CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP77M00144R001100190004-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 35
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 14, 2005
• Sequence Number: 4
• Publication Date: February 7, 1975
• Content Type: OPEN

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, whf.ch 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 Jo.gt
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, .