this rescission bill betng considered today contains approved rescissions of slightly less than $100 million. President Ford had submitted pror osals totaling $910 million. I will support this bill since even $1 saved by a rescission is a step that is urgently needed. However, I feel very strongly that the Ccngress is not doing its job properly when only one-ninth of the proposed rescissions are approved. The budget deficits for fiscal years 1975 and 1976 are projected, at a ;minimum, to reach a total of $37 billion. What the ad- ministration has proposed here in the way of rescissions is just a drop in the bucket when compared to the overall pic- ture?and yet their request is still denied. Each of the subcommittees has heard testimony from the agencies and pro- grams affected by the proposed resils- sions to the effect that their operations will not be adversely affected by rescind- ing these funds. In spite of this testi- mony, less than 15 percent of the rescis- sions are being approved by this bill In some instances_ there has been criti- cism the t these rescissions will not have Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100190004-9 10?roved ForcL75.*IMMRpitithe9kBP1_7MIVAIR001100190004-9 11 1057 February 25, the net effect of saving money, since re- ducing operating capabilities in one area will only increase the burden in another Government-supported area. This theory has proven to be highly speculatively, with no facts to back it up. Until such time as those supporting facts are pre- sented, the presumption that the rescis- sions are indeed money-saving proposals should be adhered to. At a time when every citizen is being asked to tighten his belt and reduce fam- ily expenditures, the Federal Govern- ment cannot be expected to do any less. However, by approving such a small pro- portion of these rescissions the Congress is not acting responsibly and is failing to do its share to reduce Federal spend- ing. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time. Mr. CEDERBERG. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time. The CHAIRMAN. There being no fur- ther requests for time, the Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled., That the following rescissions of budget autherity contained in the message of the President of November 26, 1974 (H. Doc. 93-398) and as those rescissions are modified by the message of the President of January 20, 1975 (H. Doc. 94-39) and in the communication of the Comptroller General of November 6, 1974 (H. Doc. 93-391), are made pursuant to the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, namely: AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE OFFERED BY MR. MICHEL Mr, MICHEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a sub- stitute. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. MICHEL: Strike out all after the enacting clause, and Insert in lieu thereof: That the following rescissions of budget authority contained in the message of the President of November 26, 1974 (11. Doc. 93- 398) as modified by the message of the President of January 30, 1975 (H. Doc. 94- 39) and in the communication of the Comp- troller General of November 6, 1974 (H. Doc. 93-391), are made pursuant to the Impound- ment Control Act of 1974, namely: CHAPTER I DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSE VATION SERVICE WATER BANK PROGRAM Appropriations provided in the Agricul- ture-Environmental and Consumer Protec- tion Appropriation Act, 1973, 1974, and 1975 to carry into effect the provisions of the Water Bank Act (16 U.S.C. 1301-1311), are rescinded in the amount of $21,212,940. CHAPTER II DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY Appropriations provided under this head In the Department of Defense Appropriation Act, 1975, are rescinded in the amount of $41,000,000, to be derived from the sum pro- vided only for the maintenance of real property facilities. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY Appropriations provided under this head in the Department of Defense Appropriation Act, 1975, are rescinded in the amount of $27,500,000, to be derived from the sum pro- vided only for the maintenance of real prop- erty facilities. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS Appropriations provided under this head in the Department of Defense Appropriation Act, 1975, are rescinded in the amount of $5,000,000, to be derived from the sum pro- vided only for the maintenance of real prop- erty facilities. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE Appropriations provided under this head in the Department of Defense Appropriation Act, 1975, are rescinded in the amount of $40,000,000, to be derived from the sum pro- vided only for the maintenance of real prop- erty facilities. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE AGENCIES Appropriations provided only for the main- tenance of real property facilities under this head in the Department of Defense Appro- priation Act, 1975, in the amount of $100,000 for the Defense Mapping Agency, in the amount of $1,000,000 for the Defense Supply Agency, and in the amount of $800,000 for Intelligence and Communications attivities; in all: $1,900,000, are rescinded. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY RESERVE Appropriations provided under this head In the Department of Defense Appropriation Act; 1975, are rescinded in the amount of $1,800,000, to be derived from the sum pro- vided only for the maintenance of real prop- erty facilities. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY RESERVE Appropriations provided under this head in the Department of Defense ApprOpriation Act, 1975, are rescinded in the amount of $1,100,000, to be derived from the sum pro- vided only for maintenance of real property facilities. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE RESERVE Appropriations provided under this head In the Department of Defense Appropriation Act, 1975, are rescinded in the amount of $400,000, to be derived from the sum provided only for maintenance of real property facili- ties, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Appropriatiens provided under this head in the Department of of Defense Appropriation Act, 1975, are rescinded in *the amount of $1,400,000, to be derived from the sum pro- vided only for the maintenance of real prop- erty facilities. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR NATIONAL GO ARD Appropriations provided under this head in the Department of Defense Appropriation Act; 1975, are rescinded in the amount of $500,000, to be derived from the sum pro- vided only for maintenance of real property facilities. PROCUREMENT AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY Appropirations provided under this head in the Department of Defense Appropriation Act, 1975, are rescinded in the amount of $5,700,000. AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE Appropirations provided under this head in the Department of Defense Appropriation Act, 1975, are rescinded in the amount of $152,500;090. CHAPTER. III DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT HOME OWNERSHIP ASSISTANCE The limitation otherwise applicable to the total payments that may be required In any fiscal year by all contracts entered into under Sec. 235 of the National Housing Act, as amended (12 U.S.C. 1715z), is hereby re- duced by the uncommitted balances of au- thorizations heretofore provided for this pur- pose in appropriation acts. CHAPTER. IV DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR RELATED AGENCIES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTU.RE FOREST SERVICE FOREST PROTECTION AND UTILIZATION Appropriations for the fiscal year 1975 for "Forest Protection and Utilization" for "Forest Land Management" are rescinded in the amount of $10,000,000. Appropriations for the fiscal year 1975 for "Forest Protection and Utilization" for "State and Private Forestry Cooperation" are rescinded in the amount of $4,921;000. CHAPTER V DEPARTMENT OF STATE INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND CONFERENCES CONTRIBUTIONS TO INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS Appropriations provided under this head in the _Department of State Appropriation Act, 1975, are rescinded in the amount of $2,000,000. INTERNATIONAL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS ? Appropriations provided under this head in the Department of State Appropriation Act, 1975, are rescinded in the amount of $100,000. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FEDERAL BUREAU or INVESTIGATION SALARIES AND EXPENSES Appropriations provided under this head In the State, Justice, Commerce, Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 1975, are rescinded in the amount of $5,300,000. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SALARIES AND EXPENSES Appropriations provided under this head in the State, Justice, Commerce, Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 1975, are rescinded in the amount of $1,300,000. FEDERAL PRISON SYSTEM BUREAU OF PRISONS SALARIES AND EXPENSES Appropriations provided under this head is the State, Justice, Commerce, Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 1975, are rescinded in the amount of $5,250,000. BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES Appropriations provided under this head in the State, Justice, Commerce, Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 1975, are rescinded in the amount of $1,750,000. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION SALARIES AND EXPENSES Appropriations provided under this head in the State, Justice, Commerce, Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 1975, are rescinded in the amount of $2,400,000. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC STATISTICS ADMINISTRA- TION SALARIES AND EXPENSES Appropriations provided under this head in the Department of Commerce Appropria- tion Act, 1975, are rescinded in the amount of $373,000. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS Appropriations provided under this head in the Department of Commerce Appropriation Act, 1975, are rescinded in the amount of $2,000.009, Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100190004-9 ;58 Approved For Rowgingimaii 96-Tc0-371499(1K411001100199pAt 9 aril 25, 1975 Tfi,..?T)F, ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE ANC/AL AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE to opriations provided under this head 9 Department of Commerce Appropria- 1972, are rescinded in the amount 11100,000, i N ITEM STATES TRAVEL SERVICE ,;ALARTES AND EXPENSES ? pr tat ions provided under this head is Department of Commerce Appropria- t, 1975, are rescinded in the amount 0011 OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION LATIONS, RESEARCH, AND FACILITIES ' ;If) /priations provided under this head in Or !1,artment of Commerce Appropriation I /5, are rescinded in the amount of ,00: Provided, That no part of the re- Di ; scrris shall be subject to the second ot ;aid appropriation. PATENT OFFICE :NiLARIES AND EXPENSES pp.t Lpriations provided under this head i;iw Department of Commerce Appropria- '', 1975, are rescinded in the amount .370Ei MY) CHAPTER VI C. I'MENT OF THE TREASURY OE 110E OF THE SECRETARY 1.ALARIES AND EXPENSES driations provided under this head n .12 reasury, Postal Service, and General ,rn lent Appropriation Act, 1975, are re- Lies in the amount of $310,000. P A LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER ,ALARIES AND EXPENSES ,,OE .oriations provided under this head s 'reasury, Postal Service, and General 14 'rn Tient Appropriation Act, 1975, are re- m the amount of $60,000. BUREAU OF ACCOUNTS ;At,ARIES AND EXPENSES !mations provided under this head ' "reasury. Postal Service, and General rnuent Appropriation Act, 1975, are re- led ti the amount of $630.000. Z.1 ETEll STATES CUSTOMS SERVICE ,ALARIES AND EXPENSES 151 oriations provided under this head ' ' '-easury, Postal Service, and General Till tens Appropriation Act, 1975, are re- ded in the amount of $3,000,000. . NA F. REVENUE SERVICE N-ALARIES AND EXPENSES riations provided under this head 'easurv, Postal Service, and General '-'i 'en Act, 1975, are re- "i"dn the amount of $530,000. COLLECTION, AND TAXPAYER SERVICE orc,nations provided under this head ea,sury. Postal Service, and General et-it Appropriation Act, 1975, are re- -'led I he amount of 59,230.000. COIVIPLIA NCE .riw,ions provided under this head Teasury, Postal Service, and General ur lent Appropriation Act, 1975, are re- the amount of $10.240.000. iq'fr -VN OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 1,1 A,-rioN OFFICE FOR DRUG ABUSE PREVENI ION 1-(E.RNIACOLCIGICAL RESEARCH a!,ions provided under this head secutive Office Appropriation Act, 1!)-- res,inded in the amount of $2,760,-, , SPECIAL FUND T.() ,ria, ions provided under this head ? ,xecutive Office Appropriation Act. ire rescinded in the amount of $2,240 .- INDEPENDENT ;GENCIES GEN AL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION FEDERAL ?ITITILDINcS FEND Limitations on Availability of Reven e 'file amount made av 1,11able under ,,his aati in the Treasury, Postal Service, :inc.( flenere: Government A onropr iations Ict 19'15, iFz. hereby reduced in the amount of $20,022,900, which reduction shall apply -:pe- cifically to the limitation on alterations nd major repairs. Mr_ MICHEL (during: the readiry0 Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous cora ent Lbat the amendment in the nature ca. a attbstitute be considered as read -.ed. printed in the RECORD. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman Ii rn These was no objection. (-Mr. MICHEL asked and was gi . en permission to revise and extend his marks. I Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Chairman 1: ad members of the committee, there were total rescissions recommended to us in the amount of $949 million. As has been alluded to several times here, the varieus subcommittees have agreed in total to $119 million of rescissions. I propose by my amendment in the nature of a sub- stitute to agree to all the rescissions that have been proposed except for the $.134 million Hill-Burton funds which have been already released by the Depart- ment, and which the House of Repre- eentatives has alrea.ciy asserted itself a said it would not go along with t is rescission. We then find a total of $545 million co the balance of rescissions that are af- fected by my amendment in the flats. 'e of a substitute. In the Department of Agriculture 1).e water bank program, $21.2 million. In the military: Operation and maintenance for the Army, $20,500,000; Navy, $13,750,00; Marine Corps, $2.5 minion; Air Forea, $20 million. Defense agencies. $950,000. For the Army Reserve. $900.000; Nat, v Reserve, $550,000; Air Force Reserne, $200,000; Army National Guard, $700.- 000; Air National Guard. $250,000. Aircraft procurement for the Amer. $5.7 million; Aircraft procurement f..a? the Air Force, $152.5 million. In the Department of Housing a:e1 Urban Development there is $264 in lion. Forest land management, $10 millic State and private forestry cooperatiole $4,921,000. Immigration and Natumlization Ser - he. $1.3 million. Economic Development Administri. - Oen, $2 million. U.S. Customs Service, $3 million. 1,01' tile Internal Revenue Servict Salaries and expenses. $530.000; ac- counts, eanection and taxpayer servie $9,230,000; compliance, $10,240,000. That makes a total of requested reset ? sions on the part of the administration in the aniount of $545.050.940, and whicll -by way oi my amendment in the nature of a substitute. I would like to see an pression on the part of the House that we are willing to go along with these reseissions, As the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. CEDER- BERG) , said, and as has been stated in the minority views, we just do not think that we have any alternative here but to go along as best we can and save another half billion dollars when given that op- portunity. It certainly is not going to be all that tragic; when you look at the items where there is less than $1 million involved in some of the departments; I think we ought to go along with it. Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield': Mr. MICHEL. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. ROUSSELOT. I appreciate the gentlenian's yielding In the deliberations of the Commit- tee on Appropriations when these rescis- sions were requested by the President, was there any evidence that these rescis- sions would in any way greatly hamper any of these prograrnaor force any dras- tic cutbacks? Mr. MICHEL. As the gentleman well knows, I only serve on two subcotninit- tees and do not have that area of exper- tise. But when we had our full committee hearings, I was not all that impressed with the arguments :that we had to turn down the rescissions in the amount that we did in these various categories which I have menioned. I just do not have that kind of fear, and obviously the admin- istration does not either, or they would not have proposed them in the first place. Mr. ROUSSELOT. Will the gentleman yield further? Mr. MICHEL. I Yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. ROUSSELOT. I appreciate the gentleman's yielding. In other words, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. CEDERBERG) indicated, when most of these itgencies were ques- tioned on these paiticular rescissions, they complained only slightly because they wanted "this additional money." But in most cases it was shown that the re- scissions would in no way hamper these programs or cause a great depression? Mr. MICHEL. I do not think so. There may be those who would argue to the contrary. Obviously there was some com- pelling reason for their having turned them down in their various subcommit- tees. I just do not happen to have that fear. There will be a difference of opinion, whether it is on that side of the aisle or on this side. Mr. ROUSSELOT. If the gentleman will yield further, in other words:. for those Members of the House who were here last year and voted for the Budget Control Act which said we want now to begin to control this budget, arid for those people who do not want to con- tribute to this massive debt that we are going to have in this Oscal year?which we have been told will be anywhere from $35 billion-- The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired (At the request of M.7. CHARLES H. WIL- soN of California, and by unanimous con- sent, Mr. MICHEL was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.) Mr. MICHEL. I thank the gentleman. Mr. ROUSSET.,0T. if the gentleman Approved For Release 2005/12/14 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100190004-9 Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100190004-9 February 25, 1975 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE H 1059 would yield further, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Mr. Burns, told our Committee on Banking and Cur- rency last week that his estimates are that the deficit for this fiscal year is going to be far greater than $35 billion. As a matter of fact, he said it could go as high as $50 or $60 billion, the way this Con- gress is spending. So, for all of my colleagues who said they were going to support a balanced budget and were going to try to trim in those areas where we could logically trim, this is the key vote: to support my colleague's amendment; is that correct? Mr. MICHEL. I thank the gentleman. Mr. CHARLES H. WILSON of Cali- fornia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentle- man yield? Mr. MICHEL. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. CHARLES H. WILSON of Cali- fornia. I thank the gentleman for yield- ing. I wonder if my friend, the gentleman from Illinois, will explain to me what his amendment will do insofar as the Department of Defense items are con- cerned. I am particularly concerned with the aircraft procurement for the Army and the aircraft procurement for the Air Force, the $5.7 million for the UH-1H helicopter and the money for the A-7 and the F-111. Mr. MICHEL. I will say to the gentle- man from California in that particular Army, the amounts that I have alluded area of aircraft procurement for the to are $5.7 million and for the aircraft procurement in the Air Force, $1521/2 million. Mr. CHARLES H. WILSON of Cali- fornia. Is the gentleman rescinding that? Mr. MICHEL. We are agreeing to the rescission in my amendment, yes. Mr. CHARLES H. WILSON of Cali- fornia. The rescission? Mr. MICHEL. Yes. Mr. CHARLES H. WILSON of Cali- fornia. This is all rather technical, and, I want to be sure we are talking about the same things. The gentleman is elimi- nating the money for the F-111 and the A-7? Mr. MICHEL. Yes. Mr. CHARLES H. WILSON of Cali- fornia. And the Bell helicopter under this amendment? Mr. MICHEL. I am sure, of the first two? Mr. CHARLES H. WILSON of Cali- fornia. I did not hear the gentleman mention the $5.7 million. However, that is not as important. Mr. MICHEL. Yes. The $5.7 million is also included. Mr. CHARLES H. WILSON of Cali- fornia. I think this is an excellent amend- ment. I, for one, am proposing support for the amendment. I think that many other Democrats on this side who sup- ported the Budget Control Act should do the same thing. I think the only re- sponsible thing is to try and save. I have looked through here, and I cannot see any programs that are going to hurt job training or any of this type of thing that is important to my district. I think this is a very responsible thing the gentleman is doing. Mr. MICHEL. The gentleman makes a very valid contribution and I appreciate his support. Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. (Mr. ARMSTRONG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Illinois for this amendment because it puts before the body squarely the issue of whether or not we are really serious about doing something about the skyrocketing deficit or only giving it lipservice. As pointed out by the gentleman from California (Mr. ROUSSELOT) and others, many of us have gone to the people to say we want to do something about in- flation and stopping the skyrocketing budget. Here is our chance. We can do it without crippling programs by taking the modest cuts proposed by the administra- tion. It seems to me if the President and the department heads can come to us and say that they can do with $950 million less, it is a sorry performance by the Congress if we accept only 13 percent of the pro- posed reductions. I think we can and must do better than that. The amendment is right on target. There is one additional issue. After the subcommittee refused to go along with the rescission for HEW, the Department went ahead and released those funds. think they made a terrible mistake and I hope if anybody from the Department reads today's proceedings he will be on notice that some of us think the Depart- ment should have awaited final action by the Congress instead of caving in at the outset. With these remarks I am pleased to support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois and I hope others will do the same. (Mr. KEMP asked and was given per- mission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. KEMP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Michel amendment and heartily endorse his comments. The Committee on Appropriations con- sidered 39 propood rescissions of budget authority. Those proposed rescissions totaled nearly a billion dollars?$949,- 433,172. Of that amount, the committee has recommended the rescission of only $119,672,900?slightly more than 13 per- cent of the dollars under consideration. We must do better on behalf of the tax- payers of America. The budget authority recommended not to be rescinded through this bill totals $829,760,272. In that Federal spending is already far in excess of an- ticipated revenues, these funds will have to be borrowed by the Federal Govern- ment, adding to the deficit for the year and to the national public debt and tak- ing away funds needed for private bor- rowing by prospective home purchasers, businesses, industries, and so forth. That these funds will have to be bor- rowed is beyond question. In this eve- ning's edition of the Washington Star, there appears an article about the Gov- ernment having to now borrow $38 billion just to match current expenses. It says in part: UNITED STATES MAY HAVE To BORROW $38 BILLION To PAY DEBTS (By Lee M. Cohn) The Treasury now believes it may have to borrow a net $38 billion?or $10 billion more than previously estimated?to finance the budget through the end of June. The Ford administration is worried that the government may squeeze out private bor- rowers and raise interest rates?impeding the economy's recovery from recession--espe- cially if Congress enlarges the budget deficit sharply. This borrowing will have a number of effects?all detrimental to our efforts to revitalize the economy. This Nation faces Federal deficits of at least $86.5 billion in this and the next fiscal years. An extensive analysis of Feb- ruary 3, made by our distinguished and able chairman of the Committee on Ap- propriations Mr. MASON, a Member for whom I have the highest regard, shows that 2-year deficit could rise to as high as $166.6 billion. Yet, the size of Federal spending?as evidenced by the lack of action on the administration's proposed rescissions continues to mount. That deficit spending is fueling infla- ten and strangling our ability to recover from this recession. It is robbing our capital markets of the ability to create jobs. It is undercutting our ability to restore private funds for the critically sagging construction industry, especially housing construction. It is pushing up the rates of interest my constituents and others must pay on loans. It is destroying the capacity of the av- erage American family to make ends meet and to plan for the future. And, it is jeopardizing our Nation's leadership in international affairs. As we said in our minority views ac- companying the committee's report, the Congress could have done much better on this bill than rescinding only 13 per- cent. I believe the Congress can and must prove its fiscal record. It should start that process immediately. This afternoon, we have that oppor- tunity, through this amendment to re- store over a half billion of the rescis- sions proposed by the administration. If every Member views this bill and this process from solely a parochial in- terest?how it affects a congressional dis- trict or a favorite program?we will re- scind very little either today or in the months to come. I know there are items in here in which I have an interest and which I favor. But that is not the point. Today, we must decide whether the Congressional Budget Act is to have a real meaning, or whether it is to be no more than a sham. Is the Congress going to continue to tax and spend and tax some more, put- ting heavier and heavier burdens on the taxpayers, especially through the infla- tion which is a direct result of excessive Federal deficit spending and which will Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100190004-9 II FAO Approved For RgaiGit05541114AL CHAfRIAW-MOGMff 01 100190 eta) 1 Item of their purchasing power no mate ^r: how many tax rebates are en- act& ? t--)r is the Congress going to exercise ithority given to it by the Budget ..,pproving the rescissions recom- in,,nced by those certainly in a position kreav how much is not needed, and remove some of the burdens from ' becks of the people who have to foot the b cis incurred by congressionally ap- ye t Federal spending? At last notice-, taxes nad risen 25 percent in the last agner than any other segment of sae P t in the cost of living. Chairman, I urge adoption of the eitemernent to save more than a half I I_ ior dollars. ens .BURGENER, Mr. Chairman, will thf- ge .tleman yield ? " KEIVIP. Mr. Chairman, I yield to ? ntleman from California (Mr. -tee-tee), , aft BURGENER asked and was given perme sion to revise and extend his re- marks ; Tar. HURGENER. Mr. Chairman, I would , ike to associate myself with the reinan 3 of the gentleman from Michi- gan (A 'r, CEDERBERG) and the gentleman (rein &lino's (Mr. MICHEL) and the gentle/ Tian from California (Mr. Rots- actor) and the gentleman from Cali- fornia Mr. CHARLES H. Wresoer) and the eentlez tan from Colorado (Mr. ARM- rp,i;iver and the gentleman from New York (dr. Kemp) I hi ;.k now is the time when we must decide whether or not we can have it both v tys. I think we cannot. I think Pie am .ndment offered by the gentleman ia eascnable and I intend to support it. ;( hairman, I thank the gentleman for yiel ling. Mr, .