CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE

Document Type: 
Collection: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0
Release Decision: 
RIFPUB
Original Classification: 
K
Document Page Count: 
63
Document Creation Date: 
December 19, 2016
Document Release Date: 
January 18, 2006
Sequence Number: 
37
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
January 26, 1976
Content Type: 
OPEN
File: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0.pdf10.53 MB
Body: 
proved FoEljAwsinpia0itt,? EbekklipP7A11/1110M4R001100210037-0 287 January 26, 19AP many instances, it has also imposed on complying firms enormous burdens, which raise business costs and consumer prices. Increasing competition from world markets and the need to maiatain and improve the standard of living of a grow- ing population require constant improve- ment of the American market system. For this reason I have asked the Congress to legislate fundamental changes in the laws regulating our railroads, airlines, and trucking firms. The new amendments will free these companies to respond more flexibility to market conditions. I have also urged deregulation of the price of natural gas and sought essential pricing flexibility for the oil and electric utilities industries. We will continue to improve all essential protection for public health and safety, trying at the same time not to increase unnecessarily the cost to the public. My object is to achieve a better combination of market competition and responsible Government regulation. The programs I have advanced in recent months have sought such a balance, and I will continue this course in 1976. Striking a new regulatory balance is likely to entail some economic and social costs during a period of transition, and changes must therefore be phased in carefully. In the long run, however, a re- vitalized market system will bring signifi- cant benefits to the public, including lower prices. While our policies focus primarily on the economy of the United States, we recognize that the range of our interests does not stop at our shores. The other major countries of the world are also recovering from the most serious reces- sion they have experienced since the 1930s. Their first economic priority, like ours, is to put their economies on a sus- tainable, noninflationary growth path. Success in this endeavor, more than any- thing else, will help developed and de- veloping countries alike achieve higher standards of living. In recent years the economies of most nations suffered from extraordinarily high inflation rates, due in large part to the quintupling of the world price for oil, and then moved into a deep recession. The simultaneity of this experience dem- onstrated once again the strong inter- dependence of the world's economies. Individual countries have become pro- gressively more dependent on each other as a freer flow of goods, services, and capital has fostered greater prosperity throughout the world. Because of this growing interdependence, however, do- mestic policy - objectives cannot be achieved efficiently unless we also take account of economic changes and policy goals in other countries. In recognition of our growing inter- dependence, I have consulted closely with the heads of other governments, in- dividually and jointly. At the Economic Summit at Rambouillet last November, I met with the heads of government of five other major industrial countries. There we laid the foundation for closer under- standing and consultation on economic policies. During 1975 we also began discussions on international cooperation with both the developed and the less de- velOped countries. This dialogue will as- sure a better mutual understanding of our problems and aspirations. Finally, I have agreed with my foreign colleagues that, in order to create the proper condi- tions for lasting and stable growth, we must take important, cooperative steps in monetary matters, trade, and energy. We have directed our trade officials to seek an early conclusion to the continu- ing negotiations on liberalization of trade. This month in Jamaica we reached significant agreements on strengthening the international mone- tary system and providing increased sup- port for the developing countries. We have also begun to cooperate more close- ly with oil-consuming countries in the effort to become less dependent on im- ported energy. I intend to consolidate and build upon this progress in 1976. Of central concern both here and abroad is U.S. energy policy. Without a vigorous and growing industry supplying domestic energy, much of our 'industrial development in the next 10 years will be uncertain. And unless we can reduce our dependency on Middle East oil, we will not have a sound basis for interna- tional cooperation in the development of new fossil fuel and other energy sources. As an initial step toward greater self- sufficiency, I signed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act in December 1975. I concluded that this act, though defi- 'dent in some respects, did provide a ve- hicle for moving us toward our energy goals. With this mechanism the price of petroleum can be allowed to rise to pro- mote domestic supply and to restrain consumption. At the end of 40 months, under the act, I may remove price con- trols altogether, and I will utilize the pro- visions of the act to move toward a free market in petroleum as quickly as is pos- sible and consistent with otir larger eco- nomic goals. The act offers flexibility, which I have already used to start dis- mantling price controls and allocation arrangements in fuel markets where no shortages exist. The legislation also es- tablishes a national strategic petroleum reserve which will make our supply of energy secure and give other nations less inducement to impose an oil embargo. Measures crucial to our energy future still remain to be enacted, however. Nat- ural gas deregulation is now the most pressing of the issues on energy before -the Congress: shortages grow year by year, while the country waits for mbre testimony on supply and demand, or waits for extremely expensive new syn- thetic gas plants to replace the natural gas production choked off by price con- trols. I urge the Congress to make de- regulation of new natural gas one of its first objectives in 1976. The legislation I have proposed in order to assure ade- quate supplies of fuel for nuclear power plants is also critical. If we are to im- prove our energy situation, these meas- ures are necessary. They will also rein- force our efforts to remove unnecessary and deleterious Government interfer- ence in economic activities where the consumer is adequately protected by market forces.. A year ago I said, "The year 1975 must be the one in which we face our economic problems and start the course toward real solutions." I am pleased with the beginning we have made. The course is a long one, but its benefits for all Ameri- cans make the journey worthwhile. The year 1976 must be one in which we will continue our progress toward a better life for all Americans. GERALD R FORD. JANUARY 26, 1976. MESSAGE FROM THE SENA .1.1, The SPEAKER laid before the House the following message from the Senate: JANTJARY 22. 1970 The Senate having proceeded Ic recon- sider the bill (S. 2360) entitled "An Act to amend the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, to include the Secretary of the Treasury as a member of the National Se- curity Council", returned y't resident of the United States with is the Senate, in which it o it s Resolved, That the sa I pass. thirds of of the Senators.. ent baring vote In the affirmative. TO AMEND NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947, AS AMENDED, TO INCLUDE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY AS MEMBER OF NA- TIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL? VETO MESSAGE FROM THE PRESI- DENT OF THE UNITED STATES (S. DOC. NO. 145) The SPEAKER laid before the House the following veto message from the Pres- ident of the United States: The message and accompanying bill referred to the Committee on Armed Services. To the Senate of the United States: I return without my approval S. 2350. a bill "To amend the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, to include the Secretary of the Treasury as a member of the National Security Council." The National Security Council is one of the most important organizations in the Executive Office of the President. The Council's function, under the law, is to advise the President with respect to the integration of domestic, foreign, and mil- itary policies relating to the national se- curity. The President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense are the statutory members of the Council. In addition, the President may, under the law, appoint by and with the advice and consent of the Senate the Secretaries and Under Secretaries of other executive departments and of the military departments to serve at his pleasure. No President has ever exercised this latter authority. In my judgment, enactment of S. 2350 is not necessary. From its establishment in 1947, each President has invited from time to time additional officers to partici- pate in National Security Council delib- erations when matters specifically relat- ing to their responsibilities have been considered. In line with this practice, the President invites the Secretary of the Treasury to participate in Council affairs when issues of substantial interest to the Department of the Treasury are involved. Thus, existing arrangements provide for Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 I'll 288 Approved For Rezimtinp3R7Ai9A-M7M9N11400110021003LOu ay 2/ 26, 1976 adequate participation of the Secretary of the Treasury in National Security Council matters. Purtherrnore, additional mechanisms eaist to assure that the President receives advise which takes into account the proper integration and coordination of domestic and international economic policy with f 3reign policy and national ;security objectives. Both the Economic Policy Board and the Council for Inter- national Economic Policy provide the President with high level advice on eco- nomic matters. The Secretary of the Treasury is the Chairman of these two :esdies on which the Secretary of State 11J.S0 serves. j: believe thit S. 2350 is undesirable as well as unnecessary. The proper con- cerns of the National Security Council extend substantially beyond the statu- tory responsibilities and focus of the ?iesicretary of the Treasury. Most issues that come be:fore the Council on a reg- !liar basis do not have significant eco- amino and monetary implications: moreover, i large number of execu- Mee deurartments and agencies have key responsibilities for programs affecting international economic policy. From time to time these programs influence importantly cur foreign policy and na- tional securit ir decisions. The Treasury Department does not and could not rep- sesent all those interests. Extending full statutory membership on the National Security Council-to the Secretary of the .-ereaeury woad not achieve the purpose of bringing to bear on decisions the full :range of international economic consid- erations, teir these several reasons. I am con- seemed that incressing the statutory ..nernioersilip of the Council might well diminish its flexibility and usefulness as a most important advisory mechanism Or the President. ' In sum. S. 2350 is unnecessary, since adequate arrangements for providing ad- i:o the President on the integration of economic End foreign policy already ;exist, and it is undesirable because the oroposect arrangement is inconsistent 'slash the purposes of the National Secu- eity Council and would lessen the current arid desirable flexibility of the President arranging for advice on the broad iisiectrum of katernational and national policy matters. GERALD R. FORD. WsrTs ETOUSE, December 31, 1975. The SPEAKER. The objections of the President will be spread at large upon 1.0 Journal. ? 'Jr PRICE. Mr. Sneaker, I ask unani- mous consent that the message, together with the accompanying bill, be referred to the Commi,-,tee on Armed Services. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to .request 3f the gentleman from idols? -Tesiere was no objection. 1;;,ECIAL ORDER ON SELECT COM- MITTEE'S RECEIVING TOP-SE- clarsiT INFORMATION (Mr. McCLORY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Speaker, I mit rely wish to advise the Members of the H use that I will be taking a special ordi - at the conclusion of House business tiay for the purpose of discussing and set. Mg forth in the RECORD the exchange of or- respondence and the agreements eith the executive branch which resulteA in the House select committee's recei, ing confidential, secret, and top-secret in- formation. In my ()onion. the age ee- ments?and the procedures adoptet by the committee which resulted in our re- ceipt of such classified material rem ins binding on the committee. I want to call this to the attentio of the Members of the House so that ley can decide what, if any, action shout. be taken with respect to the proposed 1, th- lication of this material. I will pro4 ed with this special order at the conclu on of the House business today. EXPRESSING APPRECIATION I 41) ADMIRATION TO CLARENCE M. MITCHELL, JR. Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, I orb - resolution (H. Res. 976) and ask foi its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as ' d - lows: H. Ri:s. 76 Whereas Clarence M. Mitchell, Jr., of M 7 land, has labored tirelessly for more Ulan four decades for the right of all America/ to share equally the blessin-s of the Const 'u- tion; Whereas since becoming director of ,he Washington Bureau of the National A w- elation for the Advancement of Colored ple in 1950 his efforts have been instrume tal in achieving passage of every major leg la- *Ave act designed to guarantee ecuality UL ler he law for all citizens of race; Whereas his patience. d:gnity, courage, nd Integrity have resulted in remarkable ef- fectiveness in his work and won the res ect of his fellow Americans; Whereas his abiding fal-,h in the Const u- tional process and rejection of racism are manifestations of the democratic systen at Its finest; Whereas hundreds of his friends will ga ier in Washington. D.C. on January 27, 1971 to pay tribute to him: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That It is the sense of the 1-1,as that? (1) sincere appreciation and admira on be expressed to Clarence 51, Mitchell, Jr. on behalf of the people of the United St ::es of America; and (2) as Clarence M. M..tchell, Jr., car les forward his work for social justice among his fellow citizens, he continues to prospei in good health. Mr. RHODES. Mr. Speaker, it is .n- deed a great personal honor for mc to join with my good friend, the majoeity leader, in sponsoring a resolution to ex- press the appreciation and adrniraOon which this body feels toward Clare ice M. Mitchell, Jr., of the State of Ma .7- and. Clarence Mitchell has been a leader in the field of civil rights for many years, long before the public conscience realised fully the injustices which black Arra :l- eans were fored to endure. It was largely through the efforts of indhiduals such as Clarence Mitchell that Congress finally made its critically impertant commitment to the proposi- tion that race has no place in American life, that full equality is more than a cliche; ik is the rockbed upon which Americaff society is built. It is entirely appropriate that he be honored?for his courage, conviction, and dignity?in this bicentennial year whet we are rediscovering and rearticu- lating the wide range of liberties which we hold so dear. I salute Clarence Mitchell, Jr., for ail the great work he has done in the past, as will as for the equally important work he will do in the years ahead. Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Speaker, I join with the distinguished majority and mi- nority leaders in support of this resolu- tion. Clarence Mitchell is one of the real statesmen of our time. For many years as a civil rights leader and more recently as a U.S. delegate to the United Nations, he has rendered distinguished service to our country. In both instances he has shown wisdom and courage in the pur- suit of human rights. Recent American history is marked by our progress as a society toward equality of opportunity for all Americans. These advances bear the imprint of Clarence Mitchell's lead- ership. Because of his efforts, the United States is a better place for all its citizens. His recent service as part of the U.S. delegation has helped to advance our ef- forts toward the protection of human rights of all peoples throughout the world. His remarks in the United Nations have represented reason and responsibility in a body often characterized by demagogu- ery. Els reputation as a man of integrity and dignity added weight to those re- marki, credibility to our Nation's identi- fication with the rights and aspirations of the world's repressed, and stature to our delegation. Since becoming director of the Wash- ington Bureau of the National Associa- tion for the Advancement of Colored People in 1950, he has striven with seem- ingly tireless energy in support of the protection of the rights of all Americans. His reasoned approaches to the means by which these rights can be protected and enhanced C.921 be found in bills passed by this body and enacted into law. jcin with my colleagues and many millions of other Americans in expressing my appreciation for the leadership and courage of Clarence Mitchell. The resolution was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid ca the table. GENERAL LEAVE Mr. O'NETLL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of the resolution to express appreciation and admiration to Clarence M. Mitchell, Jr. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 United States of America Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 Congressional Record 1h PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 04 CONGRESS SECOND SESSION Vol. 122 1??????111=1, WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, JANUARY 22, 1976 No. 4 House of Representatives The House met at 12 o'clock noon. DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. O'NEILL) laid before the House the fol- lowing communication from the Speaker: WASHINGTON, D.C., January 22, 1976. I hereby designate the Honorable Tuonvis P. O'NEILL, JR., to act as Speaker pro tern- pore today. CARL ALBERT, Speaker of the House of Representatives. PRAYER The Chaplain, Rev. Edward G. Latch, D.D. offered the following prayer: God is love and he who abides in love abides in God and God abides in him.?I John 4: 16. Our Father God, grant that during the days of this year we may be filled with Thy love, the love that never lets us go and never lets us down, but always seeks to keep us on Thy way, doing Thy will, and obeying Thy word. We confess to Thee the sins we have committed, the mistakes we have made, and the faults we have developed. We are not too proud of the record of our lives, nor the way we have handled our- selves in times of trouble, nor our re- sponse to the needs of our people. Forgive us, 0 God, for our blindness of heart and our stubbornness of spirit. Humbly now we open our lives to receive the miracle of Thy forgiveness and Thy love. Send us out into this new day restored to Thee, redeemed by Thy grace and renewed by Thy spirit, ready for the work that needs to be done. In the spirit of the Master, we pray. Amen. THE JOURNAL The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has examined the Journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof. Without objection, the Journal stands approved. There was no objection. A NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER FOR THE MISSING IN SOUTHEAST ASIA (Mr. MONTGOMERY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to my colleagues' attention a proclamation issued by President Ford yesterday which calls for a national day of prayer this coming Sunday, January 25, for the American military and civilian personnel still unaccounted for in Southeast Asia. I commend the President for this action and for calling attention to the unknown fate of our MIA's. As chairman of the House Select Com- mittee on Missing Persons in Southeast Asia, I am very much aware of the enormous task we have ahead of us in achieving a full accounting and securing the return of remains of known dead. However, we feel that our meetings in Paris, Hanoi, and Vientiane have been fruitful and have set us on the right course to gain the information we desire. We shall continue to press ahead in the months to come. I urge my colleagues to join in the national day of prayer for our MIA's this Sunday and to continue their in- dividual efforts on behalf of the missing. INTRODUCTION OF THE FOREIGN PARAMILITARY INTERVENTION ACT (Mr. SCHEUER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. SCHEUER. Mr. Speaker, on De- cember 12, 1975, CIA Director William Colby, in testimony before the House In- telligence Committee, acknowledged the paramilitary nature of his Agency's ac- tivities in Angola. Subsequently, press reports have indicated that our involve- ment is in the nature of civilian air spot- ters and ground advisers. Yet, had these CIA personnel been members of the U.S. military, rather than civilians, the Pres- ident, under section 4(a) (1) of the war powers resolution, would have been obli- gated to report that fact to the Congress, and if the Congress failed to authorize those activities within 90 days, those mil- itary advisers would have had to have been withdrawn. Many in Congress will no doubt feel that a modest paramilitary operation is justified * * * that the risks are not as great as they might appear at first blush * I * that the deepwater ports of An- gola and the protection of shipping lanes from the Persian Gulf are important enough to warrant greater involvement by the United States. Others will differ. Whether or not one favors or opposes Involvement in Angola, what is important is that Congress exercise its constitu- tional mandate on matters involving war and peace. It is important that Congress, after carefully considering the risks, either authorize or stop our involvement In Angola and in future paramilitary activities. Therefore, I am today introducing the Foreign Paramilitary Intervention Act which will amend the war powers reso- lution by making it applicable in cases where agents or employees of the United States are engaged in hostilities in a for- eign country or are advising foreign mili- tary forces engaged in hostilities. NEW YEAR'S EVE SPEECH BY DR. BILLY GRAHAM (Mr. HUBBARD asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HUBBARD. Mr. Speaker, millions of Americans listened to the famed and beloved evangelist, Dr. Billy Graham, on nationwide television this past New Year's Eve. Several of the Members of Congress have referred to this excellent and timely religious message subsequent to our return to Washington. In order that each Member of Congress and others might have the chance to read this message from Dr. Billy Graham, I am sharing this in the CONGRFSSIONAL RECORD and it will appear in full in the Extensions of Remarks today. His message was entitled "Our Bi- centennial." 11 189 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 190 Approved For ReleftiC211111681100.7A:ICIIAEREMI P.4001144.13e011 0021 00 Va-Qua r y 22. 19'1: PRWILEGES OF THE HOUSE?SUB- L'ENA IN CASE OF BOSTON PNEU- MATICS. INC. AGAINST INGER- SOLL-RAND CO. Mr, McDA.DE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to question oi the privileges of the House. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. erNsirt.r.). Toe gentleman will state it. Mr. McDA.DE. Mr. Speaker, I have subnenaed by the U.S. District rennet ror the District of Columbia to eopear at th a office of Stassen, Kostos "[aeon, 450 :i7ederal Bar Building West, iiershington, D.C., on January 26, 1976, at 10 a.m., tc testify on behalf of Boston Pneumatics, [nc., at the taking of a depo- sition in the case of Boston Pneumatics. line. against Ingersoll-Rand Co., civil action No. 73-1729, now pending in the ae,S. District Court for the Eastern Dig- Act of Pennsylvania. Under the precedents of the House, I am unable to comply with this subpena without the consent of the House, the j)rivileges of the House being involved. 1, therefore, submit the matter for the consideration of this body. Mr Speaker, I send the subpena to the desk. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk. will read the subpena. The Clerk read as follows: )iii the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action Pile, U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 72-1729; I'S 76-0013.1 Boston Pneumatics, Inc. vs. Ingersoll- nand Company. ) Joseph M. McDade, United States House of Representatives, 2202 Rayburn House _Juilding, Washington, D.C. You are commanded to appear at the of- cc if Stassen Kostos and Mason, 450 Fed- oral Bar Build ng West in the city of Wash- gton on the 26th day January, 1976, at 0:00 o'clock AM. to testify on behalf of Plaintiff, Boston Pneumatics, Inc. at the taking of a de oosition in the above entitled action pending in the United States District 0Jurt for the Eastern District of Pennsyl- vania and bring with you any written cor- respondence tetween your office and the Ir.gersoll-Rand Company and between your orace and the General Services Administra- tt,n, regardinv allegations of violations of tae Buy-Ameri:tan Act by Boston Pneumatics during the period around July 1969 to July lazednj Janua -y 16. 1976. uvins F. DAVEY. Clerk ' tAny B. DravEas, Deputy Clerk. tar subpoenaed organization not a party to this. Suit is hereby admonished pursuant 30(b) (6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to file a designation with the curt specifying one or more officers, direc- tors, or manag ing agents, or other persons il0 3onsent to testify on its behalf, and set forth for each person designated, ,ratters on which he will testify or pro- dare or things. The persons so deAguated sha:I testify as to matters known or reasonably 4vailable to the organization. McFALL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 971) and acic for its immediate consideration. 'lTh.s Clerk read the resolution as fol- lea's H. RES. 971 Whereas Representative Joseph M. Mc- Dade, a Member of this House. has been v- red with a subpena issued by the United Br States District Court for the Distri t of Columbia to appear at the office of St.tssen, Kostos and Mason, 450 Federal Bar Build- ing West, Washington, D.C., on the 26th of January, 1976, at 10:00 AM. to testify on behalf of Boston Pneumatics, Inc., a' the taking of a deposition in the case of 13; .ston Pneumatics, Inc. against Ingersoll. :land Company, civil action number 72-1729. now pending in the United States District eourt for the Eastern District of Pennsyh-.4nia; and Whereas by the privileges of the Hot: e no Member is authorized to appear and t Airy but by the order of the House: Ther?-tbre, be it Resolved, That Repre entative Josei h M. McDade is authorized to appear in rea:Lanse to the subpena of the United States Di trict Court for the District of Columbia to t;-?;dify at the taking of deposition in the ca e of Boston Pneumatics, Inc. against ingei-,,o11- Rand Company at such time as when the House is not sitting in session; and " is it further Resolved, That as a respectful answ?r to the subpena a copy of this resolutic.; be submitted to the said court. The resolution was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid oi the table. PERMISSION FOR COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COM- MERCE TO HAVE UNTIL IID- NIGHT TOMORROW, JANUAR': 23, 1976, TO FILE CONFERENCE .3,E- PORT ON S. 2718 Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that the Comm. ttee on Interstate and Foreign Comm erce may have until midnight tomorrow, Jan- uary 23, 1976, to file a conference re- port on the Senate bill S. 2718. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is t 'ere objection to the request of the gei tle- man from West Virginia? There was no objection. MOTOR VEHICLE INFORMATi ON AND COST SAVINGS ACT AME"ID- MENTS OF 1975 Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, bo, di- rection of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 967 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as 'o1- lows: RES i67 Resolved, That upon the adoption of .his resolution it shall be in order to move 'hat the House resolve itself into the Comm tee of the Whole House on the State of the U tion for the consideration of the bill (HR. 1007) to amend the Motor Vehicle Information Ind Cost Savings Act to authorize appropriat ,ns, to provide authority for enforcing proL,b1- tions against motor vehicle odometer tam er- ing, and for other purposes. After generai de- bate, which shall be confined to the bill Ind shall continue not to exceed one hour, t be equally divided and controlled by the cl Or- man and ranking minority member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign C,.m- inerce, the bill shall be read for amencln..nt under the five-minute rule. At the conclm ion of the consideration of the bill for ametd- inent, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendment as may have been adopted. and the prey. els question shall be considered SS ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final pas,-.ige without intervening motion except one 10- tion to recommit. After the passage of 10807. the Committee on Interstate and For - eign Commerce shall be discharged from tit further consideration of the bill S. 1518, an it shall then be in order in the House to moi to strike out all after the enacting clause t the said Senate bill and insert in lieu there( the provisions provisions contained in HR. 10307 ; passed by the Reuse. The SPEAKER pro tern pore. The gen - tleman from Massachusetts is recognize for 1 hour. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I vi.)1-1:. minutes to the gentleman from Oh ) (Mr LATTA) , pending which I yield - self such time as I may consume. (Mr. MOAKLEY asked and was give. ) pen-Me:ion to revise and extend hti r. marks.) Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 967 makes in order considera- tion of H.R. 1()807, a bill to amend tit s Motor Vehicle Information and Cos Savings Act. This is an open rule providing for hour of genera], debate. I would like to commend our distin guished colleague from California (Mt VAN DEERLIN) , chairman of the Subcom rnittee on Consumer Protection and Fl nanee. for the outstanding work he any his colleagues have done in bringing thi legislation before us. H.R. 10807 will strengthen existing la-, prohibiting odometer tampering. Man) States?including Massachusetts?hay enacted very tough laws in this area. Bu Federal action is essential because st large a segment of the used car marke involves interstate commerce. Once a CP crosses State lines in the wholesal market, the State laws collapse. Even i the buyer and seller both live in State with strict laws, Federal action is neces sary to protect buyers in interstate sales This legislation will also be of invalu- able aid to consumers in making in formed decisions in car buying by re- quiring that information be available or the comparative crashworthines,s o automobiles. House Resolution 967 will dischargi the Committee on Interstate and For - iegn Commerce from further consider- ation of S. L518 and provides tha it shall be in order to move to strike ali after the enacting clause of S. 1518 and insert in lieu thereof the provisions of H.R. 10807 as passed by the House. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule so that the House may proceed tc - consider this legislation. Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield my- self such time as I may consume. (Mr. LATTA asked and was given per- mission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker as previously explained, this rule provides for 1 hour of general debate on H.R. 10807, trig Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Sav- ings Act Amendments of 1:)75, and that, the bill shall be open to all germane amendments. The purpose of this bill is to authorize funds to carry out the Motor Vehicle In- formation and Cost Savings Act for fiscal years 1976 and 1977, and to amend the act to provide authority for enforcing prohibitions against motor vehicle odom- eter tampering. The estimated cost of this bill is Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 94rEc CONGRESS ta 21) SESSION 1..t. in. 11476 IN TILE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES .1 A NITAIt. Y 22, 1976 Mr. SCHEUE/1 il1tEOC111Ced the. -following bill; which was referred to the Com- mittee on Internatiunal Relations A BILL To amend the War Powers Resolution to make such resolution applicable in cases where agents or employees of the fruited States are engaged in hostilities in a foreign country or are advising foreign military forces engaged in hostilities'. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 2 tines of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 That this Act may be cited as the "Foreign Paramilitary 4 Intervention Act". 5 SEC. 2. Section 8 of the War Powers Resolution is 6 amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 7 subsection: 8 "(e) Any person in any foreign country who is em - 9 ployed by, under contract to, or under the direction of any Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 del/A11111(111 411. agVII(*.\- 1/1 flu C I td Stall Government and 1-4 110r ( ) !(Ntilit1( :?41(*11 fOreioll country, or (0) nth i-i t ? ' Aar 0) irregular military 10rees einra!,141 in 11(011F 1.1 ( 'Pig!! CCIII1 rry_ deellled 10 lie a nwitilocrI ?(1 stnir, rmcd Forces for the purposes of 1IH ioint reso!inion," a) Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 S 352 For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R0011002 -0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE YJanuary 22, 1976 NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP FOR THE SECRE- TARY OF THE TREASURY?VETO The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. STAFFORD). Under the previous order, the hour of 12:30 p.m. having arrived, the Senate will now proceed to the con- sideration of the President's veto mes- sage on- S. 2350, which the clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: Veto message on S. 2350, a bill to amend the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, to include the Secretary of the Treasury as a member of the National Secu- rity Council. (The text of the President's veto mes- sage is printed on page S2 of the CON- GRESSIONAL RECORD Of January 19, 1976.) The Senate proceeded to consider the bill. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques- tion is, Shall the bill pass, the objections of the President of the United States to the contrary notwithstanding? Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally charged against both sides. The PRESIDING 0.torICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will call the roll. The second assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I rise in support of the President's veto of S. 2350, a bill to amend the National Security Act of 1947. I think we can all understand that there is some merit in having the Secre- tary of the Treasury serve on the Na- tional Security Council. Certainly the position of the United States in the world economy, the integrity of the dol- lar, and our trade balances are all mat- ters that are involved in national secu- rity, because national security does not Involve military and political security alone, but involves economic security as well. But I think in this instance the point the President has made is well taken, that he is denied some degree of flex- ibility which he feels he must have so far as the National Security Council is concerned. The National Security Council in its particular responsibilities, by definition, does not frequently deal with economic and financial matters; it deals primarily with military and political matters, and it has been the custom and the practice to invite the Setretary of the Treasury to sit on deliberations of the Council when financial or economic matters are involved. I think we must consider, then, the peculiar function of the National Secu- rity Council as being primarily oriented toward military matters and secondar- ily political matters, and note that there is in existence the Council on Interna- tional Economic Policy, over which the Secretary of the Treasury presides; and that is the entity that is responsible for international economic planning and economic concern. The Secretary of the Treasury quite properly does preside over that council. It does not seem to me that we should dilute the Secretary of the Treasury in terms of his ability to exercise his many responsibilities by adding on to the Sec- retary of the Treasury yet another re- sponsibility, which is service on the Na- tional Security Council, when matters that come within the province of his - office are not frequently or often taken up in the National Security Council. I -think it suffices that we have a Council on International Economic Planning, of which the Secretary of the Treasury is very much a part. I might note that if we mandated by statute the membership of the Secretary of the Treasury on the National Security Council, we perhaps might have to take it a step further and mandadte member- ship on the Council on the part of others .,who are concerned with international economic matters. The Secretary of Agriculture, for example, is very much concerned about the international eco- nomy, because he is in the business of trying to promote markets for the export of American food and fiber abroad. We could go on, perhaps, and note that the heads of other executive departments could have some interest in what goes on In the National Security Council. But that would be unwieldy, and I think the more we (lo this kind of thing, the more it reduces the flexibility we give the Presi- dent. -- Certainly the National Security Coun- cil does not operate in a vacuum. It does call in, from time to time, people who are involved in various concerns that might be under consideration or discus- sion in the Council. I think this flexibility has worked out quite well, and I t ee no point in mandating the membership of the Secretary of the Treasury on the Na- tional Security Council when, if the President should desire, he can sit in on the National Security Council when mat- ters within the purview of his responsi- bility are under consideration. I hope the Senate will sustain the President's veto. Mr. SYIVIINGTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during this debate, Mr. David Raymond and Mr. Paul Donnelly of my staff be allowed the privilege of the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, I have held two positions on the National Seeurity Council in the past. One was as Secretary of the Air Force. It was wrong that the three Secretaries of the services should have been on the National Secu- rity Council, because that made them equal with the Secretary of Defense; so we were rightfully removed 2 years after the Council had started functioning in 1947. Later I was chairman of the National Security Resources Board, and there- fore, had an opportunity to present the economic picture. The only reason at that time the Secretary of the Treasury was not a statutory member of the council was because the Secretary of the Treas- ury, the Honorable John W. Snyder, was so close to the President that they would not have-had a meeting getting his ad- vice on economic matters. Yesterday, I made a talk on this sub- ject on the Senate floor. I now have a very brief r?m?f the reasons fm my position. Incidentally, many Senators on both sides of the aisle voluntarily co- sponsored this legislation, although I did not ask for any cosponsors. As I mentioned, the bill has no other purpose than to strengthen the National Security Council whose membership today is limited to but four members; in addition to the President and the Vice President, only the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense. By adding the Secretary of the Treas- ury as a third cabinet member on this Council, we would be insuring that in the highest advisory body to the President on national security, our vital economic and financial interests would be consid- ered in these important NSC delibera- tions. Let us recall the purpose of the Na- tional Security Council as it is described in the law which established it, the Na- tional Security Act of 1947. This act says the purpose of the National Security Council is "to advise the President with respect to the integration of domestic, foreign, and military policies relating to the national security." It is incredible that in matters such as the sale of grain, for example, the price of oil, and the international monetary fund agreement which was entered into by 128 nations in Jamaica a few weeks ago, there should be no representative on the National Security Council involved In these problems, or that the President would not have the benefit of the advice of his highest man on fiscal and mone- tary matters. Let me repeat, the purpose of the Council is "to advise the President with respect to the integration of domestics, foreign, and military policies relating to the national security." As mentioned, any meaningful consid- eration of domestic, foreign, and military policies relating to the national security would include fiscal?economic?consid- erations, as these relate to both our do- mestic well-being and foreign relations. This was precisely the thinking of two Presidential commissions, the Hoover Commission in 1949 and the Murphy Commission in 1975. In a special report on national security organization, the Hoover Commission emphasized the fundamental importance of economic representation on the Na- tional Security Council: The National Security Act of 1947 con- templates that the National Security Coun- cil should weigh our foreign risks and com- mitments against our domestic and military strength and bring them into realistic bal- ance. . . . The President should be able to access the impact of any plans and programs upon the nation as a whole. Since the Hoover report, when, inci- dentally, there were seven members on the National Security Council, includ- ing, as I mentioned, the position I once held, Chairman of the National Security Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 bollary 22, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SEN ATE General LeMay returned to the United States al, year later and became commander ef SAC. Be held thia position until 1957 when he Was appointed Vice Chief of Staff of the iJolted States Air Force. Be became Chief of :ittalf of the United States Air Force in July 04,1 He served in this capacity until his m- ire aeut in Februal y 1965. GEN, TH )MAS S. POWER .11Lt7/ 1, 1957-November 30, 1964 .0.,neral Thomas S. Power became Corn- :nauder in Chief 0 the Strategic Air Corn- :nand (SC) on Ju y 1, 1957. In August 1960, assumed an additional duty as Director of he newly created Joint Strategic Target 'lat,nirtg Staff. laider his corm-rand, SAC's nuclear deter- vent terce was expanded and improved. The a an mend became a a all-jet bomber force in- 'esgrated with intercontinental ballistic mis- ailes. General Power initiated action to in- ,rease the commani effectiveness by having he bombers and missiles on 15-minute around aaert. He also tested and put into hying the airborne zalert program, in which a certain number of bombers were maintained as the air at all times. Prior to becominy Commander in Chief of '3ACL. General Powcr served three veers as 'commander of the Air Research and Develop- ment Command. F:e served as Vice Com- mander of SAC from 1948 to 1954. General Power's military career began in toebruary 1928 in the Air Corps flying school. ,early in his career, he served as an Army air mail operations pilot, as a flying instructor at Randolah Field. Texas, and as an engineer- 0'1.g and armament officer at Nichols Field, in .he Goring World War IL General Power first combat as a B-24 pilot with the 304th Bomb Wing in Notth Africa and Italy. In August 1944 he was awned commander of the 1--?29 equipped 314th Bomb Wing which he moved subsequently to Guam as part of the 21st Bomber Command. On March 9, 1945 he led the first large-scale fire bomb raid on 'okyo, ithtiating revolutionary new tactics helped to spe ad the end of the air war in the Pacific. in August 1945 General Carl Spaatz, then mnrnanding general of the United States Strategic Air Force5 in the Pacific, selected 'General Power as hi a Deputy Chief of Opera- tions. He served in this capacity during the 40:01THC bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Naga- atki. In 1946, General Power participated in e.e 'Crossroads" ate mic bomb tests at Bikini Atoll as Assistant Deputy Task Force Com- mander for Air. After the atomic weapons tests, he served le Deputy Assistan; Chief of Air Staff for Operations in Washington and later as Air Attache in London. General Power served as Commander in thief of SAC until November 30, 1964 when was succeeded lav General John D. Ryan. General Power retir.ld from the military on iccember 1, 1964. lie died on December 6, )79 of she age of 65, GEN. ,TC HN D. RYAN 1, 1964?January 31, 1967 General John D. Ryan culminated over 17 is of command End staff assignments in the Strategic Air Command by becoming the Commander in Chiea of SAC on December 1, 11114, General Ryan's Mat SAC assignment was April 1946 with the 58th Bombardment Wing at Carswell AFB, Texas. While assigned to the 58th Bomb "Ming he participated in Lae Bikini. Atoll atomic weapons tests as aastatant Chief of Staff for Plans for the ma. He later becarr e Director of Operations for Ftghth Air Force at Carswell APB. lie. commanded tee 509th Bombardment Wing at Walker APB, New Mexico, from 1948 to 1951 and the 97th Bombardment Wing and 810th Air Division at Briggs AFB, Texas, from 1951 to 1953. He was 19th Air Division commander at Carsa ell APB. Texas_ for three years before becoming Director of Materiel for Headquarters SAC in June 1956. General Ryan assumed command of SAC's Sixteenth Air Force in Spain in 1960. He re- turned to the United States in July 1961 to command the Second Air Force at Barksdale AFB, Louisiana. After one year as Inspector General of the U.S. Air Force, General Ryan came back into SAC as Vice Commander in Chief. In Decem- ber 1964 he became Commander in Chief of SAC. He held this position until February 1967 when he was assigned as Commander in Chief of Pacific Air Forces. While he was Commander in Chief, the Strategic Air Command became actively in- volved in the United States military action in Southeast Asia_ The command's B-52s be- gan bombing enemy positions in South Viet- nam in support of ground troops. At the same time, SAC KC-135 tankers provided air refueling support for SAC bombers and all types of tactical fighter missions in South- east Asia. ? General Ryan was instrumental in the con- tinued improvement and modernization of the command's forces. While he was in com- mand. SAC received the new swing-wing FB-111 bomber and replaced the 11-47 and older B-52 bombers. The command also phased out the Atlas and older Minuteman I intercontinental ballistic missiles, replacing them with the more modern Minuteman II and Titan IT missiles. From SAC, General Ryan went to com- mand the Pacific Air Forces and became Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force in August 1968. The following year he was appointed Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force, a position he held until his retirement on August 1, 1978. GEN. BRUCE K. HOLLOWAY August 1, 1968?April 30, 1972 General Bruce K. Holloway served as Com- mander in Chief of the Strategic Air Com- mand from August 1, 1968, to April 30, 1972. A graduate of the United States Military Academy in 1937, he received his pilot wings at Kelly Field, Texas, the following year. From 1933 to 1940 ae served with the Sixth Pursuit Squadron and 18th Pursuit Group in Hawaii before taking a post-graduate course in aero- nautical engineering at the California In- stitute of Technology. Shortly after the United States entered World War IT, he went to Chunking, China, as a fighter pilot with the famed "Flying Tigers" of the American Volunteer Group. Remain- ing with that group after it became the Army Air Force's 23d Fighter Group, he became its Commander before returning to the United States in 1944. During, that tour in China, General Holloway earned status as a fighter ace, shooting down 13 Japanese planes. General Holloway took command of the Air Force's first Jet-equipped fighter group (1st Fghter Group) in 1946. As commander of the unit, he performed pioneer service in the new field of tactical jet air operations. After graduation from the National War College in 1951, he progressed through key staff assignments in both operations and de- velopment fields at United States Air Force Headquarters. Later, as Director of Opera- tional Requirements, he played a key role in preparing and evaluating proposals for many of our present aircraft and missiles. He spent four years in the Tactical Al Command (TAC) as Deputy Commander of both the 9th and 12th Air Forces and in 1961 was named Deputy Commander in Chief of the U.S. Strike Command at MacDill APB, Florida. Later in that assignment, he also fulfilled additional responsibilities as Dep- uty Commander in Chief of the Middle East/ Southern Asia and Africa South of the Sahara Command. S 351 General Holloway assumed command of the United States Air Forces in Europe in July 1965, servine in that capacity until his ap- pointment as Vice Chief of Staff of the Canted States Air Force on August 1, 1966. He retired from the United States air Force on April 30, 1972. GEN. JOHIC C. MEYER May 1, 1972--July 1, 1974 General John C. Meyer, the leading Amer- ican ace in Europe during World War IL became the seventh Commander in Chief of the Strategic Air Command on May 1, 1972. He began his military career in the Air Corps in November 19119. In July 1940 he was commissiened as a second lieutenant and awarded pilot wings. In July 1943 he commanded the 487th Fighter Squadron and led it into combat during World War II. :By the end of the year he had flown over 200 combat missions and recorded 371/2 aircraft destroyed in the air and on the ground. After World War Ti he returned to the United States as the Secretary of Air Force's principal point of contact with the House of Representatives_ In 1950 he assumed com- mand of the 4th Fighter Group at New Castle, Delaware. He led this F-86 Sabrejet group to Korea where the unit flew in the 1st United Nations Counter-offensive and Chinese Communist Forces Spring Offensive campaigns. General Meyer destroyed two communist MIG-15 aircraft during his tour of duty in Korea. General Meyer was assigned to the Slate.- tegic Air Command in 1959 as commander of the 57th Air Division at Westover AFB, Mas- sachusetts. In 1961 he became the 45th Air Division commander at Loring AFB, Maine. In 1962 General Meyer came to Strategic Air Command Headquarters as Deputy Di- rector of Plans, and as Chief Strategic Air Command Representative to the Joint Stra- tegic Target Planning Staff. From SAC, General Meyer served as Com- mander of the Tactical Air Command's 12th Air Force. After over two years in TAC, he was assigned to the Jcant Chiefs of Staff. as Deputy Director, Vice Director and later as Director of Operations. In August 1969 he became Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force. He served in this position until May :1972 when he became Commander in Chief of SAC. As SAC Commander General Meyer di- rected SAC's efforts during the peak period of SAC's combat involvement in Southeast Asia, which included the climatic LINE- BACKER II operation. During that 11-day air campaign in December 1972, SAC B-52 bomb- ers struck military targets in the Hanoi and Haiphong area of the Republic of North Vietnam. Soon after LINEBACKER II a peace agreement was reached in Vietnam. General Meyer retired from active military service on August 1, 1974. SAC CONSULTATION COMMITTEE Harold W. Andersen, J. D. Anderson, John ff. Becker, IViaj. Gen. Timothy J. Dacey, Jr.. USAF, Ret.. Leo A. Daly. Robert B. Daugherty, John D. Diesing, Charles W. Durham, Kermit Hansen, John C. Keneflck, Peter Kiewit, John R. Lauritzen, Edward W. Lyman, Jack A. MacAllister, Morris F. Miller, Nick T. Newberry, Julius I. Novak, Charles D. Feebler, Jr., J. R. Reif- schnelder, V. J. Skutt, A. V. Sorensen, Arthur C. Storz, Robert H. Store, Willis A. Strauss, A. F. Jacobson, Chairman. CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further morning business? If not, morn- ing business is closed. Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 January 22, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE Resources Board, who brought economic representa2on to the Council, today there are only these four members on this Council, and no economic representation. Now let us consider the final recom- mendation of the Murphy Commission, that Presidential Commission on the Or- ? ganization of Government for the Con- duct of Foreign Policy, which was estab- lished by President.Nixon in 1972. In its June, 1975 final report, this Com- mission stated: Increasingly, economic forces define the strength or weakness of nations, and eco- nomic issues dominate the agenda of inter- national negotiation. National Security poli- cy is no longer simply a mix of diplomatic and military affairs; properly understood, na- tional security embraces economic policy too. Accordingly, the membership of the National Security Council should be expanded to in- clude the Secretary of the Treasury, and its jurisdiction expanded to include major issues of international economic policy-making. On October 2, 1975, the Senate Armed Services Committee, after holding hear- ings, unanimously approved and recom- mended that the Secretary of the Treas- ury be placed on the National Security Council. On October 9, this bill unanimously passed the Senate, with bipartisan sup- port, including majority .and minority leaders among the cosponsors. On December 9, the House Armed Services Committee, after holding their hearings, also unanimously approved and recommended that the Secretary of the Treasury be placed on the National Se- curity Council; thereupon, on December 17, this bill unanimously passed the House of Representatives. ' Then, as we know, on New Year's eve, President Ford vetoed this bill. The Wall Street Journal had, reported on December 12 that Secretary Kissinger had objected to placing the Secretary of the Treasury on the National Security Council. I do not wish to be critical of the Sec- retary of State, but sometimes, as I watch the amount of money that we are putting out in an effort, as I see it, to buy the peace, which perhaps was the great mis- take of Great Britain in the 1930's. I can understand why he did not want anyone at Cabinet level on the National Security Council who represented our economic interests. The President?and I refer to his veto message?tells us that economic matters are handled as a matter of routine through other channels; and that it would be "unnecessary" to have the Treasury Secretary on the National Se- curity Council. That this President, or any President, would subscribe to the narrow view that national security is limited on to diplomatic and military problems?and would not automatically include eco- nomic considerations?is to me little short of astounding. Mr. President, I believe, in the interest of the United States, the economy is also Important to security and also to the well-being of our country. Therefore, I urge Congress to override the President's veto. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unani- mous consent that the time be equally charged against both sides. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk pro- ceeded to call the roll. Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I ask unan.- imous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator require? Mr. PERCY. Three minutes. Mr. TOWER. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Illinois. Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, I yield the able senior Senator from Illi- nois as much time as he would like. Mr. TOWER. And I yield to him as much time as he desires. Mr. PERCY. I appreciate my col- leagues yielding time. Mr. President, I wish to precede my comments by simply reiterating my deep concern and interest in the importance of economic affairs as they relate to the future development of our Nation, not only internally and domestically but also in the world community. As I believe the distinguished Senator from Missouri (Mr. SYMINGTON) and other members of the Committee on For- eign Relations know, I have taken the position for a long time, with the State Department, that it is unwise for us to have an alternating Under Secretary for Political Affairs and then occasionally an Under Secretary for -Economic Af- fairs. It seems to me that, for a long time to come, political affairs of this Na- tion will be of a permanent nature, and so will economic affairs. It seems to me we should have an Under Secretary for Political Affairs and another for eco- nomic affairs. Acting on behalf of the administra- tion, I submitted a measure, drafted by the State Department, to implement this. It is now law, and we have had a full- time Under Secretary for Economic Af- fairs for some time. So, too, I feel in the matter of the National Security Council, that the Sec- retary of the Treasury has a great re- sponsibility throughout the world, as has been pointed out by the distinguished senior Senator from Missouri in his re- marks on the floor of the Senate. The Secretary of the Treasury has a role in the world that is important. This was borne out this morning in testimony that former Secretary Rusk gave before the Government Operations Committee, when he testified on the question of how we handle oversight over the security and intelligence activities of the country. Former Secretary Rusk observed that, in his judgment, not only did Congress have a greater responsibility for over- sight, but also, national security mem- bers should assume a greater responsi- bility in oversight, He testified this morning that he, as Secretary of State, S 353 was surprised subsequently to find that certain actions had occurred of which he was not aware and should have been aware, as Secretary of State. I did not specifically put this particu- lar question to him, because it was not really germane to our hearings; but his general assumption that greater respon- sibility should be taken by national secu- rity members, I think, would be rein- forced by making the Secretary of the Treasury a statutory member. We have only two members right now from the Cabinet. I am not so sure that the At- torney General should not be a statu- tory member. I think with it written into law that they have this responsibility, they would take that responsibility much more seriously. As former Attorney General Katzen- bach testified this morning, the pres- sures of time on Cabinet officials are very great indeed. But if they are going to have this responsibility, I think they should have it in a more formalized way. Certainly, they should not be in a posi- tion where, by leave of the President, they are just performing that function then and sitting in. If they looked into or began to severely question certain of our activities, let us say in the covert field, someone might be inclined to ad- vise that they keep their cotton-picking hands off their business. That has been our great trouble in the intelligence community, that it is their business when it is really our business. I think we should do everything we can to strengthen our oversight and I think by overriding this veto, we will be really strengthening the oversight of the executive branch of Government for a long time to come. Mr. SYMINGTON. Will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. PERCY. I am happy to yield. Mr. SYMINGTON. I noticed during the holidays that the International Monetary Fund met in Kingston, Jamaica; 128 Countries having to do with our fiscal and monetary world problems, as well, of course, as those of the United States. At that conference, the Secretary of the Treasury was the No. 1 man for the United States. The Senator has had great banking and 'business experience. He knows that problems of the economy are inextricably bound up in any diplo- matic and military problems. Does he not think it unfortunate that in Jamaica, earlier this month, 128 countries met to make major decisions?and they were major, comparable in many ways to the Dumbarton Oaks conference?does the Senator not think it extraordinary that there was not a single member of the Na- tional Security Council present at those meetings? Mr. PERCY. I should think so. Ob- viously, the Secretary of the Treasury sits In on such meetings, but he ought to be a statutory member, in the opinion of the Senator from Illinois. I think it fitting that a member of the Security Council should be participating, with the kind of stature he would have, in such a forum. Mr. SYMINGTON. The only reason 1 brought it up is that the claim is made Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE Januar?/ 22. 197( that. economic problems are not impor- tant enough and should be handled on a selitine basis as against diplomatic and eiditary problems. The able Senator and ;erve on the Committee on Foreign Re- !mites. If we are discusing the currency jeoblems of 128 ccuntries. there is cer- tainly a great deal of diplomatic interest end action incident to such a discussion. Therefore. I do not see how they could be separated. That was the thrust of my es tion. Mr. PERC'Z. To reinforce the distin- ,- eisned Senator's point, I remind the Senator that at the height of the em- bargo. when it looked like the whole r -ionomy of this country and the Western rid might be imperiled, it was the secretary of the Treasury who was going a.cound the world, to the Middle East, calling on various countries, and de- nouncing certain actions, pointing out tile specific implications of those actions. It is the Secretary of the Treasury, certainly, wha works with many of the countries where a tremendous impact lass been had from these fallout effects, eay only, once again, that thio is why I sponsored the legislation to have a foil-time Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, because it was incon- refivable to the Senator from Illinois that eremomics would not be right up there on Oar with pclitics in the world in which elf live. The Senator has served as a roan:Per of the delegation to the U.N. The Senator from Illinois served in the fail of 1974. increasingly, the issues are eUanomie issues in that international forum. Certainly, we cannot separate our telligence and all of that from the eco- romics of the matter. In fact, the first debriefings I ever Ive were 20-some years ago to the CIA, ettfre time I ( ame back. I thought it was outstandi ig thing that they would neeh out for businessmen doing business Istsceid to br.ef them on the economic iniplications of what they were doing alaio.ed. That was 20 years ago. The inn- cit is far treater today on the ecd- cs of the interrelated world in iich we live Certainly, feel that the chief fiscal edicer of our country should be and de- tseyes to be a statutory member of the iesstional Security Council. -Mr. SYMINGTON. I thank my able ,iefieague. Wculd he not agree that the inice of oil was a vitally imnortant eco- ddni.,3 matte-- , as well as a diplomatic enitler? Me. PERCY. It seems to me that we se lid have gone to war over it. In fact. e is the ecor omics of the Middle East, ei sr, as much as the politics of the Mid- de, East that I think have great impact. . SYMINGTON. I thank the Sen- iniiRCift I think I can only re- ,c what my distinguished colleague :lad to say heretofore. Me SYMINGTON. I thank the Sen- e PREk;IDINCx" Cie eICER. Who Ui time? ,Mit TOWEais Mr. President, I am pre- sed to yield back the remainder of my I etc. Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. Presider t. I am prepared to yield back my time The PRESIDING OrIsICER. All time is yielded back. Mr. President, before us today it the question of whether the economic and fiscal aspects of our national security should be given full statutory considera- tion, by congressional mandate, in the deliberations of the National See' rity Council. The National Security Council is directed by law "to advise the Presi- dent with respect to the integration of domestic, foreign, and military policies relating to the national security." Our distinguished colleague. Senator SYlt..:NG- TON, whose command of these issues is matched by few Senators, has arfued persuasively that the Secretary of the Treasury. the Cabinet member cha ged specifically with guarding our econimic interests, should be a full member of the National Security Council. Senator SYMLNGTON has cited the impact of the 197'3 oil embargo and overseas grain ;ales on the domestic economy, both as exam- ples of national security matters ero- founcily affecting economic prosperiee Everyone here is aware that the Na- tional Security Council, now compesed of the President, the Vice President the Secretary of the State, and the Sem if:try of Defense, deals with foreign and do- mestic policies regarding our national security, with the President making de- cisions based on Council discussions. And we are all increasingly concerned elth the interdependence of these national security issues with our economic on- cerns both in the world at large and here at home. Senator SYMINC,ToN expresses it be, ter than I could: Inasmuch as a sound economy, wi a sound dollar, is vital tt, national sem. '1,ty, ..hould there not be concern that the Na- tion's chief fiscal and monetary officer., has no statutory right to participate in ese high-level discussions of national sec,T,ity issues? This concern was txpressed by the Congress when this bill was passed mein- . nnously by both Houses. Senator SYNCING- row's bill has been recommended recei itly by the Presidential Commission on the Organization of Government for the Conduct of Foreign Policy, the Mui ohy Commission, and has been recommer seed in principle in the past by former Presi- dent Hoover, in his capacity as Chair nan of the Commission on the Organization of the Executive Branch of Government. And the President haa said the.: to grant full Council status to our top -s--20- nomic official is 'undesirable as we.. as unnecessary." Both Houses of Congress have aln edy eisagreed with this judgment. Both Houses of Congress have reseg- eized the importance of the econdinic implications of our foreign policy and cm-national security, and have addre3sed the need for closer consideration of eur economic needs in decisions relatina to ,itir national security. Both Houses of Coo _tress have ret .0a- nized that existing mechanisms for ordination of our, national security and domestic and international economic policy are inadequate. Fcr all these reasons, Mr. President both Houses of Congress should continus to insist that, as the Murphy Commis - sion stated: NaUonal securi-;y policy is no longer simpl' a mix of diplomatic and military affairs properly understood, national security em braces economic policy as well. Accordingly the membership of the National Securit, Council should be expanded to include th- Secrezary of the Treasury. We should, therefore, vcte to oven this -veto. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President. the question has been raised in connectioe with this debate as to the status of the President's action on S. 2350 in light o: the pocket veto clause of the Constitu- tion, article I, section 7, clause 2 By returning the bill to the Senate, the President has -clearly indicated his in- tention to treat this bill as a normal veto Without question, the Senate is ampls justiffed in treating the veto as a norma: veto, rather than a pocket veto, and ir proceeding, therefore, to vote on whethe to override the veto. The pocket veto question arises be- cause the President's action in returning the bill to Congress is as unprecedented as it is welcome to those of us who have been endeavoring to obtain a rationale construction of the pocket veto clause consistent with the legitimate powers of Congress under the Constitution, Heretofore, Presidents have uniformls treated the sine die adjournment of the first session of a Congress as an occasioe for a pocket veto, in spite of the fact thai the rationale for such a pocket veto hat: lost its logic during the relatively brie) adjournments that Congress now takes When a bill is pocket vetoed, the Presi- dent is said to "put it in his pocket"--tle bill is not returned to Congress, and Con- gress has no chance to override the veto Since the pocket veto is, in effect, ar absolute veto, it has been a perioclii source of friction between Presidents ant: Congress for many years. In fact, thr absolute veto power of King George m was the first of the 26 grievances cited against the King by the colonists in the Declaration of Independence: . IL] et Facts be submit;ed to a candic World. Fre has refused his Asent to Laws, tl(. most wholesome and necessary for the public Good I Recently. the U.S. Court of Appeals MI the District of Columbia Circuit ruled it: my fanor in an action I had brought. challenging the pocket veto by Presieteni Nixon of the Family Practice of Medicins Act during the 5-day Christmas adjourn- ment of Congress in 1970 The cats reported in Kennedy v. Sampson 511 F 2d 430 11974) . The adminif tri tior declined to request Supreme Court re- view at the decision. Subsequently, and somewhat bel hig- erently. ignoring the obvious rationale of that decision, the administration chose to try to limit the ruling to its facts and insisted on its pocket veto power during longer adjournments of Congress. In early 1974 I filed another action in the U.S. District Court for the Dis- trict of Columbia. challenging a pocket veto by President Nixon of a charter bus Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 January 2, 19 AP Pnwed Fctr,61M3119NR?14612ActEDERINAlt4R001100210037-0 S 355 transportation bill during the sine die adjournment of the 1st session of the 93d Congress. Later in 1974, President Ford pocket vetoed an aid-to-the-handicapped bill during the 31-day election adjournment of the 2d session of the 93d Congress. In this instance, the President had actually returned the bill to Congress, but with an ambiguous message which appeared to be a normal veto but which contained a proviso reserving the right to call his action a pocket veto. ? Congress treated the message as a normal veto and proceeded to override it. But the President insisted the message had been a pocket veto, in spite of the rather ridiculous legal posture the administration was forced to take. The pocket veto clause provides that a pocket veto applies where an adjournment of Congress prevents the President from returning a bill to the Senate or the House. In the case in question, the Presi- dent was maintaining that the election adjournment had prevented the return of the bill. But in fact, as everybody knew, the President had succeeded in returning the bill to Congress with no difficulty at all. The distinguished constitutional law professor, Thomas Reed Powell, once said, If you think you can think about a thing inextricably attached to something else without thinking of the thing which it is attached to, then you have a legal mind. By this test, the administration obviously qualifies as having a legal mind. So, I amended my pending action in the district court to include a challenge to this pocket veto as well. That action, as amended, is currently pending before Judge Sirica. The judge ruled earlier this week that I had standing to bring the case and that the action was not moot, thereby disposing of the proce- dural questions in the case. As a result, the case is now ready to proceed to a decision on the merits of the two pocket vetoes in question. Last spring, the Ford administration's hardline position began to thaw. Dur- ing the 11-day Memorial Day recess In 1975, the President returned two bills to Congress as completely normal vetoes?the messages did not contain the pocket veto proviso used a few months earlier in the fall of 1974. However, Congress did not attempt to override either veto. The legal issue with respect to these two bills was therefore moot, since the bills could not become laws under either the administration's interpretation or the congressional in- terpretation of the pocket veto clause. That brings us to the administration's recent additional thaw, extending the practice of returning bills as unqualified normal vetoes to the sine die adjourn- ment just past. Recently, I wrote to Solicitor General Bork, asking for clarification of the ad- ministration's apparent shift in position on the issue, since the administration finds itself in the ungainly position of defending its pocket veto power in court while abandoning it before Congress. An adjournment of Congress either oc- casions a pocket veto or it does not. There is no suggestion in the Constitu- tion or the pocket veto precedents to sup- port the proposition that a President has any discretion to choose between a poc- ket veto or a normal veto during the same adjournment of Congress. I feel we have made a great deal of progress on this issue since the confron- tations of recent years. The decision of the President to return S. 2350 to Con- gress with a normal veto is a generous conciliatory gesture to the Senate and House. I also see it as a clear vindica- tion of the position that Senator Sam Ervin, I and other Members of Congress have been trying for many years to establish. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that my letter of January 7, 1976, to Solicitor General Bork may be printed in the RECORD. I am currently awaiting his reply, which I hope will lead to a prompt and final settlement of the pocket veto issue. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: 1J.S. SENATE, January 7, 1976. Hon. ROBERT H. BOWL:, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. DEAR Ma. Sm.:comps Cistilaat. I am writing to request clarification of the Administra- tion's current position with respect to the use of the pocket veto during adjournments of Congress. The first session of the 94th Congress ad- jdurned sine die on December 19, 1975. The second session of the 94th Congress is sched- uled to begin on January 19, 1976. During the current sine die adjournment, the President has vetoed two bills?S. 2350 (to make the Secretary of the Treasury a member of the National Security Council), and H.R. 5900 (the Common Situs Picketing Bill) . In both cases, the President returned the bills to Con- gress in a form essentially identical to the form used for a "normal" or "return" veto, which Congress may vote to override. In the past, however, President Ford has chosen to use a form of veto during such adjournments that preserves the Adminis- tration's previous position that such bills may be pocket vetoed, which would prevent Congress from overriding the veto. The Presi- dent's recent action thus appears to be in- consistent with the Administration's prior Certainly, nothing in the Constitution or Supreme Court decisions on the pocket veto power suggests that the President has any discretion to choose between a pocket veto or a return veto during an adjournment of Congress. Either the Pock et Veto Clause of the Constitution, Article I, Section 7, Clause 2, applies, or it does not. As you know, I have filed an action in the U.S. District Court in Washington, challeng- ing pocket vetoes in similar circumstances by President Nixon in January 1974, and by President Ford in October 1974. The case is now awaiting action by the Court. Although I supported both S. 2350 and H.R. 5900 and regret the vetoes, I welcome the President's decision to send these two bills back to Congress in the form of a return veto, not a pocket veto. The President's action is an appropriate conciliatory gesture toward Congress that respects the constitutional prerogatives of the House and Senate to act on Presidential vetoes. I hope that this action by the President signals the end of the pocket veto as a bone of contention between Congress and the Administration. I look forward to your clarification of the Administration's current position, which was foreshadowed by a statement on the floor of the House of Representatives by Congress- man John J. Rhodes, Republican House Minority Leader on December 19, 1975. Cong. Rec. 11 13071 (Daily Ed.). If, as the President's recent action indi- cates, the Administration has in fact changed its position and now -agrees that a pocket veto is unconstitutional during such adjourn- ments of Congress, I hope that the Depart- ment of Justice will inform the court forth- with of the Administration's new position, so that the continuing controversy over the pocket veto may be settled, and so that an appropriate early disposition may be made of the pending litigation. Respectfully, EDWARD M. KENNEDY. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the bill, S. 2350, presently before the Senate for consideration to override the Presi- dent's veto, was passed unanimously by the Senate Armed Services Committee last year. Simply stated, it merely re- quires that the Secretary of the Treas- ury become a statutory member of the National Security Council. This bill, authored by the distin- guished senior Senator from Missouri, Mr. SYMINGTON, was passed without ob- jection by both Houses of the Congress and in my viewpoint is not a partisan issue. I am impressed by the fact that the action incorporated in this legislation was recommended by the Murphy Com- mission established by President Nixon in 1972. Further, former President Her- bert Hoover in testimony before the Sen- ate Armed Services Committee follow- ing World War II, expressed the view- point that financial and economic fac- - tors should be weighed carefully in high level considerations on national security issues. As the Members of the Senate know, one of the gravest problems facing the Nation today involves the huge deficit faced by this Nation. This is graphically illustrated by the fact that in the fiscal year 1977 budget $45 billion in outlays are required simply to pay interest on the national debt. This outlay alone amounts to nearly one-half of the $101 billion defense budget outlays for fiscal year 1977. Thus, it is obvious that financial con- siderations and restraints need to be ap- plied inevery forum within the National Government, not only the executive branch, but especially in the Congress. President Ford has submitted to the Nation a fiscally constrained budget for fiscal year 1977. Nevertheless, it contains a deficit of approximately $43 billion. As regards passage of S. 2350, Congress has taken a step which could lead to even more fiscal constraint, or at the very minimum, it would assure an input on fiscal matters in the NSC. Presently such advice is not always present, al- though President Ford has frequently utilized such counsel in the past. Fur- ther, my view is this bill is not aimed at a particular President, but is intended to assist all future Presidents. Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 Approved ForRet9m9RANA/8114%7L: Rkedyittumpicktioppoi oui ooptbotc, ).9-2 2. 'ertainly the Congress should be corn- tided for tolls action and it would be iaope that the 2d sessiOn of the Path Congress would incorporate such i.17 conservative ideology in its own -.was in connection with the fiscal year budget. 'Jr fortunatfly, in my viewpoint the constress last year added far too much spencing to the President's re- niost and the Budget Committee did not wide the restraining force that I had eaoisioned when it was created in 1974. To fact. the Budget Committee and the egreSS increased the fiscal year 1976 'lie it significantly. looefully, should the Congress decide override the President's veto on this , they will carry forward this phil- 'aoapily in tY.e appropriations decided 4u)on for the fiscal year 1977 budget. Therefore, while I would normally ;import the President in a matter of this nature. especially when it involves his awn advisory counsel, my deep concern feference the Nation's serious financial eonchtion cau;es me to cast my vote in favor of overriding the veto of S. 2350. Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, have the ,toos and nays been ordered? rhe PRESEDING OFFICER. The yeas Loci nays are mandatory under the coos titution. tinder the previous order, all time hay- :sot expired on the President's veto mes- .iage pn S. 2350, the question is, Shall the bill pass, the objections of the President Ul the United States to the contrary not- .A; ithstanding? The yeas and nays are required. The lock will call he roll. 'the assistant legislative clerk called roll. Mr._ ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce ?hat the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. asouREzic), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. BAYH) . the Senator from Hawaii Mr. INOUYE) , the Senator from Wyo- anng (Mr. McGEE), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. McGovERN), the Sen- ator from Minnesota (Mr. MONDALE) , the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. MOR- GAN) , the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Srarasas) . and the Senator from Califor- nia (Mr. TUNNEY) are necessarily absent. further announce that, if present and 'toting, the Senator from North Carolina MT. MORGAN) would vote "yea." Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the Sena tor from Wyoming (Mr. HANSEN) :Hld the Senator from Nevada (Mr. 1,AltikI.T/ are r ecessarily absent. further a nounce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Form) is absent due to 13 iness in the family. I'll?: yeas and nays resulted?yeas 72, 16, as follows: aenciai Vote No. 1 Leg.] YEAS-72 Church Clark Cranston Culver Cole nirkin k:agleton Eastland ',num :WrAsen Bider, :13rock i3rook iiiqupers tirdick 3ird, lord Tarry Y.. Jr. Oarn ,ivrci, Robert C. Glenn r.%.nnon. Gravel .'''a d,.3 Hart, Gary chileS Hart, Philip A. Hartke Haskell Hatfield Hathaway Helms Hollings Huddleston Humphrey Jackson Javits Johnston Kennedy Leahy Long Magnuson Nunn Mansfield Pastore Mathias Pearson McClellan Pell McClure Percy McIntyre Proxmire Metcalf Randolph Montoya Ribicoff Moss Roth Muskie Schweiker Nelson Scott, Hugh NAYS-16 Sparkman Stevens Stevenson Stone Symington Taft Talmadge Thurmond Williams Allen Goldwater Tower Baker Griffin Weicker Bartlett Hruska Young Buckley Packwood Curtis Scott, Domenict William L. Fannin Stafford NOT VOTING-12 Abouresk Inouye Mondale Bayh Laxalt Morgan Fong McGee Stennis Hansen McGovern Tunney The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. r M- am). On this vote, the yeas are 72 Ind the nays are 16. Two-thirds of the Sena- tors present and voting, having votel in the affirmative, the bill, on reconsidera- tion, is passed, the objections of the President of the United States to 'he contrary notwithstanding. EXECUTIVE SESSION INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON GRANTING OF POLITICAL RIGHTS TO WOMEN; CONVENTION ON THE POLITICAL RIGHTS OF WOMEN; INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNI- CATION CONVENTION, 1973, WITH ANNEXES AND FINAL PROTOCOL: TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE REGULATIONS, WITH APPENDICES AND FINAL PROTOCOL: PARTIAL REVISION OF THE RADIO REGULA- TIONS (GENEVA 1959) WITH FINAL PROTOCOL The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. r. -R- KIN) . Under the previous order, the &n- ate will now go into executive session and will proceed to vote on the resolut:ons of ratification of Executive D, 81st Con- gress, 1st session; Executive J, 88th C on- gre,ss, 1st session; Executive J, 93d Congress, 2d session; Executive E, 93d Congress, 2d session; and Executha G, 94th Congress, 1st session, with the one vote to count for the five treaties. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I isk for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the:e a sufficient second? There is a suffic out second. The yeas and nays were ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The c erk will state the first, resolution of ratification. INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON GRANTIN :OF POLITICAL RIGHTS TO WOMEN The resolution of ratification of R.: D was read as follows: Resolved. (two-thirds of the Senators ?.res- ent concurring therein), That the Senate id- vise and consent to the ratification of the Inter-American Convention on The Or tot- ing of Political Rights to Women, For Jun- lated at the Ninth International Confer, ice of American States, and signed at Bop ota, Colombia, on May 2, 1948, by the Plen:po- tentlaries of the United States of Ann rice and by the Plenipotentiaries of other AI ler- loan States (Ex. D, 81st Congress, 1st .es- sion). 1976 The PRESIDING OrsaiCER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the resolution of ratification on Ex, D, 81st Congress, 1st session. Inter-American Conventioa on Grant- ing of Political Rights to Wcanen? On this question the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk call ml the roll. Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. ABouREzic) , the Senator from In- diana (Mr. Hewn) , the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. INOUYE) , the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. McGEE), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. McGovERN). the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. MON- DALE), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. MORGAN), the Senator from Missis- sippi (Mr. STENNIS) , and the Senator from California (Mr. TUNN EY) are nec- essarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. MORGAN) would vote 'yea." Mr GRIFFIN. I announce that the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. HANsEN), and the Senator from Nevada (Mr LAXALT are necessarily absent. I further announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Forza) is absent due to illness in the faintly. The yeas and nays resulted?yeas 88. nays 0, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 2 Ex.] YEAS-88 Allen Baker .i. Beall Bellmon Bentsen 13iden Brock Brooke Buckley Bumpers Burdick Helms Byrd, Hol tings Harry F., Jr. Hru.ska Byrd, Hebert C. Huddleston Cannon Humphrey Case Jackson Chiles Jay Its Garn Glenn Go: dwater Gravel Griffin Hart, Gary Hart, Philip A. Hartke Haskell Hatfield Hathaway Church Clark Cranston Culver Curtis Dole Domenic' Durkin Eagleton Eastland Fannin Ford Abou e21:. Bayh Fong Hansen Johnston Kennedy Leahy Long Magnuson Mansfield Mathias McClellan McClure McIntyre Metcalf Montoya NAYS-0 NOT VOTING-12 Inouye Mon-dale Lax al t Morgan McGee Stennis McGovern Tunney Moss Muskie Nelson Nunn Packwood Pastore Pearson Pell Percy Proxmire Randolph Ribicoff Roth Schweiker Scott, Hugh Scott, William L. Sparkman Stafford Stevens Stevenson Stone Symington 'raft Talmadge Thurmond Tower Weicker William Young The PRRSIDING OFFICER (Mr, Foal)). On this vote, the yeas are 88. the nays are 0. Two-thirds of the Senators present and voting having voted in the affirmative, the resolution cf ratification is agreed to. CONVENTION ON THE POLITICAL RIGHTS OF WOMEN The resolution, of ratification of Ex. J. was read as follows: Resooled, (two-thirds of the Senators pres- ent concurring therein), .That the Senate advise and consent to the accession by the Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 S 190 ApproVed. Far Rage;farft new realism and commonsense in the af- I fairs of our Government, the budget sub- mitted certainly does reflect realism and commonsense. Furthermore, as one who has served nearly 20 years in the Congress-10 years on the other side of the Capitol and now almost that long in this body?I cannot recall a year, under any adminis- tration, of either party, when there has been such careful preparation and such an excellent presentation made as in the case of this budget for fiscal 1977. Late in the afternoon on yesterday the President briefed the joint leadership of Congress on the budget?a group which included the leadership of committees. I understand that earlier in the same day, the President also personally briefed the press on the budget, and demonstrated quite effectively just how? thoroughly familiar he is with the details of this budget. He demonstrated also, in my view, some of the advantages and the im- portance of having a President who has served and worked for a long time in the Congress?a President who understands the budget process from the viewpoint of Congress as well as from the viewpoint of the executive branch. So, despite the fact that this is an elec- tion year, as the minority leader has suggested, I hope that it will be possible to put politics aside with respect to most of the matters related to this budget. I am convinced that there is a consensus among the people in the country that it is time for restraint in Government spending, that it is time to hold the line and fight inflation, by adopting the new realism and commonsense, called for by President Ford. ORDER FOR TIME OF SENATOR KENNEDY TO BE GIVEN TO SEN- ATOR SYMINGTON Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time allotted to Mr. KENNEDY under the order previously entered be given to Mr. SY- MINGTON, along with his order, which also has been entered. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern- pore. Without objection, it is so ordered. ORDER TO VITIATE ORDER FOR RECOGNITION OF SENATOR TUN- NEY Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presi- dent, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the recognition of Mr. TUNNEY be vitiated. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- pore. Without objection, it is so ordered. ORDER OF BUSINESS The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern- pore. The Senator from Missouri Is-rec- ognized for a time not to exceed 30 minutes. Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, I thank the assistant majority leader for his typical courtesy. #J$2'3SD AL atikERne07-MelrMAFIQ011002100RIOuary 21, 1976 VETO OVERRIDE OF BILL TO PLACE THE SECRETARY OF THE TREAS- URY ON THE NATIONAL SECU- RITY COUNCIL Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, last New Year's Eve, the President vetoed S. 2350, a bill to make the Secretary of the Treasury a statutory member of the National Security Council. This proposal to :alace the Nation's top public servant on financial matters on this Council was no "casual idea." It had been recommended by the Murphy Com- mission, that Presidential Commission on the Organization of Government for the Conduct of Foreign Policy which was established by President Nixon in 1972. It had been the subject of congres- sional hearings. It had been approved and recom- mended by the appropriate committees of the Senate and the House of Repre- sentatives; and was passed unanimously by both Houses of Congress, with bi- partisan support. Ironically, the President vetoed the bill for the very reason it was introduced, because as his veto message stated: The Council's function under the law, is to advise the President with respect to the integration of domestic, foreign and military policies relating to national security. That is precisely what we had in mind when Congress passed S. 2350. As everybody knows, foreign and do- mestic policies relating to national secu- rity are discussed at the highest level in the National Security Council, with the President thereupon making final deci- sions. In addition to the President and Vice President, however, statutory member- ship on the National Security Council is presently limited to but two others, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense; and the primary purpose of S. 2350 was to insure that, in accordance with the function of the National Secu- rity Council as described by law, the economic and fiscal aspect of national security be considered in any discussion of various domestic or any foreign policy matters. A sound economy, with a sound dollar, is recognized as a vital aspect of a na- tional security; therefore, the Nation's chief financial officer should have the statutory right to participate in formal discussions of national and international policy issues which relate to overall na- tional security. Such issues obviously relate to the area of special knowledge and responsi- bility of the Secretary of the Treasury; and they are issues about which all re- sponsible citizens, regardless of party, are becoming increasingly concerned. This was precisely the thinking of the Murphy Commission. In its June 1975 report that Commission stated: Increasingly, economic forces define the strength or weakness of nations, and eco- nomic issues dominate the agenda of inter- national negotiation. National security pol- icy is no longer simply a mix of diplomatic the statutory responsibilities and focus of and military affairs; properly understood,the Secretary of the Treasury. Most issues national security embraces economic pol- icy too. Accordingly, the membership of the National Security Council should be ex- panded to include the Secretary of the Treasury, and its jurisdiction expanded to include major issues of international eco- nomic policy-making. Let us note also that as early as 1949, 2 years after the National Security Council was "created, former President Hoover, then Chairman of the Commis- sion on the Organization of the Execu- tive Branch of Government, declared in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee: It would seem to me that certain funda- mentals of economics ought to be repre- sented on that Commission the National Security Council], because the Nation is in as much jeopardy from economic overstrain as it is from military destruction. I was in hopes that the composition of the Council would be widened out, with more representa- tion from the economic side. President Hoover added: I have the feeling we are discussing prob- lems that are constantly intermixed ones? one is economic capacity and others are preparedness and action in war. Since Mr. Hoover made those state- ments, the National Security Counsel, once composed of seven people, has now been reduced to four. The Hoover Commission on the Orga- nization of the Executive Branch of Government, in a special report on Na- tional Security Organization, dated Jan- uary 1949, emphasized the "fundamental importance" of economic representation on the National Security Council as follows: The [National Security Act of 19471 con- templates that the National Security Coun- cil should weigh our foreign risks and com- mitments against our domestic and military strength and bring them into realistic balance. The Council membership wisely includes the Chairman of the National Security Re- sources Board, thus bringing into its delib- erations an appraisal of the effect of its recommendations upon our domestic econ- omy. As a result, the President should be better able to assess the impact of any plans and programs upon the Nation as a whole. I served as Chairman of the National Security Resources Board under Presi- dent Truman?a position which no longer exists?therefore, at present there Is no economic representation left on the Council. President Ford, however?again I re- fer to his veto message?now tells us that to place the Nation's top economic? domestic?representative on the Na- tional Security Council, would be "un- desirable as well as unnecessary." The President noted that any official may attend Council meetings at tie President's invitation, but that economic matters are handled as a matter of rou- tine through other channels. In his veto message he further stated: The proper concerns of the National Se- curity Council extend substantially beyond Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 ) ? Approved ForRejlease 21006/02 L.CIA-13,13P77M00144R04111(001413 7-0 (-; C United States q America Vot 122 ongressional Record n PR EEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE yi CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION ? WAS NGTON. WEDNESDAY. JANUARY 21, 1976 No. 3 9?6911.1.101,M1114. The Senate met at 12 o'clock meridian and was called to order by Hon. GARY LLtar. a senatot from the State of Colorado. 6! SAYER The Chaplain, the Reverend Edward h. R. Elson. D.D. offered the following prayer; 0 Lord, open our eyes to Thy beauty, open our minds to Thy truth, open our hearts to Thy love that we may be fit to serve Thee in this place. Anoint us by Thy spirit until the time of work and the time of worship knows no distinc- tion. While we labor for So much that is of material benefit to the Nation, may we also keep kindled the fires of the spirit. Shepherd us, we beseech Thee, through the difficulties and perils of the coming months. Lead us in paths of righteous- ness for Thy name's sake in the confi- dence that goodness and mercy shall fol- low us all the days of our lives, and our dwelling place wil be the house of the 7 curd forever. Ame i. APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESI- DENT PRO TEMPORE The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Clerk will please read a communication to the Senate from the President pro tempore ;Mr. EAS.CLAND) The legislative :,?lerk read the follow- ng letter: 'U.S. SENATE, ;'REE WENT PRO TEMPORE. tt'a.hmnqtom., D.C. January 21. 1976. o .e Senate: neing temporarily absent from the Senate on mama! duties, I appoint Hon. GARY HART, a Senator from the State of Colorado, to perform the duties of the Chair during my TAMES 4.), EASTLAND, President pro tenipore. Mc. -HARY HART thereupon took the chair as Acting Prasident pro tempore. THE JOURNAL Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the Journal of the proceedings of Tues- day. January 20, 1976, be dispensed with. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- lore. Without obi3ction. it is so ordered. Senate OMMITTRF MEt. JANOS DURING SENATE SESSION MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unan ous consent that all committees may ? authorized to meet during the session the Senate today. The A NG PRESIDENT pro tern- pore. Wit t objection, it is so ordered. JOINT R. RAL OP A BILL Mr. MANS D. Mr. President, I ask unanimous cons that S. 2845, a bill to provide small b ess concerns with energy research i rmation, which is presently in the C ittee on Bank- ing, Housing and Ur Affairs, be re- ferred jointly to the Colkmittee on Bank- ing, Housing and Urbatikkffairs and the Committee on Interior% and Insular Affairs. The ACTING PRESIDE1 pro tern- pore. Without abjection, it i ordered. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President ask unanimous consent that the Sena go into executive session to consider e nomination of Mr. Bob Casey, Which understand is at the desk, and it h been cleared all around. There being no objection. the Senate proceeded to the consideration of execu- tive business. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- pore. The nomination will be stated. FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 'rhe legislative clerk read the nomina- tion of Bob Casey, of Texas. to be a Fed- eral Maritime Commissioner. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern- pore. Without objection, the nomination is considered and confirmed. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the President be notified of the confirmation of the nom- ination. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern- pore, Without objection, it is so ordered. LEGISLATIVE SESSION Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate re- sume the consideration of legislative business. There being no objection, the Senate resumed the consideration of legislative business, THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET MESSAGE Mr. HUGH SCOTT. Mr. President. the President's budget is before us. It sets some important limitations on the amount of money which the Federal Government will have to expend, and it makes a number of suggestions as to how the money should be expended. I believe that the Committee on the Budget of each House will work very diligently to seek to bring expenditures within the ceiling limitation. However. I think it is equally important that they work closely with the Presideno and the President work closely with them, as the President suggested to a tipartisan leadership meeting of Congress yester- day afternoon. The holding of the line is going to be extremely difficult. It is going to require discipline. It is going to require a sense of priorities. It is going to require that we recognize that somebody has to pay for everything Congress does, and that somebody is the people; that sometimes: in the, past we have given people things hey did not ask for, or we have given em more than they wanted and we tainly have taxed them more than th can stand. I -e are to have any further tax re- lief, will have to hold the tudgetary one.-we are ,going to continue to cut down haliation. which has heel:, reduced by near *e will have to hew to the budgelkry line and if we are going to avoid neStitaxes, We certainly will have to stay clostrSito the'hudgetary line. So it Is mithope ''mat Conpress and the President, kstead of confrontation, instead of politica, instead of a grasping for advantage, will-truly work closely to- gether, in a spirit of genuine cooperation, in an effort to hold that bilidgesary Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr, President will the Senator from Pennsylvania yield, so that I may add an observation or two? Mr. HUGH SCOTT. I am glad to yield, Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, 14, agree with the Senator from Pennsylvania. and I wish to be associated with, his remarks. In the spirit of the President's state of the Union message. which called for S 185 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 January 21, mitpproved FocetplmapsanNe/PRECIARDRUINIM4Rooi 100210037-0 S 191 that come before the Council on a regular basis do not have significant economic and monetary implications. That this President, or any President, would subscribe to the narrow view that national security is limited to only diplo- matic and military problems?and would not automatically include economic con- siderations?is little short of astounding. Are not increases in the price of oil, or foreign sales of grain, vital economic as well as diplomatic, and perhaps military. matters? Earlier this month, at Kingston, Jamaica, the 128-nation International Monetary Fund approved a new world monetary system that represents a radi- cal departure from the Bretton Woods Conference of 1944. No member of the National Security Council was present. The Secretary of the Treasury was the top U.S. representative at this confer- ence. It is almost inconceivable that in the deliberations of the National Security Council on the "integration of foreign, domestic, and military policies," as pro- vided by law, such fiscal and monetary considerations as dealt with by the Sec- retary of the Treasury would not be included. The Secretary of the Treasury, inci- dentally, is the highest ranking Cabinet official charged with looking after our Nation's economic interests. In the Cab- inet succession to the Presidency, he is preceded only by the Secretary of State. His absence from the National Se- curity Council reflects as significant weakness in t'ne organization of our Gov- ernment?a weakness that was recog- nized by the Hoover Commission back in 1949, the Murphy Commission last year, and now by both Houses of Congress. If a President truly cares about the economic implications of national secu- rity policy, why would he not welcome his Secretary of the Treasury as a mem- ber of his highest advisory body? A bipartisan group of the Senate, Including both the majority and minor- ity leaders, cosponsored this bill when it was introduced last September. The Senate Armed Services Commit- tee, to which the bill was referred originally, voted 16 to 0 to report it favorably. Its report stated, "The Com- mittee strongly supports this legisla- tion," and went on to say: The addition of the Secretary of the Treasury to the National Security Council reflects the growing significance of inter- national economics and domestic fiscal af- fairs in the development of national secu- rity policies. The presence of the Secretary of the Treasury on this Council would help to ensure that fiscal and monetary issues are considered in the discussion of problems relating to our national security. Later this bill was passed unanimously by the Senate. Subsequently the House Armed Serv- ices Committee, after hearing adminis- tration witnesses. oppose the bill on grounds it was both "unnecessary and undesirable," also acted favorably, rec- ommending it be passed by the House; and thereupon the House also approved the bill unanimously. As we now know, however, the Presi- dent vetoed this bill over the Christmas recess. Last December 12, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Secretary of State had objected to placing the Secre- tary of the Treasury on the National Security Council. The Secretary of State managed Coun- cil affairs for the past years, first as National Security Adviser to the Pres- ident and head of the National Secu- rity Council staff, then later as Secre- tary of State in addition to being the President's National Security Adviser. Whatever the motivation, surely any- one with experience in either govern- ment or business will recognize the basic need for consideration of our growing economic problems before the President makes decisio:ns on matters vital to the security and prosperity of the. Nation. Failure of Congress to recognize that these economic problems are equally im- portant would operate against that secu- rity and prosperity; therefore I urge the Congress to override the veto of S. 2350. I yield the floor, Mr. President. ORDER OF BUSINESS The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern- pore. Under the previous order, the Sen- ator from Arizona is recognized for not to exceed 15 minutes. Mr. GOLDViTATER. I thank the Chair. CONGRESSIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH FOREIGN POLICY IS PER- FORMING THE: WORK OF THE ENEMY Mr. GOLDWA TER. Mr. President, as we enter upon the 200th year of Amer- ica's independence, I believe the Ameri- can people--and particularly their rep- resentatives in the Congress?would be well served by bringing back into public consciousness the first principles which guided the early leaders of America in establishing our unique form of govern- ment. The wisdom of our founders and blood of our patriots were devoted to their attainment. These principles should remain the model of our political prac- tice It is strange and saddening for me that I should have to invoke in this Chamber the essential political creed that won our independence and animated our first ef- forts at self-government, but I believe we our witnessing a counterrevolution against these principles in the very Halls of Congress that should be their first line of defense. What are these principles? They are too numerous to detail here in full, but among them is the faith held by the pa- triots and founders that the American people are unique in their character, their opportunity, and their mission, and that our experiment in freedom and self- government will be an example for the world. They also include the notion, as expressed by Jefferson, that the will of the majority "to be rightful must be rea- sonable." And they certainly encompass the purpose that government must be strong enough to preserve our freedoms. Mr. President, I make these comments because I believe that for the first time in the history of our country, we in Con- gress are forcing a President to come to this body for prior permission to do what he is charged to do under the Con- stitution?to manage foreign policy as he determines necessary for preserving the safety, the property, and the freedom of Americans. For what may be the second time in our history, with the period of the 1920's and the 1930's being the only other time, we seem to be losing our faith in the ability of our principles and the role of international leadership which the suc- cess of these principles has brought about. The immediate reason for my remarks is the action taken by the Senate late in December to block any flexibility for the President in funding military as- sistance to the majority of people in Angola who are resisting Soviet-imposed rule. The things said during debate on ngola, both in closed and open sessions, i/lake me shudder in concern about ,keeping up our national will to survive in freedom as we now know it. But my (in apply equally as well to the general phenomenon of congressional adventurisrn in the field of foreign poli- cymaking. What the opponents of Presidential direction of foreign policy do not rec- ognize is that their persistent confron- tations with the Executive is deroga- tory to the best interests of the United States. Repeated congressional inter- ference with Presidential decisionmak- ing at the outset of every foreign crisis, before there is any reasonable time for Members of Congress to make informed judgments of their own, is performing the work of the enemy who wish to neg- ate the will of this country. Each time Congress hinders the Executive from re- sponding in a considered way to total- itarian eXpansionism and compels the abandonment of friendly foreign groups, we create an impression in the world among allies and enemies alike that we have lost the will to defend freedom. In the words of the Nobel Prize win- ner, Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, who has been in the "Archipelago" and knows of what he writes: A very dangerous state of mind can arise as a result of this feeling of retreat: give in as quickly as possible, give up as quickly as possible, peace and quiet at any cost. According to Solzhenitsyn? The Communist leaders respect only firm- ness and have contempt and laugh at persons who continually give in to them. Our liberals respond that a demonstration of power will lead to a world conflict. Solzhenitsyn's reply Is that power with continual subservience is no power at all. Thus, a continual policy of nonaction, not even allowing the President flexibil- ity in making a response at the onset of a crisis, will only solidify an impression among totalitarian leaders of our weak- ness of will. By leaving the United States no option but to retreat at every point where the Soviets wish to expand, Con- gress will not only cause us to appear all the more weak in the eyes of totalitarian leaders, but the failure of action reduces the national will to deal with attacks on Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 S 12 Approved For FtettiMENMOM: aVERREPWRITORIO0110021002Mary 21, 1 V7 6 fr eednin by creating confusion in the labile over whether resistance is ever aeces.sary. ifl. President, it is my contention that the Founding Fathers did not vest for- a policy initiative with Congress. The ;earners understood that a legislature !:orisisting of two bodies with a numerous membership would inherently be re- !iietant or unable to act in some time of ,traye need. They saw the Presidency as the office whcse unity and energy would este it to take independent action :viler necessary for the public well-being. The framers had witnessed, the major- ef them at firsthand, the incom- petency of Congress meddling into mil- itary policy during the War of Indepen- knce, when the interference of the Con- tinental Congress with the plans of Gen- eral Washington nearly caused disaster en several occasions. In contrast with this inefficiency of Congress, the framers td iresh memories of the prompt and atm military steps taken by the Execu- dtes or Massachusetts and New Hamp- shire to end armed rebellions in 1786 and I 187. "ltie framers also recalled that the re'entinental Congress had actually cir-- eitatled among the Thirteen States dur- !lie a low ebb n the Revolution a written ees!asking that the powers of the Ex- sentiees be increased as a solution to the frdiu.:.e of the States in meeting the war- nine applications of Congress. Moreover, the framers understood that the obses- bee tears of royalty that had dominated retteie opinion at the outbreak of the Revolution had greatly diminished and that a new concern with possibly tyran- nical legislatures had developed in the early 1789's. This means of interpreting the Consti- 1, non. by expounding a power from the IcIerts for wnich the Constitution was :o provide a remedy. was used by George Washington, after becoming President, when he issued the well-known Neutral- ity Proclamation of 1793. His action is al- most universally viewed as establishing late doctrine of Presidential responsibil- ity ion determining upon the initial !Pa In-e of fore ,gn policy. ft is very important for us to under- ;rand today that Washington's policy was at variance with the prejudices, the Zettlings. and the passions of a large por- tion of societo at the time he made it, and lid not rest on any previous guid- e( ,ee of the let islature. For these reasons, !I, is an outstanding example of a Presi- dent making foreign policy for the Na- tion in conflict with the public passions et the moment in order to uphold what that President judged as required for the AL, of the Nation. his ability to rise above gusts of pas- nen and temporary prejudices is one '1;iali;:y of Prt sidential leadership which distinguishes executive initiative in the direction of foreign policy and canno be matched by Congress. One fact we must remember is thaain the context of attitudes toward foreign policy, we as Americans have never redly become a nation of Americans. We are still a nation of hyphenated origins, r ich as Jewish-American. German-Am,'ri- can, Italian-American, Polish-Ameni! an, and so forth. So, when the prof... 1cm comes upon the floor of the Senati or House as to what we are going to d , in the field of foreign policy involving thy of the countries with whom substar nal numbers of Americans have ances Lies, you can lay a pretty good sized bet that these ethnic relationships are gaing to have a strong bearing on how that foreign policy is going to be formuli r.ed or implemented. This is why I believe that, even if the President were not vested with prin, iry control over foreign policy, Cong ess should not assert its distinct power, out should realize that a single elected of- ficial, who would not be disturbed by the politics of the moment. would use tj.ese powers far more wisely in tne long run - of history than a Congress which is In- stantly looking toward the political re- sults. To put it another way, I would _eel s'afer in this country with the deci ion for foreign policy being in the hand . of one man who had to live with it an( he accountable for that decision to the decision to the American people for the rest of his life than in the hands of 335 people whose decisions would be btssed mostly on the question, "Would it 1. elp me get reelected?" Another consideration we must re- member is that Congress it not equip ted to direct the day-by-day business of foreign policy; nor is it what we can 'all a continuing body for other than ro- cedural purposes. Congress changes e! cry 2 years. Sometimes it changes eery radically; so what might be a foreign policy subscribed to by the Senate or House this year, 2 years from now mcht not represent that policy at all. But we do have a President elected for 4 y, ars in the only truly national election I ro- vided in our system, whose fOreign pc _icy is much more constant and whose csrps of advisers is professionally equipped for producing reasoned policies. In conclusion, Mr. President, I be] .eve Congress should not react instantt to every foreign policy crisis as if it N ere the State Department, intelligence ap cn- dies, National Security Council, ,nd President collectively made into , tie, Rather, it should conscientiously cm- eider and fully deliberate on foreign n ot- ters and give fair opportunity for the executive machinery of governmen, to function before interposing itself in judgments it is neither constitution, fly structured, nor qualified, to initiate. ORDER OF BUSINESS Mr GOLDWATER. Mr, President, how much time do I have remaining? The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern - pore. The Senator has 5 minutes remain- ing. Mr GOLDWATER. Well, instead of asking unanimous consent to insert this statement. I will take advantage of the opportunity that I have to address this rather complete assemblage. THE GOLDEN COVERUP AWARD Mr GOLDWATER. Mr. President, in late December our good friend, Senator PROXMIRE of Wisconsin, made his annual Golden Fleece Award. It was awarded to the Air Force for its having carried Mem- bers of Congress on various missions and. of course, this included me. Senator PROXMIRE'S award really arouses my in- terest, so I have been doing some check- ing since coming back to Washington, and I think it is necessary that we estab- lish another award, The Golden Cover- Up Award. I have not made up my mind as to who should receive it, but I tem- porarily award it to the Senator from Wisconsin. But it could go equally as well to other Members but that will remain for a later decision. First. Mr. President, in 1973 the Con- gress voted to increase the daily counter- part funds from $50 to $75 to Congress- men, staff, et cetera. Lo and behold. the Senaeor from Wisconsin voted for it and the Senator from Arizona voted against it. Then the Congress voted that these counterpart funds would not be pub- lished. What that means is that the nubile is denied the knowledge of vast sums of money spent by Members of Congress, staff, et cetera, traveling all over the world. But those figures are available and I have assembled them, not only those but others, and from time to time I will put them in the RECORD so that the public can know lust what we do on our so-called junkets. Now I will admit that some of these trips are necessary, but I will also admit that some of them are not and maybe the disclosure I will make, will reduce the number of trips made by Members and staff to any point on the globe they care to go Now for disclosure No. 1. The Air Force during October of 1974 and the entire year of 1975 carried 162 congres- sional staff members?this does not in- clude Members of Congress?to 91 coun- tries and these people had to be ace irn- panied by 106 officers of the Air Force, and it cost $928,733.83. In ,order for the people to have a better idea of just what was spent, I ask unanimous consent that a breakdown of these trips be printed at this point in my remarks. There being no objection, ?the break- down was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 -7(41Z/oved For Release 2006/02/07,'? CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 q64t r Fdruary? 19, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSh deterrent to effective law enforcement in rape cases. Availatile statistics indicate that the majority of rapes committed are never reported. The New York City Police Department's Sex Crimes Analysis Unit has estimated that only 1 out of 10 rapes in New York City are reported. Informa- tion received by the Task Force on Rape of the National Organization for Women indicates no more than a 50-percent re- port rate. The trend in recent court decisions has been to limit and prevent cross-ex- amination about a victim's prior sexual experiences, because it is irrelevant to the issue Of whether the defendant com- mitted rape. Just last month, a District of Columbia Superior Court ruled in a rape case that questions could not be asked about the victim's relations with other men. Several States have recently enacted legislation limiting cross-exam- ination about the victim's prior sexual history. _ These court decisions and legislative revisions recognize that questions about a rape victim's prior sexual experience are duly prejudicial since they suggest to the jury that the issue is the victim's moral- ity rather than the defendant's guilt. My bill would prohibit cross-examin- ing the victim about her relations with anyone aside from the defendant. With respect to the defendant, such examina- tion is allowed only if the judge, in a private hearing, determines the testi- mony is relevant and is not unduly prejudicial. I recommend swift passage of this bill. The text follows: HR.? Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as "Privacy Protection for Rape Victims Act of 1976". SEC. 2. (a) Article IV of the Federal Rules Of Evidence is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new rule: "RULE 412 "Rape Cases; Relevance of Victim's Past Conduct "Evidence of an individual's prior sexual conduct or reputation is not admissible in any action or proceeding if an issue in such. action or proceeding is whether such individ- ual was raped or assaulted with intent to commit rape. The preceding sentence shall not apply to evidence of such individual's prior sexual conduct with the individual w in such action or proceeding is alleged have committed rape or assault with inten to commit rape. Hearings on the admissibil ity of evidence under this rule shall in al cases be conducted in chambers.". (b) The table of contents for the Federal Rules of Evidence is amended by inserting after the item relating to rule 411 the follow lug new item: "Rule 412. Rape Cases; Relevance of Vic- thn's Past Conduct". LEGISLATION TO END USE OF EX- CHANGE FUNDS TO ESCAPE IN- COME TAXES ON REALIZED CAP- ITAL GAINS The SPEAKER. Under a previous or- der of the House, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. ULLMAN) is recognized for 11I minutes. Mr. ULLMAN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I introduced a bill to put an end as of to- day to the use of exchange funds as a means of escaping income taxes on real- ized capital gains on appreciated securi- ties. This bill is identical with the bill in- troduced by Mr. CORMAN on February 5 except for the effective date. Mr. COR- MAN'S bill would have been applicable to transfers made after the date of enact- ment. However, in view of the concern of the recent activity in the promotion and advertising of these swap funds, my bill which Mr. CORMAN and other Ways and Means Committee members are cospon- soring, including Messrs. SCHNEEBELI and CONABLE, the ranking minority members of the committee, is effective with respect to transfers made after February 17, 1976. In the 1960's, investment funds, known as "swap funds," were organized to al- low taxpayers to exchange appreciated stock for shares in investment funds without any tax consequences on the ap- preciation, of the stocks transferred to the fund. In 1966, Congress enacted an amendment to eliminate tax-free ex- changes of appreciated stock for shares of an investment company.. The 1966 amendment applied only to corporate funds, including real estate investment trusts and regulated investment com- panies. It did not apply to partnerships. Recently, the promoters of syndicated swap funds have been using limited part- nerships as a vehicle for these tax-free exchanges. This bill provides that the gain realized on a transfer of stock to a fund will be taxable. The bill also covers two other swap-fund-type transfers: first, it would make mergers of two in- vestment companies taxable; and, sec- ond, it would cover certain reorganiza- tions, such as where mutual funds issue their shares to acquire all of the stock or assets of family held personal holding companies. The bill, as I have .already indicated, is effective for any transfer made after February 17, 1976. The SPEAKER. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. GONZALEZ) is recognized for 5 minutes. [Mr_ GONZALEZ addressed the House. His remarks will appear hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.] GUARANTEEING EFFECTIVE, STABLE GOVERNMENT The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentle- man from Virginia (Mr. HARRIS) is recognized for 10 minutes. Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill which, I believe, will improve the quality of our Government. The bill makes three changes in the salary-setting policy of the Federal Gov- ernment: First, it repeals the "pay freeze" on those general schedule em- ployees affected by it; second, it removes executive, legislative, and judicial per- sonnel from the annual comparability process brought under it by Public Law 94-82; and third, it tightens up the Quadrennial Commission process for ad- justing the salaries of top executives so that the Commission's recommended 1191 changes would go into effect early in 1977. THE PAY FREEZE IS HARSH My bill would phase out the 1969 pay ceiling on career general schedule em- ployees over a 5-year period in $2,000 in- crements. It was imposed in 1969, freez- ing salaries at $36,000 until October 1975 when it was adjusted slightly to $37,800. Though a 5-percent increase was grant- ed in October, the freeze is still in effect. Under my bill, it would be totally re- moved by 1980 for Federal employees. The following table illustrates the types of Federal employees affected by the pay freeze: General schedule employees affected by the pay ceiling Type of employee: General schedule - 9, 020 Similar to general schedule Foreign service 1, 758891* VA-medical personnel 1,980 Scientific and technical personnel_ 2,125 Total 18,501 What has happened under the freeze? It has now crept down as far as GS-15 employees. With the October 1975 com- parability increase, almost half of the Government's G8-15 employees are now frozen. Added to this are all GS-16's, GS-17's, and GS-18's. Thus, in many cases, individuals at five levels are earn- ing the same salary. I have heard testi- mony from government officials and have seen diagrams which show agency chiefs and bureau heads all earning the same salary. The General Accounting Office has said that a $36,000 salary set in 1969 was eroded by inflation to $24,408 by May 1975. GAO says 1969 salary rates lost almost a third of their purchasing power by May 1975. By January 1977, GAO says: Assuming CPI increases at the same aver- age rate and no legislation is enacted, the purchasing power of Federal executive eat- eries will decrease by about 39 percent. A 1969 salary of $36,000 would be $21,942 in purchasing power. While these salaries have remained stagnant for 7 years, the cost of living has increased by 50 percent. Non-Federal executive sal- aries have increased by 47 percent. Other Federal white-collar salaries, unfrozen, have increased by over 50 percent. THE PAY FREEZE HURTS GOVERNMENT What does this mean for Government? It has seriously hampered the Govern- ment's effort to recruit and retain high- caliber Federal officials, particularly scientific and medical personnel. What motivation is there to work for the Gov- ernment when there is little hope of re- ceiving a salary competitive with private enterprise? The Chairman of the Civil Service Commission has noted that criti- cal jobs go unfilled because the private sector is more attractive. Executive re- tirements and resignations have doubled since 1969. Salary-frozen executives in the 55 to 59 age range retire at three times the normal rate than other em- ployees in that age group. A few--examples: HEW has difficulty recruiting expert scientists and research- ers. VA cannot attract top-flight physi- cians. Six individuals declined the Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 II 1192 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? HoUSE rebruai-y /9, a Library of Congress GS-17 position of senior specialist in taxation and fiscal policy because they were all earning higher salaries in their present employ- ment. Six of the Treasury Department's too 12 officials departed in June 1975. The Under Secretary of the Treasury for Monetary Affaiis resigned his $40,000 position. Two candidates would not ac- cent HEW's position of Director of the National Institute on Aging because of the nay limitation; four administrative law judges at the Federal Trade Commis- sion retired because of the salary ceiling. DOD has reported that 20 executives re- signed, retired, o r refused promotions be- cause of the freeze. Another 22 declined to come with the Defense Department. Now we: learn the Chairman himself of the Government s personnel agency, the Civil Service Commission, is leaving partly because o t the freeze. L s. addition to retention and recruit- ment difficulties the freeze has caused serious problems of compression. Some GS-15's through GS-18's are at the same salary; thus, one can find in an office Individuals earning the same salary as their immediate supervisor. Since gen- eral schedule salaries have increased an- nually, with no similar increase in ex- ecutive salaries, more and more general schedule employees "bump up" against the ceiling each year. Says GAO? Salary compression seriously weakens two statutory pay principles of internal equity? equal pay for equal work and maintaining pay distinctions ir keeping with work and performance distinctions. 'nitre is no financial reward for tak- ing on increased responsibilities, for ad- vancing. To continue this acceleration of the freeze downward, locking in more and mere GS employees, will, says GAO? licatice morale within the work force and have a negative impact upon the career in- centives of emplo7ees entering the career Acry ice. The Chairman of the Civil Service Commission has said: Difficulties in recruiting and retraining high-caliber executives is measurable, but the effect of lost raanagerial talent on the quality or government is more difficult to quantify. . . . What we need is relief from an arbitrary salary 2,e1ling on top executives, which in and of itself establishes acompan- ice ceiling on career managers. Not just a one-time Band-Aid type of remedy, but an enduring procedure which will insure that the present condithms of salary compression do not recur. My bil1 lifts the freeze from the rank- and-file general schedule employees over a 5-year period in $2,000 increments. It is my belief that i; is unfair to tie career public employees' .salaries to an arbitrary rate?totally unrelated to their merit or Performance. An orderly equitable sal- ary-setting process should be guaran- teed. Salaries of rank-and-file Govern- ment workers should be separated from those of political appointees and free from Presidential whims. The Govern- ment must be stable: only a systematic salary system wit, insure that stability. EXfICUT EVE SALARIES My bill does not "unfreeze" the 2,261 executive schedule employees in the ex- ecutive branch or change the salary f other top personnel in the legislative an. 1 judicial branches. The fact that the .r salaries have been the same for 6 years is also unfair and severe. However, their salaries are set through a different pre - cedure and should be treated diflerentl.,.. My bill makes two changes. First, it removes these individuals from the annual comparability process whit was designed to provide general schedu. Federal employees annual adjustments' keep their salaries comparable \vita private industry. Public Law 94-82 Unice 1 these executives to the comparabilii - procedure. I voted for it at the time be - cause I felt it was necessary to give cc' -- reer Federal employees same small relii - after the 6-year freeze. However, time has shown me that was a mistake. Including top executive' legislative, and judicial personnel in thl process "politicized" the Federal salary setting system because the salaries c Members of Congress were part of th package. Under the comparability proc - ess the President can recommend a; amount differing from that of his ad- visers which then can be rejected by on House of Congress, thus insuring th. real comparability amount. The mos' politically unpalatable vote an elected of - ficial ever has to cast is a vote raisin' One's salary. We saw Congress turn it - back on Federal employees last Octobei when the Preisdent's 5 percent compara - bility adjustment was not overturned. believe it is wrong to make rank -and-fil, Federal workers the victim of the cow , ardice of Members of Congress. Additionally, I believe that the salariei of appointed and elected Government of- ficials should be treated differently fron those of Government employees. Thes are not career employees in the sam( sense. They take their job, in most cases knowing it will be a political tenure Their salaries should be handled under ic different system. The American Compen- sation Association agrees Their orga- nization told the President's panel? Executives, as a group, should be classi- fied and compensated under a separate pay structure. The pay structure should be such as to motivate outstanding lower echelon employees to achieve proMotion to the exec- utive ranks and to attract competent, quali- fied and experienced personnel from the pri- vate sector. We have the basics of such a system now, the Quadrennial Commission pro- cedure which makes recommendations to the President for adjusting executive salaries. The President then submits his recommendations to Congress in the next budget and they become effective. unless one House of Congress rejects them. Un- der my bill, the Presidnt would be re- quired to appoint the members of the Commission by July 1, 1976 and by that date every 4 years thereafter. The Commission would be required to report its findings and recommendations to the President by January 1 and the President would then leave to include his recommended adjustments in the fiscal 1978 budget, to be submitted to Congress in January 1977. Reporting to Congress in January 1977 is in line with the Presi- dent's intentions as outlined in his 1977 budget. My bill slightly speeds up a process scheduled tp take place next yeas. It would be up to tile Commission to come up with an amount and a scheme for adjusting top executive salaries. The re- cent report of the President's Panel on Federal Compensation has recommended that executive pay rates be increased and points out? The appropriate body to deVelop precise pay rate recommendations is the Commission on Executive, Legislative and Judicial Sal- aries which is scheduled to be appointed in fiscal year 1977. A PLAN FOR TILE SALARY MESS This bill rounds out my efforts to straighten out what I call the Federal salary mess. I have introduced several bills which include major revisions in the Federal salary-setting process that I be- lieve are necessary: First, removing the President's authority to propose an alter- native comparability amount, thus insu- lating rank-and-file Federal workers' salaries from politics (H.R. .9905) ; sec- ond, removing Members of Congress and Federal and judicial executives from the comparability process; third, removing the pay ceiling from general schedule employees: and, fourth, urging the Com- mission on Executive Legislative. and Judicial Salaries to make recommenda- tions on adjusting the salaries of top ex- ecutives. I am confident that this plan will compensate all Federal employees_ in a fair, nonpolitical, objective and sys- tematic manner. A SOUND, STABLE GOVERNMENT With enactment of this bill , Congress would be addressing a very basic problem affecting our Government. A fair, sys- tematic, apolitical pay system which treats people with respect is vital to ef- fective government. Our Federal Workers have little incentive to aspire upward? to perform better?if there is no reward awaiting them. A strong motivation for the public service is not enough with a ravaging inflation Eating away at stag- nating salaries. The Federal Govern- ment, which touches the daily lives of all our citizens, should be staffed by com- petent and highly motivated career pro- fessionals. We must obtain and retain the best managers, scientists, and doctors to make the decisions involving vast sums of public money and to manage complex programs affecting the Nation's economy, welfare, and security. As long as we ignore these very basic salary problems, government and the American citizens suffer.u ill CONSUMER PROTECTION AGAINST UNETHICAL DEBT COLLECTORS The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentle- man from Illinois (Mr. ANNUNzIO) is rec- ognized f or 5 minutes. Mr. ANNUNZIO. Mr. Speaker, under legislation I am reintroducing today, the harassment, and intimidation currently being suffered by consumers in the hands of unethical debt collectors will be strictly prohibited. This new title VIII of the Consumer Protection Act--the Debt Collection Practices Act?was originally introduced in October and would for the first time coinprehenaively regulate the practices of Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 II 1328 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-- HOUSE February 26, 1976 vestigated for the same purpose by any other committee of the House, and the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture shall fur- nish the Committee on House Administra- tion information with respect to any study or investigation intended to be financed from such funds. SEC. 3. Funds authorized by this resolution shall be expended pursuant to regulations established by the Committee on House Ad- ministration under existing law. Mr. THOMPSON (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be considered as read and 'printed in the RECORD. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey? There was no objection. Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 974 would fund the Commit- tee on Agriculture. The resolution was in- troduced by the chairman of the com- mittee, the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. FOLEY) , and by the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. WAMPLER), the ranking minority member. Mr. Speaker, in this instance this com- mittee had an unexpended balance for the first session of $422,939.23 which has reverted to the contingent fund. This resolution is fully supported by the ma- jority and minority sides. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous ques- tion on the resolution. The previous question was ordered. The resolution was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. PROVIDING FUNDS FOR FURTHER EXPENSES OF INVESTIGATIONS AND STUDIES OF COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Speaker, by di- rection of the Committee on House Ad- ministration, I call up House Resolution 1039 and ask for its immediate consid- eration. The Clerk read the resolution, as, follows: Resolved, That for the further expenses of the investigations and studies to be con- ducted by the Committee on Small Business acting as a whole or by subcommittee, not to exceed $515,425 including expenditures for the employment of investigators, attorneys, and clerical, and other assistants, and for the procurement of individual consultants or organizations thereof pursuant to section 202(1) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended (2 U.S.C. 72a(1) ), shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the House on vouchers authorized by such com- mittee, signed by the chairman of such committee, and a?proved by the Committee on House Administration. Not to exceed $50,000 of the total amount provided by this resolution may be used to procure the tem- porary or intermittent services of individual consultants or organizations thereof pursu- ant to section 202 (1) of the Legislative Re- organization Act of 1946, as amended (2 U.S.C. 72a(l) ); but this monetary limitation on the procurement of such services shall not prevent the use of such funds for any other authorized purpose. SEC. 2. No part of the funds authorized by this resolution shall be available for expendi- ture in connection with the study or investi- gation of any subject which is being investi- gated for the same purpose by any other committee of the House, and the chairman of the Committee on Small Business shall furnish the Committee on House Adminis- tration information with respect to any study or investigation intended to be financed from such funds. SEC. 3. Funds authorized by this resolution shall be expended pursuant to regulations established by the Committee on House Ad- ministration in accordance with existing law. Mr. THOMPSON (during the reading) . Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be considered as read and printed in the RECORD. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey? There was no objection. Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Speaker, this resolution, House Resolution 1039, was originally introduced by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Small Business, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. EVINS), and by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. CONTE), the ranking minority member. This is a clean resolution bearing my name for the reason that we transferred the unexpended balance of $210,140.45 to the contingent fund. This resolution would fund the Committee on Small Business in the amount of $515,425. Mr. Speaker, there is complete agree- ment on the resolution. It was repeated unanimously by the subcommittee and the full committee. Mr. Speaker. I move the previous ques- tion on the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous ques- tion on the resolution. The previous question was ordered. The resolution was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. GENERAL LEAVE Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Speaker, :E ask unanimous consent that I may be per- mitted to revise and extend my remarks on all of the resolutions just agreed to and, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous con- sent also that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on all of the resolutions just agreed to. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey? There was no objection. AUTHORIZING PRINTING OF ADDI- TIONAL COPIES OF OPEN HEAR- INGS AND FINAL REPORT OF SEN- ATE SELECT COMMI .1.-1'EE ON IN- TELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Speaker, by di- rection of the Committee on House Ad- ministration, I call up the Senate con- current resolution (S. Con. Res. 88) and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk. read the Senate concurrent resolution, as follows: S. CON. RES. 88 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Rep- resentatives concurring), That there be printed for the use of the Senate Select Committee To Study Governmental Opera- tions With Respect to Intelligence Activities five thousand additional copies of all parts of its public hearings and of its final report to the Senate. (Mr. BRADEMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Speaker, Senate Concurrent Resolution 88 provides for the printing, for use of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Activities, of 5,000 additional copies of all parts of its open hearings and final report. The select committee has held 21 open hearings which will result in an esti- mated 3,500 pages to be arranged by sub- ject matter in approximately 7 separate volumes. The length of the final report, how- ever, cannot yet be estimated. Because of the range of investigations mandated by Senate Resolution 21 and the scope of the studies undertaken, it is contem- plated that the final report will be pre- pared in 2 separate volumes of 500 pages each with 20 appended volumes of ap- proximately 200 pages each. Because requests for this committee's report and hearings have already ex- ceeded the normal 1,000 copies allocated to committees, the select committee Is asking for an additional 5,000 copies to meet this demand. Mr. Speaker, I hope that this resolu- tion is agreed to. I note that the resolu- tion is supported by both the chairman of the select committee, Ee r tor CHURCH, of Ida o, aid'ie vice 1, ai, Se a- tor To ER, as. The e was cone he s laid on he tabl AMENDING RULES OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO PROVIDE THAT HOUSE MAY NOT CONSIDER ANY REPORT OF A COMMITTEE BILL, RESOLUTION, OR A REPORT OF A COMMITTEE OF CONFER- ENCE UNLESS COPIES OR REPRO- DUCTIONS HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE TO MEMBERS ON THE FLOOR AT LEAST 2 HOURS BEFORE SUCH CONSIDERATION Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Speaker, by direc- tion of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 868 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as fol- lows: II. RES. 868 Resolved, That Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by add- ing at the end thereof the following new clause: "7. It shall not '3e in order to consider ary report of a committee unless copies or re- productions of such report have been avail- able to the Members on the floor for at least two hours before the beginning of such con- sideration. The provisions of this clause shall not be construed to supersede any other rule of the House requiring a longer poriod of time before such consideration is in order. The provisions of this clause shall not apply to any report of the Committee on Rules deal- ing with the consideration of a bill.". SEC. 2. Rule /DUI of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new clause: "7. It shall not be in order to consider any bill or resolution unless copies or re- productions of such bill or resolution have been available to Members on the floor for Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 Vefire.i'..,otry Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 (..UNCE, ESSION AL RECOtt D - - HO I gen w email It ski 1.".etv ersi e. M. i'll'OMP6017. Ir. Speaker. House Nese:imam ois he midi/1g resolution fim the Committee on -!ucation and La- nor amount u$ 320,000_ for all Iv the ease ite this tonim tee, v e have 1$iteit4e situatior,iii icatt e minority ?=5 perces.t 01 tele to 1 request, Jnininittee majority elves 212'; cent of the tutu 1 rem test, an each of siunning sub( omini, Lees has SePa- ,-e.he a.loratsort I 11114 nice hie ii ler- t, c,unmiltee and tin elI ? $4,o nr,jtoc i$ :ILLY unded. zseeaker. UI IS rescrait ion una, einet r 5011 ea z ,IC iievious (juts- ho , q lestea, vas ortieeieel. 1.472. lOd ktneed to. 04 101 1 with 133:, -U INt, LNDS zoOR EXPENsES COMMir :EL im WAYS AND 'Ft ,witte SPeit/ter. h.s; wee.; i 01 tine Comaintee Oil tration. . Up House Resolu- jt ash to, ile immediate Con- A ad ti resoiti con_ lake seimgi -? ?mei, -10u, do Co.-?gress, the expellees sttadie,S be C011- lee- oil 1'1s and as a Wharie >r by sulseonamittce. beeeesiso,. 161000. including expend's- investigicuoie, ,0.fLId 1111 emtesul tants, or organ]-. , - sias,sographie, I be paid out of the 17411 I.:eon 31 Lhe House on vouchers Qui need Cy soba ceimuittee, sighed by the reebe, me a 01 ,itaCa committee, ami approved ley fbe lomitutte on house AdmienstraJon, ctrIt1.1,,it Lee. aim approved e3ee- U $125,000 of the e01...,111 prineicleci bv UAL-, resolution may ne -,0 probe, e lie temporary or !Titan-nit- t, inCtiV,ILLVIA oOIL,n tants or c, se, StSa,taiii fleorgaineation. Act I 427o , Ithe:- inithet.try ? ;en pe,,e,_ -emetic 03 ,..1,11 Sez"0"- . 7. Other a aonzeG purpose. s ? ,, Utt 7V1 Sialuty IL in- -, ee.eloit sutjeci wiiieu 15 etniig ,.? ICC the 7. tilt purpose by arey ,-? ilie House. and the Cononittee on Ways alio( netsh the Coninitte0 -e eiiione; est ation information until re- , SILL ay or el-vestige/Lieu iniendeo 0171. 511.112 LUIid,5. : 7.!? by nits Ilf22iciec pursuant to ? em,iblianee. by Lim Committee on House 42 11J1Still,Liori hider existing law. '.ri-{OMPSON (during the reading). ? l'.tpeaker. I. ask unanimous consent hat he result tion ne considered as read printed Li the RECORD. SPEAKER. ki there oujection to the rcce,i3i1e31 el tif c k,e.l.i., s ?,. ., .,e,..i, .1.i31 There was no objection The SPEAKER. The Chita ref-ognizes the gentleman from New Jersey iMr. THOMPSONl . Mr. THOMPSON. Mr, Sneaker. House Resolution 970 would fund the Commit- tee on Ways and Means 11 the amount of $2,115,000. This resolution was introduied by the gentleman from Oregon I Mr. ULLMAN) for himself and by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. ScimEESELT), the ranking member, Wil0 it- tiflee in W, behalf. It is mi;), understanding tuat the rank.- ing member is ill today, Ott we are au- Lhoired to state that he supports thie resuiution. rii2fr. Speaker, this corntr f ttee ilOW ha. \tic .. ? riding subcommittees. has Laken c in nber of months to ge..ir up, in th re. ?quial sense, and had En unexpendei halt!. co 2l2 $812,81.7.03, v hien has re verie - to the Treasur. 7 ?E 1:-5. - 1 titaj.:! .11.1,..li in , :, . k, i, ,j;0.2. resoluti . Mr. S ker, I move the orevit.itti ques inviii on U rolution. I ne pie us qUesiteni ,aL: ordered. The, resol on was agreed to. A motion t econsider was laid on th table. FU 1)S FOR EXPENSE, eJF,' INVESTIGA oNer AND STUD TES TO BE CO 'CTED BY COM /sal 'TEE oN BAIN cURRENC AND 'HOUSING , Mr. T.901VMSON. Milliipeaker. by d section of the Committeitn House Ac ministration, I call up He e Pesolutic 101.6 and asit for its limn 'ate consie eri!tion. The Clerif lead 11:, re4 H. Res. 100 fLesolved, That for the fu ether ix ises ineestlgations and studies to be to oict, ^1. by the Committee on Banking, Curren Housing, acting as a whole br by subcoi , ? tee, not to exceed $2,079,113 including e dii,uree, for the emplOymetv of itreestigat: a'ii,urneys, and clerical, axle other assists/ ? and for tile procurement of services of 1 ? die :dual consultants or oig. -ins then p,,e--iant to .-ection 20211. 1 Lhe Legislat ii,,,igan.zate.n Act or 114 IL amended C. 711.1;1., ). shall tie naid out of 1 e teetingeet. feroet of the It -u4 0_1 vOuCh '-tl-xorived by such committee. signed by I.e +"'i- 7.11-man of such commit; cc.. and approi hy the Committee On House Administrati N,-)s, to exceed $150,000 ci the total arum ,00-eided by this resolutem may be useci '-es-lire the temporary or ,iteinottent se ? -- ler,s of individual consult:a-its or organi tams thereof pursuant to. section 202ii) il the Legislative Reorganize-Aon Act, 01 11 31 as- amended (2 U.S.C. 72a.1 ; but, this mo .e- t.-ry limitation on the pris.oremeni oi ., ,--iwiees shall 110t preeetn oie use ol s funds for any other auto SRC. 2 No part of the 12 los authorized ..,, ti's resolutmn shall he avallame lor expel ..- cure in connection win ine stony or in, ul any subje,t C,lIsllis being b- yestigated for the same purpose by any of er committee of the liouse, and the chain :An. of the committee On Bardeing, currency ,ac. Housing shall !Orman tee Counnitice ;et nouse .1.17,11-1.1..w.c. with ,- 1.;;;27 CA" investigation intereied finaneed from such funcis. S. Funds authorized by tins resre u- tion shall be expended pursuant to established? by the Committee or, House Administration in accordance with existing law, Mr. THOMPSON (during the reading) .. Mr. Speaker, I -ask unanimous consent that the resolution be considered as read and printed in the Rkoorio. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Nev Jersey? There was no oleiection. The SPEAKER. The Chair x gentleman from New Jersey 7V1r. Tirompsorr Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Speaker, Reuse Resolution 1015 is the funding resolu- tion for die Committee on Bankng Currency and Housing in the amount; $2,079,113. In this instance, Mr. Speaker, the or-.o mittee had an unexpended amount for the first session of $467,176.47. Again, that amount was returned to the Iron Mr. Speaker, this was fulis suppociku by the chairman of the committee, the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin Rruss) and by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. JOHNSON), the rank- Mg member. Mr, Speaker, I move the previous pile- - -t,:).rx on the resolution. The -Prevaius question was erom The resoluticm was agreed to. A marten to reconsider was laid cit. t.: 11.111e. PROVIDING FUNDS FOR EXPENSI...23 OF INVESTIGATIONS AND STITI'l- IES TO BE CONDUCTED BY COT.e2- MITTEE ON AGRICULTURE Mt. THOMPSON. Mr. Speaker. lee ,;j- rection of the Committee on House Ad- ministration, I calf up House Resolution 974 and ask for its immediate consider,..- tion. The C ierit i-cad the resiluticr, lollows. H. ass. 974 Resoled, That ef7ective from the ,,nice 01 the first session to the end of tile second ties- ion of the Ninety-fourth congress. the ex- sea of the investigations and studies to ? condueted by the Committee on At rieni- acting as a whole or by subcomentiee, no flreeed 3707,561.35, including expelidi- . Lured or the employment of invesV ?-Atixe. attar individual consultants m ? thereof., and clerical, stenobtapS41c, and 0th ' assistants, shall be paid 4103 of :,1-1e ceintinggios fund of the House on so icier' authorize ?by such committee, ;iigined by he chairman such committee, and approved oy the cor --ittee on House Administ,,,'aten. However, nee to exceed $166,361.35 If the zeinout3:; pro* by this resolution cutf,.- be -,isedto pr the temporai-y or irtery.iin - I ent services individual consultou.b.,, or iii-ganhAtions I -riot pursuant to section 202(i) of the Le31 ative Reorganizattion. Act of 194e (2 U.S.C.. :ail)); but this meneiary :imitation on the oeurement of soca serv- !'ces shall not rrevr t the use of scion ti,oils for any other authilk,zed purpose. Sac. 2, No part or tlie funds authoeezeti by this resoi ution shall be Available for expendi- ture in eonnection with the study or inves- tigation of any scbject whiels is be up in- Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 February 26, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?HOUSE at least two hours before the beginning of such consideration. The provisions of this clause shall not be Construed to supersede any other rules of the House requiring a longer period of time before such consider- ation is in order. The provisions of this clause shall not apply to any resolution reported by the Committee on Rules dealing with the consideration of a bill". SEC. 3. Rule XXVIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by add- ing at the end thereof the following new clause: "7. It shall not be in order to consider any report of a committee of conference unless copies or reproductions of such re- port have been available to Members on the floor for at least two hours before the be- ginning of such consideration. The provisions of this clause shall not be construed to sup- ersede any other rules of the House requir- ing a longer -period of time before such consideration is In order. The provisions of this clause shall not apply to any resolution or report of the Committee on Rules relating to any report of a committee of conference.". With the following committee amend- ment: Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu thereof: That rule XI, clause 2(1) (6) of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by inserting after the first sentence the fol- lowing: "Nor shall it be in order to consider any measure or matter reported by any com- mittee (except the Committee on Rules in the case of a resolution making in order the consideration of a bill, resolution, or other order of business, or any other committee in the case of a privileged resolution), un- less copies of such report and the reported measure or matter have been available to the Members for at least two hours before the beginning of such consideration; pro- vided, however, that it shall always be in order to call up for consideration, notwith- standing the provisions of clause 4(b), rule XI, a report from the Committee on Rules specifically providing for the consideration of a reported measure or matter notwith- standing this restriction." SEC. 2. The second sentence of rule XXVIII, clause 2(a) of the House of Representatives is amended by striking all after the word "statement" and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "have been available to Members for at least two hours before the beginning of such consideration; provided, however, that it shall always be in order to call up for consideration, notwithstanding the pro- visions of clause 4(b). Rule XI, a report from the Committee on Rules only making in or- der the consideration of a conference report notwithstanding this restriction." SEC. 3. The second sentence of rule XXVIII, clause 2(b) of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by striking all after the second comma and in- serting in lieu thereof the following: "have been available to Members for at least two hours before the beginning of such consid- eration; provided, however, that it shall al- ways be in order to call up for consideration, notwithstanding the provisions of clause 4(b), rule XI, a report from the Committee on Rules only making in order the consider- ation of such an amendment, notwithstand- ing this restriction." PARLIAIVIF NTMLY INQ1711LY Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry. The SPEAKER., The gentleman will state it. Mr. BAUMAN, Mr. Speaker, this reso- lution is to be considered in the House which would preclude an amendment from being offered by any Member. The SPEAKER. It is a rule that conies from the Committee on Rules. It is under the charge of the gentleman handling the resolution. Mr. BAUM.AN. So unless the gentle- man yields for the purpose of an amend- ment, none would be in order? The SPEAKER. The gentleman is cor- rect. Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, what unanimous-consent request might be entertained in order to allow amend- ments to be offered generally? Would it be a request to consider it in the House as in the Committee of the Whole? The SPEAKER. No. The gentleman from Florida controls the floor under the 1-hour rule in the House because this is a change in the rules brought to the floor by the Committee on Rules as priv- ileged. Rules changes can be considered in the House. Mr. BAUMAN. I thank the Speaker. The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. PEP- PER) (Mr. PEPPER asked and was given permission to revise and ex tend.his re- marks.) Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from Florida yield for a ques- tion at the outset? Mr. PEPPER. I yield to the gentleman , from Maryland. Mr. BAUMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Does the gentleman intend to yield to anyone for the purposes of amendment? Mr. PEPPER. No, I do not have au- thority from the Committee on Rules to yield to anyone for anything except de- bate in the consideration of this resolu- tion. Mr. BAUMAN. If the gentleman would yield further, I would say that when we amended the rules the last time I seem to recall the resolution was considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole and all the Members had the right to offer amendments. What was the reason for precluding individuals from offering amendments today? - Mr. PEPPER. This resolution comes out from the Rules Committee in the exercise of its jurisdiction relative to the rules of the House and it comes out as a closed rule and therefore I have no au- thority in handling the rule to yield to Members except for the purposes of de- bate. Mr. BAUMAN. I thank the gentleman from Florida. Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the able gentleman from Illi- nois (Mr. Asomisosi) , pending which I yield myself such time as I may con- sume. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 868, as amended by the Committee on Rules, proposes to amend two rules of the House in order to insure that Members have an adequate opportunity, no less than 2 hours, to review reported meass ures, conference reports, and Senate amendments in disagreement. House Resolution 868 as re or , woMd amend rusee c ause 6). tile3=drir 9-77yover ae, toprovide that no measure or matter re or e I d. M1121M1 l Ee on Ressa. H 1329 vaith resect to order of business resolu- tions, and other cc - ? ? t o privi ege reso u ons?may te consid- ered unless cc-. ? easure have een avai at e or a eas ours prior To consideration. The ieq-urrements oi rule XI, clause 7(l) (6) do not apply to measures for the declaration of war, the declaration of a national emergency by Congress, or to congressional actions with respect to executive decisions or de- terminations which would become or continue to be effective unless disap- proved or otherwise invalidated by one or both Rouse of Congress. The proposed 2-hour availability requirement would likewise not .be aoplicable to the con- .ideration of such Measures. liptise Resolution 868 also amends rule x ' X/II, clause 2 (a) and h), conference reportar.--rn-rsiMIbiConsider- ation both of conference re pts and of ITT=MEalment of the Senate to any measure reported in disagreement, un- fess copies of the report and state ent of I. - I- -a:: Is- I at least 2 hours _Prior to consideration. "The amendments to these rules con- tain a proviso which states that the 2- hour requirement may be waived by the rfo-17?unitre7771 a o-eso u iones th-rt--617ff"-r-n a'WEZMM!7M-1`'Pre same day reported notwithstandinz fure XeL, cleagse_4(h) jaratn?Ituarr ennsirliz., ion 6T-17-esolution from rules on the same d y eloo e'r?f?TZinffirir=e7?=b?arm two-thirds late. The requirement eogii arsZrbe dispensed with by unanimous consent or under suspension of the rules. The Committee on Rules held 4 days of hearings on this and similar resolu- tions. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was based on care- ful consideration of this issue. By its adoption the Members of this House will be assured of an opportunity to review measures on which they must vote. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of House Resolution 868. Mr. Speaker, may I just add that, hav- ing been a Member of the other body, I noticed here with some regret amend- ments are not available to Members in the House when they are considered by the House. In the other body when a bill is being considered, all amendments are in printed form, available on the desks of the Senators, so that while the amend- ment is being considered, a Senator has the advantage of looking at the print. of the amendment which is before him, unless in some special case an amend- ment of extraordinary order would be offered from the floor. So this measure today, I feel, is very important in fur- therance of the desire of this House for Members to have the fullest opportunity to have the knowledge of what is being considered in the House. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, believing it- to be a very meritorious resolution, I urge adoption of House Resolution 868. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illi- nois (Mr. ANDERSON) . (Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and ex- tend his remarks.) Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr. Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 1:330 LONuREIONAL htLAJT,L)-1 .ar, I rise in :reluctant oataisition to Resolution 868, the so-called 2- availability rule tor bilis, reports onference reports. I say reluctant ' lionw the intentions of the mail ;from California (Mr. JoHN tcte) were most sincere, genuine, and table in prorsising these rules he wanted to protect Members aegislating blindly and precipi- a Ordinarily, we on the minority the aisle would welcome such ei- since we so of ten seem to be the of D.s-:.; minute surprises sprung C majority; it seems the minority, :me rem on, is always the last to athai, i4 gong on. Such as the atratiyes of the .inajority. But I have ie to the conclusion, after giving this Areal deal of thought and study, , t, withstandi ng the honorable M ten- oreat. of the author of this resolution, eitual actually do more harm than al in terms of protecting the interests Members. and moreover, that the resos I, ion is simply not necessary to ineuee filotection. Let me explain. ss taw gentleman from Florida ;Mr. ?- has already explained, the main ;. .roose (il these rules changes is to in- sfo-e that Members will have advance seuess to written copies of bills, reports, Jed CoMeren3e reports at least 2 hours taaiate they are called up for consiciera- ? .i Members are well aware that our :4e rules XI and xxvm now require 3-lay layover of bills and conference a' sans respestively before they may be ;?,:es idered in the House. Both those rides trite that :the reports must be available 1., Members 3 days prior to their con- e: ation in the Rouse. The only excep- sos, in the rase of bills, are if they are: le-ofight up ii der tliaanimous consent, to any Member may object; under ? a:tension oi the rules, which requires a statiiirds vote; through a waiver of the rule -by the Committee on Rules, ust first be adopted by a major- or ihroafta a blanket waiver of ee 3 -nay rule applying to all bills its it up luring a certain period of --, again which must first be adopted majority vote. Moreover, the House illy protected by clause 3 of rule reads. and I quote: ttriso 1,,y motion or proposition is ufiide. the House now consider unless demanded by a lanatory footnote which to!- clause .n section 718 01 our ??tiles Manual reads as follows: ai tans be, which the HUtiSt? pro- I- ins winch it does not .. It may be raised against woirii has been made a special order, saver provides for immediate con- On a motion to go Into Com- - ? Whoie to consider a bill the es its 'Nish as to comidee-goo.i tion, vords, Mr. Speaker, eeen it use should adopt a special rule aliteb, waives the 3-day rule against a or conference report, any Member still raise the question of consider- in on the, motion to resolve into the nem:ft:tie:3 of the Whole to consider the bile aim a takes a amenity vote of House to proceed with taassideration. The same situation applies with e- sheet to the consideration of conferatce reports when the 3-day rule has loam waived. Even thougn conference repc are highly privileged, tae precedents re quite clear, and I quote The Question of censidr ration may be ...cs- manded are a nfio.t-r of the Mg.; ?s-. privilege. The only apparent exceptions lof :og seto messages and reports and order ;of business out of the Committee on Rt res. So again, any Member who is not satis- fied that the conference report has Leen available for a sufficient amount of trine orior to consideration, whether 2 ht urs or 1 day, may force a vote on the qi tion of consideration. and that con once report cannot be considered unit a majority of the House votes to pro( eed with consideration. Mr. Speaker, let me explain a sham 0ik has become common in the wan- ing days: of a session with respec to conference reports. Clause 2 at role XXVIII now states that the 3-day a: ability requirement on conference re- ports does not apply during the Ian 1-3 days of a session. Now then, unless the House has already adopted a resolution setting the date for adjournment, a is impossible to determine which are the last 6 days of the session, nor would:fah guesswork be permitted under a a -net construction of that rule. So what art been done instead has been a reques F. by the leadership that the Rules Corn: lit- toe retort- a resolution waiving the 3 allay rule on conference reports for the re- mainder of the session. Such a recoest C.UTIO to Its in the last ,;ession on De( em- ber 17. 1975. and the r( solution reque, ied read as follows: ? That diaing the ren...,.,gier of' the firs ;ion of the 94th Congress it shall be in -/rder to consider conference reports on the ?Ilane day reported or any day thereafter, not ,.;ith?- standine the provisions of clause :2, athe XXVIii ; that it shall also be in order d :rum the remaincier of tile first SefiSiJil of the ?'.2/4ili Congress ior the Speaker at any time t certain motious to stu;pend tie rules? to- withst...hciin,_7 the p'--v- ?ms of clause xxvii Nos. nateesalisis Q,lUU5j. bs itS all of clause 2 of rule .XXV.11.1, that res- olution would also have waived an ?Suer - silence abler' rents ais sato it be 1.1 report ttlp.e A.Itt tetotpatlyttle i_ -It are then ??:?10 .? Ile floor. In other words. our existing et; a that second sentence of clause 2, says that even when the 3--nay rule is wf,,ved. copies of the conference report and statement must still be available on the floor at the time of consideration. Rec- ognizing this fact, and being aware ( the concern of the gentleman from Cali- fornia as well as the interests o the minority. I offered the following an,end- ment to that resolution, which was adopted: Provided that copies of any meas ire or matter to be considered under the pro' 'stone of this resolution have been made at'-- table t mUch C maitre /)r matter. Notwlths'ar LLD:A this p a r availability requirement, it ?-hW.1. :nevert:ie..ess. be in order for the Hag, r--c, procee?I with consideration of any 'tea.-mre or nuotter under the provisions of this re.-.,- olution. .f tile House, by Unafli ent :equea: ;.-r majority vote, agrees to po....ege.1 rort-;ration This rule, with my ametadmeht, was adoptec by the Rules Cormnittee and the House. a effectively protected the inter- ests ci lembers in this blanket waiver of the l-day rule on conference :reports by ret-ring prior availability of the son- ferenee reports before consideration: moreoter, it required the prior availabil- ity of ,inples of bills brought up under suspeasion on any day for the remainder of the session, something which is not curreatly handled in the Burton rule My. amendment also stated a right which already exists in the House, and that is that ;.1 inajority may still vote to pre seed with c?tnsideration of the matter,. over: thoush a copy of the matter is not a:tell- able. Under the Burton rule, this would have to be rerouted through the Rule, Committee in order to waive the 2-hour rule. Under my amendment, the HOUSe could save itself the time and trouble of waiting ,for the Rules Committee to re- port back by voting to proceed with con- sideration at that point. Mr. Speaker, H appreciate that all Chi, may seem terribly complex and confus- ing to Members; it is a very technics: subject. The ms-in point I have tried te make is that this rule is unnecessars giver, the double protection Member: now have against being forced to vote or: matters not itt writing before them First, adequate protection can be pro- vided in any special order which waive the :selay rule on either bills or re-ports and I have already proved that peahi. with my amendment to House Resoluta): 938 last December 17. And it would b- ray intention that any time a committe asks us for a waiver of the 3-day rule Or either a bill or conference report, to in sist that the prior availability require =Lent be placed in such a speciol in-des And based on the overwhelming suapor for my amendment last December. 1 at sure the rest of the Rules Committe - wooed adopt such a safeguard. But who if yc is do not trust the Rules Coalman to paaect your interests la such a way Well, %-ou first have the option (Of reject ina ascii a .i-da s waiver Ir the eeport not allabie at the time you vote ea a, - rule You can insist during the 1 shot, debate on the 3-day waiver rule that th rule 1E.? defeated or chansed to roquirs prioc availability- of the matter ;to l " considered. But, second, even waiver rule is adopted it Ihe pre r availability safeguard, any Member ea then force a vote on the question is whether to proceed with consideration t. the bill or conference report. It therefor makes little sense to me to write yet .1 third ;safeguard, and one which can onler be waived by unanimous consent or bir going back through the Rules Committee Ax a point of order is sustained, when yo .i are already doubly protected under our existing rules. Mr. Speaker, it might be asked, wher Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 February 26, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE should I go to all this trouble to object to yet another form of protection; why should I oppose what on its face would seem to be a relatively simple and non- controversial addition to our House Rides? The answer is this: I fear that if we write this 2-hour prior availability requirement into our rules, it will be abused to the detriment of our best interests. Let me explain how this can happen. If you happen to be sitting on a rela- tively controversial conference report and you are in an emergency situation or the session is drawing to a close, it may be to your advantage to hold off releasing the text of that report until just before its consideration in the House. So, what you do first, under the terms of this rule, is wait until the emer- gency deadline is almost on you before you finaly vote the bill out of conference. Then, you go to the Rules Committee and ask for a waiver of the 3-day availability rule. Now, under present circumstances, you might not get that waiver if the re- port is not printed at the time you re- quest the special rule. But, with the new Burton rule, you can make the case that Members will still be protected by the 2-hour availability rule. And even though you could conceivably file a copy of the report in the CONGRESSIONAL REC- ORD of that clay, so it would be available to all Members in the RECORD they re- ceive the next morning, you do not do so. Instead, all you have to do is to make sure that, if the conference report is ex- pected to come up at 2 p.m. the next afternoon, copies are delivered to the documents room by noon on the day it is to be considered. In other words, what I am saying is that, while the 2-hour rule may be designed to protect the in- terests of Members, it could actually be used to insure that Members will not have adequate time to study the report in advance, even though it could have been made available in the pages of the RECORD on the previous day. This rule, in short, is a clear invitation to commit- tees to ask for more waivers of the 3- day rule on bills and conference reports, using the fallback justification that Members would still be protected by the 2-hour rule. That fallback justification does not now exist in our House rules, and I do not think We should give our committees that potential for abuse of our interests through the adoption of this rule. As I have said, we are already doubly protected by the option of reject- ing any rule waiving the 3-day rule on a bill or report not yet available at the time that rule is considered; and, more- over, we are protected by the majority vote which may be demanded by any Member on the question of proceeding to consideration of that bill or report. Mr. JOHN L. BURTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ANDERSON of rilinois. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. JOHN L. BURTON. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the gentleman from Illinois. That is why I am a little upset with the gentleman's reluctant opposition; but I thought matters from conference were considered in the House and not in the Committee of the Whole. Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Perhaps I can explain, if the gentleman will permit me to continue and complete my ex- planation of that particular rule. The same situation, I would say in 4 answer to the gentleman from California, does apply with respect to the considera- tion of conference reports when the 3-day rule has been waived. That is true ordinarily. That is true for what the gentleman just stated, what the gentle- man just asked about in the question. Mr. STEIGER of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin. Mr. STEIGER of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the gentleman's yielding to me. -I am impressed by the analysis the gentleman has made, and I agree with him. I thought at first, as I looked at this rule, that it made some sense, and that it gave us yet another safeguard. The more I have looked at it, however, the less I am impressed that-it, in fact, makes sense. I think it is open. I think there is some chance of mischief on the part of the committees to take away the rights we now enjoy that now insure that there is some priority availability of reports and bills. Mr. Speaker, let me ask one question of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. ANDERSON). There is a provision on page 3 of the resolution which says this: Provided, however, That it shall always be in order to call up for consideration, not- withstanding the provisions of clause 4(b), rule XI, a report from the Committee on Rules specifically providing for the con- sideration of a reported measure or matter notwithstuding this restriction, Does that mean to say, if read it correctly, that the two-thirds rule is then abolished insofar as the resolution reported by the Committee on Rules is concerned, so that it takes only a simple majority vote to adopt the rule, waiving this 2-hour rule on the same day? Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr. Speak- er, frankly, I am in some doubt. I think one could well and properly put that con- struction on this language. I had not con- sidered that particular point. It May be that the gentleman from Wisconsin has pointed to yet another reason why we should be a little bit slow about adopting the precise language of the proposed rules change. I may be wrong, but I think one could draw the inference or make that interpretation. Mr. BAUMAN. Mi. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland. Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, I also want to concur with the excellent statement the gentleman has made, but the point raised by the gentleman from Wiscon- sin (Mr. STEIGER) is what has concerned me most about this resolution. I am in total sympathy with the 2- hour requirement the gentleman from California (Mr. Jona L. BURTON) em- bodies in his original resolution, bat the amendment by the Committee on Rules, specifically the language cited by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 111331 STEIGER), gives rise to my concern. Al- though this waiver is limited just to the rules change now before us, we are for the first time, at least as far as the prec- edents I can find show, waiving the two- thirds requirement for same-day consid- eration. The gentleman will recall, in many instances during his long service here and in many instances in the brief time ?I have been here we have seen situ- ations where this two-thirds requirement to bring up a resolution from the Com- mittee on Rules on the same day on which it is reported has thwarted very, bad pieces of legislation, forcing bills to lay over at least a day, and then more adequate consideration was subsequently given to the legislation. However, we are breaking precedent here in allowing same-day consideration by a majority vote even though it is limited to just this new proposed rule. I would suspect that for the convenience of the majority, we might see other rules changes suggested, reducing the two- thirds requirement for same-day consid- eration and thereby damaging, possibly, In the future, in many instances, the rights of the minority. As the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. ANDERSON) well knows, a minority Con- sists of over 200 Members on a natural gas bill. It can be a racial minority or it can be a political minority; and all of our rights might well be jeopardized. Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, there are no more careful and conscientious students of the rules than the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. BAUMAN), who has just spoken, and also the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. STEIGER), who preceded him. I think they have made some excellent points in their contribution to the de- bate on why we should not adopt the resolution now before us. Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Cali- fornia, (Mr. JOEIN L. BURTON). (Mr. JOHN L. BURTON asked and was given permission to revise and ex- tend his remarks.) Mr. JOHN L. BURTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. PEPPER) for yielding. First of all, I would, really like every- one to understand what this does. The Measure has been in the Committee on Rules since March, and I would have been delighted if some of the problems that somebody seems to think he finds now would have been raised during that time. Second, yes, it does provide that the Committee on Rules can waive this rule on the same day. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. BOLLING) felt that the House must be able to work its will in a majority vote, but at least a majority of the House would have to vote. They do not care whether they see the bill in print or not before they vote on it. I was elected to this body in June 01 1974. In December, on one night?and those Members who were here may remember this?we voted on the trade bill which was this thick. That was in for 2 years, and there was not a copy in print. It was Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 H. Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? I R February 13, I !); ve he rules, every rule that the gen- an from Illinois (Mr. ANDERSON) talked about. It was within the rules. We yeted on f. social services bill this thick, and there was not a copy in print. We voted on a needles-and-pins tariff tMU that was only this thick and that had a eoodie in it for Members of the House and Members ol the Senate. We in the douse did not even know that when we voted on it, and then we had to face our sotistituents wln were asking why we tae a tax break to people who con- e Meted to some newsletter fund. That ti)taaF not in lrint either. Ar Speaker, this bill does not super- Pe any of the longer time periods. it Is a safeguard. It says that before we ea tc on some thing, it ought to be in - is wrong with that. Mr. Speaker? is going to stand up when the ma- y leader ha e a privileged resolution $ waive a longer period of time to ex- pedite business? We do not need a 7-day layover, We do want- to expedite at the end of a 'sessio :1; but when we waive that, we waive it all. We do not consider :conference reverts, which are where most of this hat pens, in the Committee of the Whole, ahen there is a motion. I think it is don in the "House House," and if conferen;e reports are in order at arty time, the are in order when the Speaker recog.niees the chairman who is going to present the conference report. That is kind of a nebulous vote. Mr. Speaker, what are we voting on? We are voting on whether or not to take up the conferenee report. We say, "Aye, take it up." -What are we toting on? We are voting os whether or not we want to see the bilt in print. That is an issue that is really an issue. rind it is something that people 'an understanci when they come th and there it a meeting with con- stituents.. di?Z we want to r,ake uo a conference re- wait went is w!ong with that? "Ave." wC eat. 'drkipeaker, this brings us down to ;.(tstiething that he Committee on Rules lima suggested or that the gentleman tEosse Missouri (Mr. BOLLING/ has sug- easted should be. able to be waived in 1 (:iaiy by at least a conscientious vote by a (majority of the Members of the House on tate issue. ard they want to see the blit ni anat. WE want to see the bill in I) Gt. at s. take Lite trade bill. It was in the Congt:e:s for 2 years: and when we .oteES: on it, we cid not have a copy of it. year, when we tried to take up the tashreduction bill, there was almost i'ebellion_ on tine floor of the House. By ii mous consent, the gentleman from Panosytyania (Mr. SCIINEEBEL I ) and the ? gentleman from Oregon (Mr. ULLMAN) ilad 2 hours of tpedal orders to get the eill th print. not thin:: that is the w ay to do thing does one thing and one e only and I do not understand how rybody can he so upset. I do agree somewhat with say friend the gentleman i? ,Gt-rt Maryland (Mr. Bannves). I would like to see a two-thirds vote before tb. Congress of the United States votes o. an issue that they cannot even read. I was persuaded by the logic of the argument and the votes in the Commit - tee on Rules that maybe the majority c'f the House should vote. I do not care e- somebody wants to say, "I will vote on e whether I have read it or not," or if the majority wants to do it that way. becaue I know howl am going to vote. Personally I have the utmost respe( for the distinguished gentleman from r linois (Mr. ANDERSON) and really why - he says seems relevant, the only aro.; meat one could make is maybe that a should have a two-thirds vote, but ti other way of that is that maybe the mae ority of the House should be able te work its will. If the majority of the Holm e wants to catch an airplane and not rea the bill, then they can vote on it. By when the major provisions are waived just to expedite the business of 3 day or 7 days. and to wipe out all of the other holding patterns does not make miler. sense. It is very simple, the thing of :a Is we ought to have the bill before us le, print, not merely in the document roon but available to the Members on the floor. The SPEAKER. The time of the ger.- tleman has expired. Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Speaker. I yield additional minutes to the gentlema from California (Mr. BURTON ) . Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker will tit e gentleman yield? Mr. JOHN L. BURTON Mr. Speaker. 7 yield to the gentleman from Maryland Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the gentleman from Califor nia for the effort that the gentleman hi made in this matter. I think that it is e matter of parliamentary importance. However, Mr. Speaker, the gentlema. from Maryland would like to ask, havire read the committee amendment, doe:. not the gentleman from California feie that if the committee amendment is de - feated, which we have the right to do in the full House, that then the gentleman original language would be far prefei able. It would still preserve the twc thirds vote requirement. In order to hay s the original position of the gentleman before us we could simply vote the con, mittee amendment down. Mr. JOHN L. BURTON, I would te. the gentleman from Maryland that would not have a chance to vote on tie measure again. The measure has been 1.. the committee since March. I spent a k - of time on it, and I did what I thougl best. I attempted to address rIl of the problems and also the problem that tit - gentleman from Missouri (Mr. BOLLING raised, that had a lot of merit to it be cause it seemed to have a lot of votes fr It in the committee. It is tomething the- maybe we should do, and that is that t majority in the House should be able te work its will. There again, if we think . Is the best way we do it. then we cat vote for is. We can vote to say that a e do not care if the bill is in print. As I say, I would have liked to hat e seen it done in a better way, but I thin- this is a safeguard that we do not hate now. Uader every rule we have had, where it says that we have got to have something in print, or we can say that we waive the 3-day rule and the 7-day rule, if that is the only way that the Men the:' can get to it. Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, if the ge,- tieman will yield further, I would ob- serve that the matter is now before us tn the House, and can be subject to is rollcall vote on the committee amend- ment. The committee amendment could be defeated and then the bill could pass al the gentleman from California orig- inally suggested. Mr. JOHN L. BURTON. Mr. Speaker. I say Uses. I say that this is a good measure. If the majority had really wanted to run over the minority, they would be able to pass a rule to allow the majority to do anything. They could do that but they have not done so. Further, I did not know that the world was going to come to an end, and there would be a bill and, my God, the Xero.a machine broke down, my God, what are we going to do? As I say, the majority ought to be able to work its will, although originally I did think the majority of the Members of the House could vote to say, "We do not want to see what we are voting on next." So I think that this is a pretty good protection. I agree with the gentleman from Mary- land that there are some things that I would like to see done better. but I really think this is basic to our legisla- tive process if a bill is pending, it is in the works. And further it is not as com- plicated as the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. ANDERSON) said, under the present rules, without question, a conference committee could hold on to a bill until the last minute, then bripg it out, and say, "This is the social secu- rity bill, and you had all better vote on it before all the widows and orphans lose their money and who are holding their breath waiting for its passage." Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Speaker, I would just add this. The Committee on Rules had 4 days of hearings on this matter and concluded that, after fair considera- tam of the measure by the House, si mould be adopted. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous quets non on toe committee amendment and tie resolution. The previous question was ordered. The -st'PEAKER. The question is 0,0i1 ie emr m it tee amendment. The c manittee amendment E,as agreed The ,SPEAKER. The gate ion i ii le fe6bitttion. 'the question was taken; and rn Speaker ,i.nsiounced that the ayes ap- peared to have it. Mr. STEIGER of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground d.-!.at a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum ie not present. The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is n7t: p'eme:tt Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 February ,26, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members. The vote was taken by electronic de- vice, and there were?yeas 258, nays 107, not voting 67, as follows: [Roll No. 711 YEAS-258 Abzug Gonzales Adams Goodling Addabbo Green Alexander Gude Allen Guyer Anderson, Haley Hall Andrews, N.C. Hamilton Andrews, Hanley N. Dein Hannaford Annunzio Harkin Ashley Harris Bachllo Hawkins Baldus Hayes, Ind. BELUCUS Heckler, Maas. Heard, RI. Hefner Bedell Helstoski Bennett Henderson Bergland Hicks Bevil Hightower Biaggi Holland Biester Holtzman Bingham Howard Blanchard Howe Blouin Hubbard Boggs Hughes Honker Hungate Bowen Brademas Breaux Breckinridge Johnson, Calif. Brinkley Jones, Ala. Brodhead Jones, N.C. Brooks Jones, Okla. BrownsCalif. Jones, Tenn. Burke, Mass. Jordan Burleson, Tex. Kastenmeier Burlison, Mo. Kazen Burton, John Ketchum Burton, Phillip Keys Byron Koch Carr Krebs Chappell Krueger Chisholm LaFalce Cleveland Lehman Collins, 111. Levitas Corman Cornell D'Amours Daniels, N.J. Long, La. Danielson Long, Md, Davis McCloskey Delaney McCormack Dellums McFall Derrick McHugh Dingell McKay ' Dodd McKinney Downey, N.Y. Madden Downing, Va. Madigan Drinan Maguire Duncan, Oreg. Mahon Early Mann Edgar Martin Edwards, Calif. Mathis Eilberg Matstmaga Emery Mazzoli English Meeds Evans, Colo. Melcher Evans, Ind. Meyner Evins, Tenn, Mezvinsky Fars, Mikva Fascell Fisher Fithian Flood Florio Flowers Foley Ford, Mich. Fountain Fraser Frenzel Fuqua Gaydos Gialmo Gibbons Ginn Myers, Pa. Hatcher Neal Necizi Nichols Nowak Oberstar Obey O'Hara Ottinger Passman Patten, N.J. Patterson, Calif. Pattisen, NY. Pepper Peyser Pickle Pike Poage Preyer Price Randall Rangel Rees ReusS Richmond Rinaldo Jarman Roberts Jenrette Roe Rogers Ronealio Rooney Rosenthal Roush Roybal Runnels Russo Ryan St Germain Santini -Samba Sarbanes Scheuer Schroeder Seiberling Litton Sharp Lloyd, Calif. Shipley Lloyd, Tenn, Shuster Simon Sisk Slack Solara Spellman Staggers Stark Steed Stokes Stratton Studds Sullivan Symington Taylor, N.C. 'Thompson Thornton Tsongas Ullman Van Deerlin Vander Veen Vanik Waggonner Milford Waxman Miller, Calif. Weaver Mills Whalen Meta Whitten Minish Wilson, C. H. Mitchell, Md. Wilson, Tex. Moffett Wirth Mollohan Wright Montgomery Yates Moorhead, Pa. Yatron Morgan Young, Alaska Moss - Young, Fla, Mottl Young, Ga. Murphy, ILL Young, Tex. Murphy, N.Y. Zablocki Murtha Zeferetti Aladnor Anderson, UI. Archer Armstrong Ashbrook NAYS?I07 Befalls Brown, Ohio Bauman Broyhill Beard, 'Tenn. Buchanan Broomfield Burke, Fla, Brown, Mich. Butler Carter Cederberg Clancy Clausen. Don H. Cochran Cohen Collins, Tex. Conabl conl an. Conte Coughlin 'Daniel, Dan Daniel, R. W. Derwinski Devine Dickinson du Pont Edwards. Ala. Fenwick Findley toish Forsythe Frey Goldwater Gradison Grassley Hagedorn Hammer- schmicit Hansen ibirsha Heel-lien W. Va. Ambro Aspin AuCoin Barrett Bell Boland Bolling Burgener Burke, Calif. Carney Clawson, Del Clay Conyers Cotter Crane de la Garea Heinz Hillis Holt Horton Hutchinson Hyde JetTords Johnson, Cob. Johnson. Pa, Kasten Kelly Kemp Kindness Latta Lent Lott MeClory McCollister McDade McDonald McEwen Michel Miller, Ohio Mitchell, N.Y. Moore Moorhead, Calif. Mosher Myers, lad. Pressler Pritchard Qu ie Quillen NOT Railsback Regula Rhodes Robinson Ruppe Satterfield Schulze Sebelius Shriver Sikes Skubitz Smith, Nebr. Spence Stanton, J. William Steelman Steiger, Ariz. Steiger, Wis Symms Taylor, Mo. Thone Treen Vander Jagt Walsh Wampler Whitehurst Wiggins Wilson, Bob Wydler Wylie VOTING-67 Flynt Ford, Tenn. Gilman Harrington Hays, Ohio Hebert Hinshaw Jacobs Karth Lagomersino Landrum Leggett LuJsn Macdonald Metcalfe Mink Dent Moakley Diggs Nix Duncan, '15110. Nolan Eckhardt O'Brien Erlenborn O'Neill Esch Pat man, Ten Eshleman Perkins Pettis Riegle Risenhoover Rodin? Rose Rostenkowski Rousselot Schneebeli Smith, Iowa Snyder Stanton, James V. Stephens Stuckey Talcott Teague Traxler Udall Vigorito White Winn Wolff. The Clerk announced the following pail's: - Mr. Hebert with Mr. Bell, Mr. Ambro with Mr. AuCoin. Mr. Cotter with Mr. Gilfrian. Mr. Hays of Ohio with Mr. Harrington, Mr. Macdonald of Massachusetts with Mr. Aspin. Mr. Nix with Mr. Burgener. Mr. O'Neill. with Mr. Stuckey. Mr. Patman with Mr. Winn. Mr. Rodino with Mr. Snyder. Mr. Rostenkowski with Mr. Stephens. Mr. James V. Stanton with Mr. Taloott. Mr. Teague with Mr. Lagomarsino. Mr. White with Mr. Traxler. Mr. Vigorito with Mr. Udall, Mr. Wolff with Mr. Landrum. Mr. Karth with Mr. Del Clawson. Mr. Diggs with Mf. Duncan of Tennessee. Mrs. Burke of California with Mr. Eckhardt. Mr. Barrett with Mr. Perkins, Mr. Boland. with Mr. Crane. Mr. Carney with Mr. O'Brien. Mr. Clay with Mr. Erlenborn. Mr. Dent with Mr. Lujart. Mr. de la Garza with Mr. Leggett. Mr. Conyers with Mr. Each. Mr. Flynt with Mr. Smith of Iowa. Mr. Ford of Tennessee with Mr. 'Eshleman. Mr. Nolan with Mr. Schneebell. Mr. Moakley with Mr. Rousselot, Mrs. Mink with Mr. Rose. Mr. Metcalfe with Mr. Risenhoover. Mr. Riegle with Mrs. Pettis. Mr. KRUEGER changed his vote from "nay" to "yea." H 1333 Mr. ASHBROOK changed his vote from "yea" to "nay." So the resolution was agreed to.. The result of the vote was =Jounced as above recorded. The title was amended so as to read: "Resolution to amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to provide that the House may not consider any report of a committee, bill, resolution, or a re- port of a committee of conference un- less copies or reproductions have been available to Members at least 2 hours before such consideration." A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. GENERAL LEAVE Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan- imous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the legis- lation just agreed to. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida? There was no objection. PERMISSION FOR COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COM- MERCE TO HAVE UNTIL MID- NIGHT, SUNDAY, rEBRUARY 29, 1976, TO FILE A REPORT ON H.R. 11124 Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce may have until midnight, Sunday, Feb- ruary 29, 1976, to file the committee re- port on H.R. 11124, the Medical Device Amendments of 1976. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida? There was no objection, PROVIDING FOR CONTINUANCE OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT FOR TRUST TERRITORY OF THE PACIFIC / ISLANDS Mr. PHrLLIP BURTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Com- mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 12122) to amend section 2 of the Act of June 30, 1954, providing for the continuance of civil government for the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and for other purposes and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Cali- fornia? Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and it is not my intention to object, I just want to advise the House the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Cali- fornia (Mr. PHILLIP BURTON) , has cleared this with the minority, and we are' in concurrence with this measure. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reserva- tion of objection. Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 Approved For Release 2006/02/07: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 11 1334 ? CONGRESSIONAL The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Cali- fornia? There was no objection. The Clerk read he bill, as follows: nu. 12122 A bill to amend Section 2 of the Act of June 30..1954, providing for the continuance of civil government for the Trust Territory or the Pacific Island;, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Berresentatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Sserfola 1. That section 2 of the Act of June 30, 7.954 (68 Stat. 330), is amended by deleting 4plus s-uch sums as are necessary, but not to exceed $10,000,000, for each of e.uch fiscal years, to offset reductions in, or the termination cf, Federal grant-in-aid programs or other funds made available to the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands by other Federal agencies". and inserting in lieu hereof the following: "for fiscal year 1976, VI0,000,000; for the period beginning July 1, 1976. and ending September 30, 1976, $15,- 100,000; for fiscal year 1977, $80,000,000; and :each amounts as were authorized but not ap- propriated for fiscal year 1975, and up to but not to exceed $8,000,000 for the construction of such buildings a.; are required for a four- year college to seree the Micronesian com- munity, plus such sums as are necessary, but not to exceed $10,000,000. for each of such ilacal years, or per ods, to offset reductions in, or the termination of. Federal grant-in- aid programs or otier funds made available to the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands 'by other Federal agencies, which amounts for each such fiscal year or other period shall be adjusted upward or downward and pre- eanted to the Congress to the budget docu- ment for the next succeeding fiscal year as A supplemental budget request for the cur- eent fiscal year, to offset changes in the ihiechasing power of the United States dollar by multiplying such amounts by the Gross National Product Implicit Price Deflator for elle third quarter of .he calendar year numerically preced .ng the fiscal year or other period for which such supplemental ap- propriations are made, said dividing the re- auiting product by the Gross National Prod- uct implicit Price Deflator for the third quar- aer of die calendar year 1974." 8sc .. 2 the laws of die United States which are made a9plicable to the Northern Mariana Islands by the provisions of Sec. i502(a) (i) of H.J. Res 5.19, as approved by The Rouse of Representatives and the Sen- ate, except tor the Micronesia Claims Act IS it. applies to the Trust Territory of the ileachie lelands, shall be made applicable to Guam on the same terms and conditions as sucki laws are applied to the Northern Mariana islands. :SEC. 3. there is hereby authorived to be loproprl Med such amounts as may be nec- ,tiatV (Lii edditicn to amounts previously uJarrii, ed to be appropriated) for the put- of making ull payments of awards aader title li of die Micronesian Claims Act .0`?.' I. Fuolic La' 92-39 eace 4. e. lin President is hereby au- shard to extend to Puerto Rico, the Virgin islands, (huam, American Samoa, the Mari- ana taiaads Distriat and the other Districts 113i, Trust Terri;ory or the Pacific Islands, ,iI.1 Fecie.fal programs previding grants, loan, tnil ball guarantee or other assistance to 41e 6tates maiess he determines that such eel:me:atm is inconsistent with the purposes -ice statutory cuttionzation under which eacn assistance provided or unless such ,!.,.1,e,L1011 Is .disapproved by resolution of eeaier House of Congress as provided in sub- eee Li011 I h . le; aen. .eresident shall transmit to tile coaeresa notice of any ex teitsion action Laken ...Ade: a:lase:a:ion (a) and any seen action RECORD 1101 'SE February ') 1 , shall take effect at the end of the first period of sixty calendar days of continuous ses- sion of Congress after the date of which the notice is transmitted to it unless, be- tween the date of transmittal and the end of the sixty-day period, either House passes a resolution stating in substance that that House does not favor stt,ch extension. For purposes of this subsection, passage of such resolution shall be subject to the same pro- cedures as apply in the caae of resolutions disapproving government reorganization plans under Chapter 9 of Title 5 United States Code. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to re- consider was laid on the table. MAKING IN ORDER ON TUESDAY. JUNE 15, 1976, AUTHORITY FOR SPEAKER TO DECLARE A RECESS FOR COMMEMORATION OF FLAG DAY eVIr. McFALL asked ancl was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. McFALL. Mr. Speaker, Monday June 14, 1976, will mark the 199th an- niversary of Flag Day. For many yean. the House has commemorated Flag Da3- here in the House Chamber by appropri- ate ceremonies. June 14 falls on Monday this year, bu: inasmtich as the U.S. Navy Band whicl is scheduled to perform at this Flat Day's observance has a commitment or that day which cannot be canceled, I ask unanimous consent that it may Ix in order on Tuesday, June 15, 1976, fol the Speaker to declare a recess for the purpose of observing and commemorat- ing Flag Day in such manner as tht Speaker may deem appropriate. The SPEAKER. Is there objection ti the request of the gentlerrem from Cali fornia? There was no objection. APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE Or ARRANGEMENTS FOrt FLAG DAO CEREMONIES The SPEAKER. The Cnaer will state for the information of the House that after consultation with the distinguishen minority leader, the Chair has informal- ly designated the following Members constitute a committee to make th necessary arrangements for appropriat ceremonies in connection with the unan imuus consent agreement just adopted The gentleman from Alabama, M: NanoLs: the gentleman from Oklahoma Mr. BISENHOOVER; the gentleman frac-. Teemessee. Mr. BEARD; and the gentle - man from Maine, Mr. Evi ERN LEGISLATIVE PROGRAIV1 Mr. RHODES asked and was give. permission to address the House for minute and to revise and extend his re- marks.)? Mr. RHODES. Mr. Speaker, I take th. , me to inquire of the distinguished act - jug majority leader as to whether le IS in a position to infonal the Howe a.; to the program for the balance of Ger week and for next week. Mr. McFALL. Mr. Speaker, 111 the dis- tinguished minority leader will yield, I will be happy to respond to his inquiry, Mr. RHODES. I yield to the distin- guished acting majority leader, Mr. McFALL. Mr. Speaker, there is ne further legislative business for today Upon announcement of the program for next week, I will ask unanimous con- sent to go over until Monday. Mr. Speaker, the program for the House for next week is as follows: On Monday we will call the Consent Calendar, and we will consider billy under suspension of the rules as follows' H.R. 8991, Community Services Act technical amendments; H.J. Res. 296, International Petroleum Exposition: and H.R. 11700, New York pun:: employ- nie:nt retirement systems. The votes-on suspensions will be Post- poned until the end of all suspensions. On Tuesday, we will call the Private Calendar and the Suspension Calendar, At this time we have no bills for the Suspension Calendar. The House will consider H.R. 10760, black lung benefits reform, under an. open rule with 2 hours of debate. ? On Wednesday the House will consider H.R. 11963, international security assist- ance, subject to a rule being granted. On Thursday the House will consider H.R. ?, foreign assistance appro- priations, fiscal year 1976, subject to .1 rule being granted; and H.R. 11124, medical device amend- ments, subject to a rule being granted Mr. Speaker, I am able to advise the House that there will be no session on Friday. Conference reports, of course, may be brought up at any time, and any further program will be announced later. Mr. RHODES. Mr. Speaker? as far a e the International Security Assistance Act is concerned, the program states that it is subje,ctto a rule being granted. There- fore, I understand it will also be netee- sary to obtain a rule for-the considera- tion of that appropriation b111, and? 1f so, will the gentieman inform us as to why that will be required? Mr. McFALL. Yes, that will be necee- airy. Mr. Speaker, that will be required for the reason that the authorization bill will not yet have been signed; it would. have just been passed presumably the House the day before, and for that tech- nical reason it will be necessary to haze a rule granted for the consideration or the appropriation bill. Mr. RHODES. Mr, Speaker. I ':1st it the gentleman. ADJOURNMENT TO MONDAY. MARCH 1, 1976 Mr. .1.1(1cPALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unaii- imous consent that when the House ad- journs today it adjourn to meet on Mon- day next. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Cali- fornia? There was no objection. Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :.CIA-RDP77M00J44R01100210037-0 S 2764 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? March 4, 1976 tion issuing from the Banking Commit- tee is the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975. It requires that banks provide the public with information about the dispersal of mortgage credit in commu- nities. Class action groups demanded this tool as a means of encouraging financial institutions to lend where social interest dictates, regardless of the risk factor. Again, the appealing justification for this demand?the need to save deteriorating neighborhoods?was accepted by Con- gress. But ironically enough, Congress is also deeply concerned about the prob- lem of bank failures. When asked whether bank failures could be totally eliminated through regu- lation, the Comptroller of the Currency replied in a recent hearing that if it were possible, it would be at a cost beyond conception. He added further that risky loans of all types would have to be pro- hibited. And in considering the value of a failure-free banking system as guaran- teed by the strictest possible regulation, we have to consider as well the effect of a no-risk loan policy on the striving small businessman. I have given examples of legislation to protect the consumer from business. Now let me proceed with an example of equally questionable legislation to pro- tect small business itself. Before Christmas, Congress acted to repeal the statutory bases for the fair trade laws. To summarize briefly, the fair trade laws allow a manufacturer to set a minimum price at which his product may be sold. It is legalized price fixing. Enthusiasm for this concept developed during the Great Depression. Retailers mistook falling prices for the source of the economic depression rather than the result. They lobbied vigorously for legis- lation designed to give the States the right to protect them from predatory pricing and cutthroat competition. The experience of the intervening years has refuted the two main proposi- tions on which the fair trade laws were based. First, the proponents believed that additional revenues obtained as a result of higher fixed prices would be captured by the retailers themselves. To the con- trary, anticipated profits were swiftly eaten away by an expensive competition in services. Second, proponents believed that consumers are insensitive to the re- tail price and would not reduce the vol- ume of their purchases. Instead, a 1969 study by the Department of Justice es- tablished the fact that stores in fair trade States almost universally have a signifi- cantly lower volume of retail sales than stores in free trade States. Finally, a 1975 Federal Trade Commission analysis found that? There 18 simply no evidence to support the contention that the survival of small busi- ness in America depends on fair trade. The same study found that the rate of growth of small retail stores was 35 percent higher in free trade States. And during the years in which this experi- ment in price regulation was being con- ducted, the consumer had to pay any- where from 19 to 37 percent more on purchase items. In all cases, the effort to legislate a perfect society and to stabilize it through regulation is expensive for both business and the consumer. However, the true tragedy of the situation is, as DeTocque- ville predicted, an overwhelming preoc- cupation with trivia that enervates and stupefies the people. The smallest act, whether private or commercial, becomes mired in endless official requirements, so that the quality of life itself deteriorates. We are oppressed with multiple anxieties. We believe less in the will of the people to conduct themselves in fair, decent, and responsible fashion unless forced to do so. The circumstances of life are simply not perfectable by regulatory efforts or otherwise, and we have all discovered to our own detriment how much damage bureaueratic optimism in this regard can do. We are all in the soup, but small busi- ness has the greatest difficulty in keeping its head above the floating roughage. It Was for him that the 50-percent increase in the Federal reporting burden from December 1967 to June 1974 was most onerous. It is for him that occupational safety and health requirements, medicare and medicaid programs, environmental protection regulations, and equal employ- ment opportunity compliance are most burdensome. The FTC, SEC, FPC, ICC, FCC, Departments of Agriculture ? ? merce, HEW, 'Interior, Justice, Transportation, and Treasury controls that affect him dail . spirit of innovation that is most be stifled by the fact that it t, million and 7 years to get a new p on the market. Federal regulation does affect the qua - ity of our lives and the vitality of our economy. However, the substantial case against Federal regulation does not merit the conclusion that all of it is bad. AA Dr. Murray L. Weidenbaum explained in Government-Mandated Price Increases: As a general proposition, a society?acting through its government?can and should take steps to protect consumers against rapacious sellers, individual workers against unscrupu- lous employers, and future generations against those who would waste the nation's basic resources. But, as in most things in life, sensible solutions are not matters of either/ or, but rather of more or less. Thus, we may enthusiastically advocate stringent and cost- ly government controls over industry to avoid infant crib deaths without simultaneously supporting a plethora of detailed federal rules and regulations which,., deal with the size of toilet partitions, the color of exit lights, and the maintenance of cuspidors. It is not necessarily the caie that if a little regulation is good, more is even bet- ter. When regulation has destroyed the Individual's ability to exercise his own judgment and when it has eliminated all the decisionmaking prerogatives of busi- ness, then more has gone far beyond too much. Perhaps we should go back to the wis- dom of Socrates himself, who said that "By far the most useful rule in life is nothing to excess." In conclusion, let me refer to an edi- torial in Monday's Washington Post that caught my eye. The article was con- cerned with unsatisfactory performances of high school graduates on basic profi- ciency tests. The author asked: What, at a minimum, ought a child be able to do after 12 years in the public schools? It is a national dilemma. According to a general consensus, there are certain basic skills which a student must acquire in order to have a minimal chance of sur- vival in our society. As pointed out in the article, one of those basic skills is the ability to fill out an application form. How ironic that in a nation of such wealth and opportunity, such achieve- ments in science and technology, such ready accessibility to an extraordinary heritage of literature and history and philosophy, that the ability to fill out a simple form should become a standard of achievement and a prerequisite for survival. Ours shall not be known as the golden age, the ice age, the dark ages, the age of enlightenment, or the age of rea- son. Ours shall be known as the age that nearly smothered under the bounty of what must surely have become in recent years the most profitable industry in the history of mankind. Ours will be known as the paper age. ORDER OF BUSINESS The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from Wyoming is recognized for not to exceed 15 minutes SEN. Mr. President, I yield distinguished colleague from a (Mr. Norm) . he PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- from Georgia is recognized. S. 3076?PAPERWORK REVIEW AND LIMITATION ACT OF 1976 Mr. NUNN. I thank my colleague from Wyoming, and I shall take a very brief amount of time. I congratulate those who are partic- ipating in this colloquy. I particularly congratulate the final statement by thO Senator from Texas that this will be known as the paper age, That leads me into my comments regarding the paper- work bill that Senator ROTH from Dela- ware and I are now introducing which, I hope, will begin to reverse the tide. Mr. President. on behalf of the distin- guished Senator from Delaware (Mr. Rom) and myself and others, I am in- troducing today the Paperwork Review and Limitation Act of 1976, a bill which is designed to improve congressional oversight of the paperwork requirements of Federal agencies. The Senator from Delaware (Mr. Rom) and I have worked on this legis- lation for some time?and we have also ? been joined by Senator MCINTYRE of New Hampshire as a prime author. We are joined in sponsoring this legislation by the distinguished Senators from Ken- tucky (Mr. HUDDLESTON), Florida (Mr. CHILES), Arizona (Mr. FANNIN), and Ohio (Mr. TAFT), all of whom have shown great. interest and leadership in reducing the burden of Federal paperwork on pri- vate individuals and enterprises. This bill is aimed at correcting one of the chief causes of the Federal paper- work burden?the Congress itself. Each year we pass new legislation Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 March 4, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENN-LE S 276S Under the previous order, the Senator from Texas is recognized for not to ex- ceed 15 minutes. Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me? Mr. TOWER. I yield. Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, how many orders remain for today? The PRESIDING OleisiCER. Three more 15-rnin. ute ler& rs, and the Senator from Idaho has en-minute order. Mr. ROBERT CeleYRD. Do I have an order, also? e. The PRESIDING fliFFICER. That in- cludes the Senator freen West Virginia. Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous conseitt that the 15 minutes allotted to me new be utilized by any Senator who wisheetto utilize all or part of it. It The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. 'ts Pets Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. , ident, 1. ask unanimous consent that at con- clusion of the orders, if such con ion occurs prior to 2:30 elm. today, theVen- ate stand in recess until 2:30 p.m. to . The PRESIDING OFFICER. With objection. it is so ordered. Mr. TOWER. Mr President, I ask unanimous consent that the time con- sinned by the Senator from West Vir- ginia not be charged against me. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. SMALL BUSINESS AND esEDERAL REGULATION Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, we must remember with nostalgia that there once was a time when the small businessman had a bright future in our country. Early in our history, his horizons were unlim- ited. His services to a populace cut off from the luxuries it had enjoyed in an- other country were appreciated. Hie edu- cation of a citizenry versed in only the most minimal consumption was-reward- ed. In this-climate of respect and encour- agement, he flourished beyond his wildest dreams. However, even then there was a for- eign observer who foresaw the fate now unfolding f or the small businessman. The e'rench historian- Alexis de Tocqueville knew that a certain kind of despotism Is possible even in a democracy. He de- scribed it as follows: Above this race of man stands an Immense And tutelary power, which takes upon Itself filone to secure their kratifications and to watch over their fate. TI-at power is absolute, minute, provident and mild. . . Por their happiness such a government willingly la- .ors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and only arbiter of that happiness; it provides ,or their security, forese re. and supplies their oecessities, facilitates their pleasures, man- Ages their principal concerns, directs their Industry, regulates the descent of property :old subdivides their Inheritances . After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful !rasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of mai:, complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic haracters cannot penetrate to rise above the Towd, The will of man 1s not shattered, but softened, bent and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence: it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a Rock of timid and industrious animals, of which the governtnent is the shepherd. Perhaps the most disturbing part of this prophecy is the reference to the in- ability of "the most original minds and the most energetic characters" to pene- trate the network of rules "to rise above the crowd." How many small businesses have been founded or operated with the determination to remain forever small? During fitful economic crises, certainly, the primary instinct has been merely to survive. However, during stable periods, the overwhelming urge is to provide ever better products and services?in short, to grow and prosper, "to rise above the crowd." Rising above the crowd is difficult in a lead balloon, and any modern small businessman can describe the sensation. The respect and encouragement he once enjoyed have been replaced by ambiva- lence and hostility. On the one hand, the usinessman has become a scapegoat for any of our social ills. We suspect that will cheat and deceive us, destroy our r urces, pollute our environment, pan- de ) our vulgar tastes, and murder us in flammable beds. On the other han e have not forgotten that he has made ? enormous contribution to the develop nt of this country and is ab- solutely ential to its survival. And so we respo ith laws to protect him and to protect from him. The result is a chaos of re tion. As one of oat controversial issues of the day, th bject of Federal regu- lation and its d itating effect on small business has alre been the subject of much comment. I 11 proceed to heave a few more statisti into the rumbling maw. Let me say in a event digression that we are a nation e ored with stat- istics. The larger the es, the more impressed we are. It is a ough figures were a good in themselv d had some mystical power to right gs and to effect desired ends. To the c ary, vol- umes of information can ha stuper- lying effect. Like children in to vio- lence on the television, we mu ex- posed to greater and greater n ical atrociaies before their significance e- trates to the shock layer of conscio s. And so if I say that there are are) mately 63,500 Federal regulators in country, I am not sure whether seems a truly outrageous number. If I say that the cost of this regulation is about $2,000 per family per year, is that appal- ling? Will there be more gasps of indig- nation if the result of such regulation is totaled up to a national cost of $130 bil- lion a year? We are living in an age when the value of the dollar itself cannot be presently or predictively quantified; $130 billion is beyond conception to most of us; $2,000 can swiftly be frittered away on the in- numerable and virtually valueless items with which we indulge ourselves daily. If the figures were bigger, perhaps they would be more effective. And in that very void of nonresponse, they continue to grow. When those figures begin to have meaning in delay and inconvenience and frustration and absurdity, as they do to the small businessman, then they leap to life. He knows the significance of applica- tions and forms measured in pounds, not In pages. He knows what it means not to be snowed to use his own judgment in mak- g business decisions. He knows how frustrating it is to have to pay someone else to interpret volumes es punitive legal requirements. He knows what it is to be bled white ty the ministrations of a well-meaning khysician, in whose absence he would be Lifinitely healthier. In one way, the small businessman is a victim of a virtue of the American sys- tem. Max Ways explained the paradox in an article in Fortune magazine last s oring: The very dispersal of power into millions of hoods?one of the greatest achievements of t ic System?has the perverse result of mak- ing each citizen think that others hold huge a secret concentrations of influence. In ft.t, politicians have never been so sensitive to the power of voters, nor corporate mans- gorS to the power of employees and consum- e-o. But where none admits he wields power or shares in leadership, each feels iree to ..ximize his demands on the System and - complaints about it. The demand for protection against the p )wer of someone else is a demand for p ower itself. Congress must constantly arbitrate such conflicting demands. The result is a mass of laws juxtaposing se- vere restrictions and penalties on the one hand with special concessions and abso- te exemptions on the other. The by- product is paperwork, paperwork, and ir ore paperwork. Let me give an example from the activities of the Senate Bank- ir g Committee on which I serve. Recent business in the committee has strongly reflected the assumption that ti-c consumer must be protected from tI-c power of commerce simply to ignore him. The result has been a profusion of disclosure legislation regarding lending and credit billing and real estate settle- ment procedures and the process of credit denial. The demand for informa- tion is not unreasonable in itself. and Congress has responded accordingly. Un- fortunately, the result has been a jungle of disclosure regulations implementing the Truth in Lending Act, the Pair Credit ejteporting Act. the Pair Credit Billing t, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, d the Real Estate Settlement Proce- es Act. The regulations are highly tedbipical and involve detailed compli- ane rocedures. A formidable task for any business, compliance can become a mat of life and death for a small busines n poignant testimony before the Cons er Affairs Subcommittee, one small reta said that he simply could not handle regulations. He said that he did not h e the legal staff. He did not, have the fifties. He did not have the know-how. the prospect of a lawsuit was the It traw. Another example disclosure legisla- Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 March 4, 197U CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-- SENATE S 2765 creating new programs and new require- ments. Unfortunately, we seldom con- sider the paperwork implications of these measures, and they end up adding to the already staggering burden. The bill remedies this situation by re- quiring the committees of Congress to do two things: First, they must include a Paperwork Impact Statement in the report of each bill or joint resolution of a public na- ture, except for appropriations bills, that is, sent to the floor of the Senate or the House of Representatives. Second, they must review the reporting requirements of the departments and agencies within their jurisdictions and report their findings jt least once every calendar year. In addition, the bill places a time lim- itation of 1 year on the approval of forms by the Office of Management and Budget under the Federal Reports Act. Each form in use by an agency subject to that act will be required to carry a notice to the respondent that it has been ap- proved, the date on which it has been approved, and the date ?on which the approval expires. The bill also provides that no agency may require a form to be submitted by a private individual or enterprise if the OMB approval has expired. Each form must carry a notice to this effect. Mr. President, with the exception of the provisions regarding OMB approval, this bill is designed to clean up our own house here in Congress before we at- tempt the more complicated and impor- tant task of cleaning up the executive de- partments and agencies. We can accom- plish this Job in the immediate future, while the Commission on Federal Paper- work is completing its work and formu- lating its recommendations on how to reduce the overall paperwork burden. Frankly, there is no reason why Con- gress should wait on the Federal Paper- work Commission before improving its own procedures and performance in eval- uating the paperwork impact of the leg- islation it passes. Nor should we refrain from reviewing the reporting require- ments of the agencies within the legis- lative jurisdiction of the various com- mittees. These are very practical re- quirements that can be complied with right now. Mr. President, the Federal paperwork burden has grown year by year, requir- ing ever-increasing time and money of the people of this country?particularly small businessmen. It contributes to in- flation and stifles productivity. In 1965, the House Post Office Sub- committee issued a report that concluded that if one Government record were burned every second, it would take 2,000 years to destroy all of them. Since then the problem has grown worse. Between 1965 and 1968 alone, Congress passed enough lawS to cause Federal paperwork to mushroom by 30 percent, Over the years, in fact, Government forms have grown immortal. Since 1955, for example, both the Internal Revenue Service and the Social Security Admin- istration have agreed that form 941, the quarterly report of wages earned, could be replaced by a single annual report. For the last two decades every congressional committee studying the paperwork prob- lem recommended that form 941 be changed from a quarterly to an annual report. Yet, 20 years later, form 941 was still with us. Moreover, the cost of compliance rose from an estimated $22 million a year in 1955 to an estimated $235 million a year for small business alone. Finally, last October the new Federal Paperwork Commission again recom- mended that form 941 be replaced by an annual report. This recommendation was incorporated into legislation that has now been signed by the President and the change will go into effect in 2 years. I am pleased that the 22-year battle against form 941 will be won shortly, but the struggle involved in eliminating one little form that everyone agreed was un- necessary does not auger well for the future under the present circumstances. The Federal Reports Act, which has been law for 30 years, requires the Office of Management and Budget to reduce the amount and duplication of paperwork. This clearly has not happened. It is time Congress took forceful and positive action to reduce the avalanche of forms that daily inundate the people of this country. The bill that we introduce today is similar to legislation sponsored in the past by our distinguished colleagues, Senator BENTSEN, of Texas, and Senator Moss, of Utah. Many of its provisions were put forward during hearings on the Federal paperwork burden which were conducted jointly in October by the Sub- committee on Oversight Procedures and the Subcommittee on Reports, Account- ing and Management, which is chaired by Senator METCALF. I wish to express my appreciation for the excellent sugges- tions offered by my cosponsor, Senator ROTH, of Delaware, during those hear- ings, and for the contributions of the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. PR ORMIRE) . As I said, our bill is intended to re- duce the amount of paperwork required by new legislation and to enable the Congress to gain control over existing forms and reports. First, it requires a paperwork impact statement to be included in the commit- tee report of each bill or joint resolu- tion of a public nature, with the excep- tion of appropriations bills. The laws en- acted by Congress are primarily respon- sible for the Federal paperwork burden, and these impact statements will force us to evaluate the paperwork implications of a bill before it is enacted. The paperwork impact statements would estimate or assess: The amount and tl7pe of information that would be required to comply with the provisions of the bill and the cost and time to private enterprises to supply such information; The current availability of such infor- mation within Federal departments and agencies; The types and number of forms, re- ports and records that would be required by the bill; and The cost or time that would be re- quired of business enterprises in com- pleting the forms required by the legis- lation. Second, it requires each House and Senate committee to conduct a review of the reporting requirements of the de- partments and agencies within its juris- diction and report its findings at least once every calendar year. Finally, it requires the approval of farms by the Office of Management and Budget to be limited to a single calendar Year. Each form in use by an agency would be required to carry a notice to the respondent that it has been approved, the date on which the approval expires, and the fact that no form whose OMB approvarhas expired need be submitted. The bill specifically provides that no agency may require a form to be sub- mitted by a private individual or enter- prise if the OMB approval has expired. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join with us in this effort to untangle the redtape which is threatening to strangle both private enterprise and the Federal Government. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that the text of the Paperwork Re- view and Limitation Act of 1976 be printed in the RECORD. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: S. 3076 A bill to improve congressional oversight of the reporting and paperwork requirements of Federal departments and agencies Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as "The Paperwork Review and Limitation Act of 1976". SEC. 2. Part 5 of the Legislative Reorga- nization Act of 1970 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section: "PAPERWORK IMPACT STATEMENTS "SEC. 254. (a) The report accompanying each bill or Joint resolution of a public char- acter reported by any committee of the Sen- ate or the House of Representatives (other than the Committee on Appropriations of either House) shall contain a "Paperwork Impact Statement" which shall estimate or assess? "(1) the amount and character of the in- formation that will be required of private in- dividuals and business in order to carry out the provisions of the bill or Joint resolution, "(2) whether such information already is being gathered by and is available from other departments or agencies of the Government, "(3) the number and nature of the forms that will be required for the purpose of gathering the information, and the number of reports which would be required to be made, and the records which would be re- quired to be kept, by private business enter- prises as a result of enactment of the bill or joint resolution, and "(4) the cost or time which would be re- quired of private business enterprises, especi- ally small business enterprises, in making such reports and keeping such records. "(b) It shall not be in order in either the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any such bill or joint resolution if such bill or joint resolution was reported In the Senate or the House, as the case may be, after the effective date of this section and the report of that committee of the Sen- ate or House which reported such bill or Joint resolution does not comply with the provi- sions of subsection (a) of this section. Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 S 2766' Approved For Release 2006/02/07: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENA FE March 4. 1.9 6 "(c) For the purp3ses of this section, the members ol the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy who are Members of the Senate shall be deemed to be a committee of the senate, and the members of such committee who are Members of the House of Representatives shall be deemed to be a committee of the li nose. otTTEE SEW OF PAPERWORK -SEC. 255. At least once every calendar year each committee of the Senate and the House of Representatives shall conduct a thorough review of, and repor; to its respective House Of Congress on, the roporting requirements of the departments and agencies within its legislative jurisdicticn, including the number and character of reporting forms issued and withdrawn by such departments and agencies during the year. The reports required by this section shall be filed not later than February IS of each year." Sc. 3. The table f contents of the Leg- islative Reorganization Act of 1970 is arnend- ed by adding at the end of part 6 of title II thereof the following new item: -Sec. 254. Paperworl. Impact Statements. "Sec. 255. Committee Review of Paperwork." SEC. 4. Election 5 of the Federal Reports Act, as amended (44 U.S.C. 3509), is amended to read as :follows: "SEc. 5. (a) A F:deral agency may not conduct or sponsor the collection of infor- mation upon idenVcal items from ten or more persons, other than Federal employees, unless, in advance o adoption or revision of any plans or forms 10 be used in the collec- tion-- "(1) the agency has submitted to the Director oi the 011ie of Management and Budget the plans cr forms, together with copies of pertinent regulations and of other related materials as the Director has spec-- lied; and "(2) the Director of the Office of Manage- ment and Budget has approved the proposed collection of information and the plans or forms to be used therein. "(b) No approval by the Director for the collection of information shall extend be- yond the period of one calendar year. "(c) No agency s Abject to the provisions of this section shall require the submission of any reporting form by a private individual, group, organization or business enterprise if the approval by the Director has expired. "(d) Each reportng form used pursuant 1,o this section sha 1 have printed thereon in clearly legible and conspicuous type the following informati(m: "?) the fact the:, the form has been ap- proved by the Direc :or of ; he Office of Man- agement and HudgeL, "(2) the date on which such approval ex- pires. and "(3) the fact that the 7orm need not be submitted by the respondent if the period of approval has expired at the time of its receipt by the respondent ''(e) Not later Than tne end of every calendar year each Federal agency subject o the provisions of this section shall sub- mit to the Director and to the Senate and the HOUSE, of Representatives, a list of all forms which are approved and in use by such agency, all forms waich have been approved tor use by such agency during the calendar 'tear, and all forms which have been with- drawn by such age icy during the calendar year,'' SEc. 5. The Direci or of the Office of Man- agement and Budgt shall, in consultation with the Comptroller General, undertake a ody of the feasibility of requiring a single titandard form for the collection of infor- mation by all Federal agencies. The Director ,thall report the results of the study, along with any recommer.dations that may result therefrom, to the i'enate and the House Of Representatives not later than ,roe ye tr alter the date of enactment of this Act Mr. NUNN. Mr. President. if the Sena- tor from Wyoming will yield additional time to the Senator from Delaware, who is a major cosponsor of the bill. I am certain we could both express our intent on this legislation. Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President. I yield such time to my distinguished colleague from Delaware as he may require. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized. Mr. ROTH. I thank the Senatcfrr from Wyoming for yielding to me. I am happy to join with Senator NUNN in introducing the Paperwork Review and Limitation Act of 1976. which Is of- fered to improve executive and congres- sional oversight of the reporting and paperwork requirements of Federal de- partments and agencies. I particularly appreciate the interest, innovations, and hard work of the chair- man of the subcommittee in developing this legislation, which I think can be one of the most important reforms that will come before the Senate this year. I ask unanimous consent to add the name of Senator HRUSKA as one of the principal sponsors to our legislation. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. ROTH. Mr. President. this legisla- tion will permit Congress to mandate a stricter review of Federal paperwork requirements. The Government Operations Subcom- mittees on Oversight Procedures, and Reports, Accounting, and Management held joint hearings in October which strikingly cast the dimensions of the paperwork problem. The Government spent in excess of $18 billion in 1975 to produce, handle and store its official pa- pers. This does not even include the cost to the public of filling out and filing Federal forms. The total cost to the economy for this paperwork is estimated at as much as $40 billion each year. PAPERWORK BURDEN. As has been brought out so eloquently. the number of forms required by Gov- ernment of individuals and businesses is staggering and each year new forms are added. In 1972 alone 7 million cubic feet of records were produced by the Fed- eral Government. As of February 1975 the official OMB count of separate forms required by Federal Government agen- cies to collect information from the pub- lic tallied 5,695 forms. It is estimated that every man. woman, and child in America completes an average of 10 Federal forms each year. The paperwork burden however is not evenly distributed and many small busi- nesses share a load three times this amount. In a recent survey of Delaware busi- nesses I found that many businessmen must spend hundreds of man-hours and thousands of dollars merely to keep up with paperwork requirements. The pa- perwork burden, the survey indicated, is particularly onerous at the Internal Rev- enue Service, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. the Census Bureau, and under the Employee Het] ..e- ment Investment Security Act. INADEQUATE REVIEW Review of Federal forms and report- ing requirements to date has been inade- quate. The General Accounting Otlice has conducted a review and investigatton of the performance of the Office of Man- agement and Budget and the Labor De- partment under the Federal Reports Act. The study concluded that weaknesses in the procedures for clearance of a form and in OMB's enforcement of the provi- sions of the law have frustrated the goal of reducing paperwork requirements. OMB has not vigorously carried out the intent of this law to reduce unnecessary paperwork and the enormous burden on citizens and small businessmen. GAO found that OMB has assigned in- definite expiration dates for many forms and has simply waived the clearance process for some forms. Also, OMB 17.az been lax in evaluating whether the in- formation sought by agencies is really needed. The subcommittees received testimony that present procedures for review and clearance of forms is inadequate and should be strengthened. PAPERWORK LIMITATION The legislation which is being offered today would strengthen the review of forms and provide for an annual expira- tion for all forms. The Office of Management and Budget would be directed to improve its efforts to reduce burdensome and duplicative information and reporting requirements In order for the effort to reduce paper- work to be successful, OMB would review the need for reports each year and ap- prove the use of existing forms. Unless each form is specifically reapproved, the public would not be required to submit information sought by the agency. Each form used by an agency would carry the date on which approval expires This would provide CPMB with an annual responsibility to review Federal forms It would also aid OMB in managing and clearing forms and reducing the Federal reporting burden. The tendency at OMB has been to avoid assigning definite dates for expiration, or to waive certain forms from the clearance requirements. With- out meaningful review procedures OMB cannot carry out its responsibilities to reduce the paperwork burden. Congress, for its part, can help irirh growth in the number of new forint, by strengthening its assessment of the paperwork impact of proposed legisla- tion. Each congressional committee would be responsible for 'minding in its repori a statement of the new paperwork re- quirements on proposed legislation. The statement on the paperwork impact would include an estimate as to the amount of additional information re- quired to comply with each new law, the cost in dollars and man-honrs to busi- nesses or local governments which must comply with the new law, the current availability of similar information in other agencies or departments, and the number and types of forms, reports and records required under the bill. Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 March 4, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE S 2767 This bill also requires each House and Senate committee to conduct a review of the reporting requirements of the depart- ments and agencies within its jurisdic- tion and report its findings and recom- mendations. Many in Congress have become alarmed by the magnitude of the paperwork bur- den on our citizens. Certainly as part of our approach to reduce this burden the Congress can take steps to review care- fully the reporting requirements which are contained in new legislation. The full impact of these reporting require- ments ought to be fully assessed. It is unfortunate indeed when public con- fidence in worthwhile legislation is un- dermined by paperwork requirements. I have been actively seeking to minii mize 'duplication in Government in order to reduce waste and to improve efficiency. Today there is far too much duplication In the paper mountain of Federal forms. Information is required first by one agen- cy or department, then another, then by a State or local government. The indi- vidual or firm facing the Federal and State government leviathan must submit the same basic information many times over. Therefore, this bill directs a review of the feasibility of developing a standard- ized font, containing 'basic data for any State, city, town, county, or other unit of government. A consolidated form would reduce needless duplication in the requirements for reports, applications, and forms. This would enable a local government to use one standard form to satisfy several agency information re- quests without wasting hundreds of man-hours in duplicative paperwork. I believe a standardized form would be a significant improvement over present procedures. I can say that from my personal ex- perience that the city of Wilmington and State of Delaware, as well as other governmental units, tell me that time and again each year they are required to submit the same information. This is a waste of effort on the part of both the local agency and the Federal Govern- ment. Of course, another key way to reduce the duplication in forms is to reduce the number of overlapping programs. Fre- quently a local government seeking Fed- eral funds for a project mitt apply to several agencies under different assist- ance grant programs. The GAO completed a study last July which showed that there are over 975 programs of assistance to State and local governments. The overlap is very strik- ing. For example there are some 186 pro- grams with funds for community devel- opment. Forty-seven of these are for planning, research, and training, and 23 are for construction and renewal oper- ations. The proliferation of forms cannot realistically be cured unless there is a reduction in the proliferation of domes- tic assistance programs. The Congress should take steps to provide regular re- view of assistance programs and to pro- mote consolidation or elimination of duplicative programs. This legislation will give OMB added responsibility to review all forms and lessen the paperwork burden. However, agencies and departments also should be encouraged to assume a responsibility. One wonders how 'much of the infor- mation collected is really necessary to the agencies. Each department director should inquire as to whether the infor- mation is meaningful for the stated pur- pose. Also, it should be examined whether the information is really used. I suspect that much of the waste from needless paper shuffling can be corrected at its source?within the agencies themselves. Departments and agencies can cut down much of the redtape by reexamin- ing their own forms. In many cases agen- cies do not adequately review the forms which they use. How often does a gov- ernment agency recommend elimination of one of its own forms? Unless the agencies themselves take the initiative in this area, it will be dif- ficult to make significant progress in re- ducing the total of 5,700 Federal forms. Perhaps a target could be set to eliminate a percentage of all forms by a date cer- tain. True relief of the paper burden will only be achieved by an actual reduction in the number of forms being sent out. The Commission on Federal Paperwork Is presently reviewing forms and examin- ing record-keeping requirements in the agencies and some progress is being made. Already the Commission has suc- ceeded in changing employee wage re- porting requirements from quarterly re- ports to annual reports. This change alone is expected to save the Government $24 million in processing costs. However, even this simple change has taken over 20 years to implement despite repeated recommendations by congressional com- mittees to make the change. We need to take the recommendations of the Commission on Paperwork serious- ly and work toward implementation of proposed improvements. It seems to me that unless you have a task force with real clout to eliminate unnecessary paperwork and forms, the agencies are going to resist change. ? The legislation submitted today man- dates the tough review of Federal paper- work that the public is demanding. Mr. President, in closing X would just like to make one comment. I think the subcommittee, the chair- man and others who have worked on this bill, have come up with a meaningful answer to the paperwork problem,,hut I would just like to say that in my judg- ment if this does not work, I think there is another approach we might use. Con- gress has been very quick to establish goals, objectives, for the private sector to reach whether or not it was scien? tifically possible at the time of the en- actment of the legislation. Very candidly, I have been supportive of many of these efforts, because I think it is desirable to place goals, for example, in the case of the automobiles with their emissions. But I say that if this legislation does not work, I, for one, will be ready to in- troduce and support legislation to re? quire the executive branch, the agencies, to be required to reduce their paperwork by 50 percent. They tell me it cannot be done, but X do not believe that. Mr. President, I yield back the remain- der of my time. Mr. NUNN. Will the Senator yield for 1 minute? Mr. HANSEN. I will be happy to. Mr. NUNN. I thank the Senator from Delaware for his efforts and hard work on this legislation. We have had many hearings on the subject. We have had several staff meetings and we have had a number of personal meetings. This legislation is a joint effort, a bipartisan effort. It has been arrived at by the close consultation between the Senator from Georgia, the Senator from Delaware, the Senator from New Hampshire, and oth- ers. I thank the Senator from Delaware for the very meaningful role he has played in this legislation. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- ator from Wyoming. Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, I want to say that I was greatly impressed by the remarks of my colleagues on the effects of Government regulation on business and on jobs in America. I was impressed by the remarks of the distinguished junior Senator from Georgia and the senior Senator from Delaware in spell- ing out, as they have, the cost to busi- ness and the burden that paperwork places upon the economy. Mr. President, burdensome and ex- cessive Federal regulation is threatening the financial existence of American small business. Mr. President, of the 10 million busi- nesses in the country today, 9 million are small. These 9 million small businesses account for one-third of the gross na- tional product; 48 percent of the gross business product; and employ approxi- mately 55 percent of the business labor force. Bankruptcies for small business in the year ending June 30, 1975, increased an astonishing 45 percent to 30,130. In 19:70, small businesses had total li- abilities of $1.9 billion. The total liabil- ities for 1975 is estimated to be $4.25 bil- lion. Mr. President, total liabilities in- creased from 1974 by $1.25 billion. Small business is confronted with double digit inflation and rising costs; tight credit and depressed markets. Fed- eral regulations add to these conditions under which small business must oper- ate. Today, we are concerned with this last factor, Federal regulation, which adds to the cost under which small busi- ness must function. In prior colloquies we have discussed. -the infringement by Federal regulatory agencies on the civil liberties of the American citizenry and the cost that consumers pay for Government regula- tion. It is estiniated that the direct and in- direct cost of Federal regulation is $130 billion annually. The cost of regulation to the American family is $2,000 per year. How does unnecessary Federal regula- tion affect the small businessman? It increases the cost of doing usiness to a sector of our economy which is finan- cially strapped. Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 S 2768 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-.0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE Aiareir 4, 1976 Mr. Presider t, there are 12 Federal departments, 75 agencies, 1,000 boards, commissions, and advisory panels. These Federal regulators employ 64,000 people. There are 5,146 different Federal forms required by the Internal Revenue Service and regulatory agencies. It is appalling to find out that individ- uals and businesses spend 130.5 million man-hours annually filling out 2 billion forms annually which are sent to various agencies of the Federal Government. '1Ihe Federal shuffling-, reviewing and filing of much of this paperwork is un- necessary and is adding to the costs of operation which small business cannot a third. Mr. President, the cost of unnecessary paperwork is adversely affecting small business. Let me give you an example: The Federal Government requires so much paperwork of companies with pri- vate employee pension programs that hundreds of small retirement plans are being canceled By approving comprehensive pension reform legislation last year. Congress sought to encourage more and better pri- vate retirement; plans which would cover many more workers. Instead, the-paper- work requirements that have followed this legislation are so expensive and burdensome that hundreds of small pension plans have been canceled. Mr. President, more than 5,000 retire- ment plans have been terminated since passage of the pension reform bill, and more than 1,200 notices of intent to can- cel have been received by the govern- ment in December, alone. Recently, the Senate Finance Subcom- mittee on Private Pension Plans was bolding public hearings to explore ways of reducing and simplifying government paperwork requirements, particularly for small employers. An official of the National Commission on Federal Paaerwork told the subcom- mittee an example of Federal "overkill" was a complex Labor Department form sent to companies with employee retire- ment plans which "demanded informa- tion the Department of Labor could not use or absorb." Mr. President, Mr. Bruce Fielding, a member of the Commission, said govern- ment forms for reporting on private pen- sion plans were so complex that employ- ers had to seek professional legal atd actuarial assistance. He said the cost of providing information exceeded employer contributions to the pension plans, in some cases. At least 90 percent of the existing pri- ante retirement plans are small, with only 10 percent having more than 100 covered employees. The enforcement provisions of the law?the Retirement Income Security Act of 1974?were aimed at large em- ployers and large unions, with no con- sideration given to their effect on small employers. As a result, we have done a disservice to tie millions of citizens par- ticipating in small private retirement clans. At the last colloquy, I cited specific ex- amples of absurd regulation by OSHA 4Ind Mc's% in Wyoming. Relating to OSHA, I agree that an em- ployee should work free from recognised hazards that are likely to cause serieus physical harm or death. However, OSHA has gone beyond this purpose and en- acted rules and regulations many of which are absurd and do not approach the slightest notion of common sense. The net effect of the unnecessary regu- lations is increased costs of operation to the small businessman and sometimes fls- iiancial ruin. We in the Congress must do something about this unnecessary Federal paper- work which affects individuals and busi- nesses, both small and large We m ist do more than create a Federal Commis- sion on Paperwork. In his book, "Go E.ist Young Man," in Chapter 19, "The Ear- seaucracy," Mr. Justice Douglas said: The great creative work of a federal age-icy roust be done in the first decade of its exIst- ence if it is to be done at all. After that it is likely to become a prisoner of bureatc- racy and of the inertia demanded by the establishment of any respected agency. We must, in the interest of our con- stituencies, take a long hard look at Federal regulatory agencies. Possibly, 1.rie answer lies in the streamlining of Federal agencies which would protect the public interest both rural and urban, encourage more competition, and eliminate many of the unnecessary costs to businesses and consumers alike. The answer could be found in the abolishment of some Federal agencies or periodic revew which would require congressional re- authorization of these regulatory agen- cies. In sum, Federal regulation which results in unnecessary paperwork cnd costs for small business must be elim- inated. Federal regulation must be e'en a long hard review by the Congress. The adverse effect on individuals, businesses, be they small or large, is unconscionable. I yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished Senator from Nebraska Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend from Wyoming very much. Mr. President, when medicare atas enacted, the people of the United Str, tes were promised that it would not be a Program to direct the practice of medi- cine; that it was a program merely to help people financially and would not interfere with the doctor-patient rela- tionship. Of course, Mr. President, we have come to find out that those prom:ses were hollow, that they have not been kept at all. Today, the Department of HEW has teams of inspectors running around the country interfering with the practice of medicine. What they are doing is they are driving doctors out of the practice. I mentioned before in this Chamber that one of our county seats in Nebraska had hada doctor for 20 years. Whet he started, he had one clerk do all his of- fice work. Today he has four in order to keep up with the Government regula- tions, so he is quitting. Mr. President, I hold in my hand a letter from a distinguished doctor in my State. He happens to be a diplomate on the American Board of Family Practice, a fellow of the American Society el' Ab- dominal Surgeons, and a fellow of the American College of Chest Physicians. In this particular case, this is a small city. I should judge not more than 1,000 or 1,200 people live there. They only have one doctor. HEW is doing their best to drive him out of business. They de- scended upon him with a couple of in- spectors and left their report for him to spend his time answering, rather than spend his time curing the sick. I want to read from it. Here is one complaint: Registered nurse:; are dispersing medica- tion which are not in conformity with the State and local laws. Here is the doctor's answer: My nurses will be giving medication upon my specific order, the same as they would be if they were giving out medication for my office where I accept the total responsibility because all of these people employed here In the hospital are, of course, responsible to me and they would not be doing anything that I have not given them specific orders to do. I expect my orders to be carried out. Who is going to practice medicine, the bureaucrats or the doctors? Another objection: There were no procedures for vernication of current license for registered personnel other than registered nurses. We are talking about a town with one doctor. Here is his answer: This might be of some value in a large institution, but for a small hospital such as ours, I don't think it is of any particular value. My license as well as those of my consultants and others are in plain view in my office. I shall just read a few of these, The PRESIDING OFFICER. The tune of the Senator from Wyoming has ex- pired. Mr. CURTIS. I ask unanimous con- sent that I may have 5 minutes of the time surrendered by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia (Mr Roa- EAT C. BYRD) . The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. CURTIS. Here is another com- plaint: Janitors's closets did not have sufficient shelving resulting in cleaning supplies stored on the floor. Here is the doctor's answer: Ridiculous!. No bearing whatsoever on pa- tient care. No reason whatsoever they can't be stored on the floor and I feel that my opinion as a physician is far superior to that of any janitorial expert and if the janitorial expert cares to argue with me. I suggest he go to medical school first! Mr. President, thank heaven we have citizens who still have the courage to fight back against the bureaucracy. Too many of them are submissive, and they let the bureaucracy come in, destroy their profession, and destroy their op- portunity to serve their fellow man by healing the sick. Here is one of the other complaints: Clean linens, restraints, and bandages were stored in used cardboard boxes that are not cleanable. Here is what the doctor said about it: Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 March 4, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE Matters not whether or not the boxes are cleanable since these are clean linens?not sterile. Here is another complaint by these bureaucrats that we are not only pay- ing, we are providing them with retire- ment; There were no written hand scrubbing procedures available in surgery or OB. They are talking about a town that has one doctor; and he should put up a sign, "I am supposed to wash my hands" so he can see it. Here is his answer: This is unnecessary since no one is al- lowed in the operating room who is not thoroughly familiar with sterile technique and operating room procedures. Here is another one: The autopsy rate of this facility is 6.7 percent. It is recommended that 20 percent of all in-hospital deaths be autopsied. Here is the doctor's reply: I would be extremely interested to see the autopsy rate in one of the hospitals in the western two-thirds of Nebraska. Our per- centage was much higher; however, during the past two years about the only people we have had expire have been people well above 70 years of age?whose clinical cause of death was extremely apparent and would have revealed nothing except just to make the paperwork look good. I am certain that this 20 percent recommendation should not be complied with just on the basis of making the paperwork look good. Here is another complaint: Medical records reviewed did not indicate that consultation was recorded or dictated prior to surgery. This good doctor says: Whether or not medical records indicate the consultation prior to surgery, obviously if it was otherwise, the consultant would not have been here in -the first place. We discussed the case thoroughly on the telephone first; then when he arrives he sees the patient, then we again discuss the case. I do not feel it is necessary 1;o record all of our discussions and I will not dictate it or record it. So there! Again I say, thank heaven we have in- dividualS with enough spine to fight back this crushing power of the bureaucracy. He goes on to say: And if you don't like it, take my license and find someone else to fill my position in this hospital In this community. The sad part of it is, they cannot get another doctor. Here is a man who has risen in his profession, and recognized by other doctors. Here is one more complaint: There is no documentation that the func- tions of the medical records committee are carried out. There is no evidence that medical records are being evaluated for quality of patient care from the documentation on the chart by the committee. They are talking about a community that has one doctor and only one small hospital. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- ator's 5 minutes have expired. Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter in support of the doctor's position, the en- tire complaint, and the doctor's answers thereto be printed in the RECORD, to- gether with a statement by me. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: FEBRUARY 23, 1976. HOD. CARL T. CURT CS, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR CARL: First of all I want you to know that I will be willing and anxious to help as much as possible and do whatever I can as far as obtaining funds, as well as votes, for your upcoming election and if there are any specific tasks that you think I might be able S 2769 to accomplish on your behalf, please do not hesitate to let me know. You are a valued friend as well as legislator and I am sure you are aware of how I, as well as most of the people in this area, feel about you and want to keep you in office. I hate to bother you with things such as this and I know you probably are not going to have time to read this but I hope your Administrative Assistant will bring some of this to your attention so far as the so-called "deficiencies" as a result of our recent in- spection by the Medicare people. Not a single one of these so-called deficiencies are related to taking care of patients and seeing to it that people are treated kindly as well as efficiently. All of this amounts to nothing other than 'a great deal of bureaucratic bull____, as I am sure you are well aware, and it bothers me to know and to think that our government is spending the money for these people's two salaries, which I am sure are substantial, and not only that, are adding two more "inspection teams", costing even more money, and yet the press throws the blame for the increasing cast of medical care upon physicians and hospitals. Of course as you and I know, the truth lies in precisely such expenditures as this; that is, creating more government bureaucrary and jobs (if the government wants to create jobs, then let them go back to the old CCC and WPA where at least we can get some trees planted and maybe a little work done and not have these people running around the hospital interfer- ing with my help and the function of my. hospital when it is totally unnecessary.) Now for an answer to each of these so- called deficiencies?and your Administrative Assistant may call these to your attention since I do Indeed hate to take your valuable time in reading these individually, but if you have the opportunity, I do think it would be a great revealing for you. The list is at= tached, with my answers. Again, thank you for your attention and please let me know if there is anything at all I can do to help you in your reelection campaign. Very sincerely, STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES AND FLAN OF CORRECTION SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES NOTED BY SURVEYING PROVIDER'S PLAN OF CORRECTION STATE AGENCY WITH REFERENCE CITATION A6, 405.1020. A9, 405.1020(c), Registered nurses are dispensing medication which are not in conformity with state and local laws. AS, .405.1020(b) . There were no procedures for the verification of current license for registered personnel other than registered nurses. AS, 405.1020 (c) . A258, 4053.025(b) (5). Employees are not given annual TB skin tests. *Any deficiency statement ending with an asterisk(*) denotes a condition which the institution may be excused from correcting provided it is determined that other safeguards provide sufficient protection to the patients. The asterisk means that the surveying State Agency has recommended that the deficiency be waived for this reason. If the State Agency recommendation has been accepted, this will be noted in the right hand column opposite the deficiency statement. A70, 405.1022 (a) (2 ) . a. Janitor's closets did not have sufficient shelving resulting in cleaning supplies stored on the floor. b. The basement storage rooms had boxes of new Supplies on the floor; e.g., bandages, gauze, chux, boxes of intravenous solutions and other supplies; thereby not lending space for proper cleaning methods. wrrn TIME TABLE My nurses will be giving medication upon my specific order, the same as they would be if they were given out medlitation for my office where I accept the total responsibility, because all of these people employed here in the hospital are, of course, responsibile to me and they would not be, doing anything that I have not given them specific orders to do and I expect my orders to be carried out. This might be of some value in a large institution but for a small hospital such as ours, I don't think it is of any particular value. My license, as well as those of my consultants and others, are in plain view in my office. I have a return postcard with description and tactile card for measurement of induration which is far superior to any other method of interpreting Tine tests. I prefer Tine Tests?per my order. NoTE.--This document contains a listing of the deficiencies cited by the surveying State Agency RS requiring correction. This Sum- mary Statement of Deficiencies is based on the surveyor's profes- sional knowledge and interpretation of Medicare and/or Medicaid requirements. In the column Provider's Plan of Correction, the state- ments should reflect the facility's plan for corrective action and anticipated time for correction. Copies of this form will be kept on file at local Social Security and Public Assistance Offices, to be made available to the public, upon request. Ridiculous!! No bearing whatsoever on patient care. No reason whatsoever they can't be stored on the floor and I feel that my opinion as a physician is far superior to that of any janitorial expert and if the janitorial expert cares to argue with me, I suggest he go to medical school first! The same thing applies as above. The current situation suits the attending physician quite well. The attending physician is the one who needs to be satisfied. Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037:01 S 2770 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SI NATE March 4, 1976 STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES AND 31MARY S CATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES NOTED ST SURVEYING STATE AGENCY verilk REFERENCE CITATION-00I41/1110d Clean liners, restraints, and bandages were stored in used card- isrd the::: are not cleanable. ii. chipped enamel wash basins and emesis pans were observed. iese type items are not easily cleaned and sanitized. ?02, 405.1022(c) (2) . There were no written hand scrubbing pro- , ,lures available in surgery or OB. 405.1023(b) (1). The autopsy rate of tins facill4 is 8.7%. It ).rnmendeci that 20% of all in hospital deaths be autopsied. 3. 405.1023(c) (3), Medical records reviewed did not Indicate l-Iconsultation was recorded or dictated prior to surgery. A170, 405.1023(n) (1). A175, 405.1023(n) (5). There is-no documentation that the functions of the medical records committee are carried out. There is no evidence that medical records are being evaluated for quality of patient care from the documentation on the chart by the committee. eli13? 405.1023 (n) (4). There is no documentation that on-the-spot scanning of current inpatient records is being done. A232, 405.1024(h) (3). Nursing care plans did not include: I allergy status, 2. dates when medications were initiated or renewed, S. patient problems and needs. 4. goals and approaches to resolve these problems t.233, 405.1024(h) (4). Nursing notes do not include: 1. pertinent Information regarding the admission of the patient to the hospital, 2 plans or actual patient teaching, 3. reason PRN medication Is given find reaction to it, 4. reason medication is refused, 5. special instruc- tions: ie. check pulse before giving Lanoxin. 1215, 405.1014 (11)16). 1. Registered nurses are giving medication without physician's written order; ie. riazvon, PRN, RN stated it is a "standing order", however, It is not written. 2. On four of six current records reviewed, orders were not countersigned by the phy- sician. 3. Senior medical students preceptee medical orders, progress notes, and history and physical reports are not being countersigned the physician. .1.256, 405.1025 (b) (3). Some utensils in dietary area are stored in 1,,,-sd cardboard boxes which can not be cleaned. A2,30, 405.1025 (b) (7). Potatoes and boxes of canned goods were sicired on the floor; thereby preventing good cleaning methods. A300, 405.1026 (g) (3). Provisional diagnosis is not being included the clinical record when a patient is admitted to the hospital. Pune or Comma 17--Contineed PROVIDER'S PLA OF CORRECTION wrrii TIME TABLE-Continued Matters not wh.i-ther or no' the boxes are cleanable since these are clean linens-i-dt sterile. This sounds lik ; a complaint of some young housewife's mother- in-law ! This is unneces, try since no one is allowed in the Operating Room who is not thorn' ;hly familiar with sterile technique and operating procedures. . would be extr mely interested to see the autopsy rate in one of the hospitals in t. ie western two-thirds of Nebraska. Our percentage was much higher; however, during the past two years about the only ileeple we have hat expire have been people wellabove 70 years of age e-iiose clinical can .e of death was extremely apparent and would have o-,-=.aled nothing except Just to make the paper work look good. 1 .iin certain that is 20c.i? recommendation should not be complied just on the 1 asis of making the paper work look good. Whether or not medical records indicate the Consultation prior to surgery, obviously if it was otherwise, the consultant would not have he,.n here in the 3rst place. We discuss the case thoroughly on the ,,,,ephone first; then when he arrives he sees the patient, then we again discuss the ase. I do not feel it is necessary to record all of our oi.eussions and I zill not dictate it-or record it. So there! And if you in oil like it, take 1,13, license and find someone else to fill my position o this hospital in 'this community. again, this app- ars to be more bureaucratic meddlieg. The quality or patient care ie. obvious by our very low morbidity -and mortality especially so far a our surgical patients are concerned since we have had no deaths in ',he operating room in 10 years with some 2500 pro- cedures and also so anesthetic deaths. Nothing speaks for itself as does good results and that is all that matters, not the paper work Ts sort of criticsm reminds me of when I was in the military and iity Commanding Officer- told me at one time it didn't matter how eica or bad thin i is were going in the Clinic, as far as patient care concerned, frit, so we kept up with our paper work. I disagreed ,0 the point of a cnost striking him 3 of I and I still disagree that ongly today. Scanning all re .irds is done twice a day by the attending physiciar wnen I make raw' as and I think that Is entirely adequate. I disagree vitib this whole section completely. The allergic status is known to the Ai,tending Physician and :stated as such, if there are any, on the Histx.ry and Physical. If none are stated, then none are present. This is the province of the Attending Physician. If I care tc 1eil the nurses, I will do so; otherwise it is not their responsibility ihates when ni..clications were initiated or renewed-the dates iien I order or ititiate a medication are on the order sheet and the bte they are discontinued is also on the Order Sheet and they are ciiiitinuously give -a in between those dates when they were initiated acid discontinued Patient- problenis and needs. I don't mind the nurses discussine this with the patient. However. it is my responsibility to determine ;11:74 problems am: needs and what will be done about them and I qi't like this Inv ision of my domain. floats and app-taches to resolve these problems. The nurses have oo business even creaming of a goal or approach to solve any problem 't-cese are up to ice and if a nurse attempts to solve a problem, then .0 will get a sew re reprimand from me as the Attending Physician. A 233. Again a bunch of bureaucratic meddling. I am extremel!, satisfied with my nurses notes and think I have an excellent nursing staff and I have no complaints whatsoever. My nurses notes are complete and to the point, both written and verbal and I reseni strongly any in-erence to the contrary by this notation. Mos: iuredly under the example "check pulse before giving Lanoxin.' fhla is asinine. is my job to determine when and how much cti At.y drug is give: I see my patients twice a day and I know whai dr status is ani any drug, whether it be Lanoxin or any other, lie monitored by me and not by the nurses, so this whole paragraph emirely invalic Again, this sec ion deals with nitpicking and if that is all these people have to di. I am glad they have some reason fo:r drawing their salary although I would hate to go to bed at night realizing this was my only accompl. hment in life Again utensils .re not sterne, they are omen. I don't think it makei, a great deal of di 'Creme whether they are stored in cardboard boxer not. They will be replaced to satisfy the bureaucratic birds. Comment won, be "ditto" to the above. Provisional dia nosis is in -the clinical record within 24 hours ant. It is in my head soon as the patient is admitted, Which is all tha e required since I am the Attending Physician. It is not anybody 's business oti sr than mine anyway. Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 March 4, 1976 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE S 2771 STATEMENT or DEFICIENCIES AND SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES NOTED BY SURVEYING STATE AGENCY WITH REFERENCE CITATION-Continued A318. A323, 405.1027 (a) (3). A344, 405.1027 (f) (2). 1. Registered nurses are refilling scheduled drug counter containers from bulk supplies. 2. Drugs in the emer- gency room are not being checked for proper storage and outdate. i.e. a.) 10 millileter multiple dose vial of infectable Valium sitting on the counter, b.) Nine drugs outdated, c.) all medications not properly secured and emergency room unattending. 3. Several drugs in drug room had labels with only name and strength of medica- tions. Two containers had tape labels with only name and strength of drug. A327, 405.1027 (b) (3). Neither refrigerator in drug room contains a thermometer. A329, 405.1027 (b) (5). The drawer and refrigerator where schedule drugs are stored are single locked; the drug room containing all drugs is not locked when unattended. A341, 405.1027 (e) (1). There are no specific stop orders for anti- coagulants, oxytocics, or cortisone products. A342. A343. A340, 406.1027 (f) (1) (4). There is no documentation that a phar- macy and therapeutic committee are meeting at least quarterly. A344, 405.1027 (f) (2). There was no documentation that Pharmacy policies and procedures have been revised since 1971. A366, 405.1028 (a) (4). Hemoglobin controls were not currently being used. Policies and procedures have not been established for quality con- trol in urinalysis. Abnormal coagulation controls were not recorded. A391, 405.1028(j) (1) . The blood storage temperature recording thermometer is out ef order. A394, 405.1028(j) (4). Policies and procedures in blood bank quality control have not been established. A439, 405.1031 ( a) ( 11 ) . Defibrillator and thoractomy set are not available in the operating suite. A442, 405.1031(a) (14). Rules and regulations and policies of the operating room are not posted or available in the operating suite. A508, 405.1033(d) (1) (vii). 1. TWO of nine emergency room records reviewed did not contain disposition of the case. 2. One of nine rec- ords showed no patient's signature and six of nine records showed no nurse's signature, as required by the emergency room policies. STATEMENT OF SENATOR CURTIS Our small business community is fast be- coming an endangered kpecies because of government regulation. With all of the attention we have paid in recent years to preserving our natural en- vironment, I am amazed that we have not also made strides to improve our economic environment which is foundering because of the massive restrictions and regulations of the federal government. We have far too many federal departments and agencies, with far too many regulations, restrictions and requirements which infringe on the freedom and liberties of the citizens. In terms of economics, the mass of govern- ment regulations is infringing on our time and ability for doing business. Surely we can see the cost to small business and the nation in the volumes of regulations of such agencies as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Environ- PLAN Or CoanzarioN-Continued PROVIDER'S PLAN OF CORRECTION WITH TIME TABLE-Continued This will be complied with-however, again, I think it is more bureaucratic nitpicking as are all of these so-called deficiencies. There are no specific stop orders on any drug unless I order them stopped. Again, I don't like this intrusion into my domain. I won't comment on this because the pharmacist is a professional man himself and he can deal with this. However, again, I don't feel it is of any consequence as far as patient care is concerned. Ditto. I am satisfied with the results of my lab and of course, in the end I am the one who needs to be satisfied. Ditto, Ditto. Defibrillator. It is sort of asinine to expect anyone to use an electric defibrillator in the Operating Room with ether. I don't intend to blow my head off nor that of my staff, nor explode the patient. There are other methods of taking care of the situation if it should arise, and I am thoroughly aware of how to take care of asytole and ven- tricular fibrillation if it occurs, and I will continue to use ether since it is still the safest of all anesthetics. There have been no reports of deaths due to hepatitis as there have been a number of such reports with Halothane and Penthrane and since we have no operative deaths and no anesthetic deaths and no anesthetic complications for ten years and 2500 surgical cases, I think the result of this speaks for itself. I think it would be a good idea if some other institutions who are running higher in these categories than do we would consider the use of ether. Again, more bureaucratic nitpicking. Again, I don't think any of this paper work and pencilling would have added to the care of patients about whom records are being reviewed. mental Protection. Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, the Civil Aeronautics Board, the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Federal Power Commission. Surely we can see the cost to small busi- ness and the nation In the thousands of re- quired forms of such departments as Health. Education and Welfare, Labor, Commerce, Transportation and Treasury. Surely we can see the cost to small business and the nation in the many reporting and accounting requirements of the Social Se- curity Administration, the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Federal Communi- cations Commission and the Internal Rev- enue Service. Surely we can see the cost to small busi- ness and the nation in the voluminous, time- consuming study, investigation and report- ing requirements of the Environmental Pro- tection Agency, the General Services Admin- istration, the Water Resources Council, and the Departments of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Health, Educa- tion and Welfare. Mr. President, according to the Small Busi- ness Administration, there are some six mil- lion enterprises in this country. That figures out to about one small business for every 38 people. Small businesses are the nation's number one source of jobs. They generate millions of dollars in revenue which is regen- erated nit? the economy through wages, costs Of operation and purchasing power. The major contributions small businesses make to the nation should be cause for con- cern that the government not jeopardize small business. Yet, the massive bureaucracy Is tragically suffocating small business through regulations, requirements, restric- tions and endless amounts of paperwork and red tape. In fiscal 1975 there were more than a quarter million bankruptcies in the 'United States. That was up from a low of only Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 S 2772 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE March 4, 1976 about, 10,000 al the end of World War II. The 284,484 individual and business bankruptcies ei Racal 1975 represented a 34 percent ln- ereake in just one year. Business bank- ruptcies have y articularly increased in recent year:, with a 45 percent jump in fiscal 1975 ever the previous year. eankruptcy represents a blow to-the econ- emy when it occurs. In hearings held by the semi% Judiciary Committee on Bankruptcy tow reform last year it was pointed out that eankruptcy courts cancel $2 billion in debts dawn year. But, although debts may be can- relied, I think we are fooling ourselves if we tion't think they have to be paid. The losses from bankruptcies are made up by higher emits to consumers and the public, as well as by those small businesses particularly that le list absorb them. t ta"ought up bankruptcy here because I believe one of the major contributions to it is the mass of federal regulations, restric- tions and requirements that are time- eonsuming aid costly for small busi- nesses to handle. If by reducing or .eliminat- leg much of tee required federal paperwork we can save businesses, then I think we should proceed post haste with regulatory reform. Mr; President, as an example of the effects federal regulations have on business and la- 'eon I would like to cite from a June, 1975 re- port of the administrator of the Environ- mental Protection Agency to the Secretary of Labor. EPA and Labor had an inter-agency agreement whereby EPA reported periodically to Labor on job- losses attributed to environ- mental regulations._ In that report, the EPA said 108 plants claimed environmentally re- lated actual or threatened job losses over the four year period of January, 1971 to March, 1075. The report said that actual closings or curtailments ct production in 71 plants have resulted in the loss of approximately 12,560 jobs. Another 37 plants threatening to close or curtail operations could potentially dislo- cate an additional 33,850 workers, the report said. Now, this is but one example of a federal agency keeping a record of its impact on busi- nesste and jobs. What the EPA report didn't say was how much those closings and job losses cost the people and communities in- volved in terms of incomes and livelihoods, welfare roll iacreases, unemployment com- pensation, and economic effect in the com- munities. I'm not aware that any other agen- cies do a similar study, but can imagine that it the Occupational Safety and Health Ad- ministration, the Interstate Commerce Com- mission, the Federal Power Commission, the Civil Aeronautics Board, and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare and other federal agencies kept such records, the figures would be staggering. The point I'm making is that the-tremend- -aim amount of paperwork, red tape and gov- ermnent regulation and restriction has a Very meal adverse effect on our small businesses, on sobs, and ultimately on the whole econ- omy. Small busir.esses themselves constitute 47 percent of all non-governmental, non-farm jobs and more than one-half of all Ameri- eam; depend directly on small businesses for their livelihoods. Small businesses account for about 70 percent of the nation's retail and wholesale trade and more than 40 per- eent, of the nation's production output. I can cite numerous examples of specific situations in which the regulatory function- ing of the federal government has affected small business. The Interstate Commerce Commission has aken months and even years to process vari- ous motor carrier service applications of small and independent trucking operations, telays of this type are common in the bu- reaucracy we have now and not only cost the firms mcney, but also coat consumers. The time has come for us to halt the ;oar- ness of government and return its Whet ;my. As a point in fact in one recent case in Nebraska, it took the ICC more than two years to process and issue a permit to a !nail business. The Securities and Exchange Commision is pressuring small independent oil opera- tors through a proposal which require, en- terprises to be registered as broker-de tiers and to belong to a national organizatie n In order to sell only a small portion of interest In a $2,000 well. I have received numerous complaints over the past few months that the costs of drilling and the securitie ; to- gether is too much for the independei 7, oil operators to remain in business. Why should many of these small firs a' be driven out of business by legal and ace( tint- ing expenses when their initial purpose was to drill for oil? It has reached a ridiculous point when the very government the- people support and which is supposed to reprssent them places insurmountable restrictima on them and forces them out of a livelieood. If the present trend continues, whc will there be to find 80 per cent of the oil ia the United States in the future? With the de- mise of the private, small operators. we will surely have to federalize the oil drilling and exploration operations in this country. I hope- we can do it with greater- stuccesk and economy than we have been able to ac sieve in delivering the mails or running passenger trains. The Occupational Safety and Healtl Ad- ministration, which has victimized ;mall businesses over the past years, is an excel- lent example of what can happen when bu- reaucrats get entangled in their own un- manageable red tape. Only recently diet the federal agency issue any manageable form of its regulations which could be understood by the businessmen and others who wel e be- ing cited and fined. Even then, booklets summarizing thk reg- ulations in lay language have had ..ea be issued for general industry, the comstruc- tion industry and the longshore ind estry. The agency says others are forthcoming, but how are people to know what they are to be complying with if the agency itself can- not even compile a list of its own regale tions governing particular industries? The amount of federal over-regulation is so bad that businesses are often confronted with conflicting regulations among several agencies. Likewise, there have been flamer- ous situations in Which federal agencies have involved themselves in matters that are clearly not within their authority but are under the authority of other age =lea In Nebraska at this time, the Federal Power Commission has delayed the conk true- tion of a 650 megawatt steam-electric plant that is badly needed for the state to meet Its electricity demands by 1977. The Ent iron- mental Protection Agency, state ens iron- mental agency and federal district courts all upheld the construction plans of the plant as meeting environmental needs. Yea the FPC has stopped and delayed construction for a year and a half at a cost of more than $100 million to the consumers and buseiess- men of Nebraska on the basis of ent ;regi- mental claims. There are presently some 20 agencies deal- ing with the food industry, spending sev- eral million dollars worth of federal taxpay- ers' money each year and costing busiresses, especially small ones, an estimated $4? mil- lion to fill out and file .all the forms ree aired by federal agencies. To add insult to injury, the small bu; mess rent guarantee program has been screpped in the 1977 budget, only 18 months after million-dollar losses were found in the pro- gram. The losses were attributed to bad ad- ministration and bungling in the bureauc- racy, but have brought about the demise of a program which was designed to nelp ob- tain competitive locations for small busi less men who did not have credit on their owl to qualify for locational financing. A family doctor in northeast Nebraska era.. forced to close his practice after 20 year recently because of the increasing demands being placed on private enterprise by the fed- eral bureaucracy in the form of reporting and filing requirements for Social Security Medicare, Department of Health, Educatioe and Welfare purposes and others. The work load an rural physicians has in- creased rapidly in many areas, both because of an increasing patient load and because the number of physicians serving these areas It decreasing. Many small communities hay, found it hard to attract additional doctors even more so because of the paperwork re- quirements placed on them by the federa government. Working initially with one assistant, tin Nebraska physielan had a staff of four persons battling constantly to keep up witl. forms and information sheets when he closet the office. The mountains of paperwork liter ally crowded the doctor out of his office am; contributed to skyrocketing medical costs along with the erosion of quality medica care in the community. Residents of the small town now must travel a considerablt distance to another community for medica care. Instances like that of the Nebraska physi clan are occurring across the United State: with increasing frequency. This is one mon reason the runaway bureaucracy must b4 stopped from encroaching further into th, Jives of the citizens. Another example of government red tape and paperwork which is hampering free ex ercise of private enterprise can be seen in tie case of grocers. According to government figures, mon, than 35 million man hours each year are re quired by retail food stores alone to complea various forms required for those businessa There are some 2.100 different forms pertain tug to food retailing. Research and statistics show that more than 72 per centig the small enterprises hay .44 fewer than 10 employees, whose time has te be devoted in considerable part to filling cm . the required forms. Large stores and chain: might be able to hire additional personnet to take care of the mountain of federal pa - perwork, but the small ones face almost un- recoverable costs in this situation. I have had complaints from various ma.' stores in Nebraska whose owners and opera- tors claim their businesses are being in- vaded by federal agencies which are requirins them to fill out forms to help with "timel information on the functioning of the ecor - omy." One of the Federal Trade Commis- sion forms requires the businesses to deta financial statements and warns that the fir' for non-compliance is between $1,000 mei $5,000, and up to one year in prison for ire dividuals. For corporations, the governmer levies $100-per-day fines. This represents us - necessary collection of proprietary data C44 businesses. An eastern Nebraska manufacturing firm was fined $1,115 by the Occupational Safet T and Health Administration for one seriota and four non-serious violations. The com- pany appealed the citations, claiming the ire provements would place the company building outside other OSHA regulations alai would result in further citations. While the appeal was still underway, OSHA inspectors cited the small firm again fc r failure to abate and the fine climbed to $10,500 for the serious violation and another $5,670 for the non-serious ones. That made the total fine $15,280, all while an appeal was underway by the 11-employee firm. This type of overbearing action by a federal agency Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 March 4, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE S 2773 is crimping small businesses and must be stopped. In another case involving OSHA, an awn- ing manufacturing firm in Nebraska was fined $3,250 for not having a specific type of guard around its punch presses. The guards which the firm had were in compliance with Ne- braska regulations. If the firm had installed those squired by OSHA, the guards would not have totally met state requirements, and the firm was faced with the predicament of hav- ing to follow state or federal rules. In a case involving the Internal Revenue Service, a woman operating a small survey- ing business found herself victimized when the agency changed her tax status without apparent basis. The IRS had ,ruled in 1965 that she did not have to pay employee taxes since the people she employed were not in- ()face workers, but rather worked in the field on a very part-time basis, sometimes on a volunteer basis. The IRS assessed the woman, without warning, $81,000 in back withholding and other taxes. Earlier IRS records showed that the firm was in compliance with tax laws, and lawyers for the firm established that other similar operations which were perform- ing the same service were not paying the employee taxes. This type of bureaucratic bungling ex- emplifies the heavy-handed way many federal agencies are dealing with small businesses across the United States. I have had numerous complaints from Nebraska insurance men who are now re- quired to disclose their commission figures on Asles. No other industry is required to make such disclosures. Most insurance agen- cies are small concerns, and the unnecessary regulation is hampering the exercise of free enterprise. The effects on small business are also being felt through the actions of the Federal Trade Commission, which recently effected new regulations governing the sale of used cars. According to the rules, dealers must make all defects in the cars known, must have available the previous owner's name and title, must offer a warranty and certify the vehicle Is in first-rate shape according to FTC guide- lines. The regulations place a new burden on the small businesses, but do not cover individual persons selling cars on their own. This regu- lation is discriminatory. It seems doubtful that any used car dealer could certify that nothing is wrong with a vehicle. ;Used ears are just that?used?and as such, the buyer should understand that there may be flaws in the vehicle. The overriding point in this entire discus- sion today is that the federal bureaucracy is stifling small businesses across the country. Small businesses are the basic strength of the American economy and an integral part of it. Small businesses and the people operat- ing them have shown an excellent operational record, both in financial and business terms, through the years. The very agencies, bureaus, departments and commissions which are now over-regu- lating and suffocating them in red tape and voluminous regulations, have not been as successful as small business themselves. The bungling, uncontrollable bureaucracy must be brought to manageable proportions be- fore it destroys the basic business structure from which it should take a lesson?one of a common-sense operation on a manageable level. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CUL- VER). Under the previous order, the Sen- ator from New York (Mr. JAVITS) is rec- ognized for not to exceed 15 minutes. Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, a par- liamentary inquiry. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- ator will state it. Mr. McCLURE. Was 10 minutes of the time of the Senator from Maryland (Mr. BEALL) assigned to the Senator from Idaho? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- ator from Idaho has 10 minutes follow- ing the order for the recognition of the Senator from New York. Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. JAVITS. I yield. Mr. McCLURE. Is the Senator speak- ing on regulatory reform? Mr. JAVITS. No, I am going to speak on genocide. Mr. McCLURE. I wonder if we could keep the continuity. Is the Senator pressed for time? Mr. JAVITS. I am, unfortunately, but I ask unanimous consent that my re- marks follow all the stateme.nts on regu- latory reform in the RECORD. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. REGULATORY REFOR Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, a small business is by definition just that, small. The success of such a business is related to the specialized expertise of its modest staff, the dedication of a single owner- entrepreneur and the inherent flexi- bility or freedom of action which such organizations have historically displayed. Federal regulations and the reporting requirements associated with them di- vert the attention and energies of these small businesses away from the critical variables of marketing, production, fi- nance, and customer service. Employees must be either spread more thinly or augmented at high cost in response to expanding regulatory demands. The nor- mal result is that customers receive less satisfactory service or pay a higher price for the same level of service. To the ex- tent that prices rise, the small business begins to lose the competitive advan- tages which pr:icing and service had for- merly provided. In much the same way, regulation which forces national standards of com- pliance reduces the historic flexibility with Which small business has faded in a changing environment. Policies and procedures become increasingly rigid and the scope of activities to be undertaken by the entrepreneur becomes progres- sively more limited. What is so often overlooked is that regulation hampers small business to the benefit of big business. When someone talks about the close relationship be- tween business and regulators, they mean big business. What I want to discuss is a far more problematic series of subtleties involved in the big business/small busi- ness competition, or lack of it, under reg- ulation. The cause is intrinsic in the na- ture of regulation itself. I would like to read a letter from one of my constituents, a small businessman: For some time now, we have been meaning to write you about the growing burden at work which regulations promulgated by fed- eral agencies have imposed on small business- men like ourselves. We are not talking about the laws passed by Congress, but the outra- geous volumes of regulations, imposing hor- rendous requirements where the substantive purpose of the enabling statute has been lost sight of by the enforcing agency. In the last few months, our company has revised its warranties to comply with the first round of regulation under the Magnu- son-Moss Warranty Act, and has been revis- ing its credit forms to comply with the Truth-in Lending Act, the Fair Credit Bill- ing Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and all of the regulations issued under those Acts. In each case, the result of the revision was to make the piece of paper the con- sumer receives longer, more detailed and less comprehensible than the form it replaced. There is another aspect of excessive regula- tion of business. We buy some tires from Goodyear and also compete with Goodyear on a retail level. Both Goodyear and our com- pany have to hire attorneys to figure out how to comply with federal regulations, to figure out which disclosures must be in the form the regulatory agencies require them to be made and which may be varied by the indi- vidual merchant, and to keep track of which laws are applicable as of which date. But Goodyear can spread this cost of doing busi- ness over a much broader retail base. Similarly, the cost of printing new forms is largely in setting up the type. The in- cremental cost for each of the last 990,000 copies of a new form required by a federal regulation is much less than the average cost of each of the first 10,000 copies which the small businessman must buy. There are enough economies of scale which give an eco- nomic advantage to the large business over the small business without the Federal Gov- ernment's regulations giving this aid to the creation of oligopolies. In other words, the system works like a regressive income tax. The smaller the business the higher a proportion of its resources will be consumed in complying with Government requirements--and the more likely it will fold, leaving that Gov- ernment to wonder what it can do to in- crease competition. While it wonders, the regulatory machinery will turn like prayer wheels, oblivious to the fact that it is diminishing competition. At the same time regulators are either unaware or unconcerned about State regulations violated by each new Federal reeu: g lation. A Wary constituent has asked m Why should the burden fall on the small businessman to sort out the inconsistencies between these regulations? It is our public servants who have created this mess of con- flicting regulation; why should it not be their responsibility to extricate us from it by pro- viding forms which certifiably comply with both sets of regulations? Mr. President, it is interesting to note how the satisfaction of the small busi- ness is closely tied with the satisfaction of the consumer. In our last colloquy I spoke of the effect on the consumer when an Idaho small business closed its con- sumer credit accounts because of the difficulty?and in some cases impossibil- ity?due to the lack of adjudicated eases?of complying with the law. But we should also consider the bsuiness it- self. In that instance, the company was so small that the effect of the new regu- lations was to force prices up about 2 Percent. They could not afford to stay in business after a serious fine, yet the law- yer from the Federal Reserve Board told them that the law was uninterpretable until there were court decisions. Now, a small businessman may be adventurous but not to the point of doing 3 to 5 years Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 S 2774 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? EN ATE March 4, 19 7 for a miswriAen form. The company had no choice but to suspend consumer credit operations. Future customers will obvi- ously be more attracted by the retail out- let which gIles credit along with all the other services. Any business which can afford the fi aes and prorate its expenses over a broad base is the one which will attract those customers. Big business wins again. That is when it becomes a consumer issue as well. A citizen cf Gooding, Idaho, tells me of an unsolicited communication he re- , eived from his bank telling him that if he desired information about his real estate loan he should call the bank. Thinking naturally that the bank must ie commum eating about something he called and asked what might have changed. 01:, no, the bank assured him, no problem, they were simply required to send out the meaningless communica- tion by HEW. Said my friend: Now. Senator, is this an affront to my in- telligence or is the post office just trying to tell more of 3 ts high priced stamps? Do the people in Washington realize that these needless actions only add millions to con- sumer costs? From that you get some idea of the -Arnall business climate in 20th century America. But the small businessmen in Idaho would never forgive me if I were to dis- cuss Government regulation and neglect OSHA. There is probably no piece of leg- islation responsible for more hardship, more lost jobs, more unhappiness and Frustration than this one act. It is the prirne example of how the ingenious mind of insm is increasingly stifled by the mindlessness of the regulators. There are still some who figure out now to beat the rap. One blasting corn- nany, having discovered that OSHA reg- dlations regarding signs were directly contradictory to those of another agency, atationed a man with a radio at the en- trance to t aeir establishment. Accord- mgly. whoever the inspector was that day, the signs were arranged to please his agency. But another small business- man curtailed his own operation because IA a regulation which demanded that he out a railing all around an elevator lift. lie could put the railing on, but nothing could then be moved either on or off the lift. Mr. Presi lent, I would advise anyone un::amiliar with English to stay away Trom OSHA's definitions. If such a man 1,3 indoors and a fire starts, and he sees the word "e rit" over a door, he may have trite to get to Webster's and discover that an exit is a "passage or way out." But if he tt,rns to OSHA regulations he will find that an exit is: That portlin of a means of egress which s separated from all other spaces of the eutiding or structure by construction or equipment es required in this subpart to pre tected wae of travel to the exit discharge. The means of egress comprises the vertical and horizontal ways of travel and shall in- etude intervening room spaces, doorways, liallways, co 7ridors, passageways, balconies, 'amps, stairs, enclosures, lobbies, escalators, norizontal e;:its, courts, and yards. Exit discharge Is that portion of a means af egress between the termination of an exit oret a public way. I very much fear that by the Uric he had discovered any meaning to tha* the discovery would be academic. Safety is obviously important. Th: real question is how much of it is who e re- sponsibility? Robert Stewart Smith has written a thoughtful study of the hob- lem in which he includes a story he calls a safety fable. The fable examine, the social and market effects of Government regulation. The presentation is imagi- native, but the principles valid. I recom- mend it to my colleagues and ask unani- mous consent that it be printed in the RECORD at this point. But rememter in reading it that some of the comparsons are illustrative only and cannot be :,aken literally. It should also be noted this t the trade-off between economics and happi- ness demands a very broad and some- what strained definition of the term "hapiness." There being no objection, the stor was ordered to be printed in the R1-'0RD. as follows: CHAPTER 11?THE SOCIAL GOALS OF AN ,CCO - PATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH PROOF. "I can't believe that!" said Alice. "Can't you?" the Queen said in a se tying lone. "Try again: draw a deep breatt and shut your eyes." Alice laughed. "There's no use tryino she said: "One can't believe impossible tt,,ngs.'' "I daresay you haven't had much pm- floe," said the Queen.?Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There. The safety and health mandate under the Occupational Safety and Health Act hes been shown to be virtually unqualified: only in the event that almost an entire industry would have to close down would the courts rule that a technically possible hazard abate- ment program is "unfeasible." Is the goal of near-absolute safety socially defenst ale in a society seeking to advance the general welfare? Just how much safety is "enough" in our society? Is it being provided? These questions cannot be easily answerel. nor should an answer be attempted without reference to an explicit theory of sod, wel- fare. The purpose of this chapter is to sketch such a theory, which is then used to suggest the conditions under which gc,vern- mental safety and health programs w ild be required to advance the general goes!. 12) to consider the need for such prognens ire the U.S. economy, and (3) to establish some rules which can be used to guide a vern- mental decisions in the safety and Lealth area. We begin with a fable. A SAFETY FABLE Tn the oral tradition kept alive Yr some economists there exists a fable about ei un- known?perhaps lost?kingdom in which there was no need for the government to institute an occupational safety and health program. The intriguing aspect of thi,: fable is that, in this kingdom, selfish trolls owned and operated all the businesses. These trolls were thoroughly self-serving creatures who cared not at all about the safety, pet se, of the gnomes who worked for them. The only thing the trolls did care about was oning their pockets with as much gold anc-. silver as possible. The gnomes were frightened by ti mo- tives of the trolls, and angered by tie- risks they faced on their jobs. So they pete toned the good king, who ruled the land ,visely, crying, "Your Highness! The trolls cere not for our safety at work. They care o ny for themselves and the gold and silver they have. Please help us dmprove the quisity of our lives!" The king appointed a Royal Com- mission on Work Safety to investigate these charges, and six months later (remember, this is a fable) the commission de,iverect s report. The report confirmed that trolls wee, eel - ish profit maximizers who never even is: sad when a gnome was injured or kill. on the job. The report further seated tb. trolls, though unfeeling, did pruvide son e safety for their employees; however tee only reduced hazards if it was profitable do so. Injuries, it seems, were costly lo t e trolls. Other gnomes stopped work to he. p out the victim, so production was ic,st. A replacsment had to be trained to fill in I. 7 the injured gnorne, and this the trolls four a costly Often damage to the -roll's machine, s accompanied a work injury. And, of riu, importance, trolls with the most dangerce s factones had to pay higher wages for t- same gnomes employed by ethers. The re.- sons these "risk premiums" existed wee, listed by the commission as: (1) the gtione e knew the risks they faced in each facto,- (2) not all trolls found it profitable to offer only dangerous work, and (3) gnomes had wide choice of jobs. Therefore, in order S a troll offering relatively dangerous work attract enough gnomes, he had to pay a wage rate high enough to compense gnomes for the increased risks they faced e his factory. Gnomes insufficiently compe. - sated for the higher risk took jobs it) sales factories. The above costs provided incentives ler the trolls to improve safety, but improve. but improving safety itself consumer o -- sources, The trolls, in trying to produce at minimum cost, provided enough safety -0 that the sum of injury costs and injury pis - vention costs were as small as possible. Ties kept prices down, but it did mean that injury rates were different in every factory. depere - ing on the costs of injuries and thee' pre - vention. The report strengthened the will of tee gnomes to demand more safety. They pee - tioneci the kind, saying, "The Royal Cos o mission has Confirmed what we told ye I. Trolls only provide safety when it is prof.. - able. Economic needs cannot be allowed ei prevail over gnome needs, and we heseee It you to force the trolls to eiiminWe all he, arch; no that no gnome need face danger it the factory again!" The kindly king agre and an order banning all conceivable occe- pational hazards was issued. "Long live tee king," shouted the gnomes. "Long live tee gnomes," shouted the king in return Trolls everywhere were alarmed. Tree. building and repairing bridges (troll bridge-, of course), for example, could not even I:. ginto reduce hazards to zero. Bridge build- ings and repairing therefore stopped. TITS Is who built houses found it was possible 'o reduce all hazards, but it was not profitaele to do so at prevailing prices. (After all, if it had been profitable to do so, it would airea.t have been done.) Housing prices were creased, and some trolls left the constre tion business and invested their funds royal bonds. Only industries where hazards had already been eliminated before tile Cl cree were unaffected by the phenomena -f rising prices, business failures, and tine: ?,- ployment. Trolls were not merely absorblog the extra costs of safety in their profits. 1- -t passing these costs on to consumers. Gnomes were numb with surprise Tb r greater safety was being bought at the ? pence of fewer houses and bridges How w, they to live? How were they to visit tin 1r relatives if bridges could not be built or !? paired? What bad happened was no: at I what they had expected, and they were cc e- fused. Although most unemployed goon eventually found work in factories makl 1g safety equipment, this equipment could r it be consumed directly. There was m. re "safety" being produced now, but fewer oti thiags. Lack of open bridges and the shortsee and expense of housing particularly bother:4 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 Approved Far Release 2006/02/Q7 ? _CIA-RDPUMIV4R001100210037-0 March 31, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL .tacoitu ? HOU H 2643 The House of Representatives has an op- portunity to put this fundamental reform into effect with an amendment to provide that each contribution of up to 8100 would be matched with public funds derived from the voluntary dollar checkoff on personal in- come tax returns. When public financing of Congressional campaigns was voted upon two years ago, it twice won approval in the Senate but was defeated in the House, 228 to 187. The composition of the House has changed mark- edly since that vote was taken. Approxi- mately 220 members from both parties are on record as sponsors of various public financing bills. If they make good on their pledges, the nation's political life can yet move out of the financial swamp in which it has been mired for too long. (Mr. MELCHER asked and was given permission to extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and to include ex- traneous matter.) [Mr. MELCHER's remarks will appear hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.] (Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia asked and was given permission to extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and to include extraneous matter.) [Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia's re- marks will appear hereafter in the Ex- tensions of Remarks.] RULE TO BE REQUESTED FOR CON- SIDERATION OF H.R. 12774 (ur. ULLMAN asked and was given permission to extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and to include ex- traneous matter.) Mr. ULLMAN. Mr. Speaker, on March 30, 1976, the Committee on Ways and Means ordered favorably reported H.R. 12774 with amendments. This bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide an election under which State and local governments may issue taxable obligations and receive a Federal subsidy of 35 percent of the interest yield on such obligations. I take this occasion to advise my Dem- ocratic colleagues in the House as to the type of rule which I will request for con- sideration of H.R. 12774 on the floor of the House. The comm)tt structed me to re- quest the on Rules to grant a closed rul consideration of H.R. 12774 whi - '\uld provide for commit- tee amendrnen ic which would not be sub- ject to end e t and which would provide f of g eral debate to be equally d, ch would pro- vide for sual ion to recommit. We int d to file committee report on H.R. 12774 by mid ht, Wednesday, April 7, 1976. INTRODUCTION OF BILL IMPLE- MENTING CONVENTION TO PRE- VENT AND PUNISH ACTS OF TER- RORISM AND CONVENTION ON PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF CRIMES AGAINST INTERNA- TIONALLY PROTECrED PERSONS (Mr. WIGGINS asked and was given permission to extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and to include ex- traneous matter.) Mr. WIGGINS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing, at the request of the Attorney General and the Secretary of State a bill to amend title 18 of the United States Code to implement the "Convention to Prevent and Punish the Acts of Terrorism Taking the Form of Crimes Against Persons and Related Ex- tortion that are of International Signif- icance," and the "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Per- sons, Including Diplomatic Agents." The Senate advised and consented to rati- fication of the first-named convention (Senate Executive D, 92d Cong., 1st Sess.) on June 12, 1972. The second of the two conventions was transmitted to the Senate on November 13, 1974 (Senate Executive L, 93d. Cong., 2d Seas.). The primary purpose of this bill is to amend the Federal criminal law to give the U.S. Government the authority to prosecute those who commit, or attempt or conspire to commit, a crime of vio- lence against a representative of a for- eign government. The prosecution of such crimes is normally the responsibility of the States. However, these persons, and their well-being, are an important ele- ment in carrying on our foreign affairs. The Federal Government must assume the responsibility of affording to foreign offices certain consideration not afforded to our -own citizens. This-bill will comple- ment and supplement existing Federal laws in this area. However, I am constrained to say, that several sections of this bill as presently drafted are troubling to me. The bill goes' beyond the proscription of violent crimes, to make criminal, in the broadest terms, "harassing" these foreign repre- sentatives. It makes criminal what amounts to the harassing of a building, all or part of which is used by them. The Constitution guarantees to all cit- izens the right to speak and the right to assemble. When this bill is considered in committee, the spirit, the letter, and the meaning of the first amendment must be clearly and firmly held in mind. Any law which, under certain circumstances, makes the utterance of a word, the post- ing of a handbill, or the carrying of a sign a Federal criminal offense, must be drafted with care, with caution, and with the greatest circumspection. Following is a section-by-section anal- ysis of the bill: SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS?MURDER OR MANSLAUGHTER OF FOREIGN OFFICIALS, OF- FICIAL GUESTS, OR INTERNATIONALLY PRO TECTED PERSONS Section 2 revises section 1116 of title 18, United States Code, to conform with the United Nations Convention on the Preven- tion and Punishment of Crimes against In- ternationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents and the Organization of American States Convention to Prevent and Punish the Actr. of Terrorism Taking the Form of Crimes Against Persons and Related Extortion that are of International Signifi- cance. Subsection (a) of section 1116 prohibits the killing or attempted killing of foreign officials, official guests, or internationally protected persons. The penalty provisions of sections 1111, 1112 and 1113 are made ap- plicable except that the penalty for first degree murder is imprisonment for life, thus conforming with FurMan V. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972). The penalty for attempted mur- der, not more than twenty years, parallels that for assault with intent to commit mur- der (18 U.S.C. 113) as being more appropriate than the three years otherwise applicable under 18 U.S.C. 1113. Subsection (b) of section 1116 defines , terms used in the section. Paragraph (1) of subsection (b) defines "family" in the same manner as the existing 18 U.S.C. 1116(c) (3) except that the term internationally protected person is added. The conventions do not define this term, but the understanding of the United States of Its convention obligations for family mem- bers must be taken as reflective of the term in existing law. Paragraph (2) of subsection (b) defines "foreign government" precisely as the exist- ing 18 U.S.C. 1116(c) (1) defines the term. Paragraph (3) of subsection (b) defines the term "foreign official" the same way as 18 U.S.C. 1116(b) now defines the term. Note that the definition includes chief executive officers of an international organization as well as persons who have previously served in such capacity and any member of their families. Since United States citizens can serve in such capacities, both they and their families can fall within the technical defini- tion of "foreign official." The issue has been raised in the appeal of United States v. Spirn, No. 74-2490 (2d Cir.), whether the foreign official must be per- sonally present within the United States at the time of damage to his personal prop- erty, 18 U.S.C. 970 (incorporating the defini- tion of "foreign official" by reference), or attack on members of his family, 18 U.S.C. ii 1116, 1201 and 112. We believe that the Intent of Congress is clear in this respect; that once the person has been duly notified to the United States as an officer or em- ployee of a foreign government or inter- national organization, short sojourns in other countries for vacations, conferences, etc., do not vitiate the protection afforded his family or property remaining in the United States. Consequently, an amendment is unnecessary. Paragraph (4) of subsection (b) defines "internationally protected person" as a Chief of State or the political equivalent, a Head of Government, or a Foreign Minister outside of his own country, as well as any member of his family accompanying him. The definition also encompasses any other representative, officer, employee, or agent of the United States Government, a foreign government, or international organization who is en- titled pursuant to international law to spe- cial protection as well as members of his family then forming part of his household. The difference in protection of family mem- bers is a result of the difference in protection under the United Nations Convention. The definition is meant to parallel that found in the United Nations Convention defi- nition of "internationally protected person." There the term was defined as: (a) a Head of State, including any member of a collegial body performing the functions of a Head of State under the constitution of the State concerned, a Head of Government or a Minister for Foreign Affairs, whenever any such person is in a foreign State, as well as members of his family who accompany him; (b) any representative or official of a State or any official or other agent of an interna- tional organization of an intergovernmental character who, at the time when and in the place where a crime against him, his official premises, his private accommodation or his means of transport is committed, is entitled pursuant to international law to special pro- tection from any attack on his person, free- Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 11 2644 Approved For RelmengfINAFIMOMOOMMRRIp1100210037-561.(11' 31, 1976 atom or dignity, as well as members of his family forming part of his household. . The term "internationally protected per- ?or_." overlaps significantly with the term foreign official." In essence, the former term is needed only to define that class of persons in whose favor operate the extra-territorial jurisdiction provisions of this statute. The offender's knowledge of the status of the victim is not required, Cf. United States Marcell?, 423 F2d 993 (5th Cir.), cert. de- nied., 398 U.S. 959 (1870). Any uncertainty whether a particular victim is afforded spe- cial protectivs status under international law .'elates to jurisdiction only; It does not raise due process questions of notice or vagueness. 11/. United States v. Rick, 497 F.2d 1369 (5th CU. 1974) . The substantive crimes are defined a traditional terms which afford the re- ouisite fair warning of the conduct prohib- ited. Cf. sou :e v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 147, 350-51 (1964). Paragraph (5) of subsection (b) defines 'International Organization" the same way as ;he extant 18 U.S.C. 1116(c) (2). Paragraph (6) of subsection (b) defines 'Oficial Guest" the same as the existing 18 U.S.C. 1116(c) (4). Subsection (c) of section 1116 provides that if the minder or attempted murder was against an internationally protected person, then the United States may exercise juris- diction if the alleged offender is present within the United States regardless of the ;dace where the offense was committed or the nationali-,y of the victim or the alleged offender. The subsection is intended to estab- lish jurisdiction in the cases enumerated in Article III of the United Nations Conven- tion: "EL. Each State Party shall take such mess- itres as may be necessary to establish its jur- isdiction . . in the following cases: "(a) when the crime is cornmitted in the territory of that State or on board a ship oe aircraft registered in that State; "(b) when the alleged offender is a na- tional of that State; " c) when *:he crime is committed against an internationally protected person as de- fined in article I who enjoys his status as such by virtue of functions which he exer- cises on behalf of that State. "2, Each S;ate Party shall likewise take .etch measures as may be necessary to estab- lish its jurisdiction over these crimes in eases where the alleged offender is present in its territory and it does not extradite turn . . to any of the States mentioned in paragraph I of this article." The United States for the purposes of sub- secton IC) includes all areas under the ju- risdiction of tae United States including the places within 18 U.S.C. 5 and 7 as well as 49 U.S.C. 1301(34). Thus a person is present within the United States if he is, for ex- staple, on beard a ship belonging to the eInited States, or present elsewhere in ter- sttory under the jurisdiction of the United States. The word "present" is used to cap- re those cases in which an offender is dis- eovered in a foreign jurisdiction and then compelled to enter the jurisdiction of the United States As to jurisc.iction wherever the offense is oommitted when the offender or victim is a United States national, the question of its application is, of course, one of construction, tiot of legislative power. See Blackmer V. United State, 284 U.S. 421, 437 (1932); flatted States v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94, 96-- 102 (1922) . Also see United States v. Erdos, 4.74 F. 2d 157 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 876 (197:1). Moreover, the assertion of jurisdiction it this instance as well as when the offender is present in the United States, wherever he may have committed his of- omss, is in broper discharge of duly adopted international obligations of the United States under the conventions and is further sup- partible as an exercise of the power "[tip define and punish . . . offenses agaihst the law of nations." U.S. Const. Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 10. Precedent for exercise of suoh jhrisdic- tion is 18 U.S.C. 1651 (piracy) and Pub. L. 93-366 (aircraft piracy). Nothing in the subsection is meant to prevent the orderly extradition of offenders. Subsection (d) of section 1116 is a re- sponse to the recognition that exigent cir- cumstances involved in a terrorist takeover of an embassy, for example, may require the Federal Bureau of Investigation, through the Attorney General or his designated Nssist- ant, to request assistance from other Fed- eral, State, or local agencies, as well as the Departments of the Army, Navy or Air Force. The potential consequences of an attack in the United States upon a foreign official or official guest are sufficiently grave to warrant inclusion of this provision which parallels similar provisions (18 U.S.C. 351(g) and 1751 (i) ) relating to attacks upon Members of Congress, the President, or Vice President. See also Pub. L. 90-331, June 6, 1968, 82 Stat. 170, ? 2. Section 3 makes the necessary amendment to the chapter analysis of Chapter 51 of Title 18 to reflect the inclusion of the term "internationally protected person" ha the section. KIDNAPING Section 4 includes the class of imerna- tionally protected persons within the pur- view of section 1201 of title 18 and prDvides the convention-required extension of juris- diction over extra-territorial kidnappings and attempted kidnappings. Subsection (a) (4) of section 1201 is amended by adding the term internatisnally protected person. Neither the UN nor the OAS Convention explicitly excludes ti's ab- duction of a minor child by his paren- The United States, however, understands the generic term "kidnapping" to exclude such an abduction. Consequently the usual ex- ception is applicable when the victim is an internationally protected person, foreign official, or official guest. Subsection (d) of section 1201 is 11.3w. It makes attempted kidnapping a crime This is necessary because, first, the United Na- tions Convention requires that attempted kidnappings of internationally pro-,ected persons be made criminal. Second, and per- haps more importantly, attempted hi map- pings of any person should be made criminal if the attempted act falls within the porview of subsection (a). The penalty of not more than twenty years for attempts is consistent with the like provision for attempted murder. Subsection (e) of section 1201 provides for jurisdiction over extra-territorial kid- nappings or attempts. The subsection is the equivalent of section 1116(c) and renaired by the United Nations Convention. Subsection (f) of section 1201 provide i that In the course of enforcement of subsection (a) (4) and any other sections prohibilsng a conspiracy or attempt to violate that sub- section, the Attorney General may request assistance from any Federal, State or local agency. The subsection is the equivalent of section 1116(d). PROTECT/ON OF FOREIGN OFFICIALS, OF.7 EC/AL GTJESTS, AND INTERNATIONALLY PROTECTED PERSONS Section 5 amends section 112 of titie 18, United States Code, to include internationally protected persons within the purview af that section. Subsection (a) of section 112 adds liter- nationally protected persons to the persons covered by the subsection. Although probably already included in the concept of as3ault, section 5 adds to existing provisions the UN Convention language relating to attempts and violent attacks upon the premises, pri- vate accommodation, or means of transport of an internationally protected person for- eign official, or official guest likely to endanger his person or liberty, The inclusion of the word "imprisons" in this subsection and the word "confines" in section 1201(a) produces a degree of overlap between sections 112 and 1201. This assures coverage of all forms of unlawful interference with liberty while at the same time affordingthe prosecutor a rea- sonable amount of discretion to charge a particular interference under the section which best reflects the gravity of the inter- ference. Subsection (b) of section 112 remains un- changed. Neither the UN nor the OAS Con- vention requires criminal sanctions for in- timidation, coercion, or harassment of inter- nationally protected persons at least until such activity rises to the level of an assault (18 U.S.C. ? 112(a) ) or threat (18 U.S.C. ? 878(a)). Subsection (c of section 112 IS unchanged except for omission of the requirement that the prohibited act be done publicly. On a number of occasions demonstrators have oc- cupied the office, of a foreign official and en- gaged in various forms of obnoxious conduct. In terms of 18 17.S.C. 112(c), this raised the problem whether such actions had the requi- site quality of being done "publicly." The hundred foot zone is measured from the outside perimeter of the building. Thu if prohibited activities take place on the grounds within one hundred feet of the building, the proscriptions become active even though the foreign official or his office is more than one hundred feet from the ground in the upper stories of the building. Similarly, the proscriptions of the section are meant to become active if the demonstra- tion occurs within the building. Subsection (d) of section 112 adopts the appropriate definitions from section 1116(h i. Subsection (e) of section 112 is an express disclaimer of first amendment infringement. There Is no change from the present law. Subsection' (f) of section 112 provides for jurisdiction of crimes committed extra-ter- ritorially if the offender commits a crime under subsection (a) and if he is rater pres- ent within the United States. The provision is the same as that found in sections 1116(c) and 1201(e). Subsection (g) provides that in the en- forcement of subsection (a) and any other sections prohibiting a conspiracy or attempt to violate that subsection, the Attorney Gen- eral may seek assistance from any Federal, State, or local agency. The provision is the same as that found in sections 1116(d) and 1201 (f ) . Section 6 amends the analysis at the be- ginning of chapter 51 of title 18, United States Code, relating to section 112.to include in- ternationally protected persons. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY OF FOREIGN GOVERN - MENTS AND INT ERNATIONAL ORGANIZ AT/ONG Section 7 amends section 970 of title la, United States Code, by inserting a new sue- section protecting the integrity of buildings used by foreign governments or international organizations. Subsection (c) of section 370 incorporates the appropriate definitions found in section 1116(b). Subsection (b) of section 970 is new. lt prohibits forcibly thrusting an object or one within or upon any building or premise; occupied by a foreign government, an inter- national organization, a foreign official, or so official guest. The subsection is a logical ex- tension of protection afforded property of foreign persons, organizations, and govern- ments. Subsection (b) (2) of section 970 penalize; the refusal to depart from any building or premises described in subsection (b) (1) when requested by an employee of the foreign government, the international organization.' or by the foreign official or a member of his staff, or by any person present having law enforcement powers. Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 March 31, 19 ?A p p rove d ForfONGENEMMURPODIPP-7-NULWRO01100210037-0 H 2645 THREATS AND EXTORTION AGAINST FOREIGN OFFICIALS, OFFICIAL GUESTS, OR INTERNATION- ALLY PROTECTED PERSONS Section 8 amends chapter 41 of title 18, United States Code, by adding a new section 878 prohibiting threats and extortion against foreign officials, official guests, or interna- tionally protected persons. Subsection (a) of section 878 prohibits the knowing and willful threat to kill, kidnap, or assault a foreign official, official guest, or in- ternationally protected person on pain of not more than $5,000 fine or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both, except that imprisonment for threatened assault shall not exceed three years. The three year limita- tion is consistent with the punishment for actual assault. Subsection (b) of section 878 prohibits ex- tortionate demands in connection with the killing, kidnapping, or assaulting as well as threats to kill, kidnap, or assault a foreign official, official guest, or internationally pro- tected person. Subsection (c) of section 878 incorporates the appropriate definitions of section 1116(b). Subsection (d) of section 878 provides for the exercise of United States jurisdiction over a violation of subsection (a) commit- ted extra-territorially against an internation- ally protected person if the offender is pres- ent within the United States. The subsec- tion is the equivalent of sections 1116(c), 1201(e), and 112(f). Section 9 amends the analysis of chapter 41 of title 18 to include the new section on threats and extortion against foreign officials, official guests, and internationally protected persons. Section 10 indicates that nothing in this Act is intended to preempt the laws of any State, Cpmmonwealth, territory, possession, or the District of Columbia on the same sub- ject matter. Section 11 amends section 11 of title 18, United States Code, to ensure that the lithited definition of "foreign government" in 18 U.S.C. ? 1116(2) is applied to sections 112, 878, 970, 1116 and 1201. THE LATE HONORABLE WRIGHT PATMAN (Mr. ALBERT asked and was given permission to extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and to include ex- traneous matter.) Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, on March 7, 1976, the Nation lost one of the great- est Americans in this century, our col- league, Wright Patman. He was a cham- pion of the people, dedicated to his coun- try, the House of Representatives, and to the State of Texas. There have been many tributes paid to Wright Patman, but few se impressive and moving as those given by his colleagues and friends at his funeral services at the First Baptist Church in Texarkana, Tex., on March 10. ?I am pleased to insert these beautiful tributes so that all may have the oppor- tunity to read them. TRANSCRIPT OF THE FUNERAL SERVICE FOR THE HONORABLE WRIGHT PATMAN, REPRESENTA- TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS FROM 1928 TO 1976 (First Baptist Church, Texarkana, Tex., March 19, 1976) ? DR, LORY HILDRETH (PASTOR, FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH) Reading from Psalm 93 and also a portion of the 95th Psalm. The Lord reigns, He is clothed with majesty. The Lord has clothed and girded himself with strength. Indeed the world is firmly established, It will not be moved. Thy throne is established from old. Thou art from everlasting. The floods have lifted up, 0 Lord. The floods have lifted up their voice. The floods lift, up their pounding waves, Lord, of the sounds of many waters. The Lord on high is mighty. The testimonies are fully confirmed. Holiness befits Thy house, 0 Lord, forevermore. 0 come let us sing for joy to the Lord, let us shout joy- fully to the rock of our salvation. Let us come before His presence with thanksgiving. Let us shout joyfully to Him with psalms for the Lord is a great God and a great King above all Gods in whose hands are the depths of the Earth; the peaks of the mountains are His also. The sea is His, for it was He who made it and his hands formed the dry land. Come, let us worship and bow down, let us kneel before the Lord our Maker for He is our God and we are the people of His pas- ture and the sheep of His land. Today, if you would hear His voice harden not your heart. May we pray: Our Father, Thou are a great God and greatly to be praised. How excellent is Thy name in all the Earth from everlasting unto everlasting. Thou art God and beside Thee there is no other. We in disposition of mind and heart today would so commit ourselves in this situation of grief to Thee. That in relationship to the Loved ones, in relation- ship to honored associates, in relationship to thoughtful friends that we would know Thy presence, we would hear Thy voice, we would know the sustaining of Thy grace, we would experience the undergirding of everlasting arms.. And as this experience be- comes a real experience of worship, may all the high and holy motivations that would stir us today be not forgotten in the moments that shall be followed but in new commit- ment in all we have .and are, we shall give ourselves unsinningly to leading our nation and the people within the realm of influence of our lives to recognize that blessed is the nation whose God is Jehovah. Through Jesus Christ our living Lord and for His glory, Amen. .REPRESENTATIVE MAHON There being no formal introduction, per- haps I should first identify myself. I am George Mahon Reltresentative in Congress, from Lubbock, Texas, And I stand at this lecturn in this holy place because I have served longer in the Congress of the U.S. with our departed friend than any Member of the present Congress. And so I speak to you in that capacity. And I am sad with you over our loss and I rejoice with you over Wright Patman's service to our nation. When our plane landed from Washington I ob- served the bright day and I thought to my- self that today's shining sun must undoubt- edly be a blessing and a benediction from Heaven upon the services to humanity of one Wright Patman. So I rise to pay tribute to the memory of this departed friend, who at the time of his death in point of service in Congress had been Dean of the Texas Delegation in Washington for 15 years. He had been Dean of the House of Representatives and Dean of the entire Congress for nearly 4 years. He had served this District Number One in Texas for 47 years, the length of his service having only been exceeded by ?three other men in the history of the House of Representatives: Carl Vinson of Georgia, Emmanuel Cellar of New York, and the great Speaker Sam Rayburn. Wright Patman not only served long, more importantly my friends, he served well. He wrote a record of legislative achievement as Chairman of the Banking and Currency Committee of the House, as Chairman of the Small Business Committee, as Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee and in other capacities which rivals the record of any Member of the House in this century or in any period of our history. He was the warm and trusted friend of the little farmer, of the small businessman, of the veteran, and of all the little people of this land. Indeed, I expand that statement, he was a friend of man, rich and poor alike--a man of com- passion who loved his family, who loved the Congress, who loved this Country. The body of this fearless man was flown last Sunday night to his beloved Texarkana and the First District of Texas. We, of the Congress, and other friends, headed by Speaker Albert, have come to Texarkana today on the wings of the morning to join in honoring the memory of a great legislator and a great personal friend. So I have spoken to you for the Texas Delegation, for the Speaker and for the entire Congress, humbly in my new ca- pacity as the Dean of the House of Repre- sentatives. Speaking from the standpoint of the House of Representatives on this oc- casion, let me say to the friends of Wright Patman in this Congressional District that we revered your fearless hero?and he was your hero?your effective and beloved Wright Patman from Patman's Switch, as he often was wont to say; and we join in mourning the passing of this great man and in re- joicing over his superb accomplishments through a Yong, distinguished period of serv- ice. A personal note if you please: I shall sorely miss my warm friend of more than 40 years. Mrs. Patman, you and your family have our love and sympathy. May God extend His mercy, His blessings and His benediction upon all of us today. Thank you. It is now my pleasure to present the elo- quent and distinguished Representative Jim Wright of Fort Worth, who will deliver a eulogy in regard to the work and life of our departed friend. Mr. Wright. CONGRESSMAN JIM WRIGHT We come not only to mourn Wright Pat- man's death but in a larger sense to cele- brate his life. The grief we feel at the loss of our friend must be swallowed up in exalta- tion when we ponder how perfectly Wright Patman today could declare that apostolic affirmation: I am now ready to be offered, And the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith. Few if any of our time or of our memory have followed their convictions so undevi- atingly as Wright Patman. Few so unflinchingly have fought their fight and kept their faith. Few if any have served the humblest of their fellow creatures so untiringly. Few have given of themselves so unspar- ingly. Few have dreamed the imposible dream so determinedly, resisted invincible foes so joyously, handled life's disappointments so gracefully and preserved their basic ideals so uncompromisingly throughout a lifetime. Early in life Wright Patman determined to be a People's Man?a servant of the public. And thus began a lifelong love affair with the plain and simple, unpretentious average men and women of this land who sensed with some unerring instinct that here was a man whom they could trust. And trust him they could. When he talked with crowds, he kept his virtue. When he walked with kings, he kept the common touch. He often comforted the afflicted. And sometimes he afflicted the comfortable. Wright Patman pandered to neither the avarice of the rich nor the prejudice of the poor. It took rare courage in the 1920's for a first term congressman to assault the bas- tions of the nation's economic power and to file a resolution of impeachment against the Secretary of the Treasury, Andrew Mellon. And it took rare courage in 1920 for a young man to oppose the Ku Klux Klan in the rural south. Wright Patman did both. A full half century later, in the 1970's, still Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 2646 Approved For RetweragyROIL: aettleiTypitittyr01100210031.0 march 31, 1976 unimpressed be wealth, still unawed by power, unchanged by the tinselled trappings of the Washintgon scene, his ideals untar- nished and his vision of duty still =blurred, Wright Patman still was waging the same courageous?and sometimes lonely?battles. If there' be those who seriously question that individual integrity can survive in the political environment, let them look at Wright Patman 'a public years?and marvel at, the incorruptibility of his dream. Because of his life labors, the nation is richer and literally millions of our fellow Americans have found it easier to overcome life's barriers?easier for thousands of war veterans and their families to weather the depression of the 1930's?easier for thou- sands to borrow money for the crises of life?easier for families of modest means to own a home?easier for many small busi- aesses to stay alive in the predatory eco- nomic jungle?easier for millions to find jobs. Be ours the continuing legacy to think of him when the cynic scoffs that one man cannot make a difference. And who can know the countless thou- sands of unsung dramas, privy only to hint and his humble petitioners, enacted here in the Riney woods and red clay hills and lit- tle towns of northeast Texas, for people who for half a cent-try have come- to Wright Pat- man as their intercessor and have not been turned away empty. lie was not always successful. He did not always win the day. The foes that he chose were Cormidable. The nation's largest banks and the most pervasively powerful unelected entity of government, the Federal Reserve, combined against his plans. Too few would join him in h.s persistent and frequently frustrated endeavors to bring down inter- est rates. But none ever doubted his sin- cerity. And he never let failure breed bitterness. With courtly good manners, Wright Patman assumed pure motives on the part of those who disagreed with him. His spirit was too sweet for rancor. Bombarded by sometimes vicious criticism, he always had the dignity to answer in a soft voice, and usually with a smile. In the divisive and polarizing stri- dency of our times, there is a quiet treasure to hold to. Do the values by which Wright Patman lived have relevancy for our day? It may seem quaint?when our very lan- guage has been so jaded by excess that it has lost its capacity to shock?that a man would keep for 60 years a promise made to his mother, never to utter the name of the Lord in vain. Yes, quaint, perhaps. And yet how empty are our lives?poor clever, sophisticated creatures that we are? if we have no comparable commitments by which we live. And so. Pauline and Bill, Connor, Harold -and the grandchildren who will miss the twinkling eyes ind cherubic smile and never failing good humor, may it be some comfort that there are many who will share your sense of loss?and many too for whom Wright's memory will be a lasting inspira- tion. This, then. is a time not only for sorrow but also for thankfulness. We celebrate a life t qumphanely lived. So, Wright, old friend, your race is run; your battle done; your victory won. And from the eternal skies we know you hear the worcl.., "Well done." OR. NILLIAM E. SHIELDS Si aging: "Battle Hymn of the Republic.") Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord. He is trampling out a vintage where the grapes oi wrath are stored, He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword, His truth is marching on. Glory, glory, hallelujah, Glory, glory, hal- lelujah, Glory, glory, hallelujah, His truth is ma,' %- hag on. I have seen Him in the watchfires of a hin- dred circling camps. They have builded Him an altar in the .0 'e- fling dews and damps. I can read His righteous sentence in the dim and flaring lamps, Hie day is marching on. (Chorus, In the beauty of the lillies. Christ was b?a*n across the sea. Where the glory in His bosom that trairrig- ures you and me, As He died to make men holy, let us di,: to make men free, While God is marching on (Chorte., Amen, amen. LOR Y 1TtIDRF,TH direct your attention to an ancient 'et- ting, where another tremendous leader of the people of the nation had died. The is recorded for us in the 6th chapter of the ancient prophesy of Isaiah. In the yea; of King Uzziah's death, I saw the Lord, sit ing on a throne lofty and exalted with a train of his robe filling the temple. The seraptins stood above him each having six wings with two He covered His face, with two He cow- red His feet and with two He few. And one celled out to another and said, "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of Hosts. The whole Earth is 'AM of His glory." And the Ioundations of the thresholds trembled at the voice of Him who called out, while the temple was fled with smoke, then I said, "Woe is me for I am ruined because I am a man of unclean lips and I live among a people of unclean lips for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of Hosts." Then one of the seraphim flew to me with a burning coal in his hands ich he had taken off of the altar with palms. And he touched my mouth with it and said, "Behold this has touched your s lips, :tour inequity is taken away and your sin is ,:or- given." Then I heard the voice of the lord saying, "Whom shall I send and who go for us?" Then I said. "Here am I, lord, send me." You and I are met here today to pay )ur tribute of respect and affection for one -oho has walked among us with dignity and in- tegrity, for these many years. Well-deserved and eloquent tribute has already been ;aid to his public life, but I wish to recogeize his faith and its meaning for his life as well as for ours. Blessed by the fortune of good ancestry, Mr. Patman gave to his inheritance, the benefits of his own tremendous mind and spirit. It were as if he had made a gentle- men's agreement with life, because he worked diligently to give back to it more than he had received from it. Not only what he did, but how he did it will always linger in our memories. With a rare combination of true maturity and clear purpose, he always m.,yed toward well-defined objectives, yet there was always with him an understanding of others, and an appreciation for their differences that represented for him a true capacity for the acceptance of others, What does his life as well as his death say to you and to me I To find an answer to that question, I doect your attention to this ancient setting fsr a moment. The time is described in these words: "In the year that the King Uzeiah died." That statement is more than a date of description. It's more than a detail of chronology, it is a designation of spire, ual circumstance. Lord Byron, the rebel agrenst convention, said, l'It's a fearful thing to see the human soul take wings in any shape in any mood." Yes, death is always impress;ve; it becomes terribly impressive, however. when its victim is a person of unusual prominence, a person widely known, a person greatly loved. Such a person was King Uzziale but such a person was Mr. Wright Patman. The prophet Isaiah, as he confronted death, this great roan writes, in essence. "In the unforgettable year of the death of a great ',eerier, I was in the icy grip of grief. My mind was confused, my faith was reeling, it. was a time of crisis and confusion and change. But out of the darkness came light; I saw the Lord." He saw God towering above all else. The true King to him. God reigns. He is in control. He is the living Lord of nature, but also the living Lard of history. In the year that Mr. Patman died, our need is also a fresh awareness that God reigns. For many God is nothing but a lovely myth, an oblong blur, 3 faded reality. But in Isaiah's expe- rience, do you see what happened? The man stopped thinking of himself, and he started praising God. You see he has fastened on to something other than himself. How unlike our day, self-confidence, self-mastery is the religion of the present. But a religion of human will and a. religion of human effort divorced from God keeps us from focusing -our attention on God. A modern version of this famous passage from Isaiah could read like this: "In the year King Uzziah died, I was resolved that I would only think positive thoughts and so to come to believe in my- self. Suddenly I saw myself sitting on a throne, high and lifted up and I knew my own strength and my own power and I said, 'I will stamp on my mind a mental image of myself as succeeding; and when I said who would help me, the Lord said, Here I am, use me.' " The more you and I analyze ourselves, the more we think we're manufacturing our own little gods to do something for us. But you see, when we do that, we're starting back- wards True religious faith puts God first, and ourselves second. God must not ever be a new gimmick by which we get a psychological tune-op. God must ever remain Creator, Lord, Judge. In the year that King Uzziali died, or in the year John F. Kennedy died, or in the year Mr. Wright Patman died, as Isaiah, you and I go into a temple of wor- ship, or we hide our face in our little padded temples of our own hands and a voice will be heard to say: "Whom shall I send into the pain of the world, where people die?" Man's life has heard all sorts of voices calling to him in all sorts of directions. But the danger is that there are so many voices and they all In their way sound so promising. Everybody knows this; we need no one to tell it to us. Yet in another -way, we always need to be told because there is always the temptation to believe that we have all the time in the world, whereas the truth is we do not. We have only a life, -and the choice of how we're going to live it must be our own choice, not one that we will let the world make for us. Every experience of God whether in life or in death, demands something of us. When God confronts a man, it is not to startle like a ghost, it's for a purpose. No man, whatever his capacities, can expect to have a sense of call if he's using these for evil purposes. It would be a mockery approaching blasphemy to say that a burglar or a dope peddler could have a sense of call. Given, however, a legiti- mate work, serving the welfare of others, there still remains for the man of Christian faith the question of how in his environment he can relate his skills or his knowledge to the service of God. It's only when he is con- sciously using his situation and its oppor- tunities for the good of others, that he can know the peace of answering God's call. Mr. Patman, facing the opportunity for honest labor in a great profession, was ready to hear a divine summons both in ;ife and Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 II/larch 24, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? HOUSE H 2367 (6) provide information on economic and social developments which effect minority enterprises; (7) maintain and disseminate information on public and private. plans, programs and activities which relate to minority enter- prises; (8) evaluate the efforts to assist of min- ority enterprises of agencies of the United States which have minority enterprise pro- grams or which have established minority enterprise program goals and objectives; (9) evaluate the efforts of business and industry to assist minority enterprises; and (10) do such other things as may be ap- propriate to assisting the development and strengthening of minority enterprises. MEMBERSHIP SEC. 303. (a) (1) The Commission shall be composed of 15 members to be appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate from members of minority groups and representatives of mi- nority-dominated enterprises, trade associa- tions, and community development corpora- tions who are knowledgeable in the prob- lems of minority participation in the econ- omy. At the time of appointment, the Presi- dent shall designate one of the members as Chairman of the Commission. (2) The Associate Administrator for Mi- nority Small Business and Procurement As- sistance of the Small Business Administra- tion and the Administrator of the Office of Minority Business Enterprise of the Depart- ment of Commerce shall be ex officio voting members of the Commission. (3) Members of the Commission shall serve for a term of office of two years, and may be appointed for additional terms. (4) A vacancy in the Commission shall be filled in the manner in which the original appointment was made. Any member ap- pointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for which his predecessor was appointed shall be appointed only for the remainder of such term. (b) The Commission shall meet not less than once during every two-month period and at other times at the call of the Chair- man. (c) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), members of the Commission shall be entitled to receive $150 for each day (includ- ing travel time) during which they are en- gaged in the actual performance of duties vested in the Commission. (2) Members of the Commission who are full-time officers or employees of the United States shall receive no additional pay on account of their service on the Commission. (3) While away from their homes or regu- lar places of business in the performance of services for the Commission, members of the Commission shall be allowed travel ex- penses, including per diem in lieu of sub- sistence, in the same manner as persons em- ployed intermittently in the Government service are allowed expenses under section 5703(b) of title 5, United States Code. STAFF SEC. 304. (a) The Commission shall have an Executive Director who shall be appointed by the Commission and who shall be paid at a rate not to exceed the rate of basic pay in effect for grade GS-18 of the General Schedule (5 U.S.C. 6332). (b) Subject to such rules as may be adopted by the Commission, the Executive Director may appoint and fix the pay of such additional personnel as he deems desirabl (c) The Executive Director and any addi- tional personnel appointed by the Executive Director may be appointed without regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the corn- petitive service, and may be paid without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter II of chapter 53 of such title re- lating to classification and General Schedule pay rates, except that no individual ap- pointed by the Executive Director may re- ceive pay in excess of the annual rate of basic pay in effect for grade 08-17 of the General Schedule. EXPERTS AND CONSULTANTS SEC. 305. Subject to such rules as may be adopted by the Commission, the Ritecutive Director may procure temporary and inter- mittent services to the same extent as is authorized by section 3109(b) of title 5 of the United States Code. STAFF OF FEDERAL AGENCIES SEC. 306. Upon request of the Commission, the head of any agency of the United States is authorized 1;o detail, on a reimbursable basis, any of the personnel of such agency to the Commission to assist it in carrying out its duties under this title. POWERS OF COMMISSION SEC. 307. (a) The Commission may for the purpose of carrying out this title hold such hearings, sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony, and receive such evi- dence, as the Commission may deem ad- visable. (b) When so authorized by the Commis- sion, any member or agent of the Commission may take any action which the Commission is authorized to take by this section. (c) The Commission may secure directly from any agency of the United States infor- mation necessary to enable it to carry out this title. ,Upon request of the Chairman of the Commission, the head of such depart- ment or agency shall furnish such informa- tion to the Commission. DEFINITION OF MINORITY ENTERPRISE Suc. 308. As used in this title, the term "minority enterprise" means a business that Is owned or controlled by minority group members or by socially or economically dis- advantaged individuals. For purposes of this definition.? (1) such disadvantage may arise from cul- tural, racial, chronic economic circumstance or background, or Other similar circumstance or background, and (2) a minority group member is a Negro, Puerto Rican, Spanish-speaking American, American-Oriental, American-Indian, Amer- ican-Eskimo, or an American-Aleut. REPORTS TO CONGRESS SEC. 309. Within seven months after the effective date of this title, and at six-month intervals thereafter, the Commission shall submit to each House of Congress a report concerning its activities. APPROPRIATIONS AUTHORIZED SEC. 309. There is authorized to be appro- priated to carry out this title $748,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1977. EFFECTIVE DATE SEC, 310. This title shall take effect begin- ning on October 1, 1976. PERSONAL EXPLANATION (Mr. MIKVX asked and was permission ex his remar point in th d to inclu neous matt Mr. . Mr. yeste was not p cut fo le v e on Resolution 093, t a make order con- sideraiton of H.R. 10799. Had I been I would have voted "yea." en a- ay I ouse PROVIDING FOR PRINTING AS A HOUSE DOCUMENT OF REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTEL- LIGENCE (Mr. MILFORD asked and was given permission to extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and to include extra- neous matter.) Mr. MILFORD. Mr. Speaker, on Mon- day, March 22, 1976, I introduced House Resolution 1100, a resolution providing for the printing, as a House document, of a report of the Select Committee on Intelligence. As clearly stated in my introductory speech, my motivation for introducing this resolution was three-fold: First, the previously "secret" commit- tee report was no longer secret, it had been printed?verbatim--in a New York newspaper. Second, the previous concern for making certain sensitive foreign relations matters "official" by means of a formal House document was moot?those mat- ters already had been made official through statements of the President or the Secretary of State. Third, the only remaining parts of the report which have not been leaked, or otherwise released, are the "dissenting views", "minority views", and "additional views"?none of which contained either classified or sensitive information. The introduction of this resolution has caused some unexpected events to occur and has precipitated speculation among press reporters and self-styled "political pundits" within the House. Since the introduction of this resolu- tion involved my own work, my own thoughts and my own actions, I feel that I can speak with authority concerning my own intentions. First, let me briefly discuss the back- ground leading up to this matter. The week of January 26, 1976, the Select Committee on Intelligence finished its work and finalized its report. From my own knowledge and from the public testimony of the chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence?before the Rules Comfnittee on January 28, 1976? the report undisputedly contained classi- fied data and other information that many considered to be damaging to our foreign relations with certain nations. I lead an effort in the Rules Committee and on the floor to cause the report to be printed as a classified document. The majority of the House concurred. There were good reasons at that time to restrict public distribution of the com- mittee report. It did contain certain technical details that would compromise on-going and important intelligence ef- forts. It did contain information that would seriously complicate foreign rela- tions with certain foreign nations. Second, as a result of the argument that I offered in the Rules Committee and on the floor, many members told me that they had voted to restrict the report because they believed what I had said to be valid: I was not only grateful for their faith and confidence, but I also felt that I must keep that faith by playing the game straight. The general membership of the Congress did not have an opportu- nity to read the report, much less have access to the many technical briefings that were necessary to understand the 4111 implications and contents of the committee report. If?indeed?I did persuade any Mem- bers to cast their vote to restrict the re- Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 11-2368 Approved For Release 2006/02/07: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? H( ,USE March 24, 1976 port. this would also compel a responsi- bility, on my part, of being sure that their particular poini of view was protected. Ar everyone knows, the vote was backed by a eonglorrerate of Republicans, Democrats, liberals, and conservatives. Party was not an issue and philosophy was not an issue. The majority of Mem- bers simply were seriously concerned about what the release of the report would be to the welfare of this Nation. Third, surely everyone will recognize that the situaton changed from those conditions present on January 29th? when the res licting resolution was passed. Prior to January 29, there had been numerous leakt that had appeared in newspapers and on television. But the vital technical c.etails had not been pub- lished. Furthermore, while there had been various press accounts of the sensi- tive foreign relations matters, there had been no official lcknowledgment of these events. In February, Mr. Daniel Schorr uni- laterally decided that he was the best judge of this Nation's welfare and clan- destinely caused to be published a ver- batim copy of the committee report. Mr. Schorr snould not solely be cred- ited with this feat. Bearing equal respon- sibility, some Vfember of Congress or wine congressicnal staff member or some official in the administration must share the guilt. If one of the above had not illegally given Mr. Schorr a copy of the report, it would not have been published. Mr. Speaker this brings me to the point in this speech. As stated in the be- ginning, my introduction of House Reso- lution 1100, to declassify the committee report, has caused some unexpected events to occur and has precipitated a massive amount of speculation about my intentions. one speculation would have me intro- ducing the resolution to: "Gut the Ethics Committee's efforts to find out who leaked' the reeort." This is ridiculous. strongly support the Ethics Commit- tee's effort. Inc t only endOrse their effort to receive the full funding request of $350,000, but will back them for $3,500,- 000. if that amount is necessary to find out the full details of the committee, a117, .ar administration leaks. Another speculative argument con- tends that: "It the committee report is publicly released, it will make their effort moat because official House release of the report will nullify the question." -Balder- The unauthorized release of national security information is a violation of law and the House rules. Law violators and rule violators must be brought to justice. For one to say that "the public release of the report? hat has already been pub- licly released?makes the situation moot" Is like saying "we will not punish the efarderer because the victim is dead." 1.a the same way that murder is_against e law, unauthorized release of security information continues to also be a viola- tion of law. Zfongressmen, staffers, or administrative agency officials are not beyond the law. The fact remains, vital national secu- rity details hane been handed over to ad- versary nations, to the detriment of th country. Those responsible, whether they be newsmen or Members of Congree should be called for a full accotmtire The Ethics Committee is the only vehicle, within the House of Representatives, 7,3 obtain this accounting. I support this effort to the maximum extent possibee My introduction of House Resolutic a 1100 has spawned other unexpected nonauthoritative speculation. I noted e a Washington newspaper one press a -- count that suggested my resolution mig be a "coordinated effort to diminish the controversy that has surrounded the r port and its unauthorized publicatior The same newspaper account infers that I am among "a growing number C House Members (that) may want to to: ,e down the affair?the Ethics Committee investigation?if not wash their hands -f it altogether". The fact that the Co ?;- GRESSIONAL RECORD is a public docume t prevents me from appropriately respon, - Mg to this speculation. I would have to use "cuss" words to put this one in pf - spective. Mr. Speaker, I really do not know hi ei to make my case any plainer than I have already expressed it. I did not want tee Select Committee on Intelligence Repc rt made public, simply because it contained Information that was damaging to o :r national security and on-going intel - gence and foreign relations efforts. In spite of anything that I could ce), that very information was made pubec and hence available to our adversaries ty means of the combined efforts of in-e- sponsible Government officials and o so-called journalist. Pragmatically recognizing the fact that the information was readily available to everyone, except the American public I saw no reason not to let them in else -- particularly since one vital part of the report has neither been -leaked" or pub- lished. Mr. Speaker, many people contend tiat the makeup of the House Select Com- mittee on Intelligence was not really rep- resentative, in philosophical makeup, of the House as a whole. Therefore, the committee report was not truly represce- tative of the House views. This suspici was given credence when the House it- self voted down the committee's desire to publish its report as a public documeet Had the committee truly represented the general House view, we would not be facing the decisions that. are now bet re us. For these reasons, I nibinit that one final part of the House Select Co n - mittee on Intelligence Report, that Lis never been leaked or publicly releas:d, should now be made public. I 111/1 ref tr- ring to the dissenting views, the min,J c- ity views, and the additional views. Since the majority on the House Sel ntt Committee on Intelligence did not fleet the majority views in the House, -he various views may be time only real re- flection of majority House opinicns. Therefore their significance may be of major importance. As long as the committee report LS legally restricted, these views cannot be released. Since there is now no valid rea- son to keep the committee report in a classified mode, there is no reason why the American public should not also have access to the differing views. These views provide a totally different insight to the entire committee investigation. Mr. Speaker, let me sum it up in my best fashion as we would do it in the east Texas village a Bug Tussle. The "secret" report is no longer secret. Those respon- sible for the situation should be called on the carpet for an accounting. Our Ethics Committeels our only vehicle for producing such an accounting. The Ethics Committee should spend whatever energy or money that is necessary to ob- tain such an accounting. Whether it involves Members of Con- gress, congressional staff members, or ad- ministrative officials, let the chips fall where they may. FOOD STAMP REFORM--AN AN- SWER TO SYLVIA PORTER I Mr. MICHEL asked and was given permission to extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and to include ex- traneous matter.) Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, in a col- umn in the Washington Star on March 22, economic writer Sylvia Porter takes out after President Ford's recently an- nounced reforms of the food stamp pro- gram. Mincing no words, she says his action will "wreck the program," and accuses the President of having "literally taken the law into his own hands." Her analysis of the particulars of the Ford proposals, and indeed of the food stamp program in general, betray a seri- ous lack of knowledge and understand- ing of the program, and a thorough lack of objectivity in reporting the true situa- tion. Combined with her virulent language, these failings add up to an article that Is a real disservice to those who have worked hard to bring some sense to the scandalous food stamp program. The President has complete statutory authority to undertake the reforms he has announced, and, in fact, the House Appropriations Committee strongly urged him to do it, setting aside $100,000 for the task. For Ms. Porter, that amounts to "sidestepping Congress." To me, it seems like considerably more con- gressional-executive cooperation than we have been- used to in recent years. The regulations themselves are the product of interaction between Congress and the White House which has been going on for over a year, ever sinee the Dole resolution of February 1975, call- ing for a detailed reform study. Ms. Porter further alleges that the President, by acting now, is going to precipitate "two major upheavals" in the program, the second coming when Con- gress passes a reform bill. But will such a bill necessarily be very different from the new regulations? And if it is, would it not be vetoed? If it is, and the veto Is sustained?as it probably would, giv- en the strong support for the kind of reform the regulations represents?then the regulations stand, and there is no second upheaval at all. Moreover, what if the congressional Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : C1A-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 NEW YORK 14200Sied For Releatt420316/01/44 difk-RIS7M00141eFt6Of1 00210_0;' 74-0 CONFEREES BACK SCIENCE ADVISER Agree on a Bill to Estahlish Post in White House Ity HAROLD M. SCHNECK Special to The New Yotic Tines WASHINGTON, April 13 ? Senate and House confetees have agreed on a bill to give the President a science adviser in the White House, a goal of leaders in American science since 1973. Final Congressional action on th bill is expected soon after the Easter recess. Senator Ed- ward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, who is a prin- cipal sponsor of the Senate bill, said today that the White House had given assurances that the version worked out in conference would be accepted. The chief sponsors of till House version of the bill wen Representatives Olin E. Teague Democrat of Texas, and Charle A. Mosher, Republican of Ohio The measure agreed to it conference establishes an Of fice of Science and Technolor Pqlicy in the White House witl a director, who will be tht President's science adi adviser and as many as four associat; directors. A comparable office was aboe lished by President Nixon in early 1973. Since then spokes. men for the scientific commum. ty have often expressed con cern over the lack of such an office to give direct advice to the President on major issues involving science and technology. For Full-Thlte Post Dr. Guyford Stever, director of the NationarScience Founda tion, has served as science ad- viser to the White House since early 1973, Critics of this ar- rangement have argued, howev Cr, that the President needs an adviser who is physically in the White House and who does not also have responsibili ty for managing a major Government agency. The conference measure makes the science adviser a member of the Domestic Coun- cil and a statutory adviser to the National Security Council, thus giving him a role in de- fense science policy that has been lacking since 1973. The adviser will be required lo make an annual report on science and technology to the President and' to prepare an- nually a five-year forecast of science capabilities and - -their possible impact an national problems. He will also pay a larger role than in the past in advising the Office of Man- agement and Budget an Science and technology financing. The conference bill also es- tablishes a President's Commit- tee on Science and Technology that will do a two-year survey of Federal programs in these fields. The President will have the option of continuing the committee after the survey or letting it fo out of existence. In November, President Ford appointed two advisory groups on scientific and technological matters to serve until the White }louse advisory apparatus was reestablished. The panels are hearled by Dr. Simon Ramo, vice chairman of the Board and one of the founders of TRW Inc., and Dr. William 0. Baker, president of Bell Telephone Laboratories. Either one of these scientists Is considered likely to be Presi- dent Ford's choice to be head of the new White House office. Approved For Release 2006/02/07: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R0 ti 4030 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE tion of facilities for the naval Trident submarine and $112.3 million to improve security in order to protect against ter- rorist or other unauthorized acquisition of nuclear weapons at installations which store, maintain, and issue weapons of this nature. This particular authorization earmarks $65.1 million for Such facilities outside the United States and $47.2 mil- lion for intercontinental sites. While the administration generally supports the passage of H.R. 12384, con- cern has been raised regarding .the com- mittee's reduction of the Presidential request. In addition, the committee has sanctioned the expenditure of $93.5 mil- lion for items outside the administration request. Mr. Speaker, although there may be same controversy surrounding H.R. 12384, I propose we adopt the rule and allow the House to work its will in regard to this bill. I have no requests for time and I re- serve the balance of my. time. Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER. The question is on the resolution. The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes appear to have it. Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I ob- ject to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present. The Sergeant at Arms will notify ab- sent Members. The vote was taken by electronic de- vice, and there were?yeas 385, nays 0, not voting 47, as follows: - Moll No. 242] YEAS-385 Abdnor Brooks Daniels, N.J. Abzug Broomfield Danielson Adams Brown, Calif. Davis Addabbo Brown, Mich. de la Garza Alexander Broyhill Delaney Allen , Burgener Dellums Ambro Burke, Calif. Dent, Anderson, Burke, Fla, Derrick Calif. Burke, Mass. Derwinski Anderson, Ill. Burleson, Tex. Devine Andrews, N.C. Burlison, Mo. Dickinson Andrews, Burton, John Dingell N. flak. Burton, Phillip Dodd Anntinzio Butler Downey, N.Y. Archer Byron Downing, Va. Armstrong Carney Drinan Ashbrook Carr Duncan, Oreg. 13adillo Carter Duncan, Tenn. Befalls Cederberg du Pont flaldus Chappell Early Baucus Chisholm Eckhardt Bauman Clausen, Edgar Beard, RI. Don H. Edwards, Ala. Beard, Tenn. Clawson, Del Edwards, Calif. Bedell Clay Eilberg Bennett Cleveland Emery Bergland Cochran English Bevill Cohen Erlenborn Biaggi Collins, Ill. Each Blaster Collins, Tex. Evans, 0010. Bingham Callable Evans, Dad. Blanchard Conlon Fary Blouin Conte Fascell Bola,nd Conyers Fenwick Bolling Clorman Findley Honker Cornell Fish Bowen Cotter Fisher Brademas Coughlin Fithian Breaux Crane Flood Breckinridge D'Amours Florio Brinkley Daniel, Dan Flynt Brodhead Daniel, R. W. Foley Ford, Tenn. Dui an Rogers Forsythe Lund ine Roncalio Fountain McClory Rooney Fraser McCollister Rose Frenzel McCormack - Rosenthal Frey McDade Roush Fuqua McBwen Rousselot Gaydos 'McFall Roybal Gibbons McHugh Runnels ,McKay Gilman Ruppe Ginn McKinney Russo Goldwater Madigan Ryan Gonzalez Maguire St Germain Good Mahon ling Santini Graclison Mann. Saramin Grassley Martin Satterfield Green.. Matsunaga Scheuer Gude Mazzoli Schneebeli Guyer Meeds Schroeder Hagedorn Melcher Schulze Haley Metcalfe ' Sebelius Hall Meyner Mezvin sky Seiberling Hamilton Sharp Hammer- Michel Shipley Mikva schmidt Shriver Hanley Milford Shuster Hannaford Miller, Calif. Sikes Hansen Miller, Ohio Simon Harkin Mills Sisk Harrington Mineta Slack Minish Harris Smith, Iowa Harsha Mink Smith, Nebr, Hawkins Mitchell, Md. Snyder Hays, Ohio Moakley Solarz Heckler, Mass. Moffett Spellman Hefner Mollohan Spence Heinz Montgomery Staggers Helstoski Moore v- Stanton, HendersonMoorhead, J. William Hicks Calif. Stark Hightower Moorhead, Pa. Steed Hills Morgan Steelman Moss sher Steiger, Wis. Holt Holland Stokes Holtzman Mottl Stratton Horton Murphy, Ill. Studds Howard Murphy, NY. Sullivan Howe Murtha Symms Hubbard Myers, Ind. Taleott Hughes Myers, Pa. Taylor, Mo. Hungate Natcher- Taylor, N.C. Hu Lchinson Neal Teague Hyde Nichols Thompson Ichord Nolan Nowak Thone Jacobs Oberst& TrEuder Thornton _Jarman _ Jeff ords Obey Treen Jenrette O'Brien Tsongas Johnson, Calif. O'Hara Van Deerlin Johnson, Pa. O'Neill Vander Jagt Jones, Ala. Ottinger Vander Veen Jones, N.C. Passman Vanik Jones, Okla. Patten, N.J. Vigorito Jones, Tenn. Patterson, Walshteors. n. Waggonner Jordan Kasten Pattison, N.Y. Wampler Kastenmeier PerkinslWaxman Kazen Whalen Kelly Pettis White Kemp Pike Whitehurst Pickle Ketchum Whitten Keys Wiggins Kindness Pressler Preyer Wilson, Bob Koch Wilson, Tex, Krebs Price Winn Pritchard Krueger Falce Wirth La Quillen Wolff Lagomarsino Railsback Wright Latta Rangel Wydler LeggettWylie Lehman Rees Yates Lent Regula Yatron LevitasReuss Young, Alaska Litton Richmond Young, Fla, Lloyd, Calif. Rinaldo Young, Ga.- Lloyd, Tenn. Roberts Young, Tex. Long, La: Robinson Zablooki. Long, Md. Lott Rodin? Zeferetti Roe NAYS-0 NOT VOTING-47 Ashley Flowers McDonald Aspin Ford, Mich. Macdonald AuCoin Glaimo Madden Bell Hayes, Ind, Mathis Boggs Hebert Mitchell, N.Y. Brown, Ohio Koehler, W. Va. Nedzi Buchanan Hinshaw Nix Clancy Johnson, Colo. Pepper Diggs Mirth Peyser Eshleman Landrum Quie Evins, Tenn. MeCloske, Rhodes Riegle Risenhoover Rostenkowsk Sarbanes Skubitz 2V7 Stanton, James V. Steiger, Ariz, Stephens Stuckey The Clerk announced pairs: ? Mrs. Boggs with Mr. Symin Mr. Rostenkowski with Mr. Mr. Risenhoover with Mr. gan. Mr. Nix with Mr. Diggs. Mr. Pepper with Mr. Hechler of West ginia. Mr. Giaimo with Mr. Evins of Tennessee Mr. Hebert with Mr. Landrum Mr. AuCoin with Mr. Bell. Mr. Ashley with Mr. Flowers. Mr. Karth with Mr. Eshleman. Mr. Macdonald of Massachusetts with Mr. Buchanan. Mr. Nedzi with Mr. Mathis. Mr. Sarbanes with Mr. Hayes of Indiana. Mr. Riegle with Mr. Mitchell of New York. Mr. James V. Stanton with Mr. McCloskey. Mr. Stuckey with Mr. Peyser. Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California with Mr. Quie. Mr. Udall with Mr. McDonald of Georgia Mi. Ullman with Mr. Rhodes. Mr. Stephens with Mr. Steiger of Arizona. Mr. ST GERMAIN changed his vote from "nay" to "yea." So the resolution was agreed to. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. ?ay 6, 1976 Symington Udall Ullman Weaver Wilson, C. H. the following gton. Weaver. Ford of Michi- PERMISSION TO HAVE UNTIL MID- NIGHT FRIDAY, MAY 7, 1976, TO FILE CONFERENCE REPORT ON* SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLU- TION 109 Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani- mous consent that the managers may have until midnight Friday, May 7, 1976, to file a conference report on Senate Concurrent Resolution 109, first con- current resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1977, and for the transition period. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to ' the request of the gentleman from Washington? There was no objection. EXPERIMENTS TO TEST FLEXIBLE AND COMPRESSED WORK SCHED- ULES FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES maN13Eltsurrq. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for t e considera- tion of the bill h.t._9U4JtO authorize employees and kSBies of the Govern- ment of the United States to experiment wlth flexible and compressed work sched- ules as alternatives to present work schedules. The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from/ North Carolina (Mr. HENDERSON) . The motion was agreed to. IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE , Accordingly the House resolved itskif into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the con- sideration of the bill (H.R. 9043), with ME. STRATTON in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 May 6, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?11()LTSE H. 4029, meat in the nature of a substitute recom- mended by the Committee on Post Office and Civil aervice now printed in the bill as an original' hill for tae purpose of amendment tinder the,ftve-minute rule, and said amend- ment shaII?lbe, read by titles instead of by nectiona At the, conclusion of the considera- tion of the bfilVor amendment, the Corn- liouse with such a, endments as may have wii;tee shall rlse?Anht4,:i report the bill to the been adopted, and anMember may demand a separate vote in the ouse on any amend- ment adopted in Vie Co ittee of the Whole ;(-) the hill or to the co' ittee amendment in cite nature of a substft The previous question shall be conside as ordered on the bill and amendments t eto to final passage without ntervening on except one motion to mem-unit with or ithout In-. Nbr !actions. The 3PEAKE Et. The gentlema from California (Mr. Sisk) is recogniz for ' 1 hour. Mr, SISK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 rdin- utes to the gentleman from Californla TMr. DuE. CLAwsON), and pending that yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. SISK asked and was given Per- mission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. SISK. Mc. Speaker, the reading of the resolution makes it very clear that this rule provides for 1 hour of general debate. It is an open rule, meaning that any and all germane amendments would be in order. It would make in order the consideration of H.R. 9043 recommended by the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service on a matter concerning flexible time and compressed work schedules as alternatives to present work schedules. Mr. Speaker, without getting into the merits of H.R. )043, I would hope that the House will accept this rule providing for 1 hour of general debate and permit the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service to explain the provisions of this particular legislation. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. DEL CLAWSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. DEL CLAWSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr, DEL CLAWSON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California has ex- online& that Hcuse Resolution 1166 is a 1-delr open rule providing for the con- iideration of HR. 9043, a bill allowing experiments to test flexible and corn- presseo work schedules for Federal em- ployees. Under the rule it will be in order bo consider the amendment in the na- ture of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Post Office and Civil Serv- ifo now printed in the bill as an original rot- purpos es of amendment. This A men t ma-i be read by titles instead sections. --ry briefly, the purposes of H.R. 9043 e us follows: 'ce.st. To req lire each agency of the cx ,a-o.t; ve branco, unless exempted by the 0-?,1.1 Service Commission, to establish a 0e.'7able work schedule experiment for .:lornioyees to be conducted during the 3- ycur following enactment of the oeconci. To suspend the applicability of ertain existing laws relating to hours of work, overtime pay, compensator time off, premium pay for night wor-: and work on holidays to employees uncle - experimental programs where applies tion of such laws would be inconsister with the experimental programs. Third. To provide alternative meat for determining entitlement to suc rights which are consistent with exper mental programs. Fourth. To provide that where en-, ployees are in a unit for which an ere - ployee organization holds exclusive. rec ognition, the introduction of any fles ible work schedule experiment will t-e subject to collective bargaining. - No costs are reported to be associate with the passage of this legislation. While I support the rule 'as requestet:. I have great reservations concerning the mandatory effect of the bill itself. When the measure was considered originally by the Post Office and Civil Service Com - mittee, it was designed to permit volur tary participation by the agencies in the exible and compressed work schedu e eriment,s. Now, that voluntary partk - Ipation has been transformed into a compulsory. Govepment-wide exerci: which,demands that each agency lust: - tute it,a own experimental program, doubt veer much that a Congress under- going seriaus consideration of terminal - Ing the fun6tions of several Federal ager - cies would want to initiate a new mantle - tory plan to include them for at lea. t another 3 years: Since it is ni understanding flu amendments will b Offered to restore tl e voluntary participation provisions in th '13 legislation, I would urge the adoption of this open rule so that we may consider these amendments to the' bill. ? Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time. Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, 1, move tie previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered. The resolution was agreed to. \ A motion to reconsider was laid 6n ti table. PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 12384, MILITARY CM- STRUCTION AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1977 Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, by directic of the Committee on Rules, I call ti House Resolution 1167 and ask for n s immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution as fo. - lows: H. RES. lie? Resolved, That upon the adoption of tt resolution it shall be in order to move til the Home resolve itself into the Committ ut the Whole House on the State of W. s Union for the consideration of the bill H. 12284) to authorize certain construction ; military installations and for other purpost After general debate, which shall be confine I to the bill and shall continue not to excel,* i two hours, to be equally divided and cm- - trolled by the chairman and rankirg minori member of the Committee on Armed Ser - ices, the bill shall be read for amendme, under the five-minute rule by titles intead by sections. At the conclusion of the cm - sideration of the bill for amendment, tale Committee shall rise and report the bill .3 the House with such amendments as m.7 have been adopted, and the previous ques- lion shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one mo- tion to recommit. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from California (Mr. SISK) is recognized for 1 hour. Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 min- utes to the gentleman from California (Mr. DEL CLAWSON), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. SISK asked and was given per- mission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, House Reso- lution 1167 provides for consideration of H.R. 12384, the military construction authorization for fiscal year 1977. The resolution allows 2 hours of gen- eral debate which is to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Com- mittee on Armed Services. This is an open rule with the bill to be read by titles rather than sections for amendment. H.R. 12384 provides a total authoriza- tion of $3,328,735,000 for military con- struction and family housing for fiscal year 1977. This amount is $39,480,000 below the request of the Department of Defense. The committee reduced the re- quests for the Army, Navy, and Defense agencies categories, but increased the amounts allocated for the Air Force and the Guard/Reserve forces. The amount for military family housing was granted as requested. Major items in the bill include $437 million for the Air Force's aeropropul- sion system test facility, $288.3 million for construction of facilities for the Navy's Trident submarine, and $112.3 million to improve security facilities for nuclear weapons both in the United States and abroad. Mr. Speaker, this is an open rule and any amendment germane to the subject matter of the bill is, of course, in order. Therefore, I would urge my colleagues to adopt House Resolution 1167 so that we might consider H.R. 12384. Mr. DEL CLAWSON. Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. DEL CLAWSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his ^ arks.) . DEL CLAWSON. Mr. Speaker. IlouSe Resolution 1167 provides for 2 houra\of equally divided debate on H.R. 12384, to authorize certain construction at military installations and for other purpOses. It further stipulates that the bill be read or amendment by titles in- stead of by sections. There are no waivers of points of order. Specifically, 11\Ft. 12384, as approved by the Committee"on Armed Services by a vote of 35 to 1, fikpvides construction authorization in sup rt of the Active Forces, Reserve Forces, efense agencies, and military housing. The cost which will b?accrued by virtue of this construction atithorization totals $3,328,735,000. This arhount re- flects a reduction of $39.5 millichk below the amounts requested. Major authorizations incorporated within the measure include $437 million for the Air Force's aeropropulsion system test facility, $128.3 million for construc-,, Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 Approved For laglacutigME It? Nay 6, 1976 yeas T_TimmtRo 0 0 0 210037-0 H4031' By unanimous consent, the first read- ing of the bill was dispensed with. The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. HENDERSON) will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dzswirtsxr) will be recognized for 30 minuteS. . The Chair now recognizes the gentle- man from North Carolina (Mr. HENDER- SON) . Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I think the most im- portant statement that I could make to the Members as we begin consideration of H.R. 9043, which provides for a 3-year experimental study of flexible and com- pressed work schedules in the executive agencies of the Government, is that this proposal might, upon first glance, appear to be very complicated. The Members could ask questions which would require several hours to answer, but if the Mem- bers will look at the committee report and listen to the debate I think they will discover that all of us who first looked at this idea were rather amazed to find that it was a good idea, and we unani- mously came to the conclusion that the intent of the legislation is worthy of our consideration. There is one amendment that we know of, which will not go to the intent or thrust of the legislation, but is a very im- portant amendment to be considered by the Committee of the Whole. I feel con- fident that with the understanding of the legislation, that the bill, whether amended or not in the one instance, will finally pass. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 9043 provides for a 3-year experimental study of flexible and compressed work schedules in executive agencies of the Government. The concept of alternatives to tradi- tional work schedules and normal work day patterns is relatively new but cer- tainly not untested. There is an increas- ing number of organizations in Germany and other countries in Western Europe, in Canada and England and, to a lesser extent in the private sector in the United States, which have introduced flexible methods of scheduling work. To a very, limited degree and within the constraints of current hours of work and overtime laws, some Federal Government orga- nizations have instituted limited flexible work hours programs. The reasons for this upsurge in alter- ing normal work day patterns and fixed- hour schedules have been varied but for the most part they have been economic. Economic in the sense of reducing es- sential costs to the employer with no reduction of economic benefit to employ- ees. For example, organizations with flexible work schedules have found that -. short-time usage of sick leave by em- ployees is greatly decreased, overall pro- di ctivity is increased, there is to some d gree greater efficiency of operations, 4 an.0. for many Government organizations th6re is increased- service to the public with no increased cost. On a broader basis, flexible work schedules have a favorable impact on use of mass transit facilities, commuter patterns and energy consumption. Flex- ible hours also provide greater employ- ment opportunities for those unable to work fixed-hour schedules in the normal work day patterns such as students, women with child-care responsibilities and others who are unable to work stand- ard hours. Because of reported benefits, the need to consider alternative work schedules and variations of normal work day pat- terns is evident. It is just as evident that alternative work schedules, whether they be flexible work schedules common- ly called flexitime or compressed work schedules, be clearly defined. The concept of a flexible work sched- ule is a simple one. Basically it means that fixed time of arrival and departure are replaced by a wdrking day which is composed of two different types of time: core time and flexible time. Core time is the designated number of hours in a day during which all employees must be pres- ent. Flexible time is all the time desig- nated as part of the schedule of work hours within which employees may choose their time of arrival and depart- ure within limits consistent with the duties and requirements of their posi- tions. Such flexible time does not relieve the employee from fulfilling a basic work requirement which generally would be 80 hours of work during a 2-week period. It does mean, however, that in fulfilling that basic work requirement the employee will have a limited degree of choice of when to complete that work requirement. Within the limits of the flexible time allowed, which might be the first hour or 2 at the start of the day and the last hour at the end of the clay, the employee would have the choice of working more than 8 hours in 1 day in order to vary the length of that workweek or subse- quent workdays. Two critical points should be empha- sized regarding the flexible time. First, the employee's choice with respect to the arrival or departure from work is sub- ject to limitations to insure that the duties and requirements of the position are fulfilled and there IS an overall limit of a maximum of 10 hours which may be accumulated in order to vary the workday or workweek. Second, H.R. 9043 does not change the requirement to pay overtime for all hours in excess of 8 hours in a day or 40 hours in a week which are officially ordered in advance. In other words, if an employee is required to work more than 8 hours a day or 40 hours a week, current overtime laws apply. The essential point of this legislation is that due to the permissive nature of a flexible work schedule which allows an employee to voluntarily extend his work hours within the flexible schedule for the purpose of accumulating credit hours, an accomodation with existing statutory provisions relating to overtime compensation is necessary. Compressed work schedules addressed in title II of the bill relate to experiments where the 80-hour biweekly basic work requirement is scheduled for less than 10 work days. While the 10-hour day, 4- day week has been highlighted for some time, there are other variations to a com- pressed schedule such as an approximate 9-hour day, 5 days one week and 4 days a second week. The compressed work schedule has the practical effect of ex- tending the length of each work day to soirle level beyond eight hours, while re- ducing the total number of days or por- tions of days during which work is per- formed by an individual employee. Enactment of this legislation will not immediately mandate flexible work scheduling programs for the 2.9 million employees currently working for the Federal Government. The whole concept of the bill is to authorize for a 3-year period, a program of controlled experi- mentation under the guidance and assist- ance of the Civil Service Commission, to evaluate and assess the potential of al- ternative work schedules for the Federal Government. It is recognized that alter- native work schedules will not always be suitable under all circumstances. In every case, the introduction of any of these schedules must be a carefully con- sidered Judgment. Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. (Mr. DERWINSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, act- ing on the misguided theory of "the big- ger, the better," the committee has taken the administration's requested experi- mental proposal and transformed it into a mandatory, cumbersome, and unwork- able project. The Civil Service Commission origi- nally sought authorization for a set of controlled experiments with the use of flexible and altered work schedules in a few agencies in order to determine if other than 5-day, 8-hours per day work- weeks might be applied to the Federal service. At the appropriate time, I will offer an amendment to restore this proposal to its original intent. Such legislation will permit the Com- mission to set up a program for a se- lected sample of agencies to test the im- pact of alternative work schedules on Government operations. Under the test- model approach originally envisioned, alternative work schedules would not be imposed on any agency, but would be voluntary in a limited number of agencies. The committee's reported bill, how- ever, has transformed this idea of volun- tary, controlled experiments into a com- pulsory, Government-wide exercise that will require some 240 agencies to estab- lish programs of flexible and compressed work sehedules. The reported bill requires all Federal agencies to institute their own flexible work schedules, unless they are granted an exemption by the Commission. This sort of mandatory requirement is totally contrary to efficient management poli- cies, because it will force agencies to seek exemptions rather than simply allow the Commission to select willing agencies for the experiments. The mandatory requirement is also directly contrary to the whole philosophy of flexible work schedules in the first place. They should be an Optional, alter- Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 11 4032 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?HOUSE Mcry native :moans 01 allowing an agency to accomplish its work, not an arbitrary Jvtilacernent of tsaditional work patterns. There Is no disagreement that the Fed- eied eloverr,ment should begin some tape o esoeriments to test the flexible hours 4;oncept, Recent studies by the General accounting Office conclude that altered work schedulescan be applied to selected agencies and result in benefits to the etovernnaent, its employees, and the oublic. In its report, GAO recommended that es a 4neans of determining the applica- bility of altered work schedules to the reederal service, the Commission should seek legislation to permit testing of flex- ible and compressed work schedules; that Use Commission should help implement and closely monitor such tests to obtain data on the results; that the Commission Amend maintain data to identify those work schedules which contribute most to efficient agency operations. At the con- elusion of the test period, the Commission ehould determine whether altered work schedules have a wider or more general application and then seek the necessary additional legislative action. The committee's reported bill does not come close to the GAO recommendations. it compels all agencies to impose this wide application of altered work sched- ules before we actually have experiments from which to learn. There are two questions to consider: One, should we require - all agencies to participate in experiments immediately; and two, will the experiments the agen- eies conduct on their own give us the kind of information we will need to make a proper decision? The value of alternative work sched- ules to the Government can only be de- termined through a system of voluntary, contaulled experimentation'. Following basic criteria set up by the Commission, experiments that are centrally planned and coordinated will give us the results aecassary to decide in the future whether to adopt a Government-wide program. tinder the committee's reported bill, the Commission's role is left unclear and is subject to conflicting interpretation. Although the conunittee report states its intent for the Civil Service Commission to take the lead role in coordinating the orograms of the various agencies to de- termine the desirability of maintaining ,aitsh programs, the bill does not clearly address the Commission's role in these ieriest The reported bill does require that the --riantiatory experiments agencies will conduct be designed to provide an ade- quate basis for determining how desir- able a permanent program would be in an individual agency, however, there is no requirement that the Commission evaluate the effectiveness or desirability of a permanent program on either an ageneywide basis or a governmentwide basis, ls possible taat under its regulatory authority, the Commission may take an active role to assure - that these agencies conduct adequate experiments, but it appears that even with the committee's report language the Commission is only given half the job, and that can only re- suit in a mish-mash of costly exper. ments by a host of agencies. The Government cannot afford to underwrite the heavy administratit e burden that will result from require - ments of this legislation. If we were to enact the proposal as re - ported by the committee we would to forcing the Government to engage in a program no one really wants, a prograi that is probably doomed to failure from the start. It cannot be expected to pre - duce results which would allow an ir telligent determination of whethe flexible work schedules will be beneficial to the Government, its employees, or tl e Public. My amendments, on the other hand will allow a 3-year experimental period in which agencies may voluntarily ?es - periment with alternative work whet - ules; have the data from those exper ments carefully evaluated by the Civti Service Commission .to see if sufficier t reason exists to institute some type of program on a Government-wide basii and then have the Commission conic back to us for authorization. Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. DERWINSKL I yield to that vers distinguished, capable, and scholarly Member, the gentleman from California, (Mr. ROUSSELOT asked and we e given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr, Chairman, 1 appreciate my colleague's yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of ti -c position of the gentleman from Minos (Mr. DERWINSKI) and the amendmenls he will offer. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 9043. as introduced by Mr. HENDERSON on July 30, 1975, at the request of the Civil Service Commission, proposed legislation to authorize a car-. fully designed experiment with the we of flexitime and altered work schedule s in a selected group of agencies. It would have permitted the Commit sion to establish a master program ur - der which a carefully selected sample ct agencies would serve as demonstratio e projects to test the impact of alternate work schedules on Government opera- tions. Under the test-model approach, al- ternative work schedules would not he imposed on every agency but would be voluntary on the agency's part, and the number of agencies participating nec- essarily would be limited. This was a well-planned program which would enable the Commission to carefully monitor the activities of the participating agencies. Only through the development of care - ful experimental designs and the cooper - ation of those agencies with expertise le each of the potentially impacted ares can the potential of these programs h the Federal Government be assessed. A major responsibility of the Commit - slots during the experimental phase will be to assist agencies in designing and ir - stalling and terminating if necessar, the experimental program authorized. Upon completion of the experimen the Commission would then evaluate their findings and prepare a report on the results with appropriate recommen- dations, However, the committee amendment to this bill. which was ordered reported by a voice vote of the Committee on Post Of- fice and Civil Service on February 19. 1976, and which is now before us, si,ruck out all of the enacting clause and in- serted an entirely new text, whica has transformed this Idea of voluntary. con- trolled experiments into a mandatory Government-wide exercise that will re- quire some 240 agencies to establish pro- grams of flexible and compressed work schedules, unless they are granted air es- ception by the Commission. To change what was originally in- tended as a voluntary, controlled exer- cise into a mandatory program would be counter productive, costly and chaotic, and could not be expected to produce re- sults which would allow an intelligent de- termination of whether flexible work schedules will be beneficial to the Gov- ernment, its employees, or the public, Mr. Chairman, an amendment will be offered to restore this bill to its original intent, and I trust that this amendment will receive the overwhelming approval of my colleagues. Mr. ASHBROOF:. Mr. Chairman will the gentleman yield? Mr. DERWINSKI. I yield to the gen- tleman from Ohio. Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr, Chairman, after listening to the explanation given by the gentleman, I wondered if there might be any possible way under this proposed leg- islation that the time could be juggled so that certain employees could get over- time in a 40-hciur week. Could some em- ployees, for instance, bunch their time and work 10 hours one day and still only work 40 hours and yet get overtime for that week? That is one thing that struck me as I listened to the explanation that was given. Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, that is a possibility, and that would be cor- rected by one of my amendments. In other words, without my amendment which will be offered for that purpose, or if my amendment is not accepted, then we would have a situation where some- one else would be working 40 hours and would receive no overtime. That would create more of a discrepancy, and it would be an unfair situation that night develop. Mr. ASHBROOK, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. In that event I certainly support his amendment. Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chairman, will the eei tleman yield? Mr. DERWINSKI. I yield to the sete- tleman from Mississippi. (Mr. LOTT asked and was given per- mission to revise and extend his , i'elnarkk .1 Mr. Low. Mr. Chairman, H.R. l4041., as introduced by Mr. HErnmasou Gin July 30, 1975, at the request of the avil 6ervice Commission, proposed legisla- tion to authorize a carefully designed ex- periment with the use of flexitime anti al- tered work schedules in a selected group of agencies. It would have permitted the Commis- Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 1^1000 100210037-0 May 6, 1976 Approved For CODIMIMRACIT iaaREN77111193013AE H 4033 sion to establish a master program under which a carefully selected sample of agencies would serve as demonstration projects to test the impact of alternate work schedules on Government opera- tions. Under the test-model approach, al- ternative work schedules would not be imposed on every agency but would be voluntary on the agency's part, and the number of agencies participating neces- sarily would be limited. This was a well-planned program which would enable the Commission to carefully monitor the activities of the participating agencies. Only through the development of care- ful experimental designs and the co- operation of those agencies with exper- tise in each of the potentially impacted areas can the potential of these programs for the Federal Government be asseesed. A major responsibility of the Commis- sion during the experimental phase will be to assist agencies in designing and in- stalling and terminating, if necessary, the experimental programs authorized. Upon completion of the experiment, the Commission would then evaluate their findings and prepare a report on the results with appropriate recommen- dations. However, the committee amendment to this bill, which was ordered reported by a voice vote of the Committee on Post Office and CiVil Service on February 19, 1976, and which is now before us, struck out all of the enacting clause and in- serted an entirely new text, which has transformed this idea of voluntary, con- trolled experiments into a mandatory Government-wide exercise that will re- quire some 240 agencies to establish pro- grams of flexible and compressed work schedules, unless they are granted an ex- ception by the Commission. To change what was originally in- tended as a voluntary, controlled exer- cise into a mandatory program would be counter productive, costly and chaotic, and could not be expected to produce re- sults which would allow an intelligent determination of whether flexible work schedules will be beneficial to the Gov- ernment, its employees, or the public. Mr. Chairman, an amendment will be offered to restore this bill to its original intent, and I trust that this amendment will receive the overwhelming approval of my colleagues. Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. DERWINSKI. I yield to the gen- tleman from New York. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re - marks.) Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, this leg- islation, as originally introduced at the request of the administration, sought to kermit controlled experiments with flex- 'e and compressed work schedules in leral agencies. 'he administration's proposal provided a 3-year test period in order to deter- .e if alternatives to the regular, 8 rs per day, 5 days a week, work soiled- would be beneficial to the Federal ernment, its employees, and the pub- Since it is unknown what impact such alternative work schedules would have on service to the public, mass transit facilities, energy usage, and employee morale, this was a reasonable approach. The committee, however, departed sub- stantially from this original idea and has transformed the bill into a mandatory, cumbersome, and impractical project. If we were to enact the proposal as re- ported by the committee, we would be forcing the Federal Government to en- gage in a broad, extensive program which will not produce the results necessary to intelligently analyze and determine if flexible work schedules will be beneficial to Government employees and agencies. The amendments that will be offered en bloc to this legislation will restore this measure to its original purpose, giving the Civil Service Commission only lim- ited. authority to conduct voluntary, con- trolled experiments. Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. SOLARZ). (Mr. SOLARZ asked and Was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Chairman, X have great respect for the Republican mem- bers of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service who have already spoken with respect to this legislation. However, I must say that I am absolutely amazed at the position which they have taken this afternoon. I am a new member of this committee, but I have been struck by the fact that over the course of the last year and a half, every time our committee has held a hearing or every time our committee has had a markup session, these Repub- lican members under the leadership of my very good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. DERWINSKI) , are the most active champions of the cause of econ- omy in Government of all of the members of our committee. They yield to no one in their determination to increase the pro- ductivity of the civil service. They yield to no one in their determination to save the maximum amount of money possible in the administration of Federal pro- grams. Mr. Chairman, the- reason I am so amazed by the position they have taken this afternoon is that on the basis of the experience With flexitime programs, not only in most of the countries of Western Europe, but on the part of well over 100 private corporations and public agencies here in our own country, which was amply indicated in the hearing record compiled with respect to this legislation, it is abundantly clear that flexitime serves the cause of improving employee productivity; it reduces employee over- time; and it substantially enhances em- ployee morale because, when workers have an opportunity to structure their own workweek and to determine their own hours within the framework of a 40- hour workweek obligation, it becomes quite clear that their desire and their need for overtime is diminished, their morale improves tremendously, and their productivity goes all the way up. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I see this program as a wee of saving the taxpay- ers' money, increasing the efficiency of the civil service, and at the same time improving the morale of the 2.7 million civilian employees who work for the U.S. Government. Of course, this bill provides only for _ an experimental program because we have to see, in reality, how it would work In the Federal civil service, what its ac- tual impact would be on the lives of the men and women who work for the U.S. Government, and what its impact would, be on traffic patterns, on congestion in major urban centers, and with respect to a wide variety of other considerations. Mr. Chairman, the gentlemen on the other side of the aisle who have con- tended that we have turned what was essentially a voluntary experiment into a mandatory operation fundamentally misunderstand the provisions of this leg- islation because, as those members who read the bill and those members who also read the committee report can see, there is in very explicit language a provision which says that the head of any Federal agency who believes that the establish- ment of an experimental flexitime pro- gram in his or her agency would sub- stantially impair the operations of that agency can apply for a waiver from the from the Civil Service Commis- sion. If the Civil Service Commis- sion then finds that the establishment- of a flextime program in any Particular Federal agency would not be in the in- terest of the agency or of its employees or of the public at large, it can remove the obligation on the part of the agency to establish such a program. So I would respectfully submit to my colleagues on the committee that if, in fact, the establishment of a flexitime ex- perimental program will create serious problems for the functioning of a Par- ticular agency, or create serious prob- lems for those who work for the agency, or in any way inconvenience the public which the agency serves, then that agen- cy will be relieved of the obligation to establish such a program. On the other hand, if the establish- ment of an experimental flexitime pro- gram will not substantially impair the operations of the agency, then there is every reason why such a program should be established, because the more agen- cies that participate in the experimen- tal program, the better our ability will be to evaluate their effectiveness. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen- tleman has expired. Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 additional minutes to the gentle- man from New York, Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Chairman, I ap- preciate the generosity of the chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr, HENDERSON) in yielding me this thrie. Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to yield to the gentleman from Illinois in just one moment. Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude by saying that the more agencies that par- ticipate in the program, the broader the base of the experiment, and, the bettei! our capacity to evaluate its effectiveness, So I think, as, the hearing record has Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 R-4034 Approved For immtmfain j_s_Lem 77MjjOO1 100210037-9110 demonstrated, that there is every reason to believe the f exitinie program expexi- merit will be successful, and that it iinould, therefore, have the maximum participation of as many agencies as passible. I eelieve that the amendments that are proposed by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. DERWINSKI) will reduce the cie tiireness of the experiment and will fact comproreise our capacity to come with a comprehensive evaluation of iL merits when the experimental period a dyer Now I will te happy to yield to my d the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I t2.,:ank the gentleman from New York for -welding to me. I am of course shocked that the gentleman from New York will -not be able to support my amendments. ir the openir g remarks of the gentle- an from New York there was a refer- ence I believe to the economy side of the argument. I was wondering if the gentlenaan from New York proposes to 11.,,,e this bill to become the champion of einnoray measures in government, and will he allow the Conservative Party in New York to confer their endorsement ? Isis district? Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Chairman, I would nes to the gentleman from Illinois that light of the fact that I have unfor- turrets Or demonstrated to the distin- enished gentleman from Illinois that I do not follow the conservative viewpoint on most of the inesaures we consider and which, come before this House, that I fear that my unstirting efforts on behalf of economy in government with respect to this bill are unlikely to result in the en- earseraent of the Conservative Party and t;a, in any case, my chances of return- ing fa:: a second term would obviously be iniin ished, if is did, Mr. DERWINTSKI. If the gentleman 'e ill yield still further, the gentleman a New York would certainly be wel- cairie for a second, third, and fourth term :-.1s long as he was interested in con- tinuing his prc sent economy in govern- Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Chairman, one final te and that is that there is evidence adca ting tha I; this will result in tin- t-roved employee morale, by enabling lobe wino work for the Federal Govern- ;et to take care of their personal needs eithin the framework of a 40-hour week, which will help the public served by I we agencies, by permitting the agen- ei_es to be open for longer periods of time Laing the day. They will begin earlier le nee morning and will finish later in I ie eening, and those who work from a to 5 eho cannot go to the various agen- fees curing that period of time, would nably then have an opportunity to them af ier 5 in the afternoon or ci ore Sin the morning. is conclusion, Mr. Chairman, this is no of those rare bills where everybody -benefits and nobody suffers. And I urge the Members of the Committee to sup- t it,. Mr. rtneent ER. Mr. Chairman, will he gentleman yield? Mr SOLAR. I am happy to yield to my distinguished friend, the gentlemen irom Michigan (Mr. TRAXLER ) ? 4Mr. TRAXLER asked and was giv permission to revise xis: extend hie remarks. ) Mr. iTtAXLER. Mr. Chairman, I weie to associate myself with the remarks sr the gentleman from New York. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take ti ,s opportunity to speak in support of line 9e43, flexible work schedules for Feder it employees. 'This legislation allows t Federal Government to establish flexilie work schedules, a Concept that prive industry has been exploring for a nurse ber of years. I feel that the Federal Gel - ernment has an obligation to take a pas tion of leadership in determining t possible benefits that may result. Private industry's experience wit h flexible work schedules has demonstraof d an increase in workers' productivity asid efficiency--which is certainly somethi -g the Federal Government could use. Fee- thermore, private industry has realized a decline in absenteeism and tardinces, and workers have perceived an impose. se Talent in working conditions. The program as outlined in this lege- lotion will allow the Federal Government to draw on talented and skilled persomiel who are unable to work standard hours?such as mothers and studer ts. Additionally, we would be taking another step forward in reducing air pollutien and conserving energy by reducing t he number of rush-hour traffic jams and therefore decrettasing commuting time I think it is important that we remem- ber that this program is one that is Icrig overdue. We have nothing to loose in determining exactly what the benefits or for that matter, liabilities?are in tip- erating under flexible work schedules. But certainly, if "flexitime" is successful in increasing productivity while at the same time improving the morale of Fad- eral workers, we have everything to gain. I urge my fellow colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation. Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman I yield such time as he may consume to nie gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. xtENZEL) (Mr. FRENZEL asked and was gis en permission to revise and extend_his 7e- marks.) Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 9043, the Federal -Employees Flexible and Compresied Work Schedules Act of 1975. I have long been intrigued by the p ribifity of increased levels of efficiensy and improved employee morale wilesh flexible work schedules seemed to be yielding for our European friends and Canadian neighbors. It is certainly im !flea that we ought to try. Therefore, I was pleased when the l- nitnistration's bill to -provide for a 3- :neer coordinated experimental progr3m ?-:ts introduced last yes r. Its provisiens for a Master plan, with selected agency models being used for exemination ri- teria and proper evaluation, seemed well designed for use in building a success iul bvernmentwide program. Removing e a- tiquated prohibitions on flexible wirk schedules was just the first of meny goOd provisions in the bill. However, the committee bill before us today has gutted the strengths and re- inforced the weaknesses of the adminis- tration's proposal. Instead of merely re- moving prohibitions and permitting flex- ible schedules to be integrated into the total system, it mandates that the more than 100 Federal agencies participate. It removes the CSC as a central plan- ning and coordinating body and thus knocks out the careful organization and evaivation to make this system work. For an organization with over 2.8 million civilian employees, no system Can were without planning, testing, and coordination. The bill also lacks finer consideration in the inequity of its pro- vision granting premium pay levels to certain employees over others. I am reluctantly opposing the bill. I would like to see it amended to follow more closely the carefully designed pro- gram which we first saw. I would also be interested in permitting the legisla- tive and judicial branches to participate in the grand experiment. In short, if we are going to begin a project of this mag- nitude we ought to do it right. In HR. 9043 we are doing the congressionsl way rather than the right way. Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gen- tlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. SPELL- MAN). (Mrs. SPELLIVIAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her re- marks) Mrs. SPELLMAN. Mr. Chairman. I would like to speak of flexitime as one who has been involved in setting up such a program, and I hope that the gentle- men who are concerned about the fact that this is to be a mandatory program will be listening. In Prince Georges County, my county, we have such a program underway. We put it into effect several years ago in the library system. When I first talked about setting up such a program, I contacted the county executive who said, "Oh, no; it will not work." I contacted the execu- tive calker and he said, "Oh, no; it will not work." I talked with a number of people throughout the county govern- ment who were all convinced it would not work. So then I went to the most imaginative person in administration in the county?and really the very best ad- ministrator we had?Betty Hoge, the di- rector of the library system. Because she could not turn tee down since we had worked together for a long time, she agreed to set up an experiment. She went to one of the library branches, talked with the employees there, and they were horrified at the thought. They wanted to turn it down, but she asked them as a special favor to try the program. In a sense, the obli- gation that she felt she had to me, caused her to make it mandator, upor that particular branch of the librar system. It a an put into effect, and the :es were very much what I had expei they would be. During the trial tine was found that fewer individuals T' taking sick leave Prior to the incep of the program, it appeared that v an employee was delayed at home , Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 no ' May 6, 1976 Approved For adstungsitRAF attlffilymtiR001109210037-0 114035 personal problem which would make him or her late, the employee opted for sick leave to cover the resultant tardiness. Now there is no tardiness, since the late- ness in the morning can be made up at the end of the work day, as long as the "core time" is not violated. Most impor- tantly, and something which should in- terest us all, is the fact that the em- ployees' morale has risen considerably, and almost all participants truly enjoy the opportunity of choice. The supervisors found that there was greater communication and coordination between the supervisors and employees, as well as between the employees them- selves. With the flexibility of schedules, employees coordinate carpools, dis- cussed their workload schedules, and, of course, worked out with the supervisors the fiexitimes. Employees within the flexitime system found that pressures and stresses were diminished since they had the flexibility to attend to personal and family matters. And, of course, the old problem, traffic jams, were often avoided since the work- ers did not necessarily travel during peak times, thus avoiding the frustrations of longrdela,ys in traffic. In every way the situation was far better. As a result of the successes that these people were experiencing, and as a result of the fact that the program had been tried in the first place, other branches of the library service were be- ginning to ask to be permitted to go on flexitime. And they did. The public is better served under such a system since the number of hours that it can be served is easily expanded. So you see the experiences of Prince George's County are very positive and rewarding. The best endorsement of the system came to my attention just this morning. I was talking to the aide of the head librarian who worked with me in instigating the system. She told me that as a working mother, she was delighted with flexitime. Just this morning, her son missed the school bus, and she knew that she, could easily handle the 'crisis without jeopardizing her fine employ- ment record. I tell the Members this long story, be- cause had the director of libraries felt obligated to try it, that system would never have been put into effect. It works beautifully. I also want to point out that the pro- vision requiring the agencies all to par- ticipate in the experiment does not mean that all employees will have to partici- pate. The agency head has the authority under the bill to restrict the choice of ar- rival and departure time, to restrict the use of the credit hours, to exclude from the experiment any employee or group of employees if the carrying out of the agency function is impaired or additional ssts are incurred; so we are giving ough flexibility within each agency to up the size of the experiment and to ze the determination as to when and it can be implemented. vould hope that any thought of tak- nit this mandatory provision would Mt. ASHI3ROOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Mrs, SPELLMAN. I yield to the gen- tleman from Ohio. Mr. ASHBROOK. I thank the gentle- woman for yielding. I listened with interest to the gentle- woman's statement. There was one thing I have to admit I did not follow. Maybe she could explain it to me or be a little more specific. In pointing out that the morale improved, the gentlewoman made the statement that the number of hours that they worked was expanded. How would that be? Does she mean more hours were worked? Mr. SPELLMAN. Yes. The number of hours that employees are working is greater because some come in earlier and some come in later. Mr. ASHBROOK. The gentlewoman means the hours the library can be open; she does not mean the total hours worked? Mrs. SPELLMAN. No. The hours the the public is being served. But no single employee works any longer during the workweek than previously. Mr. ASHBROOK. But the total hours it took the library to operate in a given week were not increased; they would be the same? Mrs. SPELLMAN. The total hours would be the same? The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman has expired, Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I have no further request for time. Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Anne). (Ms. ABZUG asked and was given per- mission to revise and extend her re- marks.) Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the chairman of the commit- tee for the excellent work done in re- porting out this bill. Both the gentle- woman from California (Mrs. BURKE) and I have been very interested in this subject for quite some time. We intro- duced original bills on this matter in the House several years ago. I think it is an important step forward. Flexible hours have been in use since 1967 in both the public' and private sec- tors in our country as well as abroad. I think the gentleman from New York (Mr. SOLARE) and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. SPELLMAN) , my very dear friend, have very ably added to the fine description of this bill made by the chairman: It is a very important program. The reason the Civil Service Commission it- self, by the way, requested the chairman to introduce the bill, which the commit- tee worked on, was because the Civil Service Commission felt it was important to undertake a 3-year study that would be a widespread study to gage the impact of flexible and compressed scheduling on Federal civil service employees. The bill I believe attempts to provide a proper experiment on which a judgment can be made as to whether this should be- come a permanent program. That is all the bill does in section 4. In order to judge the impact of flexible hours and the feasibility of making it a perma- nent component of the Federal Govern- ment it is desirable to have the maximum level of agency participation because only in that way can we obtain enough infor- mation to make a decision. .It has been stated that the use of flexi- time, throughout the Federal Govern- rneht will provide data, as to its impact on mass transit, on highway utilization, on employee attitudes, on Government services, and on interagency operations. At this point in the history of flexible hours we do not need another study which is based on a limited experiment. The General Accounting Office has re- ported that in this country 3,000 or- ganizations employing over 1 million workers have implemented a 4-day, 40-hour work week. The Civil Serv - ice Commission statistics show that the Federal Government already has 28,000 employees in some 30 different organizations engaged in limited flexi- ble work hours programs. In hearings various Federal employee organizations testified in support of the provision which would allow each agency to make flexitime available to its employees. I think the bill carries out exactly what the flexitime and compressed schedule history in this country requires. In any case one need only read the bill to find that it is not quite as described by the other side of the aisle. The Civil Service Commission has the authority, as has been stated, to exempt from the opera- tion of this act agencies that might pos- sibly be adversely affected by it. Also, the Commission may terminate any existing flexible hours program or compressed schedule program at any time if it determines that it is not in the, best interests of the public or if the head of an agency determines that any de- partment within an agency which is par- ticipating in the experiment is being handicapped in carrying out its func- tions or is incurring additional cost, or is adversely affecting its employees. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from New York has ex- pired. Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman from New York 2 additional minutes. Ms. ABZUG. Since this is a flexible hours bill and a compressed schedule bill, the bill itself shows enormous flexibility in terms of how the program for the 3- year experiment should be conducted. Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is anything mandatory about it. What it does is have certain requirements which make it possible to obtain data on which a meaningful determination as to whe- ther this program is viable or whether it is not a viable program can be made. Mr. Chairman, I wish to again com- mend the committee for bringing this bill out. I urge everyone to support this bill and to defeat any amendments which seek to weaken it, because we really do not want to waste the time and the energy of the Congress and the time and the energy of Government by having yet another limited experiment from which we have enough data al- ready. We need to go to the next steo and decide whether this is a meaningful idea. We may decide after 3 years that it is not; but let us have the proper data to make the decision. Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 11 4036 Approved For Itstqflaggidgja:fttodyilpf)71.1444131AR001100210037-Qldray 6, 1976 Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman y,eld? Ms. ABZUG. I yield to the gentleman orn New York. SOIARZ. Mr. Chairman, as a ir ember of the committee, I appreciate I re comments of the gentlewoman with r, spect to the committee's work on the eeeslatione but it should be noted that there things do not happen just by acci- dent around heee. To a large extent what e were able to do in our committee was e direct result of the very important eee of (ective work that the gentlewoman eeee riew York and the gentlewoman oalifornia did in bringing this to attention and staying on top of the eee and working with us as we sought snape the original legislation into a form that wotld be acceptable to the eommittee and to the Congress as a whole: so I simely want to pay tribute to Ole very effective work the gentlewoman tee on this legislation. Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Miens). Mr. MYERS of Pennsylvania asked anu was given permission to revise and eetencl his remarks.) Mr. MYERS of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman. I take this time to direct a couple questions to the chairman. I have some ,eencern about the impact of this legislation on the levels employees In supervisory categories, particularly at the lower levels of management in regard to situations where department hours are flexible and extends the normal work thy'. IA it the chairman's opinion that the bill adequately protects these persons from having to work longer hours as a result of this legislation. As an example, what happens if the department must provide for surervisory hours over a 10- hour period rather than an 8-hour period? What protection is in the bill for these classification of employees? Mr. 'HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MYERS of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman. Mr. HENDERSON. The bill clearly pro- % ides that any employee that is required to work beyond the hours in excess of the prescribed flexi-time or compressed rs would be compensated by overtime. It eertainly would be our intent, at least during the time of the experimentation, !1st the agencies take into account the problem that the gentleman does talk and insure that there is no require- richt for their management personnel 1,:eze to stay on, even by virtue of the e airement of paying overtime, simply 1,, Aecommaclar,e the flexible time for the levees that that official may be super- bare testimony that there are instances within the agencies the employees can work without -let required supervision to at least per- the performance as directed by the elation. .ir MYERS_ of Pennsylvania. In other 1,,:oeds, disregarding special work rules or 5,-,7) normal situation where supervisory people are reqtired to be on hand, a flexi- ble hour type of situation cannot plere upon a supervisor the demand that spend more than 8 hours On the Job xt any particular day, but he can do so az- d would be compensated if he did so: is that the intention? Mr. HENDERSON. There is no opti on any employee to work more than the prescribed time and get overtime. That option is only at the direction of the management officials. I should also point out that the program envisions that it ie a cooperative arrangement, and tie scheduling of the duties and responsibe- itie?s; so that there would be no problem such as the gentleman describes. Mr. MYERS of Pennsylvania. I tha the gentleman. Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, if I may have the tention of the gentlewoman from N,w York (Ms. Asreq), of course I hate to engage in a debate with a future Memb,,r or the other body, but sometimes one is required to take those risks. But I wcrt, like to direct the gentlewoman's atten- tion to the report of the hearings, speci- fically page 53, the letter from the Comp- troller General. If I recall correctly, the gentlewoman from New York introduced a bill, H.R. 5451, and the ComptroLer General's letter to Chairman HENDERE, re stated: We have maintained an informal work. igg relationship with Civil Service Commissien officials throughout the drafting of the bill and have reviewed several drafts of the pm- posals. We believe the present bill is reap ii- sive to the recommendations contained in our report. Further, we believe that H.R. CP 43 will provide sufficient latitude to permi- a fair test of the various work schedules g visioned in our report. Accordingly we prefer this bill to H.R. 5451 which also provides for experimentation with flexible work schedui es. So. the Comptroller General is reany, in effect, supporting the amendments that I shall offer and he is not supporting the bill, the position taken by the gentle- woman from New York. Ms. ABZUG. Well, I could understand them preferring their own bill. I do not know what point that proves. I can 'a 11 understand it. Mr. DKRWINSKI. All I am proving is that, the Comptroller General has 1,p- proached this quite objectively and ee- cognizes that the flexible time needed in the 3-year testing period is preferable to the mandatory provisions supported irs7 the gentlewoman and her colleague fie m New York. Ms. ABZUG. The gentleman has des 4.- nated it "mandatory." but it really is, If he will read the provisions carefully it really sets out. the basis for conducthe an overall program. It establishes a p 3- gram which provides for the conduct of cm or more experiments in each of ne agencies. It provides, as I indicated e?f- lier?and that does not change by 'Tat m of the gentelman reading the Compti ,1- ler General's letter--it provides for . ,c- ceptions to it on page 17 and on page _9. I think that gives us the flexibility re need. The gentleman is suggesting oth, r- v., Lee. Mr. DeatWINSKI. The key provis on of the bill labeled "Experimental Pen- gram" reads: "Each agency shall estab- lish a program." In other words, "shall" is certainly not flexible. "Shall" is mandatory. Ms. ABZUG. I grant that it should not say "shall not." Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman. I have no further requests for time. Mr. DERWLNSKI. Mr. Chairman I, have no further requests for time. The CHAIRMAN. There being no fur- ther requests for time, pursuant to the rule, the Clerk will now read by titles the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Commit- tee on Post Office and Civil Service now printed in the reported bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Be it enacted by the Senate and Heys, of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SHORT TITLE SECTION I. This Act may be cited as the "Federal Employees Flexible and Compressed Work Schedules Act of 1976". CONGRESSIONAL EINEGNGS SEC. 2. The Congress finds that new trends In the rgosge of 4-day workweeks flexible work hours, and other variations in workday and workweek schedules in the private sector appear to show sufficient promise to warrant carefully designed, controlled, and evaluated experimentation by Federal agencies over a 3-year period to determine whether and in what situations such varied work schedules can be successfully used by Federal agencies on a permanent basis. DEFIN/TIONS SEC. 3. POT purposes of this Act-- (1 y the term "agency" means an Executive agency and a military department (as such terms are defined in sections 105 and 102, re- spectively, of title 6,, United States Code); (2) the term "employee" has the meaning given it by section 2105 of title 5, United States Code; (3) the term "Commission' means the Civil Service Commission; and (4) the term "baste work requirement" means the number of hours, excluding over- time hours, which an employee is required to work or is required to account for by leave or otherwise. EXPER)MENTAL PROGRAMS SEC. 4. (a) Within 180 days after the effective date of this section, and subject to the requirements of section 302 and the terms of any written agreement referred to in section 302(a), each agency shall estab- lish a program which provides for the con- ducting of one or more experiments under title I or II (or both) of this Act. Such experimental program shall cover a sufficient number of positions throughout the agency, and a sufficient range of worktime alterna- tives. as to provide an adquate basis on which to evaluate the effectiveness and de- sirability of permanently maintaining flexi- ble or compressed work scoedules within the agency (b) The Commission shall provide edu- cationel material, and technical sins and aasistance, for use by an agency before and during the period such agency is conduci inc experiments under this Act. (c) If the head of an agency deter= r that the implementation of an experime? program referred to in subsection (a) wc substantially disrupt the agenty in can out its functions, he shall request the C mission to exempt such agency from requirements of subsection (a). Such rec shall be accompanied by a report detaal, the reasons for suc.b. determinatior,gzi-4 ? z T AA or P:T:o ? Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 :;?) H 4046 Approved For Rele09/41M?MIZ3Naek-Ka3E60_9jfilyegi100210037-0 May 0, 1976 ago this week. His early employment was in the 'construction industry, in incon- spicuous bank Jobs, and in farming. He joined the National Guard in 1905. For the next 6 years he worked to acquire military skills and knowledge that would serve him well in later years and enable him at the outbreak of World War I to organize the 2d Regiment of the Mis- souri Field Artillery. Later designated as the 129th Field Artillery, this unit saw service in three major campaigns on the battlefields of France. During his active military career, Harry S. Truman became a captain. As a Reserve officer he rose through the ranks of major and lieu- tenant colonel to full colonel, at which rank he was retired to the honorary Reserve. The high moral principles that marked his later service to his community, State, and Nation were first demonstrated when, after the failure of his haber- dashery business in the depression of 1921, he stubbornly refused to petition for bankruptcy but, instead, labored for 15 years to pay off his debts. Mr. Truman served with distinction as eastern Judge of the Jackson County Court, an administrative rather than judicial body, to which he was elected in 1922. It is with a sense of humility that I mention it was my honor and privilege to occupy that particular seat on the county court of Jackson County, Missouri for 7 terms after Mr. Truman's tenure and before coming to Congress. Two years after his first political vic- tory Mr. Truman suffered his first polit- ical adversity?which was to be the only defeat in his lifetime as he lost his bid for reelection to the court in 1924. But with his special talent for refusing to accept defeat, he came back in 1926 to be elected presiding judge, serving until running for and whining election to the U.S. Senate in 1934. His service in the Senate was with a distinction that belied his natural hu- mility. He was chairman of the subcom- mittee that wrote the Civil Aeronautics Act He was cosponsor of the legislation that spelled out a comprehensive na- tional transportation policy. In 1941 he suggested formation of the Senate Spe- cial Committee To Investigate the Na- tional Defense Program. As its first chairman, Senator Truman revealed waste and extravagance in the war effort that ultimately saved taxpayers many millions of dollars. Among opportunistic war contractors the so-called Truman Committee came to be feared as an in- stitution that commanded unrelenting honesty in dealing with the Federal Government. In 1944 he was nominated and elected to the Vice Presidency of the United States. Only one other Vice President, John Tyler, who served only 30 days, occupied that office for a shorter Period . than did Mr. Truman. Eighty-three days after he was sworn in as Vice President, Mr. Truman succeeded to the highest office in the land after the death of one of the most popular men ever to hold it and in perhaps the most difficult period in American history. On Saturday of this week?the anni- versary of the 92d birthday of the man who considered himself the 32d .Presi- dent?another monument will be un- veiled to his memory. _ But no stone and no metal can be more enduring than the character of the man the monument will honor. Not only did he, a man relatively" un- known outside of his own home State, accede to the highest office in the land after one of its most famous occupants, but for the ensuing 93 months was Chief of State in a time of unprecedented na- tional and international turbulence. The man from Independence was im- mediately confronted with problems enormous in scope. There was the _Pots- dam Conference just days after he took office. There was the terrible decision just a few months later to drop the atomic bomb. The Nation and the world were an emotionally unsettled people in the months following the end of World War IL But through the cold war and the difficult days of reconversion Harry Tru- man, having armed himself with all available facts as was his custom, and fortifying himself by prayer, which was also his custom, had the coolest head around. That coolness and confidence, qualities desperately needed for those times, prevailed through the cold war, formulation of the GreekTTurkish aid program, and implementation of the Marshall plan. It carried him through the political climate of the Philadelphia - convention where some leaders of his own party endeavored to drop him from Presidential contention in 1948. After the greatest political upset in history, Truman, now President in his own right, brought the United States into the United Nations, moved to formation and establishment of NATO, and ordered U.S. intervention in Korea as a matter of what he felt was responsibility to our allies. Unafraid of the adverse public re- action that was certain to come, he dealt firmly with a very popular Army general when General MacArthur demonstrated Insubordinate traits. Our Nation has repeatedly been blessed in times of adversity by the emergence of a George Washington, an Abraham Lincoln, a John J. Pershing and other great Americans when they were des- perately needed. /3ut at no time has our national need been better satisfied than when Harry S Truman, with his iron will, innate intelligence, dogged deter- mination and endless fortitude, by an act of God, became available to lead a war-torn and troubled country. With the passing of time the certainty grows that Mr. Truman will be recorded, as many historians have already pre- dicted, as one of this Nation's five great- est Presidents. We could use a Harry Truman today. His character and his traits ?could very well be emulated by the half dozen Presidential candidates who crisscross our Nation today in search of enough votes to become an occupant of the White House. Statues and monuments are for re- minding the world of great people and great events. As I observed at the begin- ning of these remarks no metal or stone can be more enduring than the examples that were set and the record written by the man from Independence. PRODUCT LIABILITY LEGISLATION TO AID BUSINESS AND LABOR The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous- order of the House, the gentle- man from Connecticut (Mr. SARASIN) is recognized for 10 minutes. Mr. SARASIN. Mr. Speaker, today, my colleagues, Representatives ROSTENKOW- SKI, GRADISON, ANDERSON, Quiz, RAILS- BACK, MCKINNEY, MADIGAN, GUYER, VAN- DER VEEN, and I are introducing legisla- tion to correct a problem that is reaching critical proportions?product liability. Machine toed builders and other man- ufacturers of capital equipment through- out the country have been beleaguered by suits based on product liability. Workers who are injured in industrial accidents collect their workers' compensation benefits and then frequently bring ac- tions against the manufacturers of the machines upon which they were injured. None of us here today would dispute the right of an injured worker to pursue action against any third party whose act of commission or omission may have caused his or her injury. However, it should be of great concern to us that many of these accidents for which the manufacturer must pay are not as a re- sult of faulty equipment, but because of the failure of an employer to maintain a safe workplace. The problem facing man- ufacturers is compounded by the fact that the equipment on which the workers are injured is often at least 20 to 60 years old. During this tine, modifications, ad- justments, or reflttings have occurred over which the original manufacturer had no control and no knowledge. Too, ownership of the machines often changes hands a number of times. Under the law which presently exists, a manufacturer may not defend himself In court by bringing a negligent or un- safe employer into the action nor, in many instances, may he even introduce evidence as to the employer's unsafe practices. Compounding this inequitable situation is the fact that the employer, even the most negligent, has at his dis- posal a subrogation action whereby he, In the name of his injured employee, can bring suit against the machinery manu- facturer for the amount of his "loss" suffered through hospitalization, reha- bilitation, and wage replacement benefits paid to the injured employee. Again, the manufacturer cannot even introduce evidence of unsafe practices as a defense during this subrogation action. This situation has led to an intolerable financial burden for many manufactur ers, to an increase in product liability ir surance premiums to the point whe many smaller companies cannot aff It; or to the cancellation of product bility insurance altogether. This s tion is not unlike that facing the m community with its uncontrolled practice premiums, a catastroph, is threatening the quality of our care delivery system. Beyond the economics Of the Ix however, is a concern that gok Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 May, 6, 1976 et on We committee amendment in the oature of a substitute, as amended. The committee amendment in the na- eire ot a substitute as amended, was .ey,reed to. The CHAIRMAN, Under the rule, the eerninittee rises. Accorcungiy the Committee rose; and ,ele Speaker having resumed the chair, el?reerroer, Chairman of the Commit- of the Whole House on the State of the Union. reported that that Commit- cc navine had under consideration the iiil (HR. 9043) to E,uthorize employees :,,no agencies of the Government of the united States to experiment with flexible sitd compressed work schedules as al- earnatives To present work schedules, eta:mane to House Resolution 1166, he eeported the bill bac k to the House with amendment adopted by the Commit- ;ee of the Whole. The SPEAKER. Under the rule the erevious question is ordered. re a separate vote demanded on any oendment to the committee amend- ment in the nature of the substitute edepted by the Committee of the Whole? not, the question is on the amend- ment. 'The amendment was agreed to. the SPE.Metele. Tae question is on the .!iigriessittent and third reading of the 1? The bill was ordered to be engrossed -,eld read a third time, and was read the irliird time. 'elle SPEAKER. Tlie question is on the eaesage of the bill. The bill was passed. The title was amended so as to read: .'A bill to authorize Federal agencies to experiment with flexible and compressed employee work schedules." A motion to reconsider was laid on the Approved E5&INggiaNte2ipgdabEgrapp9144R001100210037-0 114045 GENERAL LEAVE Mr, HEleDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask a oanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative clays in which to re- vise and extend then' remarks, and to in- elude extraneous matter, on H.R. 9043, the bill just passed. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gmtleman from North introlina.? There vrc?S no objection PERMISSION FOR COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TO SIT DURING 5-MINUTE RULE TOMORROW Mr, :McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask ananimous consent that the Committee ei Science and Technology be permitted meet tomorrow morning while the eise N in session during the 5-minute :WEAKER. Ls there objection to 'UteSt of the gen.tleman from Wash. t. as no ote ection. It IVIEETI )IG ON TOMORROW ZAMRT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan- ur eent then when the House ad- journs today it adjourn to meet at 10 o'clock tomorrow. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. VANIK I Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma? There was no objection. ORPHANS OF THE EXODUS (Mr. BR,ODHEAD asked ane was given Permission to address the House for 1 minute. to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous matter.) Mr. BRODHEAD. Mr. Speaker, all of the nations which signed the Helsinki Final Act, including the Soviet Union, pledged to do everything possible to re- unite families separated by political boundaries. Because the Soviet Union is not living up to that promise, Members of Congress are conducting a vigil on behalf of the families which remain separated. I would like to bring to my colleagues' attention the case of Mikhail Mager, whose wife, I understand, is in the House Gallery today. While his whole family was granted exist visas, Mikhail Mager was arbitrarily refused a visa for "se- curity reasons," even though his job and army service were unrelated to security matters. In an effort to help this man, I have written repeatedly to Soviet authorities, in both English and Russian. I have not even received the courtesy of a response. In the meantime, Mikhail Mager remains in the Soviet Union, separated from his A compilation of case histories entitled "Orphans of the Exodus" dramatically details the tragic situation of the Mikhail Mager family, and I commend it to the Members' attention; MUCHALL MACER Mikhail Mager is a factory worker. la Jan- "tary 19'72 his Whole family applied for exit visas. Not only were they refused (three times). but at Mikhail's factory, the KGB staged a general staff meeting to condemn him. This meeting turned into an anti- Semitic orgy: Shouts from the audience in- cluded: "He ought to be killed." Denounced in the local paper, the Magers were accused of being traitors to the motherland, In January 1973, the whole family was granted exit visas with the exception of Mikhail who was refused again on security reasons, even though there was no secrecy factor in either his job or his past army serv- ice. Assured by OVIR officials that Mikhail stouid soon join them, the family decided to leave for Israel. In a recent letter, the Parents indict the Soviet government for refusing to honor this promise. They write: "These assurances proved to be a fraud. Mikhail is still forcibly detained in Russia and zus situation is getting menacing. He works AS a simple worker (he is an electronic engineer). He has no friends or relatives in Russia; he has no home of his 0V-11. His tele- phone was cut off. . . "He is called to the KGB 'repeatedly for questioning and was recently told that his parents must stop writing letters of protest to the Soviet authorities. And now. after Stern'S trial. the situation 'tininitsa is very strained. We are very worried that Mikhail might be marked as the next victim by the KGB. particularly since lie waived his Soviet citizenship and has been araated Israeli citizenship. . . . "We hope you will add the name of Mager to the list of those who need vour help." Octoper 1?,?to, dire years atter his army dt,tcharge, Mager was again denied a visa to s.igrate. .....-?????????ml??=?? CORRECI'ION OF THE RECORD Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. Speaker, I ask earumous consent that my remarks be cerrected. During the debate on II.R 1:704 on Tuesday, May 4, 1976, at page Ii3883 in the RECORD, my statement in the -cond column was incorrectly tran- s. ribed. It reads as follows: E appreciate the comments by the chair- x an because it did appear to me that the cenunittee views coincided with the amend- ant and the adoption of section 5 which e'..pressly spells out who Is to be the co- dinator and that is the Administrator .P..f ta Euvironme.ntal Protection Agency. It should reead as fellows, appreciate the comments by the chair an because it did not appear to me that Le committee views coincided with the c...nenciment and the adoption of section 5, filch expressly spells out who is to be the ' )rodinator and that Is not the Adnainistra- *,,-r of the Environmental Protection Agency, I ask unarhnous consent that the penile. ant RECORD be r.vo corrected.. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to -tie request of the gentleman from Cali- _ .maia..? There was no objection, (Mr. SKUBITZ asked and was given ermission to address the House for niinute, to'reviie and extend his re- -.larks and include extraneous matter.) [Mr. SKUBITZ addressed the House. e[is remarks will appear hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.3 TRIBUTE TO PRESIDENT TRUMAN The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Verenc). Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Remene is recognized for 10 minutes. Mr. RANDALL. Mr. Speaker, on Sat- urday, May 8, President Ford will unveil et Independence, Mo., a monument to he memory of our 32d President. former ?resident Harry S. Truman. May 8, 1978, you'd, had he lived, have been Mr. Tru- man's 92d birthday. It will be a statute ,through which there is recreated the tharacteristic stance of Mr. Truman as lee took his well-publicized morning ,trolls. But no metal and no stone can ie more enduring than. the history made ay that man during one our Nation's most difficult periods. More than 30 years have now elapsed ;ince Mr. Trurnan's emergence as a na- nonal figure; unfortunately, the younger eenerEttion of our national leadership has little if any personal recollection of the Truman years. It is sad that others tend to submerge important historical events m the course of present day concerns. For these foregoing reasons, I want to talk for a few moments to recall a few of the highlights in the illustrious career of one of our most illustrious leaders. Like many other great Americans, Harry S. Truman's early life was Spent amid humble surroundings and in hum- ole pursuits. He was born in the farm 7;ountry of Barton County, Mo? 92 years Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 114044 Approved For RelemAgriggfigNRATERPM00109U100210037-0 unit. In other words, this'bill does permit a procedure by which the otherwise legit- imate requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act on maximum hours can be waived. This would limit the ability a people to Waive their rights under the act to those situations covered by written con- tract. The bill, in another way, takes care of the problem with respect to the individ- ual who is not a member of a collective bargaining unit. Section 203(e) of the bill provides that the premium pay pro- visions shall not be waived for employees who are not in a recognized bargaining unit unless the employee himself or her- self waives it in a signed, written agree- ment Then, later in the bill, in section 303, we prohibit any suPervisor or other employee from intimidating, coercing, or otherwise threatening any employee for the purpose of waiving his or her rights under the provisions of the act. I think the combination of these provisions, plus this amendment, will meet the objections that have been raised by employees and their organizations. Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. FORD of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina. Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. We have had an opportunity to look at the amendment on this side. I am pleased to accept the amendment. Mr. FORD of Michigan. I thank the gentleman. Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. I would hope to expedite this, but let me point out that this is not a simple, Innocuous amendment. Let me explain what this amendment does. Mr. Chairman, this amendment pro- vides that, where employees are covered by the unit that has recognition, and a negotiated collective bargaining agree- ment with the Federal Government, they may waive in that bargaining the pro- visions of this bill. This would mean that in such a con- dition they could negotiate, that if they work the 4-day, 10-hour-a-day schedule, that period of the day in excess of 8 hours they could be paid at an overtime rate. This would mean that if a unit of Gov- ernment would so negotiate this in a contractual agreement, that we would have a situation where in many depart- ments and agencies people would be putting in under this program their. 4- day, 10-hour-a-day schedule, with no overtime. But in a specific case, where this could be extracted by negotiation, certain employees would be paid over- time after 8 hours. This would obviously create inconsist- encies, it would create difficulties in comparing the workload of the two groups. It would result, really, in short- cutting the 4-day, 10-hour-a-day ex- periment. Mr. Chairman, I grant that the argu- ment that may come from the propo- nents is that who in his right mind in management would negotiate such a pro- vision. But the point is that this amendment would make that a basis for negotiation. And if at some point that became part of th.e agreement, we would have a situa- tion where sere Federal employees would be working this new flexitime 4- day, 10-hour day at straight time; others by agreement would be paid overtime after 8 hours a days. So this, far from being a simple amend- ment, really is one that has tremendous complieatiens. I would suggest that upon careful review this amendment be re- jected. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. FORD) . The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes ap- peared to have it. RECORDED VOTE Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chair- man, I demand a recorded vote.. A recorded vote was ordered. The vote was taken by electronic de- vice, and there were---ayes 76, noes 268, not voting 88, as follows: [Roll No. 244], AYES-76 Adams Evans, Colo. Mineta timbre Fury Mink Aspin Fascell Mitchell, Md. Badillo Flood Morgan Beani, R.I. Florio Murphy, N.Y. Bingham Ford, Mich. Nolan Blanchard Ford, Tenn. Oberstar Blouin Gaycios O'Hara Brodhead Gonzalez Price Brown, Calif. Hanley Rangel Burke, Calif. Ffarrington Richmond Burke, Mass. Harris Roe Burton, John Henderson Rooney Burton, Phillip Howard St Germain Carney ' Johnson, Calif. Seiberling Jordan Simon Koch Solarz Lehin an Stokes McFall Thompson IVIatsunaga Vander Veen :N./feeds Vanik Melcher Waxman Metcalfe Wolff Meyner Young. Ga, Mezvinsky Miller, Calif. Carr Chisholm Clay Collins, Ill. Conyers Dellum s Diggs Dingell Drinan Early Milberg Abdnor Addabbo Allen Anderson, Calif. Andrews, ICC. Andrews, N. Dais. Annunzio Archer Armstionc Ashbrook Ashley Befalls Baldus Baucus Baumar Beard, Tenn. Bedell Bennett Bergland Bevel Blester Boland Braciernas Breaux Breckinrid3e Brinkley Brooks Broomfield Brown, Mich, Broyhill Burgener Burke, Pie. Burleson, Tex. NOKS-268 Burlison, Mo. Edgar Butler Edwards, Ala. Carter Edwards, Calif. Cederberg " Emery Chappell English Clausen, Erlenbom Don H. Evans, Ind. Clawson, Del Fenwick Cleveland Findley Cochran Fish Cohen Fisher Collins, Tex, Fithian Conable Flynt Conlan Conte Foley Forsythe Cornell Fountain Cotter Fraser Crane Frenzel D'Amours Frey Daniel, Dan Gibbons Daniel, R. W. Gilin.an Daniels, N.J. Ginn Danielson Goldwater Davis Goodling de la Garza Gradlson Grassley Guyer Hagedorn Haley Dent Derrick Derwin skl Devine Dickinson Dodd Hamilton Downing, Va. Hammer- Duncan, Oreg. schmidt Duncan, Tenn. Hannaford du Pont Hansen Harkin McKinney Harsha Madigan Hawkins ? Mahon Heckler, Mass, Mann Hefner Martin Heinz Mazzoll Hicks Hightower Hillis }Tolland Holt Holtzman Horton Howe Hubbard Hughes Hungate Hutchinson Hyde Ichord Jarman Jeff ords Jenrette Johnson, Colo. Johnson, Pa, Jones, Ala, Jones, N.C. Jones, Okla. Jones, Tenn. Kasten Kastenmeier Kazen Kelly Kemp Kindness Krebs Krueger La,Falce Lagomarsino Latta Leggett Lent Levitas Lloyd, Calif. Lloyd, Tenn. Long, La. Long, Md. Lott Lulea Luncline McClory McCollister MeCormack McDade McEwen McHugh McKay- May 6, 197d Michel Milford Miller, Ohio Mills Minish Moakley Moffett Mollonan. Montgomery Moore Moorhead, Calif. Moorhead, Pa. Mosher Moss Mottl Murphy, ni. Murtha Myers, Ind. Myers, Pa. Hatcher Neal Nichols Nowak Obey O'Brien Ottinger Passman Patten, N.J. Patterson, Calif. Pattison, N.Y. Paul Perkins Pettis Pickle Poage Pressler Preyer Pritchard Quie Rees Reuss Rinaldo Roberts Robinson Rodin? Rogers R,oncalio Rose Roush Rousselot Runnels Ruppe Russo Santini Sarasin Satterfield Scheuer Sc,hneebeli Schroeder Schulze Sebelius Sharp Shipley Shriver Shuster Skubitz Slack Smith, Iowa Smith, Nebr. Snyder Spence Staggers Stanton, J. William Steiger, Wis. Stephens Stratton Sullivan Talcott Taylor, Mo. Taylor, N.C. Thone Thornton Treen Teongas Van Deerlin Vander Jagt Vigorito Waggonner Walsh Warapler Whalen Whitehurst Whitten Wiggins Wilson, Bob Winn Wirth Wycller Yates Young, Alaska Young, Fla. Young, Tex. Zablocki NOT VOTING-88 Abzug Heckler, Vit% Va. Rostenkowski Alexander Helstoski Roybal Anderson, Di. Hinshaw- Ryan ABuelCo Bell in Jacobs S srk Boggs b Sikesarl e s Biaggi Keys Ketchum' Spellman Boiling Lan Honker James V. Landrum Stanton, Bowen Litton McCloskey Stark Brown, Ohio McDonald s Buchanan Macdonald Steelman Clancy meagduclen ire Steiger, Ariz. Byron M Stuckey Gorman 2Mlaikt vg his Studds Coughlin Symington Delaney Mitchell, N.Y. Symms Downey, N.Y. Nedzi Teague Each NixPepper Traxler Eckhardt Udll Eshlemanu Peyser timaen Eying, Tenn. Pike Weaver Rauilnslbenack Wilson, C H. nn: Te. xH Fuqua White Flowers Q Malmo Randall Green - Regula Wright rioen Gude Rhodes Hayes, Ind. Riegle Hays, Ohio Risenhoover Zeferetti al Hebert Rosenth Ms. HOLTZMAN and Messrs. YATE. MeHUGH and KREBS changed th, vote from "aye" to "no." Mr. ADAMS changed his vote "no" to "aye." So the amendment was rejecteC The result of the vote was armt as above recorded. The CHAIRMAN. Are there at ther amendments? If not, the rf Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 Hay -6, 1976 Approved For Release 2006/02/07: CIA-RDR7Z11/1.06144R001100210037-0 114043 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? tivuot the point or order tnat a quorum is not Iresent. The CHAIRMAN. Evidently a quorum n not present. The Chair annour.ces that pursuant to .'intse 2. rule 30C11.1, he will vacate pro- :aedingS under the call when a quorum of Committee appears. Members will record their presence by nt-etronic clevice. Lhe call as taken by electronic device. ,atroiscas otra VACATED GHAIRMAN. One hundred Mem- ;els have appeared. A quorum of the 'ocninittee of the Whole is present. Pur- etant to rule XXIII, clause 2, further ,ruceedings under the call shall be con- inered as vacated. The Committee 'will resume its bust- uVICORDED VOTE rlle pending business is the demand by a fie gentleman from New York (Mr. So- l' sa2) for :a recorded vote. recortied vote was ordered. The vote was taken by electronic de- ice, and there were?ayes 240, noes 112, t, voting 80, as follows: I Roll No. 2431 AYES-240 chi Pont Kastenineier adwat ds, Ala- Kazen amen Kelly English Kemp Erlenhorn Kindness ligvans, Colo. Krebs ?Wvans, Ind. Krueger ieenwick LaFalce tsindley Lagomarsi no tsish Latta easher Leggett Pithis n Lent cslorio Levitas Flynt Lloyd, Tenn. Foley Long, Md. Forsy,,he Lott Founiain Lujan eireneel Lundin, Frey McClory Gaydos McCollister Gibbons McCormaok Gilman McDade Ginn McEwen Goldwater McKay Goodting McKinney Grad ism Madigan Grassley Mahon Guyer Mann Hagedorn Martin Haley - Memoir, Hall Melchor Hamiton Michel viamaier- Milford set midt Miller, Ohio atannaford Minis& Hansen Mink Hareem Mollohan Heckler, Mass. Montgomery Bellew Moore Heinz Moorhead, Hicks Calif. Ulla tower Moorhead, Pa, ?uhi Mosher tioatnd Mottl aolt Murphy, Ili. or on Murtha ilioward Myers, Ind, Howe Myers, Pa. Huboard Matcher Hustle& Neal Hun gate Nichols gut Minson Nowak Cycle O'Brien ichord Passman art Dui Patten, NJ Jeffercla Paul Job oson, Colo. Pettis ) oh neon, k'a. Pickle ,a) , Jones, Ala. Poage Jones, N.C. Pressler a; Va. Jones, Okla. Preyer a, Oreg. Jones, Tenn. Pritchard Penn. Kasten Qule Amor Adams Alien Anabro Andrews Dak, Archer anstrong Ashbrook Ashley Aspin. Safalis NaillrO an Beam. Ten a. Heiden Bennett Bevil!. Blaster Boland iSonker Breaux Brecknarid Ttrinkley , trooka ciroosalleitt .4rovni, Mi th. i-nargener Pirke, Fla urke. a. Airleson, 'Cox. gutler rlarter Oederberis ,;hanPell Aim Sen. km Ft. ",tes,WS0/1, Oat ileveland .laialaran T wanlan 'otter r v cow: ,nkel, .1e1 it 'W. Rinaldo Shriver DreeD ROberte Shuster Van Deerlin Robinso Sikes Vander Tagt n Rose ' SSklfrebkiL?4 WW"algsgh?nner Vigorito Rogers Sisk Roe Roush Smith, Nebr. Wumpler Rousselot Snyder Whalen Runnels Spence Whitehurst Ruppe Stanton, Wiggins Russo J. William Wilson, Bbb Santini Steiger, Wis. Winn Sarasin Stephens Wirth Satterfield Stratton Wydler Schneebelt Taloott Yat1011 Schulze Taylor, Mo. Young, Alaska taebelius Taylor, N.C. Young, Fla. Young, Tex. Shipley Thornton Thone Sharp NOES-112 Abzug Fary Murphy, N.Y. . Nolan Anderson Flood Oberatar Addabbo Feacell Calif. Ford, Mich. Obey Andrews, N.C. Ford, Tenn. O'Hara Annunzio0"Neill Fraser Badillo Gonzalez Ottinger Baldus Green Patterson, Baucus Hardey Calif. Beard, R.I. Harkin Pattison, N.Y. Bergland Harrington Perkins Bingham Harris Price Blanchard Hawkins Rangel Blouin Henderson Rees Brademas Holtzman Reuss Brodhead Jacobs Richmond Brown, Calif. Jenrette Rodino Burke, Calif. Johnzon, Calif. Roncalio Burton, John Keys St Germain Rooney Burlison, Mo. Jordan Burton, PhiUtp Koch Scheuer Carney Lebnian Schroeder Seiberling a Smone Smith, Iowa Slm S :a gEr o Stokes Sullivan Thompson Tsongas Vander Veen %%nits Waxman Wolff 'Yates Young, Ga. 7ablocki Carr Chisholm. Clay Collins, Ill. Conyers Cornell Daniels, N.J. Dellums Diggs Dodd Downey, N.Y. Drinan Early Edgar Moffett Edwards, Catif, Morgan Ellberg Moss Lloyd, Calif. Long, La. McFall Matsunaga Meeds Metcalfe bleyner Mezvinsky Miller, Calif. Mills Mineta Mitchell, Md. Moakley Alexander Anderson, Ill. AuCoin Bell Biaggi Boggs Bolling Bowen Brown, Ohio Buchanan Clancy Corman Coughlin Delaney Eckhardt Esch Eshleman Evirts, Tenn. Flowers Fuqua Chaim? Gude Hayes, Ind, Bay. Oleo Hebert Riegle Hechler, W Va. Risenhoover Heistoski uasentaai NOT VOTING?so Hinshaw Karth Ketchum Landrum Litton McCloskey McDonald McHugh Macdonald Madden Maguire Mathis Stuckey Mlkva Studds ItcheU.N Y. Symington Nedzi Symms NX Teague Pepper Treader Peyser Udall Pike Ullman Quillen Weaver R.allsback White Randall Whitten Magni& Wilson, C. H. R,hodes Wilson, Tex. Wright Wylie zeferetti Rostenkowski Roybal Ryan Sarbanes Spellman 3tanton, James V. Stark Steed Steelman Steiger, Arta So the amendments were agreed to The result of the vote a as announced as above recorded. AMENDIAENT OFFERED BY aa FORD OF MICHIGAN Mr. FORD a Michigan. Mr. Chair man, I offer an amendment, The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Foes) af Micht gan: Page 24, line 12, strike out "An agency may except frona eat experiment" end inner% I,. lieu tlaerec f 'An agency hall except from v.t experiment" (Mr. FORD of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and ex- -,and his remarks.) Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chair- man, this amendment simply makes it .tear that an agency must except from any experiment?that is, 4-day work week or other compressed scheduled- 4,ny employee for whom the experiment would impose a personal hardship. The bill as reported by committee does not make this clear enough. My amendment simpiSt says that the agency shall except rather than may except. Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman. will the gentleman yield? Mr. FORD of Michigan I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina. Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, we nave had an opportunity to look at the gentleman's amendment. There is no opposition on this side of the aisle, and I am pleased to accept the amendment. Mr. DERWINSEa. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. FORD of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, this is a fine amendment. We have no objec- tion to it on this side of the aisle. Mr. FORD of Michigan. I thank the gentleman. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentle- man from Michigan (Mr. Form). The amendment was agreed to. AMENDMENT OFFERED BY M. FORD OF MICHIGAN Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendinent offered tly Mr. FORD a Michi- gan. Page 25, line 2, steam out "(a) The pro visions of" and hasten in lieu thereof "(a) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2). the provisions of". Page 26, after line 7, insert the following new paragraph: "(2) In the case of employees within. a Unit with respect to which an organization of Government employees has been accorded exclusive recognition, the provisions of leaa referred to in paragraph. (1) shall apply to hours which conatitnte a compressed sched- ule unless; there is an express provision in a written agreement between the agency and the organization which states such provie atone should not apply with regard to em- ployees within that unfit." (Mr. FORD of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chair- man, the committee language in the bill already says that an employee who be- longs to a collective bargaining unit which has been accorded exclusive rec- ognition may not be included in an ex- periment unless the experiment is ex- pressly agreed to in a written agreement between the agency and the collective bargaining unit. MY amendment would provide that section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act?that is, the maximum hours pro- vision?and overtime provisions of title ST would not be waived for these employee:, unless this waiver was also expressly agreed to in a written agreement between the agency and, the collective bargaining Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 114042 Approved For ReleenNURRN8T4RAMFMOONS1100210037-0 May 6 , Mr. ?BARD of Tennessee. Yes, cer- tainly. /air. HENDERSON. That is correct, ex- cept by virtue of the language which does permit them to request from the Civil Service Commission an exemption from the mandatory language in which he would justify that exemption by showing that it is not possible and feasi- ble. It is for that reason that the lan- guage that the gentleman referred to in the committee report is reflected in the provisions of the bill itself on page 19, which says that if the head of an agency determines that any organization within the agency which is participating in an experiment under subsection (a) is being handicapped, and so on, it may be exempted and the experiment may be bona fide; but generally speaking, the gentleman is correct, the language of the bill as presented we expeet every agency head to look within his agency to see If he can carry on an experimental pro- gram during this 3-year period to carry out the purposes of the act. Mr. BEARD of Tennessee. Mr. Chair- man, I thank the gentleman for those remarks. We have close to 200 Federal agencies trying to carry out their normal func- tions and then all of 'a sudden trying to decide what the ramifications would be es to the implementation of flexible work schedules, as to interagency con- tacts, looking for different timetables and responsibilities throughout the coun- try. It seems to me that the most legiti- mate approach, and I do not understand the great controversy against the amend- ment of my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois, as to saying let us try it on a trial basis. Let us bring it together In one central area and go from there; but if we have almost 200 agencies going In different directions with different studies, it will be an absolute nightmare. Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, it is my hope that as the bill, whether mandatory or permissive, is fully utilized, there is a great possibility that these programs can bring about efficiency, better serv- ice to the people and savings of the tax- payers' money, that can be done very efficiently. I intend to argue for the mandatory provision. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen- tleman from Tennessee has expired. (By unanimous consent Mr. BEARD of Tennessee was allowed to proceed for an additional 2 minutes.) Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further? Mr. BEARD of Tennessee. I yield to the gentleman. Mr. HENDERSON. I do h'ave one ques- tion about the mandatory provision, to make my own position very clear. The administration was in support of the leg- islation as introduced when it was volun- tary and did not have a mandatory re- quirement in it. If we could be absolutely assured that that support of the legisla- tion would mean that the experiment would be vigorously carried on every- where in the country, then I would tend to support the administration's position; but the proponents of the mandatory language have made a case that the man- datory language will insure experiments being carried on with the objective of greater efficiency; better employee mo- rale, increased productivity, less sick leave. If the experiments prove that, then it should become law. If the experiments do not prove that, then clearly the Con- gress as it later considers this whole sys- tem would not go that route. Mr. BEARD of Tennessee. I appreciate my chairman's input. I would like to just close by saying I cannot understand the controversy or the adverse remarks regarding the fact that we would just like this amendment to bring it back to the original language, which would mean, as stated on page 37 of the report: Only a limited number of experiments will be permitted. The Commission *ill seek the cooperation of other appropriate agencies to assist in the evaluation of specific airas of potential impact. The Commission will be re- sponsible for the overall development of the master program plan, for coordination among all agencies involved in the development of the criteria to be used for evauation, and for the preparation of appropriate interim and final reports. Mr. F.RENZEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise to speak in support of the amendment. (Mr. iri-tE'NZEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to see how far this Congress has come from the time in the past when I asked another committee's support to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to provide for flexible work weeks in the private Sector. The committee refused even to hold hearings on it. I think the new congressional enlightenment is just marvelous. I do, however, think that by making the program mandatory, this House will really spoil what might be an excellent test. The use of the word "experimental" to which the committee members refer regularly really does not apply here. It is not experimental because we are tell- ing every agency to do it whether it wants to or not. Therefore, it seems to me that those agency heads will look for ways to justify nonuse of the program. So, I think the committee, in trying to put this program in full scale use before any responsible test, is really acting in a way that is counterproductive to its own intent. I think the Derwinski amendment should certainly be agreed to. Then we could perform a responsible test, and subsequent evaluation, of this program to find out whether or not it works. Since the gentleman from New York (Mr. SoaaRz) is unable to define what "substantially disrupting an agency" is, I wonder if I might ask the distinguished chairman of the committee, the gentle- man from North Carolina (Mr. HENDER- SON) what "substantial disruption" means. Does this mean that if there are extra costs laid upon the taxpayer, that is good grounds for not adopting the experimen- tal?the gentleman's word?programs? Mr. HENDERSON. If the gentleman will yield? Mr. FRENZEL. I yield to the da..tin- guished chairman. Mr. HENDERSON. It is nay under- standing that costs to the agency would certainly be one of the factors, but I would think that if there were no other factors that would limit the ability of the agency to put in effect the experimental program, that this standing alone would not be sufficient or substantial interfer- ence with the agency's mission. Mr. FRENZEL. So the chairman's opinion is that, if 150 agencies ask for exemption on the basis that it is going to cast the taxpayers a little bit more in each agency; each agency would not be exempted by the commission and they would have to go forward with the pro- gram notwithstanding the additional cost? Mr. HENDERSON. If the gentleman will yield further, my answer is that if cost alone was the criteria?but let me again make it clear that what we are talking about is the cost of carrying on an experimental program that will save money. Now if, in the study by the agency, it finds that it is going to cost more money than it saves, and beyond that interferes with the mission, then I think it would be very easy for any or all of the agencies to get their exemptions from the Civil Service Commission. Mr. FRENZEL. I like the gentleman's second answer much better than the first, because it seems to me that we are really trying to save money, to serve the people better, to satisfy our employees and encourage greater productivity. I be- lieve that was the intent. Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. FRENZEL. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I think ft should also be reemphasized that the issue involved in the amendments is, shall we not have a legitimate 3-year test to determine the best way to handle this flexitime use of personnel, rather than immediately imposing a program on every agency before there is a test, be- fore we determine the best means of doing it? That is really the issue that guides us, whether it is a test or an imposition. Mr. FRENZEL. I thank the gentleman. I did not mean to lose sight of that. The Point I was making was, in an honest ex- perimental program such as the gentle- man from Illinois has proposed, agencies will have some incentive and enthusiasm to participate. In a mandatory program which is laid upon ? them by force by a Congress that does not understand the program very well, they are going to have an inverse incentive to look for ways to get out of the program. Therefore, the mandatory program will not realize tilt greatest benefits of flexible scheduling. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of t Derwinski amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The question the amendment offered by the gentl, from Illinois (Mr. DeawnsIsmt). The question was taken; and on vision (demanded by Mr. Sonaitz) were?ayes 18, noes 10. Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Chairman, I a recorded vote and, pending that, nobs. Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 .11(ty 6, 1976 Approved For Release 2006/02/07: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?HOUSE 114041 after this 3-year experiment we will have the proper data to decide whether or not it is a meaningful program. That, I think, is what is being missed in the debate on the amendments that are being proposed. These amendments are unnecessary. Interestingly enough, as I recall the hearings on this issue, having read the accounts of the hearings, the National Federation of Federal Employees and the president of :Federally Employed Women testified in support of a provision requiring each ages icy to make flexible hours or a compressed schedule available to their employees. en it seems to me that we are responding to real problems with a program that hat shown some enor- mously effective rest Its in the private and public sectors, one which the employees want, one which tate public wants, one that the private sector wants; and I would think that the gentleman would withdraw his amendment so that we can go on and put into effect the operation of the program. urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment. Mr. DERWINSKl. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield for an observa- tion? Ms. ABZUG. I yield to the gentleman from illinbis. Mr. DERWINSKl. I thank the gentle- woman for yielding. The testimony beeere us from the Fed- eral Employee Organization is that they support the Civil service Commission's 3-year experimental approach. That is the only indication we have from an em- ployee group. We had an individual wit- ness who was a Federal employee who supported the original bill. The issue is this: We agree on oae thing; we want the employees to be- better served; but I be- lieve that the employees could be better served if we have a meaningful experi- ment that will permit a proper applica- tion of a program, not a premature mandatory applicaeion. The CHAIRMAN The time of the gen- tlewoman has expired. Mr, KRUEGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. KRUEGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. KRUEGER. VIr. Chairman, I have studied this bill, aid one of the striking things about it is that like many items of legislation whicie we consider in this Congress, we are imposing through this bill a set of restrietions on others that we do not choose to impose upon our- selves. i em told ay my colleague, the gentleman, from gew York, that we should consider theory to be superior to feet, as he quotes Mr. Hegel. But I should e as w31 to quote Immanuel Kant, says in his Ca ;egorical Imperatives: t the maxim on which you act me a universal law of nature. ' is his philosophical interpreta- e: the Golder. Rule. and I think it appropri ate, and in the spirit :feden Rule?and Perhaps I re- ' et more than Hegel?to con- we impos e upon ourselves what to impose -mon others. If it is appropriate for the executive branch to have flexible working hours, because according to the gentlewoman from New York it "would not serve the common good if it were restricted and limited," then perhaps we should not re- strict and limit the good only to the ex- ecutive branch but should make it avail- able to the legislative branch. Yet, if I read the bill correctly, I do not find that this bill extends these rights to the Con- gress. I wonder, would the gentleman from New York care to comment on that? Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. KRUEGER. I yield to the gentle- man from New York. Mr. SOLARZ. I appreciate the gentle- man's yielding on this point. I did not come here this afternoon to carry the cudgels of Hegel and Kant. They both sound like philosophical men, and I have no objection to applying his categorical imperatives to this particu- larlegislation. I do not know about the office of the gentleman in the well, but I know in my office we already have in effect a flexi- time program that exists because people come in early in the morning and they leave late at night. When they have to do their own thing, they do it. If the gentleman really believes that this legislation would be enhanced by establishing the law requiring a formal establishment of a flexitime program for Congress, I would be delighted to support if, but my impression is that virtually every congressional office to a certain ex- tent already functions on that basis be- cause the lights are burning late at night and people are coming in earlier or later in the morning as necessary. Mr. KRUEGER. But that could be worked out without specific legislation on the part of the Congress requiring it. It has come about already because of the needs of the people in the different offices and the realization that the people could work in a reasonable, flexible pattern. I would find it difficult if my. employees would wish to work only 4-days a week to wart only in that, way. It would make more sense to me to realize that other people in other agencies might be able to define for themselves such flexibility without our passing a law for it. That is the point and intent of this amendment and I think it would be a "statesmanlike" thing to do, if I might borrow a term ref eared to earlier by the gentleman from Illinois, if we would al- low them to do that. Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further? Mr. KRUEGER. I yield to the gentle- man from New York. Mr, SOLARZ. Mr. Chairman, I simply wanted to observe if in feet there are various Federal agencies that would want to establish such programs on a sufficiently mass basis, we would not need the legislation. We felt the program would certainly make sense and there was in the legislation a way to do it and we felt we would build into the legisla- tion a series of protections in order to make sure that not a single employee e ouid be required to participate in such program against his will. Mr. KRUEGER. I feel that programs of this kind should not be mandatory; but if the Congress imposes mandatory restrictions on the executive branch, it ehould treat itself as an equal branch and impose the some restrictions on it- self. U Congress did that more often, we might get better legislation, and we -night proceed more cautiously if we aced the same restrictions we would im - 'ease on others. If we are not to do that, we should then not make the test man- datory. And since the bill does not assert this equality between the executive and legislative branch. I urge adoption of the amendment of the gentleman from Illi- nois. Mr. BEARD of Tennessee. Mr. Chair- man, I move to strike the requisite num- ber of words. (Mr. BEARD of Tennessee asked and was given permission to revise and ex- tend his remarks.) Mr. BEARD of Tennessee. Mr. Chair- man, I am not that familiar because I was not able to spend any time in the real hearings on this particular piece of legislation but in trying to prepare my- self for it I have read the report. On page 16 in the "Background" segment I was somewhat confused, and this is pre- sented by the committee itself for the bill, as to several of the paragraphs. They really seemed to speak in support of the amendments offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois. Let me just briefly cover this. This is committee lan- guage in the report: While a rumber of advantages have been reported as a result of the introduction of tlexible and compressed work schedules, a number of negative factors for agency man- agers as well as for employees may occur in a change from normal work day patterns. Moreover, it must be recognized that these types of schedules will not be suitable under all circumstances. In every case, the intro- duction of any of these schedules must be a carefully considered judgment. For example, under a flexible work schedule, the greater the degree of flexibility, the greater will be tie need for sonie form of objective record- kleeping on hours Worked. There could be undesirable effects on inter- agency contacts, availability of key person- nel, and the timeliness of responses. Ex- ended hours of operation may also impose additional burdens on supervtsory personnel. 7'.oitended hours may increase overhead costs, i.e.. heating/cooling, lighting and security, Accordingly, only through the development )f careful experimental designs and the co- )peration of those agencies with expertise in each of the potentially impacted areas can - he potential of these programs for the Fed- m-al Government be assessed. I would like to ask me chairman how many governmental agencies are there Ln the Federal Government? Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, about 150. I Mr. BEARD of Tennessee. There are agencies. The way I understand this bill, not the original way the bill was but the way it is now, each agency head Is responsible for coming up with some type of flexible work schedule. Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further? Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 May 6, 19,76 II 4040 Approved For ReleeksydeR6/0612/87HLNACILAftliM9_014a0X100210037-0 Mrs. BURKE of California. Mr. Chair- man, I rise in opposition to the amend- ment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Deewnesia) which would seriously limit the requirement that each agency participate in a program to ex- periment with flexible work hours and compressed work weeks. Limiting the flexible work scheduling experiment to a minimum number of Federal agencies is unsatisfactory and the findings could prove to be inconclu- sive. There have already been numerous sporadic efforts at flexible scheduling ex- periments within the public and private sector which have shown some positive results. However, up until now, these experiments have been piecemeal with little comprehensive analysis of the ad- vantages and disadvantages to manage- ment and employees. By requiring all Federal agencies to participate in the ex- periment, this legislation offers us the opportunity to examine the impact of flexible and compressed work schedules on a wide variety of Federal agencies which have a broad spectrum of tasks and functions. I do not believe that a more limited use of flexible hours will be as valuable, nor will the finding allow us to draw, substantive conclusions. The bill does provide for voluntary Participation in flexible scheduling by employees, so that while all agencies will be required to take part in the experi- ment, the involvement of individual em- ployees is on a voluntary basis. If my many discussions with various people about alternative work schedul- ing are any indication, th& agencies will find little difficulty in getting employees willing and eager to participate in the experimental program. I would have preferred that the com- mittee report out, with this flexibithours bill, a bill I have introduced which pro- vides for part-time employment oppor- tunitie,s in the Federal Government. These are complementary, not compet- ing, concepts and we would do well to offer opportunities foe agencies to ex- periment with several alternative sched- uling patterns. My study of alternative work patterns over the past 3 years has convinced me that alternative work scheduling will significantly benefit both the employer and th employee. Reports by GAO, the Department of Labor, Business and Pro- fessional Women's Foundation, and vari- ous private companies have shown that flexible hours work schedules can in- crease employee productivity and effi- ciency, improve employee morale and at- tendance, provide better services to the public, reduce overtime expenses, elimi- nate considerable traffic congestion, and open up job opportunities for people who are unable to work standard hours. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to Join me in defeating the Derwinski amendments and passing the committee bill. _ Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, would the gentlewoman yield? Mrs. BURKE of California. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to ? me. Mr. Chairman, just to keep the record clear, I am looking at the transcript of the full committee meeting of Thursday, February 19, and that was when the committee approved the bill. Our dear colleague, the gentlewoman from Mary- land (Mrs. SPELLMAN) supported the amendment, and I read from her re- marks: I think in the beginning it's important for coercion in the beginning of such a program. That is exactly the argument for the amendment, the language I am trying to remove by my amendment. So really this does show In the record that coercion is expected. Mrs. BURKE of California. 'We will have to ask the gentlewoman from Maryland, (Mrs. Seemeaaw)' to explain her remark in the committee. We have a proposed piece of legislation before us and we should be guided by what that legislation provides?I happen to believe that we are going to have so many peo- ple who would just love to have some flexibility that we will not have to have coercion. There are so many employees who would say, "If I could just work 4 days a week, and work 10 hours those days, it Just would change my whole life style and would give me the opportunity to do things that I am not able to do now when I am tied down with the present hours." So, Mr. Chairman, I urge that we go along with the legislation that is before us rather than the statements being made by any number of people. Because again I say I do not believe we will have to coerce anybody, we will find People standing in line wanting to do this. Mrs. SPELLMAN. Mr. Chairman, would the gentlewoman yield? Mrs. BURKE of California. I yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland.' Mrs. SPELLMAN, Mr. Chairman, what the bill now provides is exactly what I was asking for, and that is making this mandatory on the agencies, covering each agency, unless it has good reason not to do so, each agency being required to provide an experiment like this. I am sure the Members know that our Federal Government and the Civil Serv- ice Commission often have to be carried kicking and screaming into the next cen- tury. In this case we are saying that every agency shall experiment, except if it creates a problem, except if the em- ployees do not want it, but that every agency should give the employees the opportunity to try this flexitime pro- gram. So that is what I meant by coercion, coercing the Civil Service Commission, which needs a little coercion, not the exriployees, who will be very anxious to take on this new dimension. The CHAIRMAN. The ,time of the gentlewoman has expired. Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Ms. ABZUG asked and was given per- mission to revise and extend her ye- marks.) Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, I have al- ready addressed myself to the issue and the substance of this amendment. I would like to call the attention of the gentleman from Illinois to the actual statute, as the gentlewoman from Cali- fornia (Mrs. Blame) has suggested. On Page 28 of the bill?and this is legislation that the gentleman from Illinois par- ticipated in drafing and reporting out. It is entitled "Prohibition of Coercion." This whole section of the statute deals with the question the gentleman from Illinois seems to be concerned with. I think it is very important that the gentleman from Illinois and all of the Members be aware of this provision. It reads: PROMB/TION OF COERCION SEC. 303. (a) In the case of an employee within a unit with respect to which an or- ganization of Government employees has not been accorded exclusive recognition and who Is in an experiment under title I or re any other employee shall not intimidate, threat- en, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, such employee for the purpose of interfering with-- (1) such employee's rights under title I to elect the time of his arrival or departure, to work or not to work credit hours, or to re- quest or not to request compensatory time off in lieu of payment for overtime hours; or (2) such employee's right to execute or not to execute a waiver under section 203(e). It also provides penalties for violators which range from suspension without pay to termination of employment So, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this is, again, a false notion. We are all very much interested in individual lib- erties and at the same time we are inter- ested in the rights of employees, both those who are subject to collective bar- gaining and those who are not. We would not do anything to interfere with that, or to hurt that. I would concur with the gentleman from Illinois that We want to make sure that there is an in- dividual option subject to provisions of law and subject to collective bargaining agreements. So I feel that this argu- ment attempts to divert us from what the purpose of this legislation is. The Purpose of this legislation is benign, and not malevolent. We are taking into con- sideration a reenter. What is this reality? The reality is that we have a rigid way of working from 9 am. to 5 p.m. But life Is not quite that way. There are some people who would work better from 7 to 3. There are some people who like to be at home with their children at 3 o'clock, and yet they have to work. Here Is an opportunity for the Government to provide an opportunity for them to be able to work and fashion their personal lives as they choose. There- are other people who feel that after their workday has ended they should be able to apply to a Government agency for information or for relief. Because our workweek goes from Monday to Friday, and our work- day goes from 9 until 5 o'clock, the peo- Pie are deprived of the opportunity approach the Government and obta' the information or assistance they no' This program is for the common gc It will not be able to serve the coma good as an experiment if it is constri- and limited. It would be a waste o: Members' time and a waste of the' ernment's time. We have already the results of limited eXperirleft,? This legislation as written, insure teal" Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 May 6, 1976 Approved For Release 2006/02/_07 ? ,CJAzRDP7M/Iq0144R001100210037-0 11 4039 CONGRESSIONAL itEColtu? tiuu. vide, and urge tae adoption of the amendments. I must admit, Mr. Chairman, that I am a bit frustrated at the lack of attend- ance at the moment, which means I shall have to wrestle with people at the door when they come rushing in for the vote. I am also frustrated, though, with the developments in this measure: Let me just sum it up this wey: ask the Memben to take a look at the original bill H.R. 9043. The title of the bill was "to authcrize employees and agencies of the Government of the United States to experiment with flexible and compressed woik schedules as alter- natives to present work schedules." As a result of amendments adopted in committee, the new title of the bill is an act to be cited is the "Federal Em- ployees Fexible and Compressed Work Schedules Act of 196." ' And then in the committee section of the bill, subsection (4) , it reads as follows: . each agency snail establish . . That takes out all the testing. That takes out all of the flexibility. I wish to refer at this point to a letter from the Civil Service Commission, the pertinent parts of which read as follows: We are hrinly convinced that to make ex- periments mandatory in all of the 100-plus agencies of the Examitive 13ranch would prove counterproductive ....A mandatory program would be directly contrary to the philosophy of flexible work schedules. They should be optional, alternative means of accomplishing the work of an agency, not an arbitrary replacement of traditional work patterns. 'fbe valit3 of such alternative work schedules to the Government can be determined only through a system of volun- tary, controlled experimentation. A meaning- ful experiment must be centrally planned and coordinated, lie 3essarily limited in ap- plication . . . That is the posieion of the Civil Serv- ice Commission. Mr. Chairman, these three amend- ments I have before the House would merely do this: The one inserting a new section 4 would remove from the bill the requirement that each agency must establish one or more of the experimental programs. The amendment basically takes us back to the bill as originally introduced. Mee amendment provides for the development of this matter plan within 90 days after enactment of this bill, as originally pro- eosed by the Civil Service Commission. The following two amendments are eonforming amendments under the flex- ible time title, and, therefore, I have of- fered them en bloc. Te'eanklY. Mr. Chairman, if we are to enter into this flexitime procedure on personnel, we wil. have to do it under a test period plan. To charge into it lin- eectiately as a mandatory item just de- all the practical rules of adminis- Uon. When Wo.) think of the Federal eernment. we must remember we :lose to 3 million civilian Federal eeyees, and we are talking about a :emus admiristrative responsibility. e -year experiment, which would, as by the Civil Service Commission, t _irefully controlled and carefully mom bred, would give us the evidence on which we could base a permanent pro- gram established on the practical re- sults as they have been observed. That Is the spirit of the amendments. I suggest that the statesmanlike thing to do would be to support my amend- ments and keep this bill as it was orig- inally intended, an authorization for a proper procedure of testing this program. Mr. Chairman, I yield to that great statesman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boulez). Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Chairmen, I appre- ciate the gentleman's yielding, but I wish to speak on my own time. Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I had hoped that the gentleman from New York had become convinced and that he was suddenly supporting my amend- ments. One can always hope. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the bal- ance of my time. Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendments. (Mr. SOLARZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Chairman, I have been, as a colleague of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. DERWINSKI) on two committees of this House, continually impressed by the lucidity and occasion- ally the loquaciousness of his views, as he has expressed them on the various bills that both of us have been called upon to consider. However, I must say that the gentle- man's comments a few minutes ago re- minded me of a statement ,that was once made by the German philosopher, Hegel. to the effect that "if theory and fact dis- agree, so much the worse for the facts." To be sure, as the gentleman pointed out in his remarks, it does say on page 16 of the bill that each Federal agency shall submit a flexitime program and establish such a program. But it also says on page 17 of the bill that if the head of any Federal agency determines- that the implementation of such a pro- gram would in any way substantially impair the operations of his agency, the Civil Service Commission can then-con- clude that, if such a program would in any way be adverse to the public in- terest, the interests of the agency, or the interests of its employees, the agency is then relieved of the obligation of estab- lishing such a program.. So it seems to me that while in theory one might argue this is a mandatory program, in point of fact it is nothing of the sort. Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SOLARZ. I yield te the gentle- man from Minnesota. Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Chairman, the bill does not in any way say what the gentle- man says it does. It says, if it "would substantially disrupt the agency." I hope that the gentleman will correct his statement. Mr. SOLARZ. Mr: Chairman, that, I', I might say, is precisely the point I want to make, because if, as the bill says, the establishment of a flexitime program would not?and I quote exactly from the language of the legislation?"sub- stantially disrupt the agency in carrying out its functions." then I see no reason shy the agency should be relieved of tae obligation for establishing such a program. Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Chairman, will the entleman define what "substantial dis- ruption" is? Suppose we just disrupt the agency a fettle bit and cost the taxpayers Just a Little bit of extra money; then do they Save to-go ahead with the program any- way? Mr. SOLARZ. I think that the defuri- ion of "substantial" is something which ehould be decided on a case-by-case basis. L have every confidence in the ability of the Civil Service Commission to make a responsible judgment on these matters, Out I would submit to my Colleagues on ..he committee that if, in fact, the estab- lishment of a flexitime prograni in a par- ticular Federal agency would not sub- stantially impair the operations of the agency, then there is no reason- why they should not be required to establish an experimental program along these lines. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Il- linois (Mr. Drawnesia) also said that it would be a mistake to establish arbitrary flexitime experimental programs, but- there are plenty of provisions in this legislation which make it crystal-clear that any programs that are established would not be arbitrary. First of all, the agencies concerned would, in effect, have to conclude that the establishment of such programs would not substantially impair their op- erations. Those uniOns which represent units within these agencies with respect to which flexitime programs might be established wouldhave to give their con- sent to those programs and to those ex- periments. For those units with respect to which there are no collective-bargain- ing agents that have already been desig- nated to represent the employees who work for the particular unit in question, those employees, according to the terms of this legislation, would be required to voluntarily waive any of the protections which they otherwise might have under existing legislation. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that there are ample protections here. The agencies have to agree; the unions have to agree, and the employees have to agree. There is nothing arbi- trary about this. It is a carefully planned and constructed program. Mr. Chairman, I might say in conclu- sion that I think this is one of the most constructive and creative initiatives to come out of our committee in some time. I think it holds great promise for im- proving the productivity of the Federal civil service, for enchancing the morale of our employees, and rather than limit- ing this experiment to a handful of agencies, it seems to me that we ought to make it available on ' a broad basis throughout the Federal Government Mrs. BURKE of California. Mr. Chair- man, I move to strike the requisite naun- ber of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. (Mrs. BURKE of California asked and was given permission to revise and ex- tend her remarks.) Approved For Release 2006/02/07: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 11 4038 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-- HOUSE May 6, 1076 a rate equal to the rate of his basic pay, for such work which is not in excess of his basic work requirement for such day. For hours worked on such a holiday in excess of his basic) work requirement for such day, he is entitled to premium pay in accordance with the provisions of section 5542(a) or 5544(a) of title 5, United States Code, as applicable, or the provisions of section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, whichever provisions are more beneficial to the em- ployee. (e) In the case of any employee in a unit with respect to which an organization of Government employees has not been accorded exclusive recognition, the foregoing subsec- tions of this section shall not apply unless the employee waives, in a signed writing, any rights to premium pay under the provi- sions of law referred to in such subsections with respect to work performed while par- ticipating in an experiment under this title. TITLE III?ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS ADMINISTRATION OF LEAVE AND RETIREMENT PROVISIONS SEC. 301. For purposes of administering sections 6303(a), 6304, 6307 (a) and (c), 6323, 6326, and 8339(m) of title 5, United States Code, in the case of an employee who Is in any experiment under title I or II, ref- erences to a day or workday (or to multiples or parts thereof) contained in such sections shall be considered to be references to 8 hours (or to the respective multiples or por- tions thereof). APPLICATION OF EXPERIMENTS IN THE CASE OF NEGOTIATED CONTRACTS SEO. 302. (a) Employees within a unit with respect to which an organization of Govern- ment employees has been accorded exclusive recognition shall not be included within any experiment under title I or II of this Act ex- cept to the extent expressly provided under a written agreement between the agency and such organization. (b) An agency may not participate in a flexible or compressed_ schedule experiment under a negotiated contract which contains premium pay provisions which are inconsist- ent with the provisions of section 103 or 203 of this Act, as applicable. PROHIBITION OF COERCION SEC. 303. (a) In the case of an employee within, a unit with respect to which an or- ganization of Government employees has not been accorded exclusive recognition and who is in an experiment under title I or II, any other employee shall not intimidate, threat- en, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, such employee for the purpose of interfering with? (1) such employee's rights under title I to elect the time of his arrival or departure, to Work or not to work credit hours, or to re- quest or not to request compensatory time off in lieu of payment for overtime hours; or - (2) such employee's right to execute or not to execute a waiver under section 203(e). For the purpose of the preceding sentence, the term "intimidate, threaten, or coerce" Includes, but is not limited to, promising to confer or conferring any benefit (such as appointment, promotion, or compensation), or effecting or threatening to effect any re- prisal (such as deprivation of appointment, promotion, or compensation). (b) Any employee who violates the provi- sions of subsection (a) shall be removed from his position and funds appropriated for the position from which removed thereafter may not be used to pay for the employee. However, if the Commission finds by unani- mous vote that the violation does not war- rant removal, a penalty of not less than 30 days' suspension without pay shall be im- posed by direction of the Commission. The Commission shall prescribe procedures to carry out this subsection under which an employee subject to removal or suspension shall have rights comparable to the rights afforded an employee subject to removal or suspension under subchapter III of chapter 73 of title 5, United States Code, relating to certain prohibited political activities. REPORTS Sac. 304. Not later than 21/2 Years after the effective date of titles I and II of this Act, the Commission shall-- (1) prepare an interim report containing recommendations as to what, if any, legisla- tive or administrative action should be taken based upon the results of experiments con- ducted under this Act, and (2) submit copies of such report to the President, the Speaker of the House, and the President pro tempore of the Senate. The Commission shall prepare a final report with regard to experiments conducted under this Act and shall submit copies of such re- port to the President, the Speaker of the House, and the President pro tempore of the Senate not later than 3 years after such ef- fective date. REGULATIONS SEC. 305. The Commission shall prescribe regulations necessary for the administration of this Act. EFFECTIVE DATE SEC. 306. The provisions of section 4 and titles I and H of this Act shall take effect on the 90th day after? (1) the date of the enactment of this Act, Or (2) October 1, 1976, whichever date is later. Mr. HENDERSON (during the read- Ing). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute be consid- ered as read, printed in the RECORD, and open to amendment at any point. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from North Carolina? There was no objection. AMENDMENTS 01,1,.t.RED BY MR. DERWINSKI Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I offer three amendments, and I ask unan- imous consent that they may be con- sidered en Woe. The Clerk read as follows: Amendments offered by Mr. DERWINSKI: Page 16, strike out line 16 and all that fol- lows down through line 22 on page 17 and insert in lieu thereof the following: - "Sec. 4. The Commission shall, not later than 90 days after the effective date of this Act, establish a master plan which shall contain guidelines and criteria by which the Commission will approve and evaluate experi- ments to be conducted by agencies under titles I and II Of this Act. Such master plan shall provide for approval of experiments vskthin a sample of organizations of different size, geographic location, and functions and activities, sufficient to insure that adequate testing occurs of the impact of varied work schedules on.? "(1) the efficiency of Government opera- tions; "(2) mass transit facilities and traffic; "(3) levels of energy consumption; "(4) service. to the public; and "-(5) increased opportunities for full-time and part-time employment" Page 18, strike out lines 15 through. 17 and insert in lieu thereof the following: "Snc. 102.. (a) Notwithstanding section 6101 of title 5,, United States. Code, and consistent with the master plan established under sec- tion 4 of this Act, the Commission may ap- prove any proposal submitted by an agency for an experiment, to test flexible schedules that include--". Page 24, strike out linea 8 through 11 and insert in lieu thereof the following: "SEC. 202. (a) Notwithstanding section 6101 of title 5, United States Code, and con- sistent with the master plan established under section 4 of this Act, the Commission may approve any proposal submitted by an agency for an experiment to test a 4-day workweek or other compressed schedule." The CHAIRMAN. Is there objeCtion to the request of the gentleman from U- M-lois? There was no objection. (Mr. DERWINSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, the series of amendments I have offered en bloc have a single purpose: to restore to this legislation its original purpose and intent. As the Jbill comes from committee, it contains language which would require a compulsory program of flexible -ivork hours and compressed workweeks for all agencies in the executive branch of the Federal Government. Such a require- ment is unworkable and impractical. The legislation which the Civil Serv- ice Commission sent to Congress in July of last year would have authorized the Commission to establish a master pro- gram plan to carefully evaluate new work schedule arrangements. These experimental work schedules would be limited to a minimum number of agencies, but sufficient to show whether these alternative work sched- ules may have applicability to Govern- ment operations. The new schedules would not be imposed upon any agency, nor would they replace current sched- ules. They simply would become experi- mental alternatives to traditional work schedules. This is what the language of my amendments would accomplish. Flexible and compressed work sched- Ules are a relatively new concept, and general acceptance by management would only be impeded if agencies are forced to adopt such scheduled, as the reported bill requires. Mr. Chairman, a mandatory program would be directly contrary to the phi- losophy of flexible work schedules. They should be optional, alternative means of accomplishing the work of an agency, and they should not be an arbitrary re- placement for traditional work patterns. The value of such alternatives can be determined only through a system of voluntary, controlled experimentation. Mr. Chairman, there is a good deal of current debate about heavy-handed Fed- eral bnreaucracies. If we are listening to the American public, we know they do not want more arbitrary and capricious Federal authority. If this legislation ir not amended as I have proposed, tin that is exactly what will result from V bill. The legislation as reported by committee would be disruptive and otic to the operation of the Federal eminent, The Civil Service Commission Is trig only for limited authority to co Voluntary. tightly controlled e- ments in rearranging work schc That is what my amendments wbult64,,, Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0 y 197i; CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE Commistion shall exempt an agency from such retruiremente only if it finds that the conducting of such a program by the agency would not be in the best interest of the ?ebbe. the Clover :anent, or the employees. The filing of such a request with the Com- mission shall stair the requirement under subsection (a) to implement an experimental program until the Commission has made its eletermination, or until 180 days after the late of filing of ti e request, whichever first ,TCCUTS reatetal/MBLF, SCHEDULING OF WORK HOURS enema, NS .ror purposes of this title? the term "credit hours" means any tours, within a fie tible schedule established tender this title, which are in excess of an .e.mpioyeels basic work requirement which the employee elects to work so as to vary 'the length of a workweek or a workday; and (2) the term "cetertime hours" means all hours iii excess of 8 hours in a day or 40 HOW'S in a week, which are officially ordered in :wryer ce. but toes not include credit Mane ss tees WIRE OUTING EXPERIMENTS ;Wei t02. (a) Notwithstanding section 6101 itf tene 5, United Ststes Code, an agency may conduct one or more experiments to test flexible schedules which include? (1) designated eours and days during which an employee on such a schedule must ie present for work; and (2) designated hours during which an ,senployee on such a schedule May elect the lame of his arrival at and departure from work, solely for such purpose or. if and to the extent permitted, for the purpose of accumulating credit hours to reduce the length of the workweek or another workday. An election by an employee referred to in paragraph (2) shall be subject to limitations generally prescribed to ensure that the duties and requirements of the employee's position are fulfilled. (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, but subject to the terms of any written agreement under section 302(a)? (1) any agency experiment under subsec- tion (a) of this section may be terminated by the Commission, or the agency, if it deter- mines that the experiment is not in the best interest of the pub,ic. the Government, or the employees; or (2) i' the head of an agency determines that any organizat on within the agency which is participating in an experiment un- der subsection (a) is being handicapped in carrying out its functions or is incurring ad- ditional costs became of such participation, he may? (A) restrict the employees' choice of Ar- clival and departure time. (B) restrict the use of credit hours, or (C) exclude from such experiment any employee cc group of employees. (eel Experiments under subsection (a) shall terminate not later than the end of the 2-year period which begins on the effec- tive date of this title. ICH/PUTATION 01" PRESIDIA/ PAY ?3EC. 103. (a) For purposes of determin- leg compensation for overtime hours in the ease of an employee participating in an ex- teriment under section 102? (1) the head of an agency may, on request the employee, grant the employee compen- ery time off in lieu of payment for such -time hours, whether or not irregular or signal in nature and notwithstanding the termiteof sectiors 5512(a). 5543(a) (1), ;a), and 5550 of title 5, United States eetion 4107(e) (5) of title 38. United n erode, section 7 of the Fair Labor isede Act, as amended, or any other pro- ta axle: or (2) the employee shall be compensated for such overtime hours in accordance wit... Such provisions, as applicable_ (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of la r refereed to in paragraph ( I ) of subsectic, (a), an employee shall not Tie entitled to ta compensated for credit hours worked excell to the extent authorized under section 101 or to the extent he is allowed to have suite hours taken into account with respect ts hie basic work requirement., (e) (1) Notwithstanding section eeeeaFt of title 5, United States Code, premium pa / for nightwork will not be mild to an ern . ployee otherwise subject to such section sole- ly because he elects to work credit hours, ot elects a time of arrival or departure, at time of day from which such premium pa is otherwise authorized; except that? (A) if an employee is on a tlexible schedul - under which-- (i) the number of hours during which he must be present for work. plus (ii) the number of hours during whica he may elect to work credit hours or elect the time of his arrival and departure, which occur outside of the night work hour designated In or under such section 5545(a) total less than 8 hours, sucn premium pay shall be paid for those hours which, whet combined with such total, do not exceed ti hours, and (B) if an employee is on a flexible schedule under which the hours that he must be pres- ent for work include any hours designated in or under such section 5545(a), such prem- ium pay shall be paid for such hours so desig- nated. (2) Notwithstanding sect:on 5343(1) of title 5, United States Code, and 4107(e) (2) of title 38, United States Code, night differential will not be paid to any employee otherwise subject to either of such sections solely be- cause he elects to work credit hours, or elects a time of arrival or departure, at a time of day for which night differential is otherwise authorized; except that such differential shall be paid to an employee on a flexible schedule? (A) in the case of an employee subject to such section 5343(f), for which all or te ma- jority of the hours of such schedule for any day fall between the hours specified in such section, or (B) in the case of an employee subject to such section 4107(e) (2), for which 4 hours of such schedule fall between the hours spec- ified in such section. HOLIDAYS SEC. 104. Notwithstanding sections 6103 and 6104 of title 5, United Stares Code, if an employee on a flexible schedule Under this title is relieved or prevented from working on a day designated as mholiday by Federal statute or Executive order, he is entitled to pay with respect to that day for 8 hours (or, In the case of a part-time employee, one- tenth of his biweekly basic work require- ment) TUVIE-RECORDING DEVICES SEM 105. Notwithstanding section 6106 of title 5, United States Code, an agency may use recording clocks as part of its experi- ments under this title. CREDIT HOURS; ACCUSIULATfON AND COMPENSATION SEC. 106. (a) Subject to any limiation pre- scribed by the agency, a full-time employee on a flexible schedule can accumulate not more than 10 credit hours, and a part-time employee can accumulate not more than one- eighth of the hours in his biweekly basic work requirement, for carryover from a bi- weekly pay period to a succeeding biweekly pay period for credit to the basic work re- quirement for such period. (b) If an employee who was on a flexible H 4037 schedule experiment is no longer subject to such an experiment, he shall be paid at his then current rate of basic pay for not more than 10 credit hours which he has ac- cumulated if he is a full-time employee, or for not more than the number of credit hours which he has accumulated which is not in excess of one-eighth of the hours in his biweeker basic work requirement if he is a part-time employee, TITLE --4-DAY WEEK AND 0 rnE.la COSAReESSED WORK SCHEDULES DEFINITIONS SEC. 201. For purposes of this title? (1) tile term "compressed schedule means? (A) in the ease of a full-time employee, an 80-hour biweekly basic work requirement which is scheduled for less than 10 work- days, and (B) In the case of a part-time employee. a biweekly basic work requirement of lees than 80 :lours which a scheduled for less than 10 workdays; and ' (2) the term "overtime hours" means an hours in excess of those specified hours welch constitute the compressed schedule. COMPRESSED SCHEDULE EXPERIMENTS SEC. 202. (a) Notwithstanding section 010 1 of title 5, United States Code, an agency may conduct one or more experiments to test a 4 day workweek or other compressed schedules. (b) An agency may except from an ex- periment conducted under subsection (a) any emplc?yee for whom a compressed sched- ule would impose a personal hardship. (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, but subject to the terms of any written agreement under section 302(a), any agency experiment under subsectiton (a) may be terminated by' the Commission, or the agency, if it determines that the experi- ment is not in the best interest of the pub- lic, the Government, or the employees. (d) Experiments under subsection (a) shall terminate not later than the end of the 3-year period which begins on the ef- fective date of this title. COMPUTATION OF PREMIUM PAY SEC. 203. (a) The provisions of sections 5542(a), 5544(a), and. 5550(2) of title 5, United States Code, election 4107(e) (5) of title 38, United States Code, section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, or any other law, which relate to premium pay for overtime work shall not apply to the hours which constitute a compressed sched- ule. (b) In the case of any full-time employee, hours worked in excess of the compressed schedule shall be overtime hours and shall be paid for as provided by whichever statu- tory provisions referred to in subsection (a) are applicable to the employee. in the case of any part-time employee on a compressed schedule, overtime pay shall be paid after the same number of hours of work for which a full-time employee on a similar schedule would receive overtime pay. (c) Notwithstanding section 5544(a), 5546 (a), or 5550(1) of title b, United States Code. iir any other applicable provision of law, in the case of any employee on a compressed schedule who performs work (other than evertime work) on a tour of duty for any workday a part of which is performed on a eunday, such employee is entitled to pay "or work performed during the entire tour duty at the rate of his basic pay, plies .premiura pay at a rate equal to 25 percent his rate of basic pay. ( d ) Notwithstanding section 5546 (b ) of ..itle 5, United States Cade, an employee on e compressed schedule who performs work en a holiday designated by Federal statute e Executive order is entitled to pay at the at, of his Miele pay, plus premium pay et Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100210037-0