Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 16, 2016
Document Release Date: 
September 8, 2004
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
January 1, 1977
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2.pdf27.61 MB
U 1) KMM wcy ea wa"~ ~ ~ ( ~?. ~ _ ttt~1"~ ~ r oki pr ~i w ..:. m.. mss' r r?: /I/ m?ri i In- ~ ~ .w 1 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 PERSPECTIVES 1978 2 MT CLOSE UP FOUNDATION 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20007 (202) 342-8700 (1) 800-424-2730 Bruce W. Jentleson, Editor Original Cartoons by Peter Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Perspectives is published annually by the Close Up Foundation for use by students and teachers from across the country who participate in the government studies program conducted by the Foundation. The book has been created as a resource supplementing the seminars, work- shops and other activities which comprise the CLOSE UP program. The Foundation wishes to sincerely thank all the authors whose concern for education has led them to contribute articles. (c)Copyright, 1977, by the Close Up Foundation. All rights reserved. Printed by Master Print, Inc. in the United States of America. Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 September 1977 To Close Up Participants The 12,000 students and teachers who will participate in Close Up this year have a great opportunity to observe the federal government at close range and see how it really works. To many young people, government and politics seem stagnant, something totally separate from their own lives. But, in small ways and large, govern- ment affects us all, every day. One of the greatest values of your program is that it represents the mainstream of American life. You are here not because of your status, but because of your interest. You are part of the great body of Americans who really run this country -- hardworking, concerned people who use their talents and knowledge and energy for the nation's benefit. I hope you will make good use of this chance to learn about government while you are young and your lifetime commitments are not yet made. When you are older, when you have a family and job responsibilities, your perspec- tive may be altered by these choices or by the possible loss of personal privilege or security. But now while you are still making those choices you can devote your hearts and minds to necessary change without these constraints. There is a quote carved inside the Jefferson Memorial that you might want to remember: "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in law and Constitutions but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths dis- covered and manners and opinions changed with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times." Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Our system of government rests on the assumption that in an open society, with free debate and access to the facts, truth would eventually overcome error. Our founders set up checks so the majority could not take unfair advantage of the minority, to restrain even the most powerful and protect even the weakest. But if the system is to work, all of our people must participate. We all must train our minds to learn the facts and understand the issues. We must all vote and make our wishes known. All of our citizens must stand against injustices to any one of them, for our govern- ment is made up of its people; its strength is their strength, its weakness their weakness. If they are apathetic, government will be apathetic. But if the people care -- and show it -- the government will act. How wisely and how effectively is largely up to the people; it depends on how well they express their con- cern and how effectively they monitor the processes of legislation and administration. Often the worst answer to a problem can be a bad program, and only the people can prevent that. During the Watergate hearings, many young men who had come to work in the government expressed their dis- illusionment with it. One of them who had been involved in the cover-up advised young people who might be tempted to come to Washington to try to put their ideals into practice to "stay away." He saw the city and the govern- ment as inevitably corrupting forces. That need not be so. Andrew Jackson saw it more clearly when he said, "There are no necessary evils in govern- ment. Its evils exist only in its abuses." The people can control government abuses by exercising the rights and privileges of citizenship. When only a little over half our people who are eligible actually vote -- less than half our young people -- then we are halfway down the road away from government by the people. While you are here you have the opportunity to learn and observe and to question. I hope when you go home you will continue to learn and observe, to question and probe. I hope you will be determined not to accept easy labels, but to find out what people really stand for, and whether programs and policies actually do what Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 they claim to do. I hope you'll be proud of your government and your country but work to correct the wrongs you see, and never hesitate to stand up and say so when you know a wrong is being done. But I hope you'll be able to restrain your strict con- science enough to be sure beforehand that it is really a wrong, and that if you find out later you were mistaken, that you will always have the courage to admit it and try to make it right. Sincerely, Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release'-36&pP88-01315R000200160007-2 1. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: THE POLICY MAKERS 1. The Presidency: Power and Leadership How Much Power for the President? ..................... Harry C. Mc Pherson .......... 3 The Man and the Office: A Call for Integrity and Accountability ................................... Clark R. Mollenhoff ........... 5 The Presidency in Perspective .......................... Winton M. Blount............. 7 Know the Executive Office of the President ........................................... 9 The Executive Branch and the Making of Domestic Policy .... Lee C. White ................. 10 TheCabinet: Q & A ............................................................ 12 Know the Cabinet ............................................................. 13 Perspectives Panel: Lessons of Watergate ............................................ 15 Reflections ................................................................... 18 The Job of President ............................................................ 19 Glossary: The Presidency ........................................................ 21 An Introduction to the Presidency: A CLOSE UP Briefing ............................... 22 2. The Federal Bureaucracy: What Role for Government in American Society? The Federal Bureaucracy: It's Better than You Think ........ J. Douglas Hoff ............... 25 Table: Federal Civilian Employment ............................................... 27 Big Government: A Pressing Problem .................... Senator Barry Goldwater........ 27 Something Has to be Done: Ideas on Government Reorganization Congressman Elliott H. Levitas ... 29 Diagram: Structure of the Executive Branch .......................................... 31 Our Nation's Regulators: Case Study of the Consumer Product Safety Commission ..................... Vice Chairman Thaddeus Garrett, Jr. .............. 32 Know the Bureaucracy .......................................................... 34 Bureaucratic Semantifications ......................... Dr. James H. Boren............ 36 3. The Congress: Legislators and Representatives of the People Congress: Leader or Follower? .......................... Senator Robert Morgan ........ 39 Congress and the President: Checks and Balances in the Making of Foreign Policy ........................... Senator Robert Dole ........... 40 The Speaker of the House: His Role and the 95th Congress ............. Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.................... 42 Leaders of Congress ............................................................ 44 The Minority as a Cohesive Force ................... . ... Minority Leader John J. Rhodes .. 46 The Job of a Congressman ............................ Congressman Bill Frenzel ....... 47 A Representative's Vote: A Matter of Conscience ........... The Honorable Brooks Hays ..... 50 Tips on Writing Your Senator or Congressman ........................................ 51 Know Your Representatives ...................................................... 52 Six Virtues of the Seniority System ...................... Donald Deuster .............. 53 A New Era in Congressional Reform ..................... Congressman Bob Carr ......... 55 Perspectives Panel: Freshman Views of the House and Senate ............................. 57 The Committee System: Q & A .................................................... 59 The Congress and Its Committees .................................................. 60 Special CLOSE UP Guide to Capitol Hill ............................................ 60 Glossary: Legislative Procedure ................................................... 63 Approved For Release 2004/10%3 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13: CI - P88-01315 00 00160007-2 4. The Supreme Court and the Judiciary: Equal Justice an Supremacy o the Law Perspective on the Supreme Court: An Interview with the Late Justice Tom C. Clark ............ 65 The Supreme Court of the United States ........: .................................... 68 The Powers of the Supreme Court............ .'........... Professor Adrian Fisher ........ 68 How a Case Reaches the Supreme Court ............................................. 70 You and the Law ................... Lenore Cameron and Amy Armitage ............... 71 From Arrest to Sentencing: The Criminal Law Process ....... Jason D. Kogan ............... 74 Glossary: The Law and the Judiciary.. .................................. 77 An Introduction to the Judiciary: A CLOSE UP Briefing ................................. 78 H. FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOMS TO REPORT AND TO PETITION: THE ROLES OF THE PRESS AND OF LOBBYISTS 5. The Press: Focus on "The Fourth Estate" A Free Press is the Foundation of a Free Society ............ Robert C. Pierpoint............ 81 The Journalist's Role is to Inform the Public ............... Hal Walker.................. 83 The Lighter Side of Political Reporting ................... John Goldsmith .............. 85 What am I Reading? ........................................................... 87 Perspectives Panel: The Political Role of the Press ..................................... 88 Reflections ................................................................... 90 6. Lobbying: Influencing the Policy Makers Who is a Lobbyist and What Does He Really Do? ........... Michael O. Ware ............. 92 Who is a Lobbyist and What Does He Really Do? ........... Richard W. Clark ............. 94 The Need for Lobby Reform ........................... Congressman Tom Railsback .... 96 Know the Lobbyists . .................................... 98 An Introduction to Lobbying: A CLOSE UP Briefing ................................... 100 III. AMERICA IN THE WORLD: COEXISTING WITH 150 OTHER NATIONS 7. Foreign Policy: Our National Interest and the Pursuit of Peace Can We Define the "National Interest"? .................. Dr. Roger Leeds .............. 105 Point Counterpoint: The United States and the Soviet Union Carl Marcy-Committee on the Present Danger ................. 106 World Development and U.S. Foreign Policy: The Opportunity Before Us U.N. Ambassador Andrew J. Young ................ 113 Foreign Relations: Know the World ................................................ 116 Table: American Foreign Aid (Economic Assistance) .............. ............. 117 Perspective of a Third World Nation: An Interview with Ambassador Neville Kanakaratne ....... 117 Perspectives Panel: Future Directions for American Foreign Policy? ........................ 121 Reflections ................................................................... 126 Glossary: Foreign Policy.. ................................... An Introduction to Foreign Policy: A CLOSE UP Briefing ............................... 128 8. Defense Policy: "To Provide for the Common Defense" American Military Around the World ............................................... 131 American Defense Policy: What, Why and How? ........... Lt. Colonel H. A. Staley and Major Rob Purdie ............. 132 Table: American Foreign Aid (Military Assistance) ..................................... 134 Arms Control and Disarmament in the Nuclear Era ......... Thomas A. Halsted ............ 134 Glossary: Defense Policy ........................................................ 140 An Introduction to Defense Policy: A CLOSE UP Briefing ............................... 141 9. The Intelligence Community: National Security in a Democracy Intelligence ....................... Central Intelligence Agency...................... 144 Diagram: National Intelligence Community Structure .................................. 147 The Need for Reform of U.S. Intelligence Agencies .......... Senator Frank Church ......... 148 Approved For Release 2004/10/%: CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 IV. DOMESTIC POLICY: SETTING OUR PRIORITIES AT HOME 10. Social and Economic Issues: The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number Perspectives Panel: The Energy Crisis ............................................... 153 Point Counterpoint: Economics and Policy Peter S. Knight-Louis Wilson Ingram, Jr......... 157 The Federal Budget: Q & A ... ............. 164 Golden Years of American Agriculture... Senator Herman E. Talmadge .................... 166 The Ongoing Struggle for Equality and Justice Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm ................. 167 Point Counterpoint: The Equal Rights Amendment Kristina Kiehl- Phyllis Schlafly ............... 168 The Welfare System in the U.S ......................... D. Lee Bawden ............... 172 Glossary: Economics ........................................................... 175 Domestic Issues Forum ......................................................... 176 11. Federal, State and Local Government: The Partnership that Binds "To Form a More Perfect Union": Contemporary American Federalism Lawrence D. Gilson............ 185 The Urban Crisis is a Complex Compound ................ Krishnan Nanda and John Bauman ................ 187 Bringing Political Power Back Home .................... Senator Mark Hatfield ......... 191 Know Your State Government .................................................... 193 V. OUR THIRD CENTURY: LEARNING FROM THE PAST, LOOKING TOWARDS THE FUTURE 12. The Political Process: Parties, Campaigns, Philosophies and You Point Counterpoint: A Comparative Look at the 1976 Republican and Democratic Party Platforms .................................................................. 197 Table: 1976 Elections (National) ................................................... 199 What are Political Parties?. .......... RNC Chairman Bill Brock ....................... 200 On the Campaign Trail .............. Senator Donald W. Riegle, Jr..................... 202 What are My Political Attitudes? .................................................. 204 Perspectives Panel: Liberalism and Conservatism ...................................... 205 Reflections ................................................................... 208 Glossary: The Political Process .................................................... 209 13. New Directions for the Third Century The Future Challenges the Young ...... Senator Edward M. Kennedy ..................... 211 Sitting Outside a Dairy Queen and Reflecting on America..... Simon Winchester ............. 212 Looking Toward the Future ........................... Edward Cornish .............. 214 Reflections on the Third Century: A Panel ........................................... 217 Perspective of a Public Man: An Interview with Senator Hubert H. Humphrey ................ 221 VI. WASHINGTON, D.C.: YOUR HOST CITY 14. The City: Its History, Its Politics, Its Life The History of Washington, D.C ........................ CLOSE UP Staff.............. 228 The District of Columbia and "Home Rule" ............... Sterling Tucker............... 230 Some Points of Interest .......................................................... 232 Appendix: General Glossary of Political Terms ....................................... 235 Approved For Release 2004/10/.13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 viii Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 PERSPECTIVES 1978 If there is one thing that you are sure to learn while in Washington, it is that there are neither simple questions nor absolute answers when it comes to politics and government... instead, there are countless "perspectives." During your CLOSE UP week, you will actually experience government. You will study it by participating in seminars with Congressmen, Senators, executive branch officials, lobbyists, reporters, judges and many others. You will have the chance to ask questions of these people, and you will discuss a host of subjects in workshops with fellow students and your Program Instructors. You will be exposed to many different "perspectives" on a variety of subjects. This book, appropriately titled Perspectives, is a collection of readings on politics and government which is intended to supplement the seminars, work- shops, informal discussions and other experiences which are a part of the CLOSE UP program. Many members of the staff of the Close Up Foundation have contributed their time, energy, creativity and-most of all-their dedication to the creation of Perspectives 1978. This year's edition contains over 50 articles written especially for CLOSE UP students and teachers by individuals with a great deal of experience in government and political affairs. Among the authors are Republicans, Democrats, and independents; liberals and conservatives; private citizens and government officials. We have conscientiously striven to present as many diverse viewpoints and as many sides of as many issues as possible. Anything less would be contrary to the values and spirit of the Close Up Foundation. It has always been CLOSE UP's goal to offer a meaningful alternative to the traditional way most young Americans learn about politics and their government: Perspectives 1978 is a part of that process. It is not meant to be a textbook. It is your book, your resource. Whenyouu receive a copy from your teacher- coordinator, take the time to read as many articles as possible before coming to Washington. Discuss them with other students, with your teacher and with your family. Utilize the charts and diagrams as tools to gain a better understanding of all aspects of the government. And don't miss any of the creative commentaries by Peter in his series of 15 cartoons drawn especially for Perspectives. As you read, and especially when you do come to Washington, keep in mind what was stated earlier-there are no simple questions, there are no absolute answers. What is important is that you ask questions and think deeply about the complex issues facing us now and in the future... that you form your own perspectives. As students concerned with learning about government, and as citizens par- ticipating in it, we are confident that CLOSE UP will be a memorable and a learning experience for you. Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : QA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 200 10/13 : qlA-RDP -01315R000200160007-2 ection i. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: The Policy Makers Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 1. THE PRESIDENCY: Power and Leadership "All see, and most admire, the glare which hovers around the external trappings of elevated office. To me there is nothing in it, beyond the lustre which may be reflected from its connection with a power of promoting human felicity. " George Washington The Constitution states that every four years the people of the United States shall elect a President, in whom the "executive power" shall be vested. November, 1976, marked the forty-eighth occasion in our history that we have exercised this most fundamental of our democratic rights. As in any election cam- paign the focus was on the men themselves-their personalities as well as their policy positions, their images as well as their past experience. Now we need to focus our attention on the institution-the Presidency. The powers and responsibilities of the Presidency are great and diverse: Chief Executive, Commander-in-Chief; party leader, national leader, world leader; efficient administrator, effective sponsor of legislation. In many ways these powers and responsibilities differ from those conferred upon George Washington in 1789. The Presidency has evolved with the changing needs of the times, and as each President has left his mark upon the institution... yet it is also true (as proven by the Watergate crisis) that there are definite limits beyond which these powers cannot be stretched. Today, after a decade which saw one President decline under pressure to run for re-election and another forced to resign, our nation continues to debate questions of presidential power and leadership. What should be the limits on the powers of a President? What are those special qualities of leadership which make certain men great Presidents? In this chapter former assistants to Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon are among the authors who discuss these and other questions. In addition, the first of a series of Perspectives Panels presents you with a symposium on the lesson of Watergate. Such key figures as Senator Howard Baker and Congressman Peter Rodino have contributed their views. Finally, a series of charts and diagrams will help you learn about the leading figures in the Carter Administration. Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 HOW MUCH POWER FOR sulates him from public opinion. So, partisans of THE PRESIDENT? both institutions argue that supreme authority in our system is legitimately theirs. Harry C. McPherson This is a fitting question with which to begin a book about government in these post- Vietnam, post-Watergate years. Harry McPherson has been in Washington since 1956 during which time he has worked in the U.S. Senate, the Pentagon, the State Depart- ment and as Special Counsel to President Lyndon B. Johnson (1964-69). He has wit- nessed and been involved with government under six different Presidents. He is also the author of A Political Education, "a journal of life with Senators, Generals, Cabinet Members and Presidents. " He wrote this article especially for Perspectives. Very likely no people on earth spend as much time worrying about the balance between executive and legislative power as Americans do. Totalitarian governments have no barriers to the exercise of executive power. Even in our sister democracies in Europe, where there is strong competition between the political parties, the legislature ordinarily supports the executive's program once the election is over. Yet the Founding Fathers carefully wrote into the Constitution provisions for the separation of powers-for "checks and balances" between the executive, legislature and the judiciary. Under this system of divided powers, the contest between the President and the Congress often begins after election day. Recent events show this to be true even when the President is a member of the same political party (in this case, the Demo- cratic Party) that holds the majority in Congress. At the root of much of the competition and the conflict is the fact that both the President and the Congress claim to represent and to act on behalf of "the people." The President can fairly claim to be the only official in government to have been chosen by the majority will of all the people; therefore, it is argued, he alone represents us all. Representa- tives in the House can say, with equal justice, that they are "closest to the people." Facing the voters every two years, it is argued that they represent the popular will more intimately and responsively than does the President whose four-year term in- A Bold and Forceful, but not Imperial, Presidency From the earliest days of the Republic, the argument has raged about how much authority should be vested in the President, and how much retained by the "popular branch of government," the Congress. The Founders so mistrusted executive government-which they identified with King George III and his commanders and colonial governors-that they were inclined to give very little explicit power to the President. Probably it was only the certainty that the uni- versally admired and trusted George Washington would become the first President that caused the Founders to give the office what clear consti- tutional powers it has. Since then, events and the personalities of Presidents have shaped the Presidency, as well as our sense of what its right- ful authority should be. As with any issue that has been debated for two centuries, there are at least two sides to this "HE SEEMS TO HAZE THIS IDEA THAT HE " CAA D? TOE J013 WITHOUT US Copyright 1977 by Herblock in the Washington Post Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : JIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 A rov d For Release 2004/10/13: CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 one. First, let us exat ine tehe case for a bold and ""The President must be more 'account- forceful Presidency. During the 1950's, many observers thought that meeting America's able to the people and to the Congress. problems demanded bold and forceful leadership Accountability is the opposite of unchecked from the White House. The President ought not power." to be obstructed, they argued, by Congressmen whose only interest lay in serving the special Accountability to Congress and to the People interests of their districts. He should be given the flexibility to use government programs, tax Accountability is the opposite of unchecked policies and appropriations in rational ways-not power. It means that the powers of any one as petty politics required. In foreign affairs, he branch of government, or any one individual, are should be empowered to meet sudden emergen- "checked" and "balanced" by powers granted by cies abroad with military power, economic aid the Constitution to other branches of government. or with whatever swift and decisive action was For example, the Supreme Court has on occasion needed. To permit a Southern senator or a stepped in to deny a President the power to take a Western congressman to tie up aid to the cities, certain action, because it exceeded his con- action to guarantee civil rights, or a response to stitutional authority. Public opinion also acts as a foreign aggression, only jeopardized the interests check, expressed either in Presidential elections or of all the people. through Members of Congress. Probably the most For those who believed that the Presidency common check on a President is the Congress. had become too powerful, the events of Vietnam In recent years the Congress has begun to and Watergate substantiated their arguments. reassert itself in passing new laws to hold the Many of the same people who had previously President and the entire Executive Branch more advocated a strong Presidency grew to think that accountable. One area in which the exercise of the Presidency had become "Imperial," con- broad authority by different Presidents through- centrating power in ways that endangered our out our history has been met by ardent opposition liberty and safety. From this perspective, and criticism in the Congresses of their times is Congress became the defender of public rights, "national security." not the barrier to progress. During the Civil War, President Abraham In my view, there is much that is right, and Lincoln far exceeded the strict limits of his much that is shortsighted in both opinions. The authority by suspending the right of habeus complexity of many national and international corpus, authorizing the opening of mail, and tak- problems today-energy production, environ- ing other steps that ignored individual rights. But mental protection, the reduction of unemploy- he acted, as he said, to preserve the Union against ment and inflation, international economic the gravest threat it had ever faced, and few relations-require the attention of a strong and faulted him for it. Prior to our entry into World resourceful Executive. "Government can't do War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt's trade everything," true; but Government must do some of destroyers for bases with England was accom- things, and the doing of those things is chiefly an plished without the formal consent of Congress. executive function. Some have criticized FDR for evading the con- On the other hand, we've learned that a stitutional requirement that Congress must President surrounded by the trappings of power approve treaties. Roosevelt believed, and most can become remote from the people and their historians agree, that the situation demanded representatives, and can-without evil in- quick action to save England and thus to protect tentions-come to feel that he alone has the wis- America's security. dom to perceive, and the authority to pursue, However, it cannot be said that Presidents national goals. If future Presidents are to retain may always ignore constitutional limitations on the confidence of the people on which the success their authority, when in their judgment the of the Presidency depends, they will have to open national security is threatened. President Nixon's the decision-making process more fully to the defenders argued that his actions, which later people, and invite the greater participation of brought about his near-impeachment and Congress in making those decisions. That is to resignation, were justified because national say, the President must be more "accountable" to security was threatened in the early 1970's by sub- the people and to the Congress. version and even treason. President Johnson's Approved For Release 2004/10/43 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 r~~t~ Administration c~apPme4a?rt~iee1 had in effect been endorsed by Congress, in the Tonkin Gulf Resolution of 1964, and in the appropriations which Congress annually voted for the military services who were conducting the war. But a formal declaration of war was never sought, and as the war ground on without the prospect of victory or a tolerable peace agreement, the public and the Congress withdrew their support for it and the Johnson Administration itself. The Nixon and Johnson Administrations were unlike in most respects, but both asserted the authority to identify, and to protect as they saw fit, the national security interests of the United States. Likewise, both suffered the consequences when the people judged otherwise. In 1974 Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, aimed at making presidential power more accountable to it in matters of national security. The War Powers Resolution requires the President to terminate the use of American forces in hostilities abroad within sixty days, unless in that time Congress declares war or votes to extend the sixty-day period. This resolution was aimed at preventing other Vietnam-and-Cambodia-type wars, by requiring the specific approval of Congress for American military involvement. Its purpose was also to regain a strong voice in matters of national security for the Congress. Conclusion: How Will the Pendulum of Power Swing? Congress has passed other laws aimed at making Presidential power more accountable to it and to the general public. One such law is known as the "sunshine law". Its provisions require that executive branch agencies and Cabinet depart- ments permit the public to observe their decision- making processes. Congress is also considering a "sunset law" by which agencies will expire after a specified period of time unless Congress acts to extend them. All these laws are responses to the threat of unaccountable power in the Presidency, and of uncontrolled growth in government. They assert the power of Congress to share in making vital decisions and of the public to see and criticize the performance of officials whom they have never elected, but who exercise great authority in making the rules that increasingly affect their lives. Whether the pendulum will swing too far, whether in the aftermath of Vietnam and Water- gate, Congress so ties the President's hands that a CLFQ~8>%J?J0g1 qW7Apond to a de- pression, or help save an embattled England, only time will tell. What is certain is that the argument we have conducted for two centuries, over the appropriate limits of Presidential and Congressional authority, will continue into the third. THE MAN AND THE OFFICE: A CALL FOR INTEGRITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY Clark R. Mollenhoff Clark Mollenhoff was a special assistant to President Richard M. Nixon from 1969 to 1970, when he resigned this position. Prior to working at the White House, he won the Pulitzer Prize for national reporting. He is presently Washington bureau chief for the Des Moines Register and Tribune. He has written numerous books on American government, including: Despoilers of Democracy, Game Plan For Disaster, and Tentacles of Power. In this article he dis- cusses the character and other qualities which are important in anyone who serves as President. Recent history and the revelations of mis- deeds by our Presidents have marred the shining, unrealistic image we had of the Office of the President of the United States. Yet we can hope that in the long term this will be for the good of the American democracy. For one thing we have intensified the national discussion of what qualities we look for in a President. Ideally a President should be a person of great integrity who can supply moral leadership to the nation. The manner in which Presidential power is used or misused is to a large extent con- tingent upon the integrity and sense of fair play of the President himself. He must not be vulnerable to charges of personal political corruption or of condoning corruption in the ranks of his sup- Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : clA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 porters. He must pd s?t`i cfeg Rlgffl ftfitO/13 sees beyond the political expediency of the moment and recognizes that abuse of power is bad for the people as well as for the President. This is a most important characteristic of a President's politics and personality. In judging his integrity it is essential to go beyond his own self-serving declarations and the claims of his political supporters. Some of the worst scoundrels in political life have thumped the Bible and talked a good game. People must also see through the carefully contrived television images that all Presidents project. A President with this kind of integrity and experience could effectively direct overall policy making, set a high moral tone, and be free to take corrective action when his administration or any government agency becomes bogged down in corruption or mismanagement. Secrecy and Lack of Accountability Lead to the Abuse of Power Watergate has dramatically demonstrated the lack of moral leadership of one President, as well as his shocking lack of knowledge of how to manage the government. It also disclosed clearly the manner in which the awesome power we give our Presidents can be misused to cover up crimes by a President and his political associates. In the aftermath of Watergate a series of Congressional hearings have disclosed the man- ner in which many of our Presidents misused the power of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Post Office, and the Civil Service Commission, to name only a few agencies that spring quickly to mind. While the Nixon Administration was the focus of major attention in Watergate, it is now generally admitted that all of our administrations for at least the past forty years engaged in abuses of power that were somewhat comparable. For our purposes, it is not necessary to judge or even speculate as to which President engaged in or permitted the greatest abuses of power. It should be sufficient to recognize that every President is tempted to misuse the tremendous governmental power that he holds for his own political advantage, and that in varying degrees all of our recent Presidents have succumbed to the temptation. While the President must have tremendous power to effectively run the government, the con- tinuing problem for the voters is to assure that ('IA_RnDS2S2~n~ ~~ ~Rnnn7nn~ Rnnn7_7 "Every President is tempted to misuse the tremendous governmental power that he holds for his own political advantage, and in varying degrees all of our recent Presidents have succumbed to the temp- tation." there is a reasonably effective system of accounta- bility. Every President must be accountable to Congress, the courts and to the public. If there is unlimited executive privilege to hide the truth from the public, the important checks and balances will have gone out of our constitutional system. It is well to remember that every bit of government secrecy that is tolerated provides an atmosphere in which mismanagement and cor- ruption can flourish. If decisions can be made in secret or actions taken in secret there is a tremendous temptation for any administration to use the secrecy to cover its flaws. While some limited secrecy for national defense and similar purposes is essential, it cannot be an all-encompassing secrecy that is devoid of an accountability to some independent group, out- side the executive branch. If the facts are available to the public, the press and the political opposition, the voters will have all the protection they need against arbitrary authoritarian government. The effective use of this information must be left to the judgment and discretion of the individual voter. Each of us must decide whether the specific actions or policies of a President are in the public interest or in his (the President's) own interest. Some Fault Lies with Congress and the Press Compounding the problem for the voter to- day is the superficiality, incompetence and political bias of various segments of the press and the Congress. (Even the federal courts are in some instances politically or ideologically biased.) Even in the wake of Watergate, the press has permitted and promoted some aspects of the "imperial Presidency" to continue in the Ford and Carter Administrations. The tough questions are not asked at press conferences for fear of being identified and punished as a critic of the in- cumbent administration. Questions that might be distasteful to the President are avoided entirely, or are worded in a manner that permits an evasive answer that dodges the issue. Approved For Release 2004/10/83 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 the small society NOW1'OYOU KNOWCIEFAULT 15 IN MY L IAOIN6? Congress, after showing a few signs of re- belling against Presidential power during the Ford Administration, has tried to paper over its differences with President Carter. While a few members of the House and Senate are still insist- ing upon a high standard of accountability, the pressure of politics is for a Democratic Congress to conform to the wishes of a Democratic President. This is disturbing. There are also many examples of Senators and Congressmen becoming lap dogs because of the fear of prosecution by the Justice Department or a desire to receive favored treatment for pet projects for their districts. These are the realities of political life that every voter and every newsman must take into account in making an analysis of Presidential actions on complicated issues before the nation. The Office of the President is powerful, but that power can be used for political good or evil. There is no real "proving ground" for candidates. Voters can only examine the evidence available on a nonpartisan and nonideological basis, and then to some degree take the President on faith. They must look for a man whose actions indicate a real concern for injustice and a courage to intervene on the side of right even when this means opposing the establishment power structure. He must demonstrate an understanding of the im- portance of due process of law in achieving honest government! Above all, he should be a man who can admit mistakes on policy or in appointments and coura- geously take the steps to correct such errors at the earliest possible stage. While no single man can possess all of the ideal abilities the Presidency demands, there are a large number of men in public life with the experience and the character needed to do the job effectively and with integrity. yova FoLLoWtNG- v'/'?,(~,,~,r 4-,9 Reprinted by permission Small Society and The Washington Star Syndicate, permission granted by King Features Syndicate, 1975. "THE PRESIDENCY IN PERSPECTIVE" Winton M. Blount Mr. Blount is a former Postmaster General of the United States, appointed in 1969 by President Nixon. This article is taken from a speech he delivered to the Georgia Highway Contractors' Association on September 21, 1974. While the previous articles discussed the powers of the President, this addresses the questions of leadership: What kind of leader do we expect? What kind of leader should we expect? To what extent have both we the American people and our Presidents become victims of false images and un- realistic expectations? One of the remarks heard most frequently in recent weeks is that we have come through a long national nightmare. And all the signs we see about us suggest that we are preparing to plunge back into another national nightmare. The fact is that if we do not somehow find a way to restore a human dimension to the Office of the President of the United States, we are going to stagger along from one crisis of leadership to the next. What the end result will be is anybody's guess-except that whatever it is, it will be disastrous. There are a number of observers today who believe that we are heading into a long period of one-term Presidents. There are as many reasons for this as there are people who share that basic viewpoint. The common denominator in all these points of view is that no President will be able to maintain sufficient credibility as the nation's Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : (2A-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 leader to enable hii pffgg elf R Ie~ e ~ o0 / 0/13 ~cl-d 2~Pnev01me5"situa ion16anOresolve itself so one term. I am not convinced that this is true. But if it is true, then what we are really saying is that the American people are losing their capacity to govern themselves. The President is the only elected official in our entire structure who represents all the people. If he cannot maintain the confidence of a majority of Americans for more than four years for whatever reasons, then we stand a very good chance of ending up as the world's most powerful banana republic... More Realistic Expectations for the Presidency ... The problem is simply that, as a people, we have lost real perspective on the Office of the Presidency. The institution itself has become one more media event. Our expectations of the man are shaped by the media rather than by a sense of our own history. Our demands on the Office are conditioned by more than three decades of concentrating power in Washington, relinquish- ing our destiny as a whole people into the hands of a single person, and investing that person with a kind of infallibility to justify what amounts to be a refusal to accept our own civic responsibilities. But the President is only a man. And no man is infallible. Yet in the circumstances we create around a President, when the man makes a mis- take, we are offended and react as though he has somehow failed us by not living up to the standard we set for him. We condemn him simply for being human. It is small wonder that a President-any President-tries to maintain his image of in- fallibility; small wonder that he tries to have the media maintain for him this image of someone who never stumbles, never misjudges, never has a bad day. Ironically the media go along-giving him what has become almost a tradition-a honeymoon period-and then after treating him like a superhuman being, they turn on him as though by being human and fallible he has some- how deceived them. A case in point is President Ford's pardoning of Richard Nixon. The reaction was totally out of proportion to the merits of the case. In the past fourteen years, we have had one President assassinated, one hounded out of office, and one forced out of office, in disgrace and under a cloud of wrongdoing. It would be simple to suppose that America was having an incredible run of bad luck, and that we will shortly return to electing Presidents who fit our view of what a President should be and what he should do. But I easily. The problem does not lie with the men we elect, but with what we expect of these men. We must return to the basic constitutional proposition that the American government is a government of the people and by the people. We have to place as much responsibility for our governance with our Congressmen and our Senators as we place with the President. We have to hold our governors and our state legislators as critical to our way of life as we hold the Federal Government. And we have to ask as much of ourselves as we ask of our President-for he is one of us. Both citizens and the media simply must be more mature in our perception of the Presidency. The Presidency is a great and an essential in- stitution in American government. But it is not the only institution. It is not even the most im- portant institution. It is a part of the whole, and we have to see American government whole again, and see that we all have a role in it, if we are to bring the role of the President back into per- spective. If we fail in this endeavor, if we continue to treat the President as the beginning and the end of American government, if we continue to put him on a pedestal, making his every action a media event and his diet a subject for headlines, his family the focus of every feature section, if we continue to turn on him and savage him when he does not live up to the royal image we have given him, and if we continue to see our own civic responsibilities consisting simply of voting once every two or four years, then we will indeed be watching what George Reedy called "the twi- light of the Presidency." We have the right to expect our President to be a good and an honorable man who does the best he can as he is given the wisdom to do it. But that is all we have the right to expect. It is as much as we could expect of ourselves. Instead, we want a man who has the courage of David, the wisdom of Solomon, the probity of Lincoln, the patience of Job, and the looks of Tyrone Power. We want what never has been, and never will be, and if we persist in demanding this media-manu- factured notion of what a President ought to be, we're going to end up with a President whose chief advisors are his makeup man, his tailor and his barber. That is not what the Constitution had in mind. Approved For Release 2004/10813 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/1Oil 3 What we need today is not a false image o a President that plays well in the press, and not a king who takes all responsibility for all aspects of our national life and most of our personal life. We need a man capable of meeting his responsibilities within the context of one of three co-equal branches of government, a man whom we will permit to decide what he has the right to decide, whom we will not permit to decide what the CI Consstitutioln coees notOgivc mm the right to decide, and a man whom we will permit to be human- capable of both majesty and mistakes. The simple fact, ladies and gentlemen, is that in spite of all of the power of the Office, the future of the Presidency is in our hands. Reprinted with permission of "Vital Speeches of the Day, " published by City News Publishing Company, P.O. Box 606, Southold, New York. KNOW THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT The Executive Office of the President (see the Structure of the Executive Branch diagram in Chapter Two) consists of the President's immediate advisers, administrators, policy analysts and other assistants. They are appointed by the President without the need for Senate confirmation. These individuals are very influential because they are close and trusted associates of their President, frequently having worked on or supported his campaign. President Franklin D. Roosevelt referred to the Executive Office as his "brain trust. " Under President Dwight D. Eisenhower they were called the "kitchen cabinet. " H. R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, John Dean and Ron Zeigler were all in President Richard Nixon's Executive Office. Here is a list of some key figures in the Carter White House. Some of the names are probably more familiar than others. 1) Identify their official titles and 2) Find out what their powers and responsibilities are. Responsibilities Zbigniew Brzezinski Charles L. Schultze Thomas B. (Bert) Lance Margaret (Midge) Costanza Jody Powell Barry Jagoda Timothy E. Kraft Stuart E. Eizenstat Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : qlA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 THE EXE~~r~-~~~~ti10/13 :CIA-RDP88-013158000200160007-2 1II confirmed by the Senate; White House staff are AND THE MAKING OF appointed by the President without the advise or consent of the Senate. DOMESTIC POLICY Although comparisons are extremely Lee C. White difficult, it seems that, in general, the quality of Mr. White has had a long and distinguished career in government service. He served as Assistant Special Counsel to President Kennedy and Special Counsel to President Johnson. From 1966 to 1969 he was chairman of the Federal Power Commission. His experience in the executive branch makes him a valuable commentator on the question of domestic policy and the effects of centralization of power in the White House. Mr. White wrote this article exclusively for publication in Perspectives in the summer of 1976, before the Presidential election. Modern Presidents are determined, as can- didates and as newly inaugurated chief execu- tives, to get control of the executive branch of the Government and to make it responsive to their campaign pledges and to their philosophy. How- ever, that has proven to be a somewhat difficult and frustrating task. Perhaps this is best illus- trated by the musing of outgoing President Truman about the problems General Eisenhower would experience when he became President Eisenhower, in that he would issue orders and directives and would falsely assume they would be instantly and unquestionably implemented as had been the case during his military career. It was less than fifty years ago when President Herbert Hoover's White House staff had only two or three professionals. In more recent years, however, White House staffs have grown substantially. As the problems of this country have become more complex and difficult, the executive branch and in particular the Executive Office of the President have played an increasingly active role. The Cabinet and the Domestic Council This has created considerable tension between Cabinet secretaries and agency heads, on the one hand, and White House staff on the other. All high-ranking Cabinet and agency officials must be nominated by the President and then Cabinet officers (meaning the ability or the in- dividuals who are willing to accept posts) is in- versely related to the degree of authority that White House staff is given over department and agency heads. That is, the more dominant the White House staff is on matters of domestic policy, the less chance there is of attracting top individuals to Cabinet posts. In the Kennedy and Johnson Adminis- trations, there was a natural tension between White House staff and Cabinet officers. For the most part, there were no situations-at least not any that were publicly identified as such-in which Cabinet officers were met with a stonewall when they attempted to reach the President, either to press a program or to appeal a decision regarded by them as adverse. Newspaper accounts suggest that in the Nixon Administration it was not uncommon for Cabinet officers to be given flat instructions from the top White House staff personnel without any opportunity for recourse or appeal to the President. The Ford Administration is a more open one. Although there is no definitive information available on the point, it would seem that once again Cabinet officers and agency heads are at least able on occasion to make their pitch directly and face-to-face to the President. The Domestic Council includes the principal White House staff advisers to the President on questions of domestic policy. The function of the Domestic Council is to pull together various domestic policy goals and to provide coordinating and evaluating capability for the President. In a sense, this somewhat duplicates the assignment of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). In actual practice, the relative influences of the Domestic Council and the OMB reflect the op- erating style, preferences and practices of each particular President. The ability, the personality and the relationship to the President of Domestic Council key personnel are among the more significant factors in how any particular Council operates and how influential it is. These advisers must have a deep understanding of the President's views, attitudes and policy positions. Put in slightly different terms, the head of the Domestic Council is expected to have enough sense and good judgment to know when issues should be presented. Approved For Release 2004/I (j/,/ 3 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 The Cabinet Discusses the Energy Problem Comparative Glance at the Domestic Policies of Recent Administrations The process by which any White House functions is of considerable interest and obvious importance. But in the longer sweep of time, the process is simply a means to certain ends. Thus it is appropriate, even if it is difficult, to take a backward look in order to determine what were the policy objectives, and how effectively were they met in different administrations. At the risk of the wildest possible oversimplification and of being 100% wrong (if it is possible to be that wrong), it is fair to say that the Kennedy-Johnson Administrations adopted or accepted as a primary goal the elimination of the insidious dis- crimination against minority groups in this country that had been a part of our national heritage. This was a tradition so deeply ingrained that its elimination was expected to be-and was-extremely difficult. Nevertheless, giant strides were made in this direction and I believe that historians of seventy-five years from now will mark those two Administrations as the definite turning point in coming to grips with discrimina- tion in the United States. Efforts to redistribute income-the war on poverty-will be noted as having moved us towards that national goal with some considerable achievements, although never fully realizing the proclaimed objective. Un- doubtedly, the Viet Nam war debacle will loom large in any evaluation of the Johnson Presidency, and the national divisiveness that was created will also be deemed to be a part of the fruits of that period. The Nixon Administration, somewhat like the Eisenhower Administration, apparently saw itself as a consolidator of programs and policies that had been adopted, and set for themselves the goals of better and sounder administration and implementation of the new proliferating pro- grams. The first four years of the Nixon Ad- ministration produced a centralization and control over the executive branch that perhaps might have been the envy of other administra- tions, but the revelations of the second portion of the Nixon years demonstrated again the dark and negative aspects of excessive concentration of authority in a small number of people. If centrali- zation and control were the dominant goals of President Nixon, they were achieved, but at a terrible price to the national psyche and to national morale. The cutting back of some programs from earlier administrations was hardly a national objective. In evaluating the domestic policy of the Nixon Administration, there may well have been some programs that merited elimination or reduction, but no strong case has been made that the right ones were scuttled. "Law and Order" as a goal today seems like a mockery. President Ford assumed the Office under the most difficult of circumstances. In general, he has moved to restore confidence in the integrity of the governmental process, if not in its ability to identify, analyze and resolve national problems. A national Presidential election affords the voters an opportunity to focus on the two basic choices that are offered by way of candidates, parties and platforms. A cynical view is that the platforms are really not very reliable indicators of what might come to pass if the candidate of the party espousing that particular platform happens to get elected. But hope springs eternal and it may well be that the election of 1976, with fairly "Power may justly be compared to a great river which, while kept within its due bounds is both beautiful and useful; but when it overflows its banks. . . it wears down all before it and brings destruction and desolation wherever it comes." Alexander Hamilton Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : flA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release2Ot04/10/13 : IA-RDP8 -01315 00Q200160007-2 sharply drawn lines weep he two can i a es of irections in whie tithe country should move. the two major political parties of this country, will With good luck, the campaign just might serve afford the citizenry a chance to indicate basic that desirable function. THE CABINET: Q & A What is the Cabinet? The Cabinet now consists of 12 Secretaries, each of whom is the head of a "department." Cabinet "rank" is also given to such other high-ranking Presidential aides as the Ambassador to the United Nations, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. What are the responsibilities of a Secretary? A Secretary is the administrator responsible for the implementation of programs passed into law by the Congress and other policies determined by the President. He or she is also an adviser to the President, assisting him in the formulation of policy proposals. How are Secretaries chosen? They are nominated by the President and must be approved by the Senate. Most Presidents choose individuals who have experience and expertise in the particular policy area, although political support during the campaign has also traditionally been a factor. Did the Constitution call for 12 Cabinet departments? No. In fact, there is no mention of a Cabinet in the Constitution. However, Article II, Section 2 did give the President the authority to create a Cabinet. George Washington's first Cabinet (1789) consisted of only four members-the Secretaries of State, Treasury, War and the Attorney General. The most recently created departments are Transportation (1966) and the Department of Energy (August 1977). Who creates a Cabinet department? The President must submit a plan to Congress to create a new department, terminate an old one, or merge different ones. He cannot act without the approval of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Are all Cabinet departments located in Washington? Yes, but they have regional offices throughout the country. The heads of these offices are res- ponsible to the secretary in Washington. They are in charge of administering the department's programs in their regions. How big are the departments? Each department includes many subdivisions and separate agencies with specialized functions. For example, the Treasury Department includes such different agencies as the Secret Service, the Internal Revenue Service and the Bureau of the Mint. Each has its own head officer, but the Secretary of the Treasury retains overall authority and responsibiliity. The size of each department's budget varies, from the $129 billion for the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, to the $2.1 billion for the Justice Department (figures are for 1976). Approved For Release 2004/10113 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 1AD Approved For Release - Q WNEl f,0 ,Q,3 0 With the above information as background, study this chart to gain a better understanding of the policy areas of each department. Then see if you can fill in the names of all twelve Secretaries. Daily newspapers, weekly newsmagazines and the evening television news will be helpful in discovering these answers. For further information, consult the U.S. Government Manual in your library, or write directly to the Office of Information for the particular department (you can easily find the address in your library). Promote and Assist Agriculture GRICULTURE 1) Aid to farmers 4) Food stamp program 2) Inspection of foodstuffs 5) Soil, forest and water 3) Rural development conservation 6) International trade Promote Industry and Business OMMERCE 1) International trade 5) Oceanic and Atmospheric 2) Assistance to Administration depressed areas 6) Merchant Marine 3) Weather Bureau 4) Census Bureau Provide for the National Defense 1) Joint Chiefs of 4) Military aid programs DEFENSE Staff 2) Army, Navy, 5) Arms sales Air Force, Marines 3) Overseas troops and military bases A Coordinated National Energy Policy ENERGY 1) Allocate oil and natural 4) Research and devel- gas supplies opment of alter- 2) Set natural gas prices native energy 3) Energy conservation sources 5) Nuclear weapons and energy research The Nation's Human Concerns HEALTH, EDUCATION 1) Aid to education 4) Social Security AND WELFARE 2) Public health Administration 3) Welfare 5) Special programs for the elderly, children (Head Start), handicapped Housing and Community Development OUSING AND URBAN 1) Housing programs 4) Relief from natural EVELOPMENT 2) Urban restoration disasters C 3) Mortgage insurance Department Secretary Policy Areas Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : qtA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 A H D Approv TRANSPORTATION /10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Custodian of the Nation's Resources 1) Leasing of federally 4) Mining technology owned land and safety 2) National Park Service 5) Fish and wildlife 3) Bureau of Indian Affairs conservation Lawyers for the Government and the People 1) Administration of 4) FBI Federal prisons (5) Immigration and 2) Civil Rights Division naturalization 3) Antitrust Division Promote the Welfare of American Wage Earners 1) Administer Federal 4) Collective bargaining labor laws 5) General economic 2) Job training policy 3) Unemployment insurance Foreign Policy I) Foreign Service 4) Negotiate treaties (Ambassadors, 5) Educational exchanges Embassies) 2) Foreign economic aid 3) International trade Federal Transportation Policy 1) Federal highway system 4) Coast Guard 2) Urban mass transit 5) Experimental Programs 3) Air safety standards Monetary and Economic Policy 1) Taxes (Internal 4) Secret Service Revenue Service) 5) Customs Service 2) Minting of coins, 6) Alcohol, tobacco and currency, stamps firearms control 3) International trade Approved For Release 2004/10tli3 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 PERSPECTIVES PANEL: LESSONS OF WATERGATE While the series of events commonly known as "Watergate" has undeniably had a tre- mendous impact on our nation, many people believe that we still do not sufficiently under- stand either its causes or its full effects. The "lessons" to be learned from Watergate also vary among different individuals with different analyses. Here in 1976, four years after the break-in and two years after the resignation, could you share with us your thoughts on one or more of the following questions: -What do you believe are the central lessons to be learned from Watergate? -What significant changes have re- sulted which make another such crisis less likely? -What necessary reforms have not yet come about? Senator Howard H. Baker, Jr. (R-Tenn.) Ranking Minority Member, Senate "Watergate" Committee The effects emanating from the whole spec- trum of affairs known as "Watergate" will con- tinue to be felt in the American political arena for years to come. The task which now confronts those of us still serving in government is to restore the loss of credibility and trust which were the by- products of the Watergate affair and to say by both our words and our actions that abuses of power are still the exception in government rather than the norm. Perhaps the most troubling question which now persists is "Where do we go from here?" or as your Close Up leaders postulated, "What lessons have we learned?" Although one could write volumes on this very issue, I believe the one overriding acknowledgement is that "the govern- ment still belongs to the people." This principle can best be reinforced in two or three ways. One, a more open and forthright approach to Congressional and Executive activities is essential. Laws which have recently opened Congressional hearings at all levels to the public will be helpful. Second, the most "secretive" agencies of government, the in- telligence community, are under more direct control and scrutiny by a new Congressional committee than at any time in their history. CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Three, the gradual rebuilding of trust and cooperation between the Congress and Executive, which has already started, must continue to expand. In other words, government should have learned to be more open, protective and honest with the citizenry it was created to serve. This is because our people remain America's greatest resource, and all the people must have access to the governmental institutions of which they are a part. Congressman Peter W. Rodino, Jr. (D-N.J.) Chairman, House Judiciary Committee As much as any event in our history, Water- gate emphasized the importance of the bonds of trust that must exist between the people and their elected leaders if government is to work. There is no way to legislate such a trust, nor can it be created by executive order. Rather it must rest upon the people themselves, their vigilance, their insistence that those elected to high office must labor always in the public interest. If there is an unlearned lesson of Watergate it is this. Today, more than half those eligible to vote claim that they will not, principally because they doubt that their ballot will make much difference. They are wrong, and their mistake was clearly demonstrated by the events of Watergate itself. Confronted with wrongdoing of a magni- tude never before experienced in American government, the people of this nation demanded that an accounting be made and that justice be done. The impeachment inquiry, the trials and legal battles-all were a result of the people in- sisting through their elected representatives that a final reckoning must be made. There can be no doubt that the public aware- ness and understanding of the complexities of the case was far greater than anyone anticipated. The nation watched and listened, and when the evi- dence was in it delivered its own verdict. The ability of an aroused citizenry to compel proper governmental action in times of crisis is an attribute that has been seen before in America. Certainly it was there during the American Revolution, in the Civil War, the Great De- pression, World Wars I and II. It was there dur- ing Watergate, as well, and it served as a remind- er that the strength of a democracy is utterly de- pendent upon the will and determination of the people. While Watergate was one of our most tragic national episodes, it showed that the fiber of the American character remains strong. Approved For Release 2004/10/1315 CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Congressman William S. Cohen (R-Maine) Member, House Judiciary Committee There are many lessons to be derived from the Watergate experience. One lesson would be that our elected officials should never forget that, in a democracy, dissent and opposition are not only desirable, they are indispenable. To seek unanimity of thought and action is the hallmark of a fascist state, not a free one. Moreover, there is a lesson for the American people that we must demand and insist upon access to facts and information and not rely upon pious pronouncements from government officials and agencies. We must insist upon an end to secrecy and demand strict accountability. We must never again tolerate any public official to wrap himself in the mantle of his office and engage in the sophistry that the destiny of this country is directly dependent upon his future success and survival. What can we do to prevent future Water- gates? There is no guarantee against future abuses of power. But it has been noted that the over-concentration of power in one branch of government-the reduction of public debate and Congressional participation in the decision-mak- ing process, the absence of openness and accountability-insures the inevitability of error and abuse. Watergate also revealed something very strong and positive about our country, our people and our principles. We, like the people in any other nation, have moral capacity to do wrong. But unlike most other people in many other nations, we have the will and perhaps more im- portantly, we have the freedom to do what is right. Congressman Timothy E. Wirth (D-Colo.) The central lesson of Watergate is that good government requires correct procedure as well as wise policy. In other words, it's not enough for us to do the right thing; we also have to do it in the right way. It was former President Nixon's error-and, in the end, his misfortune-to believe that the end justifies the means. He and his advisers believed that the American political system requires a strong Presidency if it is to function efficiently at home and to protect us from our enemies abroad. Because they believed that the President must dominate the system if it is to work, they were willing to ignore and even subvert the procedures established by the Constitution, whenever those procedures created roadblocks to the realization of the Presidential will. Indifference to the Constitution, an indif- ference bordering at times on contempt, was a hallmark of the Nixon Administration, long be- fore Watergate. The novel constitutional argu- ments advanced in support of illegal pocket vetos and fund impoundments were forerunners of the startling constitutional arguments in favor of "inherent" Presidential power to wiretap without a warrant, and to make sweeping claims of execu- tive privilege. Ultimately it was, in a sense, the Constitution itself that forced Nixon from office. He had strained the system of checks and balances be- yond the system's capacity to tolerate strain. And it lashed back at him, in the form of a Congress unwilling any longer to be dominated by the White House. It was at bottom a conflict of in- stitutions, not of men or parties. Nixon never understood this, never seeing anything wrong with unchecked assertion of Presidential power, even now blaming his disgrace on unforgiving personal enemies. But if we can understand it, we will have learned the central lesson of Watergate. Mr. S. Steven Karalekas, Staff Assistant to President Richard M. Nixon (1971-73) It may sound strange to blame the Congress of the United States for the Watergate scandal, but that's exactly where I believe the fault lies. The Congress is at fault not because it authorized or financed the break-in of the Democratic Party headquarters at the Watergate complex, but because it had surrendered so much power to the executive branch of government that the President and his advisers came to view them- selves as above the law. While the office of the President became larger, more efficient and more vigorous in asserting authority over national affairs, Congress became weaker, less efficient and less willing to challenge the authority of the President. As a con- sequence, Presidents entered wars without declarations, made foreign policy by executive agreements instead of treaties, and regulated the domestic economy without Congressional super- vision. The system of checks and balances de- vised by the Founding Fathers had gone awry and, in my view, this set the stage for the abuses of Watergate. The central lesson to be learned from the ex- perience is that when one branch of government becomes so strong vis-a-vis another branch, the likelihood for abuses of power becomes great. A president and his advisers will feel safe in Approved For Release 2004/10/113b: CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R0 02001 0007-2 ' t committing such abuses since there really isn anyone around outside of the executive branch to do anything about it. It is my view that the resolution of the Water- gate episode was ultimately a victory for the democratic process, but one which was won barely by the skin of our constitutional teeth. The in- gredients which precipitated Watergate, namely, the power of the office of the President and the weakness of the Congress still exist and so long as this is so, the potential for another Watergate is great. The reforms which have taken place since the resignation of President Nixon have largely focused on the office of the President. The problem won't be solved until our attention is directed to the branch of government equally in need of revitalization-the Congress of the United States. Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman (D-N.Y.) Member, House Judiciary Committee The way we were able to deal with the Water- gate crisis taught us that our Constitution's framers were right in their profound skepticism of power. They set up three separate branches of government to prevent any branch, including the President, from getting too much power and des- troying our democracy. Because the Congress and the Supreme Court existed, because we had a system of checks and balances, President Nixon could not remain above the law. Rather than face certain impeach- ment for his crimes and misdemeanors, he became the only President in our history to resign. Unfortunately, President Ford pardoned him and he was permitted to avoid trial. This was a blow to our concept of equal justice under law for every person. We learned what our country's founders already knew: that we cannot take honesty in government for granted. We discovered that long- held myth-that everyone rises to the demands of the President-was just not true. Our President, Richard Nixon, and his two chief law enforcement officers, Attorneys General Mitchell and Kleindeinst broke the law and tried to "cover up" their actions. Since illegal campaign contributions financed some of the illegal actions, Congress took corrective steps. It passed laws placing strict limits on the size of campaign contributions, re- quiring full disclosure of campaign receipts and expenditures, and permitting public funding of Presidential campaigns. We have also learned the need for a healthy skepticism about our government. When Richard Nixon said that the tapes of his conversations should be kept secret because they contained national security information, many people be- lieved him. When the tapes were disclosed, though, there was no "national security" infor- mation on them, but instead discussions of criminal conduct. We learned from Watergate that no part of government should be permitted to operate in secret. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty," said one of our nation's founders. As a result of Watergate, we learned that the CIA and the FBI, which had been insulated from public accounta- bility, had broken the law and abused our trust. We have now begun to develop mechanisms to ensure that the FBI and the CIA operate within the law. The final lesson of Watergate is that Ameri- cans care-they want a government that they can trust and be proud of. No future President can ever again believe that the people will let him "get away with it." So long as the people of this country continue to insist that their officials conform to the rule of law, I believe our democracy will be safe. "The executive power was limited only by specific restrictions and prohibitions appearing in the Constitution or imposed by the Congress under the constitutional powers... Under this interpretation I did and caused to be done many things not previously done by the President and the heads of the departments. I did not usurp power, but I did greatly broaden the use of executive power." Theodore Roosevelt Approved For Release 2004/10/13 flA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For ReleaQAEN'113lMR?88-01315R000200160007-2 The chairman of the House committee which voted to impeach President Neon; the ranking Republican on the Senate committee which investigated Watergate; a member of the White House staff under President Nixon; and three other Members of Congress-each presents a different viewpoint on the "lessons of Watergate. " Look at the statements below and based on the Perspectives Panel, fill in the names of the authors who would agree with each. As you decide "who said what" ask yourself whether or not YOU agree with the different statements. 1) Dissent and opposition are indispensable in a democracy. Citizens must maintain an attitude of "healthy skepticism" towards their government officials. 2) There must be more accountability and less secrecy in government. 3) The real blame for Watergate lies with the Congress, because it surrendered so much power over the past forty years to the President and his advisers. 4) While it is true that the Watergate crisis was a painful and threatening experience for our nation, it also proved that our democratic system works. Freedom of the press, checks and balances, separation of powers-in the end the Constitution and the will of the American people did prevail. S) The Watergate cover-up was the final evidence of former President Nixon's belief that "the ends justify the means, " even when this belief led to actions in violation of the Constitution. 6) The central lesson of Watergate is that government must restore its credibility and trust among all Americans. This cannot be done by legislation or by executive order, but only by proper use of power by all government officials. "The Presidency is not merely an adminis- trative office. That's the least of it. It is more than an engineering job, efficient or inefficient. It is preeminently a place of moral leadership. All our great Presidents were leaders of thought at times when certain historic ideas in the life of the nation had to be clarified." Franklin D. Roosevelt Approved For Release 2004/104'83 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For 0 9 y 1of: or"00200160007-2 In the course of a single day an American President is probably called upon to fulfill a larger variety of responsibilities than any other individual in the world. He may have an early morning meeting with the Secretary of State and other foreign policy advisers, followed by a breakfast with Congressional leaders to gain support for a controversial economic bill. Before the morning is over the President may welcome the King of Sweden, confer with Democratic party state chairmen and present an award to the president of the National 4-H club. In the afternoon he may meet with his Cabinet, decide whether or not to withdraw troops from an overseas base, and consider proposals for a new housing bill. Then in the evening.. As you can see a President must fulfill numerous different roles. Here is a list of some of the major roles involved in being President. See if you can match each one to the newspaper headline and lead paragraph which best illustrates that role. All are actual headlines and stories taken from The New York Times, with the exception of #6 which is from The Washington Post. Head of State Commander-in-Chief Chief Legislator Crisis Decisionmaker Economic Planner Party Chief Chief Diplomat 1. U.S. DECLARES WAR, PACIFIC BATTLE WIDENS Washington, December 8 (1941)-The United States today formally declared war on Japan. Congress, with only one dissenting vote approved the resolution in the record time of 33 minutes after President Roosevelt denounced Japanese aggression in ringing tones. He personally delivered his message to a joint session of the Senate and the House. At 4: 10 P.M. he offered his signature to the resolution. 2. TRUMAN BIDS VOTERS DEFEAT CONGRESS `OBSTRUCTIONISTS'; SETS A 10-POINT PARTY PLAN Chicago, May 15 (1950)-President Truman wound up his cross-country "non-political" speaking tour tonight by leading a dazzling, blaring parade to Chicago Stadium where he delivered the Democratic party's keynote speech for this year's Congressional election campaign. 3. EISENHOWER, KHRUSHCHEV BEGIN CAMP DAVID TALKS AFTER HELICOPTER FLIGHT Gettysburg, Pa., September 25 (1959)-President Eisenhower and Premier Khrushchev began a general discussion of world affairs at a mountain retreat in Maryland tonight. Approved For Release 2004/10/13I9CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/14; CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 U.S. IMPOSES ARMS BLOCKADE ON CUBA ON FINDING OFFENSIVE MISSILE SITES; KENNEDY READY FOR SOVIET SHOWDOWN Washington, October 22 (1962)-President Kennedy imposed a naval and air "quarantine" tonight on the shipment of offensive military equipment to Cuba.... 5. JOHNSON STATE OF UNION ADDRESS PROVIDES BUDGET OF $97.9 BILLION, WAR ON POVERTY, ATOMIC CUTBACK Washington, January 8 (1964)-President Johnson, reporting for the first time on the State of the Union... called for a wide -ranging program to end poverty and discrimination at home and the threat of war abroad. 6. BRITISH QUEEN VISITS D.C.; ELIZABETH II AND PHILIP GREETED AT WHITE HOUSE Washington, July 8 (1976)-Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth 11 arrived in Washington yesterday ... At the White House President Ford escorted the Queen to a review of troops from the different branches of the armed services, and "on behalf of the American people" welcomed the Queen and her party. 7. CONGRESS IS GIVEN ECONOMIC PLAN; JOBS ASKED FOR VIETNAM VETERANS. CARTER AIDES DESCRIBE $31 BILLION PACKAGE Washington, January 27 (1977)-The Carter Administration presented to Congress today its $31.1 billion package of economic stimulants, including a $50 tax rebate aimed at 96 percent of the population as the centerpiece of plans to spur growth through greater consumption. View Q Zvi ~iisig+ ii" The Pcesid ncy -To speak w; f +he president, ftrsF pn,it 1O- requeet on m T& _M. card and +hen iAV it i,ii-o eca' ter 0. (es '- "b ill ur~1 ~b ~ v W~ gVPStjpfl$ Z 3 P m. Mou- RAJ Approved For Release 2004/10M : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release-204 A/~p~ ~ 4W rresi ency 200160007-2 Accountability-the obligation of elected, officials to serve the interests of, and to be answerable to, their constituents. When applied to the President, meaning is similar to checks and balances; power that is checked. Checks and Balances-a fundamental principle in the U.S. Constitution, that each of the three branches of government exercises checks on the others, while also being subject to checks from the others. Executive Order-decree by the President or other ranking executive official which becomes law without needing Con- gressional approval. Executive Privilege-limited right of members of the executive branch to refuse to give certain information (documents, testimony, etc.) to the Congress. Is not defined in the Constitution, but has been invoked throughout our history. In recent years, there has been much controversy over its proper usage (e.g., Watergate, national security cases). Impoundment-refusal by the President to spend funds duly authorized and appropriated by the Congress. This power was restricted by the 1974 Budget and Impoundment Control Act. Imperial Presidency-term commonly used to describe the Presidency in recent years which had become extremely powerful and "imperial" in its trappings and in the exercise of power. Separation of Powers-another fundamental constitutional principle, that each branch of government is vested with separate powers: legislative, judicial, executive. State of the Union Message-annual speech delivered by the President to a joint session (both Houses) of Congress in which he discusses the "state of the union" and outlines his legislative program for the coming year. Veto-power of the President to reject a bill passed by Congress. Override-passage of a bill which has been vetoed by a 2/3 majority in both chambers of Congress, so that it becomes law without the President's signature. Pocket Veto-utilized during the final 10 days of a Congressional session when the President fails to sign a bill and returns it to the Congress before adjournment. Thus, Congress has no opportunity to override it. Approved For Release 2004/10/13 2PIA-RDP88-0I 315R000200160007-2 AN IN J15f fi 4O~TH - ECUTIVE~BRANCH: A Close Up Briefing Before the seminar on the Presidency, one of your program instructors will conduct a short "Brief- ing" as an introduction to this subject. The purpose is to provide some background information which will help you participate in the seminar with your guest speaker. While the seminar will focus primarily on the Presidency, the briefing will cover the broader subject of the executive branch. The articles, charts and exercises in Chapters 1 and 2 will help you prepare for these sessions. The outline below gives you an idea of some of the subjects which may be covered. Use these pages to take notes. ? What is the structure of the executive branch? ? What is "the bureaucracy?" What are the differences between White House staff, Cabinet de- partments, independent agencies, regulatory commissions and other offices of the bureaucracy? ? In what areas and in what ways does the executive branch affect your daily lives? ? What are the powers of the Presidency? What is meant by executive order? Executive privilege? Veto? ? What are the checks and balances between the President and Congress? NOTES (BRIEFING) Approved For Release 2004/10/1: CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release R4 R1Iit fR 88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/132 IA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 2. THE FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY: What Role For Government in America Society? "He (the President) shall have the power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate... to appoint... all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein, otherwise provided for... " Article II The Constitution of the United States "Bureaucracy" is one of those words like love, happiness and the public interest-many people claim to know what it means, but few can actually define it! The word has its root in "bureau": agency, office, division, etc. Webster's Dictionary tells us that a bureaucracy is: 1) a body of nonelective govern- ment officials; 2) government characterized by specialization of functions, fixed rules and hierarchy of authority; 3) a system of administration marked by officialism and red tape. Let's apply this definition to the subject of this chapter, the Federal bureaucracy: 1) The Federal bureaucracy is composed of government officials who are not elected ("bureaucrats"). Some are political appointees, others are hired through the civil service system. (The first article in this chapter, by J. Douglas Hoff, explains the differences between these two categories of bureaucrats.) 2) All agencies, commissions and other divisions in the bureaucracy are created by Congress or the President to ad- minister and implement programs and policies which they have passed. The first "layer" of the bureaucracy is the Cabinet departments which were discussed in Chapter One. Grouped together as a second "layer" are all the other agencies, commissions, etc., which compose the executive branch. The Know the Bureaucracy exercise later in this chapter will help you differentiate between these different agencies. 3) A common criticism of citizens, businesses and others who need to work with the Federal bureaucracy is that there is too much red tape and inefficiency. Summing up, then, the Federal bureaucracy consists of those agencies which execute the policies and programs which have been legislated by the Congress and the President. As the affairs of govern- ment have become more complex, so has the Federal bureaucracy also grown. In addition to the 1,700,000 Cabinet department employees, there are more than 120 agencies which together employ another 1,100,000 people. In recent years, many observers, students and government officials have questioned both the size and the performance of the Federal bureaucracy. Is government "too big"? J. Douglas Hoff, a member of the U.S. Civil Service, and Senator Barry Goldwater (R-Arizona) present contrasting perspectives in this chapter's first two articles. How can it administer laws and execute programs more effectively? Con- gressman Elliott Levitas (D-Ga.) discusses the need for reorganization and Commissioner Thaddeus Garrett, Jr., explains the role of regulatory agencies. Dr. James Boren looks at the bureaucracy and bureaucrats from another angle in the final article. As you read and evaluate what these authors are say- ing, think about what role you feel the Federal government should play in your daily life, as well as that of your nation. Approved For Release 2004/10/j4 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 15F~eOp20arm p1gR$0Jf2Agriculture for TH ETOW& ase 2004/10/13 : 5~i~-W8-0 e ,an h BUREAUCRACY. 115,000. This is the Federal bureaucracy. (See the Structure of the Executive Branch diagram in IT'S BETTER THAN YOU this chapter.) THINK What Is Their Work? J. Douglas Hoff Mr. Hoff is the Director of International Affairs for the U.S. Civil Service Commis- sion. In this article he answers many of your questions about the bureaucracy: Who are these bureaucrats? What is their work? What is the merit system? His defense of the Federal bureaucracy should be compared and contrasted with the critique of "big government" by Senator Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.) in the next article. The American brand of bureaucracy consists of nearly 17,000,000 people working for govern- ment at the Federal, state and local levels. This adds up to 20 per cent of the nation's total work- force, or one out of five working Americans. With 2,840,000 civilian employees, you can see that the Federal government is the largest single employer in the United States. In fact, it employs more people than do the nine largest corporations. On the Federal level, over 97 per cent of the employ- ees are in the executive branch. Many of the critics of "big government" in recent years have claimed that this is far too many people doing far too many things and much too inefficiently. Be- fore we accept such an analysis, we need to ask some questions, such as, who are these bureaucrats and what do they do? Who Are These Bureaucrats? The civilian employee working in the Pentagon in support of military troops stationed in Western Europe is a bureaucrat. So are your mail carriers, and the scientists who test dangerous drugs for the Food and Drug Adminis- tration, and the clerk who writes benefit checks for war veterans and the ranger at your favorite national park. As Jack Anderson recently wrote, "the bureaucracy is the glue that holds our society together." All in all, there are 110 different de- partments and agencies in the Federal govern- ment whose members perform 2,000 different kinds of work throughout the world. The Postal Service alone accounts for almost 700,000 em- ployees; the Veterans Administration for over To realize how important the bureaucracy is, you must understand the divisions of authority in the Federal government. As you know, the President and the Congress share the authority for determining policy and steering the general course of the nation. The President recommends and formulates programs to the Congress, which, as representatives of the people, appraise and deliberate these ideas and plans. In making his policy recommendations, the President is advised by the highest ranking members of the bureaucracy, the Cabinet secretaries and the heads of major agencies. Once a bill has been passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, it must be imple- mented and administered. The actual adminis- tration and implementation is frequently a more difficult task than is the passing of laws. It is the career employees, the middle and lower-level bureaucrats, who carry out those policies under the supervision of the Cabinet secretaries and agency heads. Political Appointees and Career Employees Cabinet secretaries, commissioners of regulatory agencies, administrators of inde- pendent agencies and other high level aides are appointed by the President subject to confirma- tion by the Senate. For effective government it is essential that a President have the power to appoint people in whom he has great trust and confidence. About 1,200 positions are filled by Presidential appointment subject to Senate con- firmation, and a few thousand others are appointed directly by the President. These political appointees come and go with the change in Presidents. In addition to this small, but important group of political appointees, there is a large core (over 2.5 million) of well-trained career govern- ment employees. These people are the ones who actually carry out the essential government pro- grams day after day and year after year. They provide a continuity in government service. The career Federal employee serves the system of government, and not a political party. Regardless Approved For Release 2004/10/1315CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 3 of who wins or l rQa c feKi?$leMg ~4/l1Q1 business is continuously served with complete dedication by these career employees. Frequently, they may also be delegated some policy-making authority, but generally their role is to provide the devotion and specialized knowledge needed to carry out government services. Political appointments are necessary and desirable in our particular type of democratic government, but we must keep them in their legitimate place at the top of the government pyramid in those high level policy-making positions. They have no place in the career service where education and experience are the deter- mining factors of who gets what job. This principle is at the foundation of the merit system for Federal employment of the United States Civil Service Commission. The Federal Merit System Under the administration of our first Presidents, ability was one of the primary re- quirements for appointment. Gradually however, other factors became more important, until government employment became a "spoils system."* In a spoils system, political connections rather than job qualifications are the important factors in the selection process. The excesses, corruption and inefficiencies of this spoils system caused a great popular reaction in the 1870's and 1880's. Demands for reform were answered by the Civil Service Act of 1883 establishing the merit system for Federal employ- ment under the United States Civil Service Commission. The Civil Service Commission was created to act as the central personnel agency within the Federal government. Central principles of the merit system are: 1. Ability, knowledge and skills are the bases for recruitment, selection and ad- vancement of government employees. 2. All applicants and employees will receive fair treatment and equal opportunity without regard to race, sex, creed, national origin or political affiliation. 3. Employees will receive equitable and adequate salaries. 4. Employees must be protected from coercion for partisan political purposes, 5. Employees must be prohibited from us- *Editor's Note: The term "spoils system" has its origin in the expression "to the victor go the spoils." CIA-RDPg-005ottictall autliorlty to interfere with or affect election or nomination for office. For the nation, the merit system ensures many benefits. It increases public confidence in the integrity of government. It guarantees equal opportunity for all interested citizens. It ensures a continuity in the bureaucracy through changes in the Congress and the Presidency. It also makes government service more attractive to well- qualified persons. The merit system is a keystone for honest and effective government. State, city and local governments must meet merit system criteria in their employment practices before the Federal government will grant them aid for urban development, health programs, welfare and the many other federally funded programs. Conclusion: Providing Services for the American People The overall objective at all levels of govern- ment is to bring the best quality service to the American people. Critics stereotype the bureaucracy as getting bigger and less efficient all the time. Yet the fact is that the size of the Federal government relative to population growth, has remained fairly stable since 1960. The real growth has been in state and local govern- ments, which have increased nearly 100 per cent since that date. Today there are 54 state and local employees for every 1,000 citizens, but only 12 federal employees in proportion to the same number. Is the Federal bureaucracy good or is it bad? It's both! It is a mirror of the society it serves. As such, it reflects all of the ills that affect our nation, as well as the tremendous amount of accomplishments. Good or bad, it is always changing and developing. Government cannot remain static in its philosophy or in its organi- zational structure if it is to serve the needs of the people. Whatever its faults may be, this Federal bureaucracy-established 200 years ago for thirteen small colonies with three million inhab- itants-is still functioning well today for one of the mightiest nations the world has ever known, with 214 million people and a host of problems unknown to the Founding Fathers. You can search the world over and you will never find a government bureaucracy bigger, more complex or as good. Approved For Release 2004/10/28: CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Ap Qvs1 Eor Release 2004/10/13 : 9A l~i~?2 ~~1609P1a;cracy which the FEDERAL CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT Executive Legislative Judicial Total 1977 2,791,710 38,441 12,050 2,842,201 1969 2,822,789 26,825 6,189 2,855,803 1957 2,376,513 22,190 4,608 2,403,311 Source: "Organization of Federal Executive Departments and Agencies (As of Jan. 1, 1977)," Senate Com- mittee on Governmental Affairs, GPO Document 052-070-03992-2 BIG GOVERNMENT: A PRESSING PROBLEM Senator Barry Goldwater Senator Goldwater (R-Arizona) was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1952. In 1964, he was the Republican candidate for President of the United States, losing to Lyndon B. Johnson. This article is taken from a speech he delivered on the Floor of the Senate on July 10, 1970. A similar version of this speech appeared in Perspectives '77 courtesy of Vital Speeches of the Day. As you read it, compare and contrast the points made by Senator Goldwater with those of J. Douglas Hoff in the previous article. Then ask yourself the question, has the Federal bureaucracy grown too large? The tremendous size of the Federal govern- ment was a major concern of mine when I was first elected to the Senate over 18 years ago. As some of you will recall, it was a time when we heard much discussion about big government; about the interrelationship of government agencies on the Federal, state and local level; about need for an equitable distribution of revenue sources among these divisions of govern- ment.... "It is so massive that it literally feeds on itself. It is so large that no one in or out of government can accurately define its power and scope. It is so intricate that it lends itself to a large range of abuses." But all that was many years ago, and since that time-especially over the last decade-the size of the "Federal Establishment" has grown Federal government maintains today has actually become a problem of man's ability to govern him- self in time of massive technological change and population growth. It is so massive that it literally feeds on itself. It is so large that no one in or out of government can accurately define its power and scope. It is so intricate that it lends itself to a large range of abuses, some criminal and deliberate, others unwitting and inept. The government is so large that institutions doing business with it, or attempting to do business with it, are forced to hire trained experts just to show them around through the labyrinthine maze made up of hun- dreds of departments, bureaus, commissions, offices and agencies.... Countless Assistance Programs and Eight for Rat Control Every now and then we catch a frightening glimpse of this enormous structure and what it means in terms of accountability and manage- ability. For example, a young Member of the House of Representatives several years ago set out to determine how many assistance programs were available and maintained in the Federal govern- ment. It took him two years to find out that there were over 1,300 such programs, many of which were unknown to each other and unknown to the people they were established to help. It was dis- covered, for example, that no one in the Federal government had an idea how many assistance programs existed, where they were located and how they were designed to help American citi- zens... . Then we had the spectacle of the House of Representatives engaging in a tense, prolonged, and emotional battle over the appropriation of the funds for rat control in our major cities. After all the shouting had died down, it was discovered that there already existed eight programs in various departments to do the same thing. So, the size of the Federal bureaucracy- which just keeps growing year after year despite the unfair and growing burden which it places on the taxpayer-is compounding the difficulty and confusion which the average American en- counters as he attempts to function in today's society. If this continues, the day will come when not only business will choke to death on govern- ment redtape, but the average American wage- earner and property-holder will suffocate as well. Approved For Release 2004/10/13 2?IA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 Congress Has Lost Control to the Bureaucracy Now I want to emphasize how this bureaucracy problem thwarts the work that we here in the Senate and Members of the House are engaging in. It should not, but probably would, astound most Members of the Senate to find out what actually happens to the intent which we write into major legislation when it gets into the hands of the bureaucrats. Much of our purpose in enacting laws has been either contradicted, overruled, diluted or denied in many instances by quasi-judicial rulings by government regulatory agencies or by the courts. We seem almost com- placent in our belief that the people who handle the provisions of the laws we pass will understand the motivation and the intent of the Congress which passed them. Further, we seem almost secure in the belief that where this intent is known that it will be followed without question.... I think we must admit that the Congress has simply lost its accountability for most of the money spent by the government. Originally, the Constitution gave Congress control of the purse strings and Congress designated the appropri- ation committees as their agents. But new means of funding have been established which do not simply remove control of the appropriation process from the appropriation committees, but remove it from the Congress itself. Congress, I am sorry to report, has lost this control to men who were riot elected and who are not directly responsible to the people. They can- not be voted out of office if they make costly mis- takes, yet they control the offices in thousands of government buildings and buy, sell, lend, borrow the assets, the credit, the pools, the funds, the Reprinted Courtesy of Sand Toler and The Washington Post Co. Approved For Release 2004/10/13 28 CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 contracts, the obligations, the debts, the accounts, the authorization to spend from debt receipts, the payments, the rates and so on.... Right here, let me say that I am not suggest- ing a return to the system which we once called the "spoils system".... I admit that a strong case can be made for the career employee in govern- ment and for his protection under the civil service system. But, I believe government employees have a responsibility to the people who are taxed to pay their salaries to support and implement the policies that come down to them from the elected representatives.... But, I do not want to be unfair to the career employees in the Federal government. The feeling of "ownership" which I detect in their attitudes has come about through long years of bureau- cratic possessiveness. It is both a help and a hindrance to the efficient administration of government. In considering this problem, it must be understood that government workers are motivated by much the same consideration as workers in private industry. They are interested in comfortable compensation, proper working con- ditions and security in both. They oppose change because it might constitute a threat to their jobs.... Big Bureaucracy Is a Denial of the Democratic Process This rigid bureaucratic system is long en- trenched and deeply dedicated to its own concept of what is right and what is wrong in the realm of government policymaking. And I want to point out right here that this rigidity, this refusal of the bureaucratic middle management to accept inno- vations and changes in the conduct and method of government business, is a denial of the demo- cratic process. . . . Ask yourself, why do governments change? Why do we have such things as new adminis- trations? I will tell you why. Governments change, new administrations take office, political com- plexions of Presidents change to reflect the will of the qualified voters of the United States. When the people of this country become dis- satisfied with the kind of government they are re- ceiving, they go to the polls and vote to oust the officials responsible. In the old days in American politics, they had a battle cry which reformers used to defeat entrenched and unpopular officials and administrations-"throw the rascals out." And this, Mr. 1r8gp Fgrse/1NJ3 history of American politics.... But, the question is whether this will of the people, whether this concern of the people, whether this officially stamped request for a change in direction can ever be completely realized under the present system of bureaucratic management. I do not think that it can. I do not think that the will of the people and the intent of Congress goes deep enough into the places where the policies are made that most directly affect the people. Given the intricacies of the system, the attitude of those in permanent positions and the general confusion surrounding any change of command in an enterprise as vast as the Federal government, I do not think it is possible for this job to be done with any degree of success. The officials oriented to the philosophies promoted by the Democratic Party have been in control too long, their numbers are too great and their in- fluence too strong to quickly bring about any sub- stantial change in the things that cause concern among the people. Conclusion: Reform of the Bureaucracy is Needed I am well aware of the fact that it is easy to criticize and to find fault. It is too easy for those of us who do not have direct responsibility to assign verbal blame and to hand out rhetorical pre- scriptions as to what should be done. I am fully aware that this is a mammoth problem which is not going to be corrected overnight. Nor is it one which easily lends itself to any pat solution.... There are many ways in which this enormous problem can be attacked. I am not wedded to any particular strategem or method. However, I be- lieve very strongly that the time is long past since we should have come to grips with this enormous challenge. A concerted program of study and recommendation must be undertaken at a very early date or the will of the people and the intent of Congress will continue to disappear in the giant maw of Federal bureaucracy. The danger is to our democratic form of government in its most fundamental sense. I only hope that what I have had to say here today will underscore the impor- tance of understanding what we are up against and encourage those in positions of responsibility to take some courageous and drastic action to meet it effectively. CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE: IDEAS ON GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION Congressman Elliott H. Levitas Congressman Levitas (D-Ga.) was elected to Congress in 1974. Previously he served in the Georgia state legislature where he worked with then State Senator Jimmy Carter on bills to reorganize the state government. When Carter was elected Governor in 1970, Levitas became the floor leader for his re- organization bills. In 1977 Congressman Levitas worked as a member of the House Government Operations Committee for the passage of President Carter's Reorganization Act for the Federal government. In this article he explains this bill as well as other proposals to do something about the need for government reorganization. Most people will agree that "something has to be done" about The Government. Not everyone will agree on what that "something" should be. Anyone who has to deal with the Federal government-and that means just about everyone in the country at one time or another-seems to find that there is little or no recognizable or- ganization. No one seems to be in charge, and there are no clear guidelines as to what services are available, how to go about applying for them or where to go to complain or appeal. Sometimes the problem is that no necessary service exists; sometimes it is the opposite problem and any number of governmental groups are responsible, or partially responsible, for a given area. A good case in point is a poor woman with children whose husband has deserted her. She may be eligible for Aid to Dependent Children, food stamps, housing assistance, employment counseling, free day care centers and legal services. For each of the services listed, she would have to go to a different agency of the govern- ment. If you were that person, where would you start? Let me give you another example. When President Carter began his preliminary study of energy, he discovered that nine of his eleven Cabinet members had responsibility for some part of the overall problem we call the energy crisis. Approved For Release 2004/10/13 :291A-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 In addition t i` moopoiReirat5sn o gen~i~0/13 departments, bureaus, commissions, task forces and ad hoc committees, the sheer number of people working in all these is staggering. Govern- ment which has tried to be all things to all people has become a "fourth branch" of our government and it is time that we systematically pruned it back to manageable proportions. There are a number of things we can do. The Reorganization Act of 1977 and the Sunset Idea The first and most obvious attack on the problem is for the Chief of State (the President) to examine each department and its function. He and his staff, with the advice of the Congress, experts in the field and citizens, can get a good overview and make the decisions on where to cut back. Public Law 95-17, the Reorganization Act of 1977, gave the President the authority to reorganize the executive branch unless the Congress disapproves of his plans.* This law requires that the President's reorganization plan be logically consistent, better tailored to the present needs, and hopefully, more efficient, smaller and less costly than their predecessor organizations. Another method of dealing with the problem is "sunset legislation." We in Congress have begun to pass many pieces of authorizing legis- lation which contain this concept. Simply stated, it authorizes the existence of an agency only for a certain number of years. At the end of that time, the executive branch must come to Congress with good and valid reasons for the further existence of the agency. At that time, Congress will have a chance to see what the agency has done, if there is a further need for it, or if it has properly executed its statutory responsibilities. If the Congress decides that the agency has not fulfilled its tasks, or if there is no longer a need for it, then the "sun will set" on it. That is, the agency will be terminated. Zero Based Budgeting and A Bill to Regulate the Bureaucracy A third way of getting a handle on the activities of executive branch agencies is something called zero-based budgeting. This is a *Editor's Note: To receive a copy of this or any other law, write to the U.S. House of Representatives, House Document Room, H-226 Capitol, Washington, D.C. 20515. Cmethood 8ofOmanagemen0l con of which would require that periodically each Federal spending program's budget would begin at zero and each bit of money appropriated would have to be justified. This is in direct contradiction to the present system whereby each agency begins by figuring out how much more it will need and pre- senting its needs to the Congress based on past budgets and the estimated necessary increases. Zero based budgeting would force each agency, and the Congress reviewing the budget requests, to ask, "Is this program necessary?" and "Is there a new and better way of accomplishing the ends we have agreed are necessary?" In this way, fresh new ideas will be competing fairly with old, established programs so that the excuse, "But we've always done it this way" will no longer carry so much weight. A fourth method for reorganization deals directly with decreasing the excessive government interference in our private lives and businesses. I am the prime sponsor of a bill which would do just this, by giving Congress greater control over the administrative rule-making of executive branch agencies. In creating these agencies Congress gave them a mandate in certain policy areas.* To carry out these responsibilities these agencies issue "rules" which have the force of laws, as if they had been passed by a proper legislative body like the U.S. Congress or the state legislatures. How- ever, these rules-which must be obeyed under threat of penalty-are never voted upon, and rarely discussed outside the glorified realms of the agency issuing them. "We must seek simplicity and openness, competence and coordination, efficiency and economy.... The people benefit from a government which is less complicated..." I believe that the laws which people must obey should be voted upon by the representatives of those people. Therefore, the bill which I have proposed would require that all rules and regu- lations issued by the administrative agencies be submitted to the Congress before becoming part of the law of the land. Congress would then have sixty days in which to review such rules and express its disapproval. If either the House or the Senate vetoed the proposed rules, the agency *Editor's Note: See the next article and the Know the Bureaucracy exercise for a more detailed explanation of the powers of these agencies. Approved For Release 2004/10/10 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004110/13 : CIA RD 31 would have to start over to produce something eline e d i those of other more acceptable to the Congress. In this way, the organizational units. Members of Congress can legislative process is returned to the legislature perform more effective oversight of government where it belongs. Such a measure would prevent functions and programs when they are arranged the unelected bureaucrats of the executive in simple and coherent organizational patterns. branch agencies from making rules that require The people benefit from a government which is compliance by the citizens of this country. less complicated-which can be understood and d ill "Good Servant but a Poor Master" The Government needs to be reorganized. As the priorities and needs of the nation change, so must the institutions which implement them. We must seek simplicity and openness, competence and coordination, efficiency and economy. Civil servants and political officials can do their work better when their responsibilities are clearly can respond to their priorities an pro ems. None of these concepts by itself is enough to solve the problems of too much government, but each in its own way can put us back on the right track. Our government belongs to the people of this country. It should not oppress them. It should serve them. It should be responsive to them. To paraphrase Aesop: Government, like fire, makes a good servant but a poor master. STRUCTURE OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH THE PRESIDENT Executive Office of the President (partial listing) White House Staff Office of Management and Budget Council of Economic Advisors Council on Environmental Quality National Security Council Domestic Council THE CABINET I AGRICULTURE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT LABOR THE BUREAUCRACY Independent Agencies, Regulatory Commissions and Other Offices ACTION Advisory Comm. on Intergovernmental Relations American Battle Monuments Comm. Civil Aeronautics Board Consumer Product Safety Comm. Energy Research and Development Admin. Environmental Protection Agency Equal Employment Opportunity Comm. Export-Import Bank of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Federal Election Commission Federal Energy Administration Federal Power Commission Federal Reserve System Federal Trade Commission General Services Administration Indian Claims Commission Interstate Commerce Commission National Aeronautics and Space Admin. Veterans Administration National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities National Labor Relations Board National Mediation Board National Science Foundation Nuclear Regulatory Commission Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission Overseas Private Investment Corp. Panama Canal Company Securities and Exchange Commission Selective Service System Small Business Administration Tennessee Valley Authority U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency U.S. Civil Service Commission U.S. Commission on Civil Rights U.S. Information Agency U.S. International Trade Commission U.S. Postal Service Approved For Release 2004/10/13 ILIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 JUSTICE Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 OUR NATION'S REGULATORS: CASE STUDY OF THE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION Vice Chairman Thaddeus Garrett, Jr. As Vice Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC,), Mr. Garrett writes about regulatory agencies from a wealth of first-hand experience. When he was appointed to the CPSC in November 1976 by President Gerald Ford, he became the youngest man in history to be nominated to a Federal regulatory commission. In this article Commissioner Garrett explains what it means for a Federal agency "to regulate, through a case study of the CPSC. There are seven Federal regulatory com- missions in the Federal government. Holding both "quasi-legislative" and "quasi-judicial"* authority, their prime task is to oversee the operations of our nation's industrial, business and consumer life. Their mission is to scrutinize and regulate in the interest of the nation's market- place, economy and people. The role of the Federal regulator is difficult, considering the need for both public safety and health as well as the preservation of business and industry. Taking into consideration all social factors, the regulator must determine the most practical and meaningful solution to any given problem on matters of national concern. Often Federal regulators must fulfill the roll of public watchdogs. Yes it can be said that Federal regulatory commissions are potentially the most powerful units in our national government. This is because of the far-reaching effects of the decisions and actions which they initiate and enforce. Virtually every interest group in American society technic- ally falls under the regulatory domain of some government agency. For example, labor unions *Editor's Note: The prefix "quasi-" in this context means similar to; that is, these regulatory agencies have the power to issue rules which have the force of laws ("quasi-legis- lative") and to settle certain kinds of legal disputes ("quasi- judicial"). are subject to regulatory action by the National Labor Relations Board; farmers have a regulatory relationship with the Department of Agriculture; and business and industry are regulated by a host of Federal agencies, from the Federal Trade Commission to the Environmental Protection Agency. The Consumer Product Safety Commission When the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), an independent regulatory agency, was created, the largest of all interest groups-the American consumer-was provided with a regulatory agency into which a different type of perspective could be injected. In October 1972 Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety Act, which included the establishment of the CPSC, in response to the rise in both con- sumer awareness and product-related injuries. Also included in the Congressional enact- ment and placed under CPSC's jurisdiction were four acts, transferred from other Federal agencies to prevent some of the overlap and fragmentation in the Federal bureaucracy. The transferred acts are: the Federal Flammable Fabrics Act, the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, the Poison Prevention Packaging Act and the Refrigerator Safety Act. These laws, in addition to the Con- sumer Product Safety Act, gave the CPSC broad powers to deal with hazardous products and sub- stances. The mission of the CPSC as defined by the Act is: -to protect the public against unreasonable risk of injury associated with consumer products; -to assist consumers in evaluating the com- parative safety of consumer products; -to develop uniform safety standards for consumer products and to minimize con- flicting state and local regulations; and -to promote research and investigation into the causes and prevention of product- related deaths, illnesses and injuries. Rules and regulations have been established by the CPSC to provide the business community with the responsibility and the guidelines to safe- guard public welfare. Public and private interest groups constantly appear before the Commission delivering presentations to support their par- ticular perspectives. As a rule, consumer groups insist upon greater Federal regulation while in- dustry generally appears to provide rationales for Approved For Release 2004/10/13: CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 why a mandator y a i aer~FsTlroMeftaf 39%$Y613 mented or should be made moderate by the Commission. The regulatory dilemma begins when the Federal agency is confronted with a situation where a product might pose a sub- stantial hazard, but a product ban would ultimately force companies out of business. The controversy revolving around tris, the children's sleepwear flame retardant, epitomizes this dilemma. After the government instructed sleepwear manufacturers to make their products flame retardant, the chemical tris was employed to comply with the government's demands. A few years later, tris was proved in many tests to be a carcinogen, a substance which causes cancer. In April 1977 the CPSC banned tris-treated garments and instituted an immediate recall. The questions in the wake of the ban were obvious: CI RW0Jf31 jaAO( Q1*W0'A uld absorb the economic impact? The ban, nevertheless, was im- mented in the interest of safety, with the full force of law. As provided by the Act, citizens and con- sumer groups may petition the CPSC for the issuance, amendment or revocation of a decision or action made regarding a consumer product. In order to further institutionalize the Commission's desire for increased consumer input into the regulatory process, the CPSC's Office of Public Participation has been created to provide for, among other things, funding for public partici- pation in agency proceedings. The encouragement of greater public interest in the regulatory process will, hopefully, instill a better understanding of the problems which face the American government. Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 KNOW THE BUREAUCRACY NRC, FCC, EPA, FAA, FDIC, ICC, etc.-the titles of the different agencies and commissions which comprise the Federal bureaucracy are enough to make you feel like you're swimming in an "alphabet soup." It's difficult enough to know what the initials stand for, let alone know what are the specific powers of each agency. As you drive around Washington and view block after block of government office buildings, you will get an idea on the size of the Federal bureaucracy and of how many different agencies there are. We can divide the principal agencies of "the bureaucracy" into three categories: independent agencies, regulatory commissions and government corporations. All are part of the executive branch but do not fall within any of the Cabinet departments. In the exercises below each of these classifications is defined and some examples are given. How many of the agencies can you correctly match with the des- cription of their powers? Independent Agencies Each independent agency was created by Congress to provide specialized services necessary to carry out policy decisions made by Congress and the President. The directors are appointed by the President with Senate approval; they can ,also be fired by the President. Here are some examples of independent agencies. See if you can match each with the appropriate description of its powers and responsibilities. ACTION Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Veterans Administration (VA) General Services Administration (GSA) Small Business Administration (SBA) 1. Gemini, Apollo and Viking 2. Makes loans to the corner grocery store and other small family businesses 3. Administers laws which provide benefits for former members of the Armed Forces 4. Peace Corps, VISTA 5. The public's advocate for a cleaner environment 6. Provides the services needed by the federal government for its day-to-day operations Approved For Release 2004/10/3'43 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Releas 2004/ 0/13 : CIA-RQP88-01315R000200160007-2 egula ory Commissions Each regulatory agency was created by an act of Congress, and its members ("commissioners") are appointed by the President subject to Senate approval. Their responsibilities are to regulate industry, trade or other specific activities. They have the "quasi-legislative" power to draw up regulations which have the effect of law. They also have the "quasi-judicial" powers to enforce these regulations. The article, Our Nation's Regulators, explains the structure and functions of one of these regulatory commissions, the Consumer Product Safety Commission. What about some of the others? Can you figure out what their responsibilities are? Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 1. Regulates passenger airline fares 2. Licenses nuclear power plants 3. Licenses and regulates television stations 4. Enforces truth in advertising laws 5. Regulates railroad freight rates Government Corporations For certain purposes, the Federal government has seen fit to undertake business activities necessary to provide for the welfare of its citizens. Government corporations have been founded to conduct these activities as would private businesses and without regard to politics. As with independent agencies and regulatory commissions, an act of Congress is required to establish a government corporation. The director and/or governing board are appointed by the President with Senate advice and consent. Examine these four examples to gain a better idea of their functions: Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Panama Canal Company U.S. Postal Service Export-Import Bank of the United States 1. Operates one of the world's most important waterways 2. Makes loans to assist companies in selling their products in foreign countries 3. Operates major program of economic development, flood control and electric power production in the southeastern United States 4. Delivers the mail Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : f5IA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 BURLATC1 se 2004/10/13 SEMANTIFICATIONS (Mumbling in the Bureaucratic Zoo) Dr. James H. Boren Pull out your thesaurus and dictionary, be ready to call on your imagination and sense of humor. . . .Dr. James Boren, whose government career has included being a foreign service officer and an aide to a U.S. Senator, uses humor and satire to make some interesting points about the bureaucracy. This article is written in the same light but analytical style as are his books, When in Doubt Mumble and Have Your Way With Bureaucrats: A Layman's Guide to Pyramid- ing Featherheads and Other Strange Birds. Bureaucracy is not merely a conglomeration of people, organization charts and red tape; bureaucracy is a way of life. It is the spirit of dynamic inaction, the resonant nondirectiveness of orbital dialogues, the steadfast dedication to bold irresolution and full devotion to the finest product of the bureaucratic art, survival. Red tape is bureaucracy's procedural material that binds a nation together as a great harmonic entity, and, contrary to popular conception, bureaucrats are not afraid to cut red tape as long as they cut it lengthwise. There are three basic guidelines which, if followed, will enable anyone to succeed in govern- mental, corporate or academic bureaucracies. By following the Boren Guidelines, anyone can bubble to the top of any organization. They are: When in charge, ponder; when in trouble, dele- gate; when in doubt, mumble. The most important of all skills, of course, is that of mumbling with professional eloquence, for mumbling is the heart of bureaucratic communi- cation. If taxpayers could understand what we, the bureaucrats, say and do, the bureaucratic way of life would be endangered. At all costs, bureau- crats must protect the creative status quo and prevent thought-oriented rippling that might dis- turb the tranquility of the ship of state. Therefore, it behooves all bureaucrats to learn to mumble and to use related communicative techniques to pro RtPo8u ea3u1crat002msftuuons from those people who want to meddle in the people's business and from the incursions of fresh and un- settling ideas. Mumbling and Other Manners of Speech There are many ways in which bureaucrats communicate, but there are a few that are at the heart of bureaucratic semantifications. Vertical mumbling is the highest form of the mumbling art and it is characterized by word stings that reflect celibate concepts and multi- syllabic interfaces. A vertical mumbler, for example, would orchestrate marginal thought patterns and nondirective wordations in such a way as to maximize the minimalities of infor- mation while supernalizing its communicative image. Linear mumbling is the translocation of tonal patterns that are not distinguishable in word form. Extended linear mumbling, however, is enhanced by linking intonations with an occasional word or phrase. Such words and phrases increase the listeners' attentiveness as they seek to fill the tonal gaps. Each listener creatively conjures a cosmetic concept of what he believes the bureaucrat is saying. This "filling the gaps" is known by in-house bureaucrats as "creative gappification." Profundification and profundication are based on the Borenverbs to profundify and to pro- fundicate. This involves the use of Rogets's Thesaurus and other enrichment techniques to make simple ideas seem very profound. The only difference between the two is a matter of origin. Graduates of Ivy League institutions tend to use "to profundify" while graduates of agricultural schools tend to use "to profundicate." The technique is very useful in written reports as well as in mumblistic dialogues. Fuzzification is an approach to communi- cation that focuses on careful selection of words that foster adjustive interpretation. That is, when a bureaucrat wishes to state a non-position in the form of a position, or wishes to say something about something he knows nothing about, he can fuzzify. By using adjustifiers or fuzzifiers, the bureaucrat can make a statement that can be interpreted to mean a number of things. Thus, past statements can be measured against future events in whatever way is best for him at the time of the interpretation. Approved For Release 2004/1(%3 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004110/13 : CIA-RDP88-0131 R0002f01R0007-2 h Trashification is often used by politicans, academicians and governmental bureaucrats to demonstrate in-depth knowledge in matters of marginal value. Trashifiers add unrelated or non- essential data in oral or written communication to expand three-page reports to ninety-page reports, because they know that most people are more im- pressed by the weight of reports than by the weight of the logic on which the reports are based. ?I Sufooi 6erierrl C-t~ou, 14? ghat VA fotlowins T495 ~. S~~rdard At~;~eYet i St 5. '~2'.Y'ufl of 1Q ~1~t'BQ ~I'9? $ wQ sma- OTOU5 to your Wal l$: z. ~h1"ow $r$ ~x~sbe~ 3. -[tte tour basic Food POUFS Be Sure to Maximize Pupilary Contact A final but major philosophical element in successful bureaucratic communications is The Boren Dictum: If you're going to be a phoney, be sincere about it. There are genuine phonies in bureaucracies who are phonies without realizing it, but the most successful phonies are those who know they are phonies but are sincere about their phoniness. Sincere phonies are able to combine many bureaucratic characteristics into a har- monious pattern of communication. They furrow the brow, tilt the head slightly forward, lower the voice and interlace linear mumbling with moderate gruntifications. As they do this, they also maximize the pupilary contact by gazing e pup o one eye of the listener ll intently into t and they climaxify the communication process by nodding the head in an affirmative manner. When the listener nods in agreement, the bureau- crat has it made, and can continue to the next step in the phonification process. These basic techniques used by bureaucrats are the instruments of self-protection and for gaining the status of expertise, but the essence of bureaucratic communication is now under attack from newly elected officials and taxpayers. They believe that the institutions that once served are becoming the institutions that command and they believe that "bureaucratic semantification" is an important factor in the trend. Some newcomers recently arrived in Washington with the idea that they were going to make changes in the way bureaucrats communi- cate. In the White House, for example, it was decreed by President Carter that government officials should express themselves in simple terms, but upon hearing the decree, the old line bureaucrats quietly smiled to themselves. They knew that history was on their side, and they were confident that the newcomers would gradually adjust to the bureaucratic way of life and adopt bureaucratic semantification as a communicative style. When President Jimmy Carter sent Mrs. Carter on a diplomatic mission to the Caribbean and Latin America, she was asked in Jamaica about the prospects of renewing diplomatic relations with Cuba. She did not say that the matter was being discussed; she responded that the matter was the subject of a dialogue. And the White House Conference on Handicapped In- dividuals conducted May 23-27, 1977 asked the delegates to "prioritize" their recommendations after studying and giving their "priority votes" on items that were fuzzified with such phrases as: high-risk disability producers, deinstitutionali- zation mandates, and on-going mass media cam- paign. In a bureaucracy goals are to be stated, not sought; actions are to be studied, not taken; and knowledge is to be synthesized, not used. Success in bureaucratic communication involves the roar, not the message and the image, not the reality. If you don't believe it, for the next few days tune your ears for the buzzing of the profundifiers as they intone their pet phrases: interface, parameters, dialogue, ongoing, finalize, etc. Approved For Release 2004/10/13 :IA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 3. THE COI'GRESS : Legislators and Representatives of the People "7 consider the people who constitute a society or nation as the source of all authority in that nation; as free to transact their common concerns by any agents they think proper... that all acts done by these agents under the authority of the nation are the acts of the nation... " Thomas Jefferson From atop one of the city's two hills, the U.S. Capitol towers over Washington, D.C. Its dome is a crown to the city, and its impressive architecture casts it as the centerpiece of the world's largest demo- cratic republic. The importance is much more than symbolic, for the Congress was created as the central cog in a radical experiment (for the 18th century) in representative democracy. Article I of the Con- stitution, which defines the powers of the Congress and the procedures for choosing Representatives and Senators, comprises more than one half of the entire document. Throughout our history the Congress has embodied the ideals and the realities, the successes and the failures of our political system. In its halls the Daniel Websters have delivered stirring speeches, and the Henry Clays have engineered the great compromises which have made our national motto, e pluribus unum, a continuing reality-"out of many, one." Yet there have also been less glorious moments, from scandals to criticisms that Congress had forfeited too much power to the Presidency. The 95th Congress convened in January, 1977, amidst mixed public attitudes and serious questions. What should Congress' role be: how much a leader, how much a public forum, how much an "equal" to the President? What about its procedures, the ethics of its Members and the proposals for Congressional reform? Also, what does it mean "to represent the people": What are the fine lines between government by, of and for the people? It is to these and other important questions which we turn in this chapter. Speaker of the House Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., Minority Leader John Rhodes, Senators Robert Morgan and Robert Dole, and Congressmen Bill Frenzel and Bob Carr are among the authors who have written articles especially for Perspectives. Additionally, a series of charts and diagrams and a special guide to Capitol Hill have been designed to help you learn about the Congress while in Washington. Approved For Release 2004/100A3 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved CONGRESS: LEADER OR FOLLOWER? Senator Robert Morgan Senator Morgan is a Democrat from North Carolina, elected to the Senate in 1974 to replace the retired Senator Sam Ervin. He is a member of the Public Works and the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committees. In this article he defends Congress against the criticisms of its de- tractors and explains what its role is in the making of national policy. Compare his article with that of Harry McPherson in Chapter 1, for two differing perspectives on the roles of the President and Congress. If the opinion polls are accurate, Congress is held in less than high esteem by the public, and is viewed not as a leader, but as a sometimes reluctant follower in solving national problems. Much of this low regard has been inspired by those critics and journalists who have pictured the Congress as slow and bumbling, lacking a sense of direction. While it is true that Congress acts slowly, it was never intended by the Founding Fathers as a place where snap decisions or quick answers would prevail. With 535 members (435 Congress- men, 100 Senators) who hold individual opinions and represent different constituencies, it is a part of Congress' heritage to be a forum in which all interests are represented. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate must take into consideration regional and other differences, so as to provide enough balance to make laws workable and fair for all Americans. While the Congress cannot speak with one voice, as can the President, it still plays an important leadership role in shap- ing policy. Regaining Leadership From an Imperial Presidency It is true that the powers of the Presidency have grown ever since the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945). The "imperial Presidency" reached a high level under Richard Nixon who, if Congress went against his will, can- celled the action by impounding the money. His predecessor, Lyndon Johnson, had done the same thing on a smaller scale. However, the courts have For Release 2004/10/13 : CIAsl- P996g1 J 0 A?%0m oundment to be illegal. The fall of the Nixon Administration, des- troyed from within, accelerated a movement in the Congress to regain some of the leadership seemingly lost with the growth of the "imperial Presidency." This more active role had actually begun before Watergate, but these. events further influenced the Congress to act more forcefully. If you look at the record, Congress provided more leadership in shaping policy during the 1960's and 1970's than most people realize. Civil rights, the lowering of the voting age to 18 years, environmental protection, campaign finance re- form-these and other programs were created and nurtured in the Congress, not the executive branch. In the case of the Vietnam War, it was the Congress who first realized that the War had gone on too long. "Congress provided more leadership in shaping policy during the 1960's and 1970's than most people realize." Let us look at two major initiatives taken by the Congress, which illustrate that the Con- gressional voice is not as weak as some people believe. Two New Initiatives: Setting the Budget and Controlling the Bureaucracy The first of these is the creation of the House and Senate Budget Committees. These Commit- tees were established by the Budget Control and Impoundment Act of 1974, and began operation in 1975. Before then, Congress had no effective system for setting the national budget. It merely took the President's recommendations, approved or disapproved them, raised or lowered them. With the new Budget Committees, the Congress has a method of really setting the budget and controlling spending. It also has its own staff of economists and other experts who can provide in- formation for the legislators. All of this has made the Congress better able to assert its priorities on budgetary matters. At the same time, this op- portunity to manage the budget brings increased responsibility for controlling spending and trimming deficits. This leads to the second major initiative, con- trolling the bureaucracy. Congress is seeking some sort of control over Federal programs and the appointed officials who operate them. Con- Approved For Release 2004/10/13 :3IA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 sideration has begt'Rrfo oNK WSW J90tj/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 "Sunset Bill." If passed into law, this would require all government agencies to periodically report on their activities. In order to continue to receive funds, they must justify their existence by proving that their programs are having positive effects. If this cannot be shown, the "sun will set" on their existence. This last action is long overdue. Members of the House and the Senate are responding to in- creased complaints from constituents that govern- ment is ineffective and inefficient. Congress itself must share some of the blame for creating pro- grams and agencies without giving them proper oversight. A Force and Forum for Shaping Policy It is apparent that Congress is acting to re- gain some of the ground it has lost during recent years without any "power grab" aimed at the other two branches of government. In foreign affairs, for example, the executive branch will still be predominant. But after our Vietnam ex- perience, it is doubtful if the Congress will ever again relinquish its authority and allow the nation to become involved in a similar adventure. Wise and responsible use of the power to control the budget, plus effective influence over regulatory agencies, will strengthen the role of Congress in shaping national policy. At the same time, the increasingly complex and technical problems confronting the nation make the job of a Congressman or Senator much more difficult. Few people possess by education or training the technical knowledge required by today's issues. This has made it necessary to in- crease the size of their office staffs, as they have employed aides with knowledge in specific fields. Other assistants have been needed to handle the increasing requests of constituents in dealing with Federal agencies. All this may feed the misconception that the Congress bumbles and stumbles, procrastinates and argues an issue to death, appears to crawl so slowly in its deliberations that it sometimes seems doubtful of its own destination. But from these deliberations have come the solutions to new problems. Some have been less than perfect, and many need changing, but here again, the Congress will be a central force and forum for the changes. There exists a real opportunity for the Congress to strengthen its role and to regain some lost respect among the public. CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT: CHECKS AND BALANCES IN THE MAKING OF FOREIGN POLICY Senator Robert Dole Senator Robert Dole (R-Kansas) is familiar to you as the Republican candidate for Vice President in 1976. Although he and Gerald Ford were defeated by the Jimmy Carter- Walter Mondale ticket, Senator Dole main- tained his seat in the U.S. Senate. He has served in the Senate since 1968; prior to that, he was a member of the House of Repre- sentatives for eight years. He has distin- guished himself on issues of domestic policy as a member of numerous committees, most notably on the Senate Agriculture and Forestry Committee. In addition, he has been very active on foreign policy issues through- out his career. In this article, he offers the perspective of a man who has a great deal of expertise on the subject of foreign policy, and who has been both a Senator and a Congress- man. In establishing a system of "checks and balances" between three separate branches of government, the Founding Fathers intended that the executive, legislature and judiciary would play competing, complementing and "checking" roles in the conduct of the affairs of government. The struggle for influence and authority in the formu- lation of national policy has existed throughout our history, especially between Presidents and Congresses. When such conflicts have raised questions requiring interpretation of the Con- stitution, the Judiciary has settled the differences. "Politics" often play a part in determining the intensity of the conflict. When one political party controls the White House and the other holds a majority in Congress-as was the case from 1968 to 1976-the lines are drawn very distinctly. However, it has also been true in the past and continues so today that the quest for supremacy goes on even with the President and the majority in Congress being members of the same political party. Approved For Release 2004/1043 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Foreign rouicy: erresident 2004/10/13 Commander-in- Chief, The Congress as Declarer of War How has the system of checks and balances functioned historically with regard to the actual formulation of policy? The more interesting focus of attention is on foreign policy. Congress has always had a strong voice in domestic policy, and only in recent years has it been more forceful in resolving foreign policy issues. It is sometimes said that political party differences "stop at the water's edge." His- torically, foreign policy has been conducted on a bipartisan basis with an overall spirit of coop- eration between Presidents and Congresses. Their joint involvement was a clear intention of the Constitution, for the President was named Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces while the Congress was given the powers to declare war and to grant funds "to raise and support armies" and "to provide and maintain a Navy." Thus, the authority of the President as Commander-in- Chief is strong, but limited. While Congress can- not deprive the President of the command of the Army and Navy, only it can provide him an Army and Navy to command. An example of this "checking" occurred in 1801, when President Thomas Jefferson sent U.S. Cl-WQF% W l ?9PX 99t merchant ships from Barbary pirates off the African coast. He could authorize only defensive measures since the Congress held the authority to appropriate funds for offensive action. Again in 1900, President William McKinley sent 5000 American troops to China as a part of an international force during the Boxer Rebellion. While Congress recognized the existence of the conflict by providing for com- bat pay, it neither declared war nor formally ratified McKinley's action. However, during the 1950's and 1960's, Presidents assumed greater authority to send American troops into conflicts on their own. Dur- ing the Korean conflict, President Harry Truman relied upon the United Nations Charter as well as his power as Commander-in-Chief to send American troops to Korea. In the 1960's, Vietnam provided a vivid example of Presidential power. President Lyndon Johnson was able to continue sending troops to Vietnam under the authority of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, passed by Congress, even though this was not a formal declaration of war. So, by the late 1960's, the powers of Presi- dents in foreign affairs had grown significantly. It was not until President Richard Nixon took office that Congress became concerned over Presidential powers in foreign affairs. The conduct of many Senators and Representatives at The President Addresses a Joint Session of Congress on The National Energy Act tnat time remrorces the suggestion tnat pontics and party labels are too often the basis for the value that a member of Congress attaches to the maintenance of a bipartisan foreign policy-that is, a policy endorsed by both parties. Conflict Over Defining the Authority of Commander-in-Chief When President Nixon sent troops into Cambodia in 1970, he justified his action as necessary to protect the lives of American per- sonnel. The Founding Fathers had been very clear that self-defense and response to armed attack on the United States were well within the power and responsibility of the President as Commander-in- Chief. The question arose whether this action in Cambodia was the sort of tactical decision vested in him as Commander-in-Chief during an armed conflict, or whether it expanded the scope of authority to the point where the war-making process was almost a Presidential prerogative. The debate contributed much of the momen- tum needed to pass the War Powers Act in 1973. That measure declared that the President may only send U.S. troops into hostilities through a declaration of war, specific authorization by law or a national emergency created by actual attack on the United States, its territories or its armed forces. This Act, as well as others in recent years, has demonstrated a growing insistence by the Congress that it be included in foreign policy decision-making. Conclusion: A Healthy "Checking" and "Balancing" All of this points to the real importance of checks and balances. The healthy give-and-take relationship was designed to insure that the President and the Congress do indeed remain balancing forces in the sharing of vital respon- sibilities. The principle stated by the late Senator Robert Taft that "the right to declare war is granted to Congress alone by the Constitution" has not changed. Indeed, the various legislative efforts to pull us out of Cambodia were resolu- tions that did not challenge the legality of what President Nixon did, but rather attempted merely to prevent us from further participation. The fact that the Congress, entrusted with making the laws, and the President, who must faithfully execute those laws, have a mutual role in formu- lating policy is one of the keys to the strength of our Republic. THE HOUSE: HIS ROLE AND THE 95TH CONGRESS Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Thomas P. ONeill, Jr., was elected Speaker of the House in January, 1977. He had been a Congressman since 1952 and had previously served as House Majority Leader (1972-76). He has written this article to help you better understand how the Congress functions. He gives a detailed description of the important job of the Speaker of the House and then discusses the Democratic Party s legislative program. On January 4, 1977, I was elected by the House of Representatives as its 47th. Speaker. The Speaker of the House holds the highest legislative office in the land, and he is also the second person in succession to the Presidency, behind only the Vice-President. The Speaker is one of only three legislative positions explicitly spelled out in the Constitution under Article 1, Section 2. The other two are the Vice-President of the United States, who also serves as President of Senate and the President pro tempore of the Senate, who presides in the Vice-President's absence. Roles of the Speaker The Speaker of the House must wear five cloaks at the same time: First and foremost, he represents his own Congressional district; in my case it is the Eighth Congressional District of Massachusetts. Like all members of the House of Representatives the Speaker must compete for re-election every two years and recognize a primary responsibility to his own constituents. Second, the Speaker is the principal leader of the Majority Party in the House. Wearing this "party role" cloak, he has exclusive authority to appoint all joint and select committees and commissions, appoint House members to con- ference committees, and appoint House members to official Congressional delegations. As leader of the Majority Party, the Speaker also has the last word on scheduling of all House Floor legislation. Approved For Release 2004/104123 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 ces 2aric`~/cR : CIA nc usnesslco%q?c~ c~e1 g onomy as well as Third, he is t ie presiding oft parliamentarian of the House of Representatives. their general confidence in government. He has the power of recognition, the power to en- In assuming the mantle of leadership I force rules of courtesy, the power to sign all legis- announced four legislative goals for the 95th lation and the power to pass on all parliamentary Congress: an economic stimulus package; the points of order. strongest code of ethics of any legislative body in Fourth, the Speaker is the chief adminis- the world; a reorganization of the federal govern- trative officer of the House side of the Capitol ment, reducing the number of agencies from 1900 charged with overseeing all the House office to approximately 200; and a comprehensive buildings and grounds, press and public galleries, energy conservation program. Both President House Chamber and other properties. Carter and I firmly believe that Pennsylvania Fifth, he is chief protocol officer for the Avenue is a two-way street, and these goals are entire legislative branch and must meet with being realized as the result of a close working re- foreign dignitaries. lationship between the President and the In addition to these responsibilities, I am Congress. chairman of the Democratic Steering and Policy Prior to the inauguration the leadership of Committee. This is called the "Speaker's Com- the Congress participated in helping to shape the mittee," because it makes assignments of all economic stimulus package in Plains, Georgia. Democratic members to the regular standing Input from the Congress at that early stage en- committees (with the single exception of the Rules sured a smooth passage of the entire package Committee whose membership is exclusively through the House before the end of March. This appointed by the Speaker). It also guides and economic stimulus package will provide nearly 1.5 directs Democratic strategy on legislation. million American jobs over the next two years. Another arm of the Speaker's leadership is Tremendous progress has also been made on the Whip Organization which meets weekly to the second goal, as the strictest code of ethics ever analyze the proposed floor legislation for the enacted by a legislative body has passed both following week and to determine how much chambers of Congress. While many members at leadership input is needed to pass that legislation. first considered that the sacrifice of personal The Speaker must be a leader who knows privilege and financial independence required by and understands the operation of the Congress. the new code was too severe, the times demanded He must know how to "read" the House, how to a comprehensive reform without loopholes. A fashion and unfashion coalitions which success- special ad hoc committee was appointed to imple- fully master the complexities of the legislative and ment the new code, putting into public law political processes. He must be willing to share his provisions involving complete financial disclosure knowledge with every Member. The style of and reporting requirements. leadership is as important as the substance. Congress has also responded to the Presi- Often, the Speaker must take the Floor to dential request for authority to reorganize the advocate strong partisan positions to advance his Federal government. Under this authority the new party's policy preferences, pass its legislative Department of Energy has now been created. program and maintain its control of the House. Perhaps the most important and certainly At other times he must shed his political cloak, the most complex and difficult objective of the and as presiding officer, rule in a fair and im- 95th Congress is the formation of a compre- partial manner. There are times when the hensive energy plan. Consideration of this plan Speaker must be partisan and times when the will dominate the remainder of the first session of Speaker must be nonpartisan. Members of the Congress. To help speed up consideration of the minority party or a single dissident within the en- President's energy plan we established an ad hoc tire House must be assured of his rights as a committee on energy to review and assemble the Member of the House. A good Speaker must President's package after the four standing com- move with facility between these two positions. mittees which have energy jurisdiction had acted upon the final proposal. This was an unpre- cedented and novel approach to the consideration Program for the 95th Congress of legislation. The ad hoc committee will have the final responsibility in the House to report to the The main focus during the first six months of Floor recommendations for an omnibus energy the 95th Congress has been on restoring public program. Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : MA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 There is no PBov fipr gt,2( 4k' 0/13 &-FDF -Als318F0R9s0ug@$PZiiient decision- parochial or more regional than energy. It is my makers, each one reflecting his own constituency hope that the American press and the public will while simultaneously fulfilling his national res- ' respond to President Carter s plea for a national energy policy with a renewed sense of urgency. The type of parochialism which has existed in the past and hindered the formulation of an energy program must be prevented. Following the enactment of a national energy program the 95th Congress will examine compre- hensive tax and welfare reform proposals. In shaping these important programs the ponsibility. This is as it should be, for Congress operates at its best through the blending together of input from 435 different points of view repre- senting 435 diverse economic and social per- spectives. Just as the many different instruments of an orchestra produce the vibrant harmony of a great symphony, so the final products of this blending of compromises are laws which are beneficial to all the American people. LEADERS OF CONGRESS How often have you watched a news broadcast when the commentator has said, "Today President Carter had a breakfast meeting with the leaders of Congress to discuss upcoming legislation.... " Who are these official leaders of Congress? Many Senators and Congressmen perform unofficial leadership roles on different issues, but there are certain members selected by their colleagues to serve in official leadership capacities. These leaders of Congress are pictured below; some names and faces may be more familiar to you than others. What are the powers and responsibilities of each of these individuals? Perspectives presents you with a partial listing, each of which can be matched to one of the pictures. Read the newspaper and watch the news to help you answer these questions. A. According to the Constitution, he is the official presiding officer of the Senate. He can only vote if there is a deadlock. B. Works with the Speaker of the House on legislative strategy. C. With a Democratic President and a Democratic majority in the Congress, he is a chief spokesman for the Republican Party as its leader in the Senate. D. "Lieutenant" to the House Majority Leader, his job is to persuade Democratic Congressmen to vote with the party leadership. E. Greatest influence over committee assignments in the Senate; also, chief legislative strategist for Senate Democrats. F. Presiding officer of the House, chief legislative strategist and greatest influence over committee assignments. G. "Lieutenant" to House Minority leader. H. The senior member of the Majority party, he presides over the Senate in the absence of the Vice President of the United States. 1. If the Senate Minority leader opposes a bill, it is his responsibility to line up the votes of Republican Senators. J. If the Senate Majority Leader supports a bill, he lines up the votes in favor. K. Leader of the opposition party in the House. L. Assistant to the President Pro Tern pore. Approved For Release 2004/19I/ 3 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 THE SENATE Walter F. Mondale Vice-President of the U.S. President of the Senate Howard H. Baker, Jr. (R-Tennessee) Minority Leader James O. Eastland (D-Mississippi) President Pro Tempore Hubert H. Humphrey (D-Minnesota) Deputy President Pro Tempore Alan Cranston (D-California) Majority Whip THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (D-Massachusetts) Speaker of the House John Brademas (D-Indiana) Majority Whip Robert Michel (R-Illinois) Minority Whip Approved For Release 2004/10/1345C1A-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Jim Wright (D-Texas) Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd (D-West Virginia) Majority Leader Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) Minority Whip John J. Rhodes (R-Arizona) Minority Leader Approved For Release 2004/10/13 :CIA-RDP 8e a a-t: tfieM0l6CIity Bader THE MINORITY AS A COHESIVE FORCE Minority Leader John J. Rhodes Congressman Rhodes (R-Arizona) was elected as House Minority Leader in late 1973, after Gerald R. Ford had resigned the position to become Vice-President. He was first elected to Congress in 1952 from a district which includes parts of Phoenix and its suburbs. Congressman Rhodes explains the role of the minority party in Congress and of the Minority Leader. He also discusses the Republican program for the 95th Congress, offering a counterpoint to the proposals of Speaker O'Neill in the previous article. "The greatest good of a minority of our generation may be the greatest good of the greatest number in the next."-Oliver Wendell Holmes The Minority Leader has the responsibility of providing guidance for Republican Congressmen in areas of organization and party policy. He is chosen. in a secret ballot by the Republican Con- ference, composed of all Republican Members, which appoints each Republican to positions on the House committees. He does not serve on any standing committees that consider legislation, but is an ex officio member of several other commit- tees and various commissions. The Minority does not have control of the committees, because they are constructed on a ratio roughly equal to the Majority-Minority ratio of Members. Therefore the Minority Leader has the responsibility of working to make his Party's contrasting views known to the public. For this purpose, he coordinates compilation of a Legis- lative Agenda, a statement of just what we would do about various challenges facing the nation if we were in charge of the Congress. The Republican Minority in the 95th Con- gress is outnumbered two to one. However, since the Majority is divided into several factions, the Minority plays a unique role of providing a nucleus, a magnet around which to build a con- sensus that reflects the broad intent of Congress. Although the Presidency and the Congress presently are controlled by the same political party, this has not assured harmonious relations, or a legislative steamroller. All members of the House and one-third of the Senate face election in 1978. While the President may have four years to live down early mistakes, or for fruition of his proposals, the Congress must deal with a time frame of a matter of months before its decisions are weighed at the ballot box. The Congress has the power to create Federal agencies, direct their purpose, and appropriate funds for their operation. The President may propose, but it is the Congress that must decide. In practice, this works out to provide the Minority with a unique role. A united Minority, in conjunction with those in the Majority who dis- agree with Presidential policy, can legislate. Already, bills that have been presented because they were political obligations to special interest groups, have been defeated by this coalition. This is the rightful function of the Minority, to oppose forcefully legislation that is not in the national interest. Program for the 95th Congress The Congress must face a bewildering array of proposals. Some seek to amend failing programs. Others propose massive new ventures into government. Some seek to regulate either business or the individual. The two overriding concerns of the 95th Congress will be the problems of energy and our environment. Here a balance must be struck. Our economy depends on adequate energy. Use of energy creates environmental problems. The task of Congress will be to formulate a national energy policy that is effective, and a national environ- mental approach that is pragmatic and afford- able. This involves compromise, and reasonable legislation that will move steadily toward our goals, without inflicting economic damage that might cause a national recession. The Carter Administration already has offered many proposals. Balancing the require- ments for energy with the desirability of enhanc- ing the environment will require intensive attention from Congress. As a result, many programs may be put into mothballs for later consideration while Congress wrestles with the primary challenge of providing fuel to keep America going and growing. The Minority believes that our energy needs must be met by a vigorous program of research and development of more energy. We believe the Approved For Release 2004/10363 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 CIA-RDP88-01315R900200160007-2 free market, not the tax system, should establish making, legislative craftsmen work silently in the true price of energy.We support conservation, committees. Because the job is infinite, no one but realize that alone it is but half the energy can do it all. At best, each Member can only con- program. The world uses six trillion watts of centrate on those things that seem most impor- power a year, yet some 30,000 times this potential tant, or that he or she does best. comes to the earth in the form of sunlight alone For convenient analysis, the job can be each year. The power of the atom has barely been broken into functions. There could be any touched and we have billions of tons of coal. In number of subdivisions, but for simplicity's sake, short, there is no shortage of potential energy let's take these five: (1) legislative; (2) constituent sources. We suffer from lack of a workable services; (3) communication; (4) administration; national energy policy, which we in the Minority (5) miscellaneous. want the Congress to enact. The Chinese have a curse which says: "May you live in interesting times." The President and the Congress certainly face "interesting times" in the months ahead. We in the Minority welcome these challenges. We believe that we have con- structive alternatives, practical programs which we intend to push with all our abilities. We will make certain that the American people realize the differences between our approach and those with whom we disagree. As Minority Leader, my job will be to unify our forces to maximize our influence. Although we are outmanned, we will not be outfought when we believe we have the right solutions to the problems of this generation and the future. THE JOB OF A CONGRESSMAN Congressman Bill Frenzel Before you can decide whether you believe someone is doing a good or bad job, you need to know exactly what that job is supposed to be. Congressman Frenzel (R-Minn.) has written an extremely important article, analyzing the job of a Congressman. While the previous articles in this chapter have been concerned with the institution of the Congress, this one focuses on the job and role of each of the 435 individual Congressmen. There is no "typical" handling of the job of Congressman. Each of us goes about his or her job in a different way. Among the 435 Members of the House of Representatives there are generalists and specialists, regionalists and nationalists, those who push causes and those who are good negotiators. Great orators are heavy on speech Legislating: Congressman as Lawmaker The Congressman's duties as a legislator, or lawmaker, cover the whole process of how a bill becomes a law. They begin with reading and re- search on the issues, include polling of con- stituents to discover their preferences and cli- max in his work on committees and his votes on the floor of the House. Legislative duties also in- clude floor debate, speech writing, knowledge of parliamentary procedure, and service on con- ference committees or other special assignments made by the Speaker of the House, the Majority Leader, the Minority Leader or even the Presi- dent of the United States. Most Members of Congress assign top priority to legislative duties. In the House, par- ticularly, there is a heavy emphasis on committee and subcommittee work. Each Congressman usually serves on two committees and within each of those he also is a member of several subcom- mittees. In this capacity, he participates in com- mittee and subcommittee hearings, in which testimony is "heard" from representatives of different groups, as well as interested individual citizens. These hearings provide a Congressman with a more informed and broader perspective on the impact of a bill under consideration. With this information he may offer amendments or alter- natives to the original bill, may vote for the original, or may vote against it during the com- mittee sessions. Congressmen whose committee attendance is regular and who "do their home- work" are effective committee members and are thought by their peers to be good Congressmen. The climax of the legislative process is the floor debate in the House (or Senate) chambers. Most Members have pretty well decided how to vote on a bill prior to floor debate on the basis of committee hearings, regional or group interests of his constituents, conversations with lobbyists or Approved For Release 2004/10/13 4FIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 other experts on the- iR 0j$ep1uaicSflsyeIto/w0/13 Congressmen or party leaders. Only rarely are Members' votes affected by persuasive oratory during floor debate. During this whole process, political con- siderations have an importance not always dis- cussed. While they may be outweighed by other concerns they are nevertheless always present. If the Congressman is a member of the political party (here in 1977, the Democratic Party) which occupies the White House, he has some respon- sibility for helping to pass the President's programs. However, this does not mean strict and unswerving cooperation between a President and his political party in Congress. Competition between the President and the Congress has been traditional and has its roots in the Constitution. If a Congressman like myself is a member of the political party (Republican) which is both a minority in Congress and lost the last Presidential election, he has the duty of modifying or trying to defeat the Majority program when he disagrees with it. If it is worthy he has the responsibility to support it. The Minority always will seek to become the Majority and will often offer alter- natives to Majority programs as a demonstration of what it would do if it were in power. Constituent Services: Congressman as Ombudsman This is the pesty part of the job. In many Scandinavian countries the national legislatures appoint a special commissioner called an "om- budsman" to hear and investigate problems or complaints by private citizens against the govern- ment and its agencies. In the United States there is no such government official and ombudsman- US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ty l~15RFtic iig1P .;tZYRR?R0dpgRo&o2ligressmen as the representatives of the people. Every Congressional office has at least one person, usually called a "caseworker," who handles the problems of constituents who have been rebuffed, frustrated or harassed by the Federal bureaucracy. In active House offices or larger Senate offices, the casework group may be a large team. The problems they handle range from finding lost Social Security checks, to ex- pediting military leaves in time of family emergency, to securing passports and visas, or to helping people determine their qualifications for Federal assistance programs. Some offices take particular pride in this kind of work, and many Congressmen make their local reputations on the basis of being especially sensitive to, or having a special capability to solve, these individual problems. Members hold office hours throughout their districts, some in mobile offices, in an attempt to respond to this perceived constituent need. The case load varies, but every office has plenty of it. Communicating with the People: Congressman as Representative By far the single, most important communi- cations function is responding to letters, phone calls, petitions and personal requests. Each office's mail varies but it is not unusual for a Congressman to receive as many as 2,000 letters per month. Many ask his position on a particular issue; even more urge him to vote a certain way. As a conscientious Representative he must answer all such written inquiries. Since the advent of automatic typewriters and more recently, com- puters, a Congressman can now also write to V IR US. SENATE 100 RV Approved For Release 2004/10/481 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 people who are known to be interested in a par- ticular subject (because of their occupation, group affiliation, place of residence or other factors) even if they have never actually written to the Congressman. These unsolicited letters are mailed in an effort to inform as many people as possible of Congressional activities in specific issue areas. There are also a variety of communications mediums other than personal letters. The most familiar is the Congressional newsletter, written periodically by nearly all Members to inform all of their constituents of their activities. Press releases are another important aspect of communications, especially for Congressmen whose districts lie out- side of major media areas. Many offices have staff aides designated as "press assistants," who specialize in working with the printed and elec- tronic media. Radio tapes, local television appearances, special telephone connections to local schools or groups and informational questionnaires are also employed to communicate with constituents. A Congressman will also return home to the district on weekends and during recesses. The frequency of such trips obviously depends on where a district is located in relation to Washington, D.C. Such trips allow a Congress- man to report directly to people as well as to find out directly what they are thinking. Speech- making and meetings with constituents dominate a Congressman's schedule when he or she is back in the district. Administering an Office Staff: Congressman as Manager Few Members of Congress would want to be considered administrators, but it would be im- possible for any of us to fulfill the many functions already described without an effective staff. In reality every Congressman has two staffs-one in the district and one in Washington. The total of these two offices can be up to 18 staff members; Senators are permitted larger staffs because of their larger constituencies. Administering this staff can be difficult and time consuming. Staff must be recruited, trained, motivated and evaluated according to their different job responsibilities. Frequent staff meet- ings may be required both in Washington and in the local district. If a Congressman is a committee or subcommittee chairman, or a ranking Minority CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 member, he must also manage huge committee staffs. Many times our administrative functions seem to impinge on the nobler duties. Other Duties: Congressman as Party Member, Group Member, Committee Chairman This division into legislative, ombudsman, communication and administrative functions is arbitrary and obscures other important duties. For instance, it ignores political responsibilities. Each Member has a role to play within his political party on many levels. Each Congressman belongs to the "Congressional caucus" of his party, which means that he participates in decisions involving the party in Congress such as choosing the leadership and setting a party pro- gram. Congressmen are also looked to as leaders of their party at the local, state and national levels and play a leading part at party conventions on all of these levels. As national figures they are often asked to meet with or address political groups from areas other than their own districts. They may also be active in movements or causes that are bipartisan or nonpartisan such as environmental groups, the women's movement or fringe liberal and conservative groups. They may be consulted by groups in these areas and will appear in public forums to speak on such issues. Generally speaking, Senators are more well known and are consulted more often than Con- gressmen, but this is not always the case. Committee chairmanships are another ex- tremely important duty. Since committees are very much at the heart of the legislative process, being a chairman bestows a great deal of authority and responsibility. Chairmen have central responsibility for managing the committee staff. They also have a dominant voice in the committee stage of the legislative process and can significantly influence the fate and content of a bill. The Congressman's day begins early and ends late. The job is never done, because there is more of it than any single human can do. Members, therefore, pick those aspects that seem most important to them or their constituents, or they select tasks they perform well. Every Member makes conscious selections knowing many functions have to be left undone. Approved For Release 2004/10/1349CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 A REPRESENTATIVE'S VOTE: A MATTER OF CONSCIENCE The Honorable Brooks Hays A CQn ressm%n Votes: (If1 er m.) Ifelghe'd all fhe, 04r, ttm "There were 226 roll call votes in the Senate last year. As the clerk called our names, those of us on the Senate floor had to answer either `aye' or `no'. Many times we wished an issue had never arisen. Many times the issue itself was not clear. Many times we felt that our truest answer was neither `aye', nor `no', but `maybe'. Still we could not stall by repeating the truth that there was much to be said on both sides. In the Senate, when our names are called, the time for objectivity ends. We must answer with the categorical `aye' or `no'." Senator Paul Douglas How does a Congressman or Senator decide how to vote? What factors are considered? How are the needs of the district weighed with broader considerations of "national interest"? Should the Congressman be a leader of opinion, or a barometer measuring the voices in his district? The plain truth is that there is no simple answer to these questions. A Congressman or Senator must assess each vote in an attempt to balance all of the information and pressures. Forces such as constituent mail, important pressure groups, support for the party position, and a personal concept of "national interest" are often overlapping and conflicting. Each of the elements has to be evaluated in light of the Congressman's or Senator's own background, experience, personality, public image and view of his or her own role as a representative of the people. Ultimately, the most difficult decisions are those where the Representative's sense of what is correct conflicts with the position popular with the constituency. It is in these rare cases that conviction and moral principle may clash with popularity and expediency. The political career of Brooks Hays focused on precisely this issue of principle. As a Congressman from Arkansas in the 1950's, he took a firm stand in support of the integration of Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. He acted upon his belief in civil rights and was voted out of office in the 1958 election by a constituency which disagreed with his stand on this issue. Here are his thoughts on this subject of vot- ing one's conscience, written especially for Perspectives. The Congress was the focus of interest in the deliberations that produced the Constitution and its powers are prescribed in Article I of the Con- stitution. Those powers were conferred by rather Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Mr. Cwrto3+. T have I *enot to both s 4es of this eontroYVYS 1 Me., sweeping langua :tpydlbdbiisd Wegowv094WdMitii granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States." However, included in this broad phrase are many different roles, functions and powers. A Congressman must be a legislator (policymaker) and representative (spokesman for the interests of his constituents). The Congress- man's task is to balance the local and regional interests which he represents with the national interest. Congressmen of different regions and different parties, as well as the Congress and the President, must cooperate, compromise and form coalitions, if anyone's goals are to be reached. Some dilemmas, however, test one's ability to recognize issues that present a choice between compromise and political expediency on the one hand and unalterable moral principles on the other. Expediency may be justified in efforts to reach viable compromises, such as the funds to be allocated for various public services, but some questions lie outside such considerations. In matters of social justice and human rights, for example, there is no latitude. The admission of nine black pupils to a Little Rock high school was in this category, and the denial of such rights in order to preserve one's political life would have been less than noble. As the British philosopher Edmund Burke told the people of Bristol, "A representative owes the people not his energy alone, but his judgment as well. He betrays them if he yields his judgment to their opinion." Con- trast this with the cynical statement of Robespierre, a leader of the French Revolution: "The crowd is in the street and I must see which way they are going, for I am their leader." We have always believed that our leaders should have both the firmness of their con- victions and the skill to compromise. Every good representative, as well as every thoughtful citizen, learns to distinguish between issues which can, and those which cannot be compromised without forfeiting one's principles. My observation of political conduct covers a period of fifty years, sixteen of which were in the Congress. It is my belief that a far greater number of legislators embrace this philosophy than are credited with it. TIPS ON WRITING YOUR SENATOR OR CONGRESSMAN ? How to address your letter: The Honorable John Smith United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Mary Smith United States House of Representative Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congresswoman Smith: ? Why write your Congressman or Senator? a. State your position on an issue or bill being considered by Congress; b. Ask his/her position on an issue or bill; c. General inquiry about his/her votes and other activities; d. Personal problem or question with which the office might be able to assist you. ? If possible, Identify by number the bill which con- cerns you. Be brief and be sure to explain why you are concerned with this issue or bill. ? Present your views rationally. Disagree without being disagreeable. Threatening or impolite letters have much less Impact than do well reasoned and sincere arguments. ? Time your letter so that it reaches your Congress- man or Senator before a vote comes up to the floor. ? If you are concerned about a particular issue write also to the chairman and the members of the appropriate committee. ? Ask for a response and include your return address. ? Personal letters are more Influential than form letters. ? If your letter concerns a personal or family problem, follow It up with a call to your Congress- man's or Senator's office. ? Keep in mind that in most cases your letter will be read and answered by an aide to the Congressman or Senator. Some offices now use computers to answer their mail from constituents. A Senator or Congressman receives thousands of letters each month and cannot personally respond to each. Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : diA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 ApWR6F. ffQ4 I$ (>? pN?1200160007-2 What do you know about those who represent you in Washington? How long have they been in office? On what committees do they serve? Where do they stand on major issues which concern and effect you? During the CLOSE UP week you will have the opportunity to see your Congressman and Senators at work in the Congress. You will also meet with them in seminars. Use this chart as a tool for learning more about your representatives. Congressman/ Congresswoman Name Your Congressional District Political Party Years in Office Last Election: Year % of Vote Committees Policy Areas of Ex ertise p Major Bills S d ponsore Voting Record on 5 Issues Important to You (Support/Opposition) A) B) C) D) E) Activities of H ome Office Your General Impressions Approved For Release 20040/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 S& "!ase 2004/10/13 : CI6VIROP 14`It1N992qR1f14P7Aat the seniority OF THE SENIORITY SYSTEM Donald E. Deuster Mr. Deuster was an official in the Nixon Administration, in charge of Congressional relations. This article is excerpted from a speech he delivered to a group of students. It was inserted into The Congressional Record on February 1, 1971, by Congressman Philip M. Crane (R-Illinois). It examines the virtues of the "seniority system" under which com- mittee chairmen were chosen according to length of service. Mr. Deuster offers an interesting perspective on this question of what is the best procedural system for the Congress to complete its work most ef- ficiently and effectively. Let me say a word about "your friend and mine", the great historical and distinctively American custom-the Congressional system of seniority. The seniority system is not only currently controversial, but it seems to be eternally so. Ten years ago in 1961 as President John F. Kennedy took his oath of office, and as Congress organized itself, Chairman Emanuel Celler of the House Judiciary Committee felt compelled to make this statement: "It is a rare session of Congress that does not produce its share of proposals to abolish that perennial red herring- the so-called `Seniority rule'. This long-standing Con- gressional tradition, under which the House and Senate organize their working committees, has become as popular a target as sin itself. It is intermittently bombarded by Democrats and by Republicans, by liberals and by conservatives, depending largely upon whose ox is being gored." Yes, indeed, even today the seniority system still serves as a whipping boy for the frustrations of everyone whose favorite legislation somehow fails to sail as swiftly, as smoothly and as uncere- moniously through Congress as its proponents would like. Few practices of our Congress are so continu- ously controversial, so widely criticized, so generally misunderstood and so rarely defended. Speaking as a friend of this beneficial American tradition, and speaking as one who serves as a "professional peacemaker" for Presi- dent Nixon on Capitol Hill, allow me to simply system contributes to the functioning of our Congress: 1. Harmony 2. Efficiency 3. Stability 4. Continuity 5. Familiarity 6. Maturity. What is this seniority system? How does it in- ject these virtues into the workings of Congress? What is the basis of my opinion? How is the cause of good government served by seniority? What is the Seniority System? First, you will not find the seniority system in the Constitution, in the Rules of the Senate or House, in Jefferson's Manual, nor in any other official document. It is not a law nor a rule of Congress but simply a practice observed and res- pected by both political parties in the House since 1911 and in the Senate for over a century. Simply, seniority means that in each of the committees of Congress the member of the major- ity party with the longest continuous service on that committee automatically becomes chairman. What does it mean to be chairman? Essentially, the chairman is the presiding officer of the committee. He is responsible for the effi- cient functioning of his committee. He schedules hearings, invites and welcomes witnesses, presides over public hearings and executive sessions, supervises the work of the professional staff, and symbolically he sits in the big chair under the flag and holds the gavel. Can he be a dictator? Not for long. Yes, the chairman has powers, but they are usually over- rated. Yes, he hires the professional staff. But, since the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 most of the professional staff are able to stay on in their jobs notwithstanding changes in the chair- manship. Should the chairman become tyrannical or obstreperous, the majority of his committee has the power to change the rules and strip him of his power. And, it has been done. Can the chairman kill a bill? Not if a deter- mined majority inside his committee or in the Congress want to pass it. Any time the chairman or even his entire committee refuse to report out a bill, a simple majority of the House or Senate may sign a discharge petition and bring the bill to the Approved For Release 2004/10/13 53lA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 ftV r F r 0 /13 : CIA-R 88 floor for a vote. c~i geed ow oes en or ty ring ability? Committee of the House as well, 315 0 02 0 Q007- How Does Seniority Produce Harmony? The seniority system contributes to the internal harmony and peace inside the Congress by quietly, quickly and automatically elevating the most senior and experienced majority party member to the chairmanship. This avoids having a rough and tumble political campaign inside each of the thirty-seven Congressional committees at the start of every Congress. Seniority avoids the wheeling and deal- ing, the power plays, the intrigue, the deals, promises, back-slapping, apple-polishing and vicious personality clashes that such election campaigns can produce. How Does Seniority Make for Efficiency? Seniority rewards those members who stick with one committee and thereby move up the leadership ladder. The system discourages hopping about from one committee to another de- pending upon where the political grass looks greenest at the moment. Seniority avoids the waste attendant upon drastic changeovers of committee personnel. By enticing Members to stay with one committee and one general subject matter area, the custom guarantees relative stability in a political world that is generally characterized by change and job insecurity. Members of Congress come and go depend- ing on the election day desires of the American voter. To the extent that some stability can be woven into the management structure of our national affairs, the seniority system helps im- measurably. Seniority enables Congressional committees to organize quickly and get on with the public business. No time need be wasted in agonizing and debilitating political campaigns for the chair- manship, nor in healing the resulting wounds and bitterness. Enough time and difficulty is associated with the assignment of the new freshmen Members to the committees. At the beginning of this 92nd Congress all fifty-six freshmen House Members and eleven freshmen Senators-sixty-seven ambitious men and women-received a com- mittee assignment. This task alone called for jug- gling and sorting the conflicting desires of new and old Members alike to join the most prestigious and politically attractive committees. . wa_ w F 4 w ~ P s d~ xt e r u ~ood + 15, it' ~ R; -- fi a u.5. Co-1517f~55m&n..,, r- Why Does Seniority Mean Continuity? Most of our national problems creep up on us gradually, It may take ten or twenty years for local problems to become national in scope. Hearings may be held one year by a Congressional committee and no Federal law passed for another three or four years. This was the case with the famous Medicare program.... The seniority system encourages Congress- men to stay on one committee and thus become experts in one subject area. Thereby, they ac- quire through personal experience great know- ledge concerning the development and long-term solution of our national problems. `W411,ifhe 5e it the Co 6e1(-na.n ` of M&fi -j-he i'es5f6nal ~,mm~+fees Approved For Release 2004/10/$Z: CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/1 0 13 : CIA-RF 8-qJc 49 Qr~1t~i00P7 This beneficial system assures us that the o on s e e ions article, so leadership of our legislative committees will be in the hands of men with the greatest experience. The system insures expertise and continuity. it is advisable to read both articles and then compare their arguments. The purpose of government is to serve and protect the lives and interests of its people. His- How Does Seniority Bring About Familiarity? tory teaches us that this purpose has often been Committee members not only become familiar with the scope of problems under the subject matter jurisdiction, but also the member- ship of the House and Senate, the leaders of the executive branch, and the leaders of the American public become familiar with the com- mittee leaders. Many a committee-indeed, most com- mittees-are highly respected on the floor of the House and Senate because of the personal prestige, character, expertise and reliability of the committee chairman, and also his various sub- committee chairmen. Over the years we learn that a chairman's word and judgment can be trusted. Seniority Means Maturity Critics call it the system of senility. Perhaps a few old men are as feeble and senile as a few young men are rash and foolish. Yet, in my per- sonal experience, the great preponderance of committee chairmen and the older Members of Congress are wise, alert, intelligent, mellow, kindly, moderate and mature.... Through these long years of wrestling with national and international problems-the De- pression, war, defense, foreign aid, taxes, civil rights, poverty, welfare, and more recently, the environment and the need for reform of the Federal bureaucracy and revenue sharing with the states and local governments-Members of Congress develop deep philosophic perspectives, great wisdom and maturity.... A NEW ERA IN CONGRESSIONAL REFORM Congressman Bob Carr Congressman Carr (D-Mich.) was first elected to Congress in 1975. One of the many freshmen elected in that first post-Water- gate election, he has been a leading advocate of Congressional reform. He originally wrote this article for Perspectives 77 and has since updated it, so as to cover events of the last months of the 94th Congress. Congressman Carr presents a contrasting position to that misdirected when the governing process is con- trolled by one person or a small group of in- dividuals. Our democratic form of government was de- signed to guard against the overconcentration of power. In our system of checks and balances, governmental authority is distributed evenly through three branches of government. The needs and interests of the American people are repre- sented in Congress. Congress serves as the vital link between the American people and the law- making process. In theory, it is to be the most res- ponsive and representative institution in our Federal government. However, over the years, Congress has been plagued by the very problems it was designed to solve. Its ability to respond to the needs of the people has been frustrated by corruption, poor leadership, inefficiency, and most seriously, the concentration of power in the hands of the few. These problems were long hidden from the view of the public. In the aftermath of Watergate, how- ever, the American people recognized the need for significant changes in the way our government is run. In 1974, more than 70 new Democrats were elected to serve in the 94th Congress. In 1976 an additional 47 new Democrats were elected on top of the re-election of all but one of the "Class of '74." This unprecedented influx of fresh, young minds has proved to be the needed impetus to launch a new era of Congressional reform. Reforming the Seniority System When we arrived in Washington for the 94th Congress, the major problem which first confronted us was the committee structure of the House of Representatives. In the committees are vested the authority to revise, amend, and even "kill" legislation before it can be brought to the full House for voting. In the past committee chair- manships were chosen according to seniority. This meant that the Members with the most years of service were allotted total power over the legis- lative process. Because this power was based solely upon longevity, there was virtually no way to guard against incompetence and abuse. The senior Members' positions were secure and protected by Approved For Release 2004/10/13 56IA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 seniority. Their actid 'S$81iia rvF&IRB? sc1t0113 h --5RcPn88--tll 11M%4pgci1 q fl@Oi7a?t three years to challenge and influence of the rest of the House. By forming a powerful bloc of first-year and junior Representatives in the Democratic Caucus of the 94th Congress, we managed to overturn many of the procedures which perpetuated the seniority system, We democratized the procedures for the nomination and election of committee chairmen, and the selection process for committee and subcommittee positions. We opened com- mittee sessions to the public. In effect, we spread the House power and authority and opened up the decision-making process to include more Members of the House. It was no coincidence that three chairmen were removed from their long- held positions in January of 1974, and a fourth was forced to resign in June of 1976. No Congress had ever experienced such a heavy turnover of power. Reforms Have Continued in the 95th Congress After this first wave of reforms by the newer Members of Congress, reform efforts were slowed down temporarily. Then a new epidemic of scandals late in 1976 provided the impetus for a comprehensive, sweeping series of reforms at the beginning of the 95th Congress in 1977. Aided by the 47 new members elected in November, 1976, and the new Speaker of the House Tip (Thomas P.) O'Neill, reforms were approved in early 1977 that completely revised the way things are done in the House. Among these reforms were require- ments for comprehensive financial disclosure statements, strict limits on gifts from outside sources, abolition of "slush fund" unofficial office accounts, limits on outside income, and a ban on "lame duck" travel by retiring members.* In addition, the Democratic Caucus in December of 1976 approved an amendment to the House rules which opens up conference com- mittee meetings to the public. It is in conference committees that differences in House and Senate bills are worked out. This rule change will put an end to the shady horse-trading that has some- times gone on in these conferences. It removes that last vestige of secrecy from the public legis- lative process. Only 15 years ago, the implementation of such wide-ranging reforms in Congress would *Editor's Note: "Lame duck" refers to a government official who has been defeated or who has announced his re- tirement but still holds office until his term expires. there has been much accomplished to give Con- gress back to the people and to clean up the leg- islative process as was accomplished in the previous 50 years. This is not to say that we can all relax, that all necessary reforms have been made. Junkets, Congressional pleasure trips at taxpayer expense, are proving to be one of the most difficult nuts to crack. A rules change, which I introduced in December to place just a few light controls on Congressional travel, went down to ignominious defeat. Two bills which I have introduced to control junkets are languishing in committee. In addition, constant vigilance will be necessary to ensure that there is no backsliding on the reforms we have made in recent years; for example, an effort has already been made to slip around my rules change to require open conference com- mittees. The architects of our form of democracy de- signated Congress to be the most responsive and representative arm of our Federal government. In theory democracy will not work if Congress does not fulfill its purpose. In practice over the last 200 years, we have seen that our democratic processes are weakest when Congress does not respond efficiently and effectively to the needs of the American people. Fortunately, we have learned the lessons of history. We now realize that Congress must be dynamic and flexible in the way it operates. Power and authority must be dis- tributed equally to all Members of Congress. Openness, accountability and efficiency must be promoted. In essence, Congress must change as the society it represents changes. bribes, Scan&js, L*h ve1'h$stt~ of fl 4. rafttre Gon 1GbiionAl A419 1M Approved For Release 2004/10/41) : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 A~4/1 0113 : CL A geograpnic, sociolo gical tffr0ftVgical and economic FRESHMEN VIEWS diversity. It spans a distance from the Atlantic O n and Chesa Pak. Ba in the east to the cea OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE In the 1976 elections 70 freshmen Congress- men and 18 freshmen Senators were elected to the U.S. Congress. Most had previously held elected office. Some of the Senators had been Congressmen and some of the new Congressmen had served in state and local government. Others had never before worked in government. Regardless of past ex- perience, the transition to these new positions is always very significant. While freshmen do not have the power of more senior members, they do provide a fresh per- spective on the institutions in which they serve. 1) As a first term Senator who had previously been a Congressman, what are your impressions of the major differences in the responsibilities of these two positions? 2) As a freshman Congressman, how do the realities of the House of Representatives differ from your expectations? Which of the many responsibilities of your office have de- manded the greatest time and energy? Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland): As a former member of the House of Repre- sentatives and now, as a first-term Senator from Maryland, I have perceived a number of diff- erences between the two legislative bodies. One significant difference is the increased size and diversity of the Senatorial constituency. As a member of the House, I represented a district in Baltimore with an approximate popu- lation of 500,000. As a Senator, I now represent more than 4,000,000 people throughout Maryland who reflect a wider range of problems and concerns. There is, however, a very significant simi- larity between the two representative functions in that you must respond to a basically fundamental set of concerns. Throughout the state citizens are deeply interested in matters such as housing, edu- cation, employment, care for the elderly, en- vironmental protection and health care. As you may know, Maryland has sometimes been called "America in miniature," because of p y Appalachian mountains in the west. It includes major metropolitan areas in Baltimore and the suburbs of Washington, D.C., and has large agricultural areas in the eastern, southern, cen- tral and western parts of the state. Economically, it has very important marine-related industries in the east, major manufacturing and industrial plants in Baltimore, and large agricultural and recreation-related businesses throughout the state. Accordingly, a state-wide constituency re- quires continuous attention to the needs of all sectors of the state. As an indication of the increased responsi- bility and requests for assistance from con- stituents, the amount of mail I receive has in- creased by four times to its current rate of more than 1,200 letters weekly. In summary, I have found in the Senate as well as in the House that, although there is a broader range of state and constituent matters which require attention, the fundamental con- cerns of people remain constant. Senator Spark Matsunaga (D-Hawaii): I was elected to the Senate after serving for 14 years in the U.S. House of Representatives. My decision to give up my House seat was not made lightly. I believed that the Senate, a smaller body, would offer me a better opportunity to serve the people of Hawaii. The House has 435 members. There are 43 House members from California, 39 from New York, 25 from Pennsylvania, 24 from Texas-and only two from Hawaii. Even though I served on the powerful Rules Committee and was a Deputy Majority Whip, I found that people out- side the State of Hawaii were generally not inter- ested in my views on national issues. On the whole, my expectations have been borne out during my first five months in the Senate. I was amazed, in the first few weeks after the election, at the number of people who sought my views. Moreover, the new Senate leadership has been very responsive to the needs of incoming freshmen. I received all three committee assign- ments I requested-Finance, Energy and Natural Resources, and Veterans Affairs. In addition, I was appointed Chief Deputy Majority Whip and named chairman of one subcommittee and vice chairman of two others-posts to which a House freshman could never aspire. In most cases, I have Approved For Release 2004/10/135IA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 found my Senate c g i,61q~treF &9p %Ad1 0/13: CIAflRupmo8st0V~gFt% igipgs1 a eQ apportunity to and hard working. It is true that some of the Senate rules are a bit archaic. The House has been quicker, in recent years, to adopt significant reforms and to take advantage of technological changes. Less time is wasted on the House floor because floor debate is strictly limited. However, the Senate leadership is extremely sensitive and sympathetic to change in this area, and I believe that the Senate will show marked improvement in the near future. I hope to play a major role in this effort. Congressman James A. Leach (R-Iowa): We've gone through a very difficult period in American history. In the space of a short decade, we've witnessed the commitment of more than a million young men to a war thousands of miles from our shore; the forced resignation of a Presi- dent and recently the revelation that Members of Congress may have been unduly influenced by foreign governments. A first-term Congressman normally does not have a powerful voice in the legislative process. But all of us share equally the burden of re-es- tablishing trust in government. Trust is not an easy concept. It isn't partisan and it doesn't have much to do with stands on particular issues. What does count is integrity of judgment and meaning- ful participation. As freshmen, a number of us have been ex- tremely concerned with these two principles. We don't think you can have integrity of voting judg- ment if, to get elected, you have to become in- debted to special interest groups. We also don't think there can be meaningful participation if, after an election, a freshman Congressman finds all influence is wielded by a few senior Members.. Accordingly, ethics reform and the seniority system have been two of the major targets of freshmen Members of Congress in recent years. While some headway has been made in these areas, most freshmen believe that we need to continue our efforts to achieve an open and res- ponsible ethics code and a fairer committee system. In our roles as junior Members, we have attempted to make Congress more accountable for its decisions. We may not have won all our battles but our impact clearly has been felt. Being a freshman, as Charles Dickens once said, is "the best of times and the worst of times." It is an enlightening experience, an educational and rewarding experience and sometimes a frus- trating experience. serve people and their concerns and to work for a better future for our nation. In this regard, there is no difference between a freshman Member like myself or a senior Member of twenty years stand- ing. Freshmen don't have to learn this fact. It's the reason we chose to seek the office. Congresswoman Mary Rose Oakar (D-Ohio): I see the 95th Congress as a much more res- ponsive legislative body than the stereotyped image of a staid assembly. More than 50 percent of our Members have served less than three terms. As a freshman I have found a new, creative spirit that penetrates the traditional seniority system. Today's freshmen are more aware of the in- tricacies of legislative procedures and maneuver- ing on the House floor. Previously this was re- served for more veteran members attempting to ramrod amendments by avoiding the scrutiny of public committee hearings. By learning about House procedure we can rise to the occasion for the defense and benefit of our constituents. Specialized caucuses, groups concerned with specific policy issues, help to keep us informed. As a member of the New Members Caucus, another caucus just for Congresswomen, and the newest for former "blue-collar" workers, I receive valuable perspectives on proposed legislation. These provide the impetus for amendments of my own that can alter bills to make them more equit- able to my constituents. All of these signs of progress keep the Capitol dome from being perceived as an un- touchable"ivory tower" that lords over the voters. Instead new members are leading the effort to re- build the trust between our people and the government since the erosion that came with Watergate. Our tough ethics code to limit outside sources of income and require strict accounting procedures was the first step toward rebuilding that confidence. To rebuild, we must know the impact of our actions. That is why so much of my "free" time is spent doing homework to prepare for committee work and House votes. Nearly every weekend I return to my home district in Ohio to talk to as many constituents as possible so that I can best represent them in Washington. Approved For Release 2004/10/35 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 THE CO MYcef :/13 : CI6-MW8;A1393991?~997fi~ally to conduct Q&A What is a committee? A committee is a subdivision of a larger or- ganization. Committees are given specialized functions by the larger "parent" body. In the case of the U.S. Congress, committees are bodies which have been granted jurisdiction to prepare legislation and to conduct investigations in a particular policy area. Both the House and the Senate have their own committees. What is a subcommittee? A subcommittee is a subdivision of a com- mittee, with an even more specialized jurisdiction. In the accompanying table, the number of sub- committees of each committee is listed in paren- theses. Are there an equal number of Democrats and Republicans on each committee? No, membership on committees is not split 50-50 between Democrats and Republicans. In the present Congress there are roughly two Democrats for every one Republican on each committee. This is proportional to the total ratio of Democrats to Republicans in each chamber. What are the powers of committees? Other than exceptional or emergency cases, committees must pass all bills before they can be voted on by the full House or Senate. This gives to committees the power to amend, rewrite and propose alternative bills. A second important power of committees is "oversight," to ensure that the laws passed by Congress are properly enforced and carried out. This includes investigations of the executive branch, of private businesses or organizations subject to federal laws. Are there different kinds of committees? Yes, there are three major classifications: standing, select and joint committees. A standing committee is a permanent com- mittee which has jurisdiction over a specific policy area. There are 22 standing committees in the House, 15 in the Senate; see the accompanying table for the names. A select, or special, committee is established for a special purpose and a limited period of time. An example was the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activites, commonly known as the Senate Watergate Committee, hearings on Watergate in 1973. A joint committee has members from both the House and the Senate. These are primarily in- vestigative in nature and do not have the same functions in considering actual legislation as do standing committees. These are also listed on the table. How are committee chairmen selected? Committee chairmen are always members of the majority party; presently, this means that all are Democrats. They are chosen by a vote of the Democratic caucus in each chamber, the organi- zation of all Democratic Members. Until 1974, chairmen had been selected according to the "seniority system," which meant that the Members of each committee with the most years in Congress automatically became chairmen. Reforms passed in 1974 by the party opened up the chairmanship so that seniority was not the only factor. (See the articles by Donald Deuster and Congressman Bob Carr in this chapter.) What are the powers of chairmen? Committee chairmen have vast powers to control legislation. They decide which bills are to be considered by the committee; whether or not hearings should be held; and in most cases, they select the chairmen of the subcommittees. Chair- men also are frequently the floor managers of a bill, after it has been passed by the committee and is on the floor. If the bill needs to go to conference committee, the committee chairman is a likely appointee. Finally, they have a great deal of control over the hiring of staff for the committee. What is a conference committee? Many times the House and the Senate will pass different versions of a bill. Before a bill can be sent to the President, the same version must be agreed upon by both the House and the Senate. It is the conference committees which must work out the compromises necessary to eliminate the differences. A very large percentage of bills end up going to conference committees. These bodies have often been referred to as "the third house of Congress," because in working out the differences they will frequently make significant amendments or deletions. After a bill is passed by the conference committee, it goes back to both the House and the Senate to be voted on again. Both chambers must vote "yea" for it to be sent to the President. Approved For Release 2004/10/13 gf IA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 THE CONGRESS AND ITS COMMITTEES U.S. SENATE Standing Committees Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry (7)* Appropriations (13) Armed Services (8) Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs (8) Budget Commerce, Science and Transportation (6) Energy and Natural Resources (5) Environment and Public Works (6) Finance (10) Foreign Relations (9) Governmental Affairs (7) Human Resources (8) Judiciary (10) Rules and Administration Veterans' Affairs (3) Select or Special Committees Aging Ethics Indian Affairs Intelligence (6) Nutrition and Human Needs Small Business (6) Joint Committees Atomic Energy Congressional Operations Defense Productions (2) Economic (5) Taxation Library Printing U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Standing Committees Agriculture (10) Appropriations (13) Armed Services (7) Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs (10) Budget District of Columbia (3) Education and Labor (9) Government Operations (7) House Administration (7) Interior and Insular Affairs (6) International Relations (9) Interstate and Foreign Commerce (6) Judiciary (7) Merchant Marine and Fisheries (6) Post Office and Civil Service (7) Public Works and Transportation (6) Rules Science and Technology (7) Small Business (5) Standards of Official Conduct Veterans' Affairs (5) Ways and Means (6) Select or Special Committees Aging (4) Assassinations (2) Congressional Operations Ethics House Beauty Shop Narcotics Abuse and Control Joint Committees (same as above listing under U.S. Senate) *For each committee, the number of subcommittees is indicated in parentheses. SPECIAL CLOSE UP GUIDE TO CAPITOL MLL 1. The House and Senate Office Buildings There is an easy system which will help you find your way around Capitol Hill. The numbers of the offices of all Congressmen and Senators indicate the specific building in which the office is located: Congressmen 4 digit number beginning with "2"-Rayburn House Office Building (RHOB) 4 digit number beginning with "1"-Longworth House Office Building (LHOB) 3 digit number-Cannon House Office Building (CHOB) Senators 4 digit number-Dirksen, or New, Senate Office Building (DOB) 3 digit number-Russell, or Old, Senate Office Building (ROB) Approved For Release 2004/10/': CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : Cl RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 II. Committee hearings The same number system applies to committee hearing rooms. Committee hearings are generally open to the public; for national security and certain other overriding reasons, a committee session may be "closed." These sessions give you an opportunity to see Congressmen or Senators debating each other and questioning witnesses-it is a genuine glimpse of Congress at work. The schedule of committee sessions appears daily under "Today's Activities in Congress" in Section A of The Washington Post. This listing explains which committees are meeting, what bills are under consideration and who is testifying. III. The House of Representatives and the Senate To enter into either the House or Senate galleries, you need a Visitor's Pass. Your CLOSE UP Program Instructor will take care of obtaining these for you. From a seat in the gallery you can observe the proceedings on the floor, learn about the issues as well as legislative procedures and probably recognize some Congressmen and Senators. While in the galleries you must strictly observe the rules-no photographs, no reading, no writing and no talking. IV. Bills and Resolutions H. R. # A bill is a proposal before the Congress. It is labelled "H.R." if it originates in the House and "S.R." if in the Senate. The number indicates how many bills have been previously introduced in the 95th Congress. If passed by both the House and the Senate and signed by the President, or overridden, it becomes a public law. It is then labelled "P.L." and receives another number indicating how many laws have been previously passed in the 95th Congress (P.L. 95- # ). H.J. Res. # A joint resolution is similar to a bill. If it is passed in the same manner, it also becomes a public law. Joint resolutions are generally used for the introduction of constitutional amendments. Resolutions and Concurrent Resolutions H. Res. -# H. Con. Res. 2 S. Res. # S. Con. Res. -# These types of resolutions do not become laws if passed. They generally deal with internal matters, such as rules changes, and therefore do not have to be signed by the President. They also are introduced to call for a vote which expresses the "sense of the House (or Senate, or both)" on a matter of principle, without passing a public law. A simple resolution only applies to one chamber, while the concurrent resolution includes both. V. "The Bells on the Hill" During your time on Capitol Hill you will frequently hear bells and see flashing lights next to clocks. Don't be alarmed-this is only a code system which informs Congressmen and Senators of what is going Approved For Release 2004/10/13 :6CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 A roved For Release 2004/10/13: CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 on in the House and Senate oors respectively. There will be the same number of white flashing lights as there are bells. There is also a red light which stays on whenever the House and Senate are in session. Here is a key to the bell system: House Senate 2 bells-Recorded vote 1 bell -Recorded vote 3 bells-Quorum call 2 bells-Quorum call 4 bells-Adjournment 3 bells-Mandatory quorom call 5 bells-Temporary recess 4 bells-Adjournment 5 bells-Five minute warning on recorded vote 6 bells-Temporary recess VI. Useful Telephone Numbers Capitol Switchboard 224-3121 (The telephone numbers of all Congressmen and Senators) Bill Status Office 225-1772 Senate Cloakrooms (To find out if a particular bill is on the calendar, on the floor or has been passed or defeated recently) Republican 224-8541 Democrat 224-8601 (Tape recorded message which tells you what action was taken in the Senate on that day and/or the previous day, as well as what the next day's calendar is). House Cloakrooms Republican 225-7430 Democrat 225-7400 (Same information as above, for the House) VII. How and Where to Obtain Written Information Government Printing Office U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 The Government Printing Office (GPO) is the best place to start looking for most government documents, reports, books, pamphlets and other publications. While in Washington, you can visit the main bookstore at 710 North Capitol Street or call at (202) 275-2091. Whether inquiring by mail, phone or in person, you must have the number and name of the publication which you desire. Check your local telephone directory, as there may be a GPO bookstore in a city near you. House and Senate Document Rooms House Document Room Senate Document Room H-226 Capitol S-325 Capitol Washington, D.C. 20515 Washington, D.C. 20510 This is where to write or visit to obtain copies of bills, resolutions, public laws and legislative calendars. If the document was passed by or pertains to the Senate, write to the Senate Document Room, and if the document pertains to the House, write to the House Document Room. Generally these documents are free. If you order by mail, enclose a self-addressed mailing label. Approved For Release 2004110W : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 A proved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 House and Senate Committees House Committee Senate Committee United States House of Representatives United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20515 Washington, D.C. 20510 Many times you can obtain hearing reprints and reports by writing directly to the appropriate House or Senate committee. Or you can visit the main committee office while on Capitol Hill to make your request in person. It is helpful to know the document numbers. GLOSSARY: Legislative Procedure Amendments? proposals to add or alter the language and provisions of a bill from the original version; do not confuse with Amendments to the Constitution. Authorization-this is the first stage in how a bill becomes a law; a bill is passed which outlines a program and in most cases sets a ceiling on the maximum amount of funds which it may receive. Appropriation-after an authorization bill has been passed, another bill is introduced (normally, in the House) which will set the specific amount of funds for the program. This appropriation may be equal to or less than the figure established in the authorization bill. Bill-a proposal to the legislature. If passed a bill becomes a law, and is then referred to as an Act of Congress. Cloture-an attempt to limit debate by setting an exact time when the vote will be taken. Requires 16 sponsors to be introduced and must have a two-thirds vote to pass. A tactic used as a counterstrategy to filibuster. Filibuster-parliamentary strategy used by a minority in opposition to a bill. Most common in the Senate, where the rules of unlimited debate are utilized to stall a vote which would probably mean defeat. Floor Manager-manages the bill on the floor of the House or Senate through debate and towards passage. Generally is the chairman or a ranking member of the committee which reported the bill. Hearings-committee sessions in the preliminary stages of writing a bill. Witnesses testify on different aspects of the subject under consideration, and include governmental and other experts on the issue as well as groups who have a particular interest in the area. In the last few years most hearings have been opened to the public; some are closed because of national security or other reasons. Mark Up-after hearings have been completed, this is the final work of the Committee in preparing a completed bill to be given to the entire chamber for consideration. If extensive revisions are made from the original, one of the committee members introduces it as a "clean bill"; that is, significantly different from the original. Ninety Fifth (95)-every Congress meets for two years, divided into two annual sessions. The 95th Congress convened in January 1977 for its first session and in January 1978 for its second. Quorum-50% of the members plus one, the minimum presence necessary for business to be transacted. Ratification-refers to the passage of a treaty. Treaties differ from other bills in that they must be approved only by the Senate but by a 2/3 majority. Riders-parliamentary maneuver in which a proposal which would be unlikely to be enacted by itself is attached to a bill which has a good chance of passing. Differs from an amendment in that it is not necessarily closely related to the subject of the main part of the bill. Rules Committee-only exists in the House. Decides on what procedure a bill will follow; for example, whether or not amend- ments may be added, how much debate will be allowed. A favorable rule can make passage more likely. Sponsor-member(s) who officially sign their names to a bill as its authors and sponsor its introduction to the chamber. Table a Bill-motion to remove a bill from consideration, means defeat for it. Approved For Release 2004/10/13 :6gA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved Fol- Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 JhE CloaE "U/2 'foundation dEdicat&i this c1 al2tE4 to tfiE nEmoz y of the latE G1I.L f24EmE (Jouzt u3.ticE 9oYn ?. ?fa,4 wfio.E ftLEncI I ifz and cuildom 3.EZ.uEGt ai an in- s./2i'tation to countLESs itudEnt. f''om acto3i tI countzy. 4. THE SUPREME COURT AND THE JUDICIARY: Equal Justice and Supremacy of the Law 'Justice, sir, is the great interest of mean on earth. It is the ligament which holds civilized beings and civilized nations together. " "Equal Justice Under Law"-these words inscribed above the entrance to the Supreme Court affirm the central principle upon which our political system operates, the creed that is the firm foundation for the continued existence of our society. The Law must be supreme over men, and the ultimate goal shall be equality of justice for all human beings. These are standards and ideals which must be adhered to by Congresses and Presidents alike, by all government officals and all citizens. Our history has time and again testified to the fact that a separate and independent judiciary is the vital cog in a political system based on separation of powers and checks and balances. The Supreme Court, as the Highest Court in the land, has been the guardian of the Constitution and the ultimate authority in matters of law and justice. The late Tom C. Clark, who served as a Supreme Court Justice for 18 years, presents you with his thoughts on the role of the Supreme Court in an exclusive interview. Following this fascinating talk with one of the leading figures in the history of our nation's judicial system, Professor Adrian Fisher of Georgetown University Law Center discusses the powers of the Supreme Court in greater detail. Yet the judicial system does not only consist of the Supreme Court. There are other federal courts, as well as state and local courts, which have the authority to settle disputes between citizens and their government, as well as those between individual citizens within their jurisdiction. Included is a diagram which sketches the structure of the judiciary at all levels of government and the How a Case Reaches the Supreme Court exercise offers a case study of how the appeals process works. Many of us don't realize the extent to which laws affect our daily lives. Reading You and the Law will help you appreciate how many different kinds of laws exist and how many different ways they are important to us. The final article in the chapter, written by a U.S. Attorney, analyzes in a very clear, step-by-step style one particular kind of law, that of the criminal justice process. As you read all of the articles in this chapter, think about your perspective on the meaning of "equal justice" and "supremacy of the law," for these concepts lie at the very foundation of our society. Approved For Release 2004/10%1 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 PE1 ' ' 004/10/13 : CI/a-,1P o8s8e p1 5?00000 AQ) 63 once called the : 9f THE SUPREME COURT An Interview with the Late Supreme Court Justice Tom C. Clark The interview was conducted on August 23, 1976 in Justice Clark's chambers in the Surpreme Court, exclusively for Perspectives. On June 13, 1977 Justice Tom C. Clark died after more than 50 years as a lawyer and judge. He served as Attorney General from 1945 to 1949, when President Harry Truman appointed him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. He was a member of the Court until 1967, resigning because of a potential conflict of interest which arose when his son, Ramsey Clark, was named Attorney General. Chief Justice Warren Burger eulogized Tom Clark, saying that "no one in the past thirty years has contributed more to the improve- ment of justice. " Even after leaving the Supreme Court, he continued working for a better system of justice. The Close Up Foundation will always be gratefulforJustice Clark's valued contributions to the education of the thousands of our students with whom he shared his time and wisdom through innumerable seminars, as well as through this enlightening interview. Supreme Court the balance wheel in our system. Justice (Robert H.) Jackson said that the Court's function was nothing less than being an arbiter between rival forces in the society. After your many years of service on the Court, how do you see its role in our political system? A-Justice Clark: Well, I think that Chief Justice (Warren) Burger put it pretty well when he said, "If you want to play a baseball game, what do you have? You have an umpire, otherwise the game is going to end up in a riot before the nine innings are played." I rather think that the Court is somewhat of an umpire. It considers what the Congress proposes, or what the Executive disposes, or what some individual claims, and rules upon them by comparing them with the law as laid down by the Constitution... and then calls the strikes and the balls. The Watergate case was a good example of how it is the Supreme Court's responsibility to decide whether or not the Congress or the President has exercised the authority given them in the Constitutional way. I attended a conference in London a few months ago-after a thousand years without a written bill of rights, the English are contemplating drawing one up-and the people there were quite frank about their impressions of Watergate. They seriously questioned what might have occurrred to our federal government during Watergate if the judiciary had not been a separate, independent branch. You also should remember that we on the Court serve another role. If the decisions of the other two branches are in keeping with Constitutional doctrine, we use our authority to uphold them. And if a citizen doesn't volun- tarily follow the rules laid down by the Congress or by the President or by other courts, why then it's our job to enforce those rules so that he will suffer some punishment or reprimand. Q-Close Up: Justice William H. Taft once said that courts are composed of people, and one would be foolish to deny that courts are not affected by the time in which the Justices live. How much do you think the needs of the times affect the decisions of the Court? How is public opinion brought into the process of taking cases and making decisions? A-Justice Clark: Well, I served 18 years on the bench and, frankly, I myself doubt if any public clamor or any political manipulation on the Court can be effective. I did get quite a few letters from Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : BIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 all over the country about various things, but I don't think any of those things influenced my thinking on legal matters which were involved. Yet, we are influenced by the necessities of the time. Every year there are new cases, new people who come "knockin' on our door" with constitutional questions which need to be re- solved. Take, for example, the criminal field. We started out with the case of Griffin v. Illinois* in which Griffin said, "I'm being charged with murder, which is a felony, and I ought to be entitled to read the transcript of what went on in the courtroom. I'm just a layman and couldn't remember everything. Without a transcript, I wouldn't be able to appeal to a higher court." So, when this came to us (the Supreme Court) on appeal, we ruled that defendants are entitled to a transcript. But once they got the transcript they couldn't tell much about it without a lawyer and they commenced again to "knockin' on our door." In an old case before I became a Justice, the Court had ruled that only in felony cases should a lawyer be appointed. Exceptions were made to this case over the years as additional cases came before the Court, until we had the Gideon case.** In this one, we ruled that everyone accused of a crime was entitled to a lawyer. What happened was, they kept "knockin' on our door," and finally we extended the ruling to misdemeanors as well. So you had it going full sway. That's because of the necessities that were brought to our attention. Now you say, well, weren't those brought before? Possibly they were, but not with the impact that they were brought to us. The same was true in segregation. We had one case which had to do with segregation in the field of graduate education. We ruled that this was unconstitutional and later there came the case of Brown v. Board of Education"* which was on the grade school level. Then other questions came up. What about public accomo- dations? What about swimming pools and things *Editor's Note: In the case of Griffin v. Illinois (1956) the Supreme Court ruled that a defendant who is appealing a court decision should not be denied a copy of the transcript of his trial becuase of inability to pay for it. **Editor's Note: In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) the Court ruled that all defendants are entitled to a lawyer appointed by the court if they are unable to pay for one themselves. ***Editor's Note: In Brown v. Board of Education (1954) the Court ruled segregation in public schools to be unconstitutional. See the "How a Case Reaches the Supreme Court" diagram for more details on both these cases. Approved For Release 2004/10/113 b 6 CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 like that? And the first thing you know they're "knockin' on the door." I don't know whether you'd say that the individual citizen who felt the pinch knocked on the door, or whether the lawyer looking out saw the pinch and tried to minimize it. I rather think that the pinch was what caused it. "The real strength of the position of the Court is probably in its indispen- sability to government under a written Constitution. It is difficult to see how the provisions of a 150 year old docu- ment can have much vitality if there is not some permanent institution to translate them into current commands and to see to their contemporary application." Justice Robert H. Jackson (1946) Q-Close Up: Do you think our Founding Fathers had this in mind in making the Con- stitution vague and almost ambiguous in parts? A-Justice Clark: Those people who wrote the Constitution did not lack for a choice of words. People like Madison and Jefferson may not have had a thesaurus which we have today, but they didn't need it. They intentionally used phrases like "due process of law." What is "due process of law?" "Due" to one Justice might be an entirely dif- ferent matter than it may be to me. I think they did it deliberately in order to keep the Consti- tution from being a straight-jacket or existing in a vacuum. They knew that the country was going to develop and change; they had great hopes for it changing from the standpoint of the advancement of science and literature. They wanted to put the Constitution in vague terms so that a later gen- eration might be able to interpret it, so that the necessities of the times would be met. I know that some Justices think there are some absolutes, but I don't believe there are any absolutes in the Constitution. You have to read a whole amendment, not just read a single clause of it. And when you read a whole amendment, I think it leaves the door open to interpretation and I believe this was deliberate. Even though we may call it vague and open to interpretation, it's interesting to look and see how few amendments we have had. Counting the : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 Bill of Rights, which was ten amendments passed in a package, we only have 26 amendments in all. If you compare it to New York State, which has over 300 amendments and wrote its last con- stitution in 1938, I think it's pretty amazing. Q-Close Up: That brings us to the question of "judicial review." When the Supreme Court de- clares an Act of Congress or an action by the President unconstitutional, is this not taking on a legislative function? A-Justice Clark: In a technical sense, I don't think they do. But from a practical view, why certainly they legislate. This is not really done to initiate change. That's the Congress' power and responsibility. It can see that something is wrong in an area and then hold a hearing on it and pass a law. The Court can't do that. The Court has to wait until the question is brought before it in a lawsuit. From the standpoint of initiating change, our function is not legislative at all. From the standpoint of the practicalities of change, one could say there is some judicial legislation. Q-Close Up: You served as Attorney General before being appointed to the Supreme Court. I wonder if you would comment on the differences between these two high positions? A-Justice Clark: It is definitely quite a transition. When I came here I sat next to Bob (Justice Robert H.) Jackson who was a former Attorney General, and I said, "Bob, how long did it take you to get acclimated here?" He said it took close to five years. That may sound like a long time, but when you compare the circum- stances and the atmosphere and the climate that are here with that of the Justice Department, they are definitely two different worlds. When I was Attorney General, I would have 50 to 75 phone calls in half a day. I had about 1,000 lawyers working for me and that didn't include the FBI. I had five secretaries in my immediate office and about ten across the hall who wrote letters. Here I spend my days writing opinions, hearing cases, and discussing with my fellow Justices. I have only a handful of clerks to help me. I'm only 200 yards from the dome of the Capitol, but it might just as well be 200 miles. Q-Close Up: Supreme Court Justices are per- ceived much differently by people than are almost any other public officials. Some of the others are "Hollywoodized," treated like superstars. Justices seem to be held above this sort of treatment. Whether you are a student, tourist or one of the country's foremost lawyers, you are filled with a tremendous feeling of awe and respect for the building, its atmosphere and the men of this Court. Could you say something about your own self-concept as a Justice? A-Justice Clark: Now, it's true that judges are human beings. We don't have horns, we really don't. We act just like other people do. But I rather think that it has proven true that most of the 101 Justices that have served here have been a little more inconspicuous than they were in other positions. I think it is well that it is that way because the public expects more from a Justice. You have to be more careful in what you say and in what you do. Our main function when a case is presented is to study it over and decide just what we think that the Constitution requires us to do, regardless of what the clamor might be to the contrary. Q-Close Up: One thing intrigues us, looking at your long history on the bench. Of all the cases in which you have had a part, are there any that stand out as being most important and most difficult? A-Justice Clark: I'd say it would have to be the Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : PA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 ed For Release 200,4/10/13 :CIA-RDP88-013158000200160007-2 case of Baker v Carp -q i , e one on reapportion- ment. At the time I did not realize the full impact that it was to have, but looking back, I feel that its effects have been considerable. Every legislature, at least once and some twice and three times, has reapportioned its state since 1963. As a conse- quence, the case has affected the lives of every person in the U.S. One sure thing is that a politician recognizes the power of the vote. If the vote is of equal weight, then every person knows that he has the same voice in the selection of leaders as does the fellow who is walking the other way. We've had a lot of problems with reference to people not taking too much interest in govern- ment and public affairs, and reapportionment at least helps to alleviate that by restoring some confidence in just what your vote can mean. Q-Close Up: Just a final question and an opportunity to summarize. It seems that the experience of the average person with the judicial system might be in a traffic court, maybe family court or small claims court. These are all cases where decisions are fairly easy to comprehend and the effects are very tangible and immediate. Could you offer an explanation which will help the students to understand both how and why the decisions that are made in this building affect their lives? A-Justice Clark: Well, of course, the reason their lives are affected is that quite a number of our cases affect their rights and duties as citizens. Some of our cases, say business or antitrust matters, wouldn't have a direct effect on all the people, but many of the cases we've had in recent years have had a direct bearing upon everyone. We've been charged with the defense of the Constitution and I say that's the most important document that this country has. You may not always realize it, but that document, the Constitution, plays a major part in your freedom and in your opportunities to do the things that you enjoy doing. I'd like to say that I hope that young people will take greater interest in the judiciary. We don't have any way to go around blowing our horn and we want people better acquainted with the judicial process. This will help us to improve the process and it will help immeasurably when *Editor's Note: In Baker v. Carr (1462) the Court ruled that federal courts had the power to force changes in the way in which a state legislature apportions electoral districts, if this violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Who are the nine members of the Supreme Court? When and by which President were they appointed? JUSTICE APPOINTED BY YEAR (Chief Justice) people learn more of how this process works and the necessity for it. I hope that if they find that the courts are slow, or if they feel that the courts should be less ponderous, why, they would speak up. They speak their minds pretty freely and I'm proud that they do. It would be of untold benefit to us to have reactions of that kind. It's not that we would change immediately, because we have to go slowly on these things, but I think in the long run, why, they'd have considerable impact. Close Up: We really want to thank you so much, Justice Clark, for this opportunity. We know that our students will surely appreciate the uniqueness of this chance to learn from a man with the experience and the wisdom that is yours. THE POWERS OF THE SUPREME COURT Professor Adrian Fisher Adrian Fisher is the Frances Cabell Brown Professor of International Law at the Georgetown University Law Center. Among Approved For Release 2004/10113 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 A proved For Release 2004/.10/13 : CIR;RDP88~0115~R0002Qp1 f~00Q7,-2 _ p his many posy ns o government service were United States Representative to the United Nations General Assembly and deputy director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. Earlier in his career he was a law clerk to Supreme Court Justices Louis Brandeis and Felix Frankfurter. Any analysis of the position (hence the powers and predicaments) of the Supreme Court must start from the fact that under the Con- stitution of the United States, the Court is a body whose members are appointed for life. One lesser power of the Court is the right to interpret the laws, which developed into the power known as judicial review. Judicial review is the authority of the Supreme Court to declare state and federal laws invalid if they are found to be contrary to the Constitution (or "unconstitutional"). The use of judicial review has created con- troversy ever since the Constitution was adopted. The basic predicament of the Court stems from the fact that this power is unreviewable except through the cumbersome process of passing a constitutional amendment. This has led to real, although not precisely defined, pressure from the other branches of government when they have dis- agreed with the Court. These pressures have affected both sides of the political spectrum. A little over forty years ago, this nation was in the depths of the horrible Depression. The Supreme Court, by a thin margin, struck down as unconstitutional every attempt by federal and state government to remedy the plight. The reaction was President Roosevelt's attempt to "pack" the Court by adding six new Justices who presumably would be more responsive to his point of view. This attempt was flawed by Roosevelt's false pretext that new members were needed because six of the present Justices were over 70 years old and therefore not capable of doing the work required. A potential constitutional crisis was avoided when two members of the Court, possibly but not certainly as a result of the plan, changed their votes and two others resigned. "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. . . If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each..." Chief Justice John Marshall Twenty years later the shoe was on the other foot. The Court was convinced that the doctrine of applied education was serving as a pretext for foot- dragging in the field of equal rights for minorities. In the Brown v. Board of Education case (1954), it struck down the doctrine and outlawed racial segregation in public education. Here the uproar came from the right. Cries of "massive resis- tance" were heard throughout the land; signs urg- ing the country to "impeach Earl Warren" sprung up overnight. Here, no judicial backdown resulted from the confrontation. Although since then the Court, with changed leadership and membership, has redefined and refined the standards which should be used in outlawing segregation in public education, it has resisted pressures to change its basic approach. Compliance with Judicial Decisions: The Strength of Tradition A study of the enforcement of powers proves the truth of the saying that an ounce of history is worth a pound of logic. Viewed abstractly, a strong case could be made for the proposition that the Court is toothless. When the Court was first established there was not even agreement that it had the right to declare statutes unconstitutional. Its staff has always been small. For enforcement it must rely on the employees of the other branches of the government, either state or federal. This may seem a pretty thin base of support for a body which asserts the right to give binding instruc- tions to the very bodies that it relies on to carry out its commands! Yet this system of compliance has been almost entirely successful. We are familiar with President Jackson's famous comment in the case involving Cherokee Indian lands in Georgia: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." We are also familiar with the fact that on one occasion, the Chief Justice of the United States, Roger Taney, was prevented from serving a writ of habeas corpus designed to free a southern sympathizer held by the Union authorities in Baltimore during the Civil War. These illustrations, however, are merely exceptions that prove the rule that judicial decisions, particularly those of the Supreme Court, are complied with. This rule has held up well, even in times of tension. In 1947, a Supreme Court decision ending a strike of the United Mine Workers was conformed to, albeit grumpily, by John L. Lewis. In 1952, a Supreme Court decision ordering President Truman to return to private Approved For Release 2004/10/13 6?IA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 HOW' "WE VEA 3TWWNEWMMY While there are certain cases which can be brought directly to the Supreme Court, the vast majority of cases are brought .,on appeal". If either party in a case is unhappy with the decision of a lower court, they have the right to appeal that decision to a higher court. An appeal is not a new trial, but rather a re-examination of the evidence, procedures and legal or con- stitutional principles on which the decision was based in the previous trial. Only a very small percentage of cases appealed are considered by the Supreme Court. During its 1976-77 term, the Court received petitions for 4,731 cases, yet agreed to hear oral arguments for only 176. Generally speaking, the Court will be inclined to hear a case if it involves a basic constitutional principle, an important question of federal law or a conflict between state and federal law. Appeals are brought tothe U.S. Supreme Court from highest courts in each state or from lower Federal courts. The diagrams below illustrate these two paths by which a case reaches the Supreme Court. FROM STATE SUPREME COURT Gideon v. Wainwright Accused of a crime June 3, 1961-Clarence Earl Gideon was arrested and charged with breaking and entering the Bay Harbor Poolroom in Panama City, Florida. 4 Trial in State Circuit Court 1961-Gideon was too poor to afford a lawyer, but his request for a court appointed lawyer was rejected. Judge Robert L. McCrary cited Florida state law and the 1942 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Betts v. Brady. Gideon served as his own lawyer, but lost the case. He was found guilty and given the maximum five year sentence. Appeal to the State Supreme Court October 11, 1961-The Supreme Court of the State of Florida denied Gideon's petition of appeal. It upheld the lower courts ruling that there was no legal re- quirement to appoint a lawyer for Gideon. Appeal to the United States Supreme Court June 11, 1962-The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the Gideon case in its next session. June 22, 1962-The Supreme Court appointed Abe Fortas, a prominent Washington attorney, to repre- sent Gideon. Despite its own Betts P. Brady decision, the Supreme Court had traditionally appointed lawyers for poor defendants. January 15, 1963-Oral arguments were heard between Abe Fortas and Florida Assistant Attorney General Bruce Jacob. FROM FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT Brown v. Board of Education "My Rights Have Been Violated" September, 1950-An eight year old black student named Linda Brown was denied admission to an all white elementary school in Topeka, Kansas. Trial In Federal District Court February, 1951-Her father, Oliver Brown, and twelve other black parents sued the city's Board of Education in the United States District Court. The case was officially titled Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. Appeal to the United States Supreme Court While many cases must be appealed from district court to the court of appeals, this case was appealed directly to the Supreme Court. June, 1952-The Supreme Court agreed to hear the Brown case. December, 1952-Arguments were heard from lawyers for both sides. However, the Court was divided and unable to arrive at a decision. December, 1953-A year later, arguments were again heard for both sides. In the time that had passed a significant change had occurred on the Court. Chief Justice Fred Vinson had died in September and President Eisenhower had appointed Earl Warren to replace him. 4 The Supreme Court Decides March 18, 1963-The Court ruled in favor of Gideon, that he was entitled to a court appointed lawyer. They directed the State of Florida to give Gideon a new trial and to appoint a lawyer to represent him. The wider impact was that all persons would now be guaranteed a lawyer. August 5, 1963-Gideon was represented by a court appointed lawyer at a new trial in the Circuit Court of Florida. He was found not guilty. The Supreme Court Decides May, 1954-By a 9 to 0 vote the Supreme Court over- ruled the district court's decision. It stated that segregated schools were unconstitutional because this practice "deprives children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities". It nullified the "separate but equal" principle of the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson case, because " 'separate but equal' has no place.. .in the field of public education." Approved For Release 2004/10/1316 CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/1 ownership the steel mills which he had seize during the Korean war was complied to without hesitation. Finally, the recent Supreme Court decision ordering former President Nixon to turn over the Watergate tapes to the grand jury was also enforced. These are merely three examples, selected because they represent compliance with the rule of law under periods of maximum political tension. They indicate that notwithstanding any deficiencies in theory in the enforcement mechanism of the Supreme Court, the strength of its decisions has become part of the American way of life. This tradition is more powerful than a small army of marshalls seeking to enforce its will. YOU AND THE LAW Lenore Cameron and Amy Armitage The following article was co-authored by Lenore Cameron, former Assistant Director of the National Street Law Institute, and Amy Armitage, a Duke University senior and Robert F. Kennedy Intern, working with the Institute. The National Street Law Institute is a program established to promote increased opportunities for citizen education ifift CIA-RDP88-01315P200Q2091.60007-2 in law. it is invo``veaa in course development, teacher training and the establishment of "Street Law" courses in schools across the country. It has published a curriculum on law for use in secondary schools called Street Law, A Course in Practical Law (West Publishing Company). For further informa- tion on the Institute or its materials, write National Street Law Institute, 605 G Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. 20001 or call (202) 624-8217. Many people perceive law as emanating from the Supreme Court and Congress and see it repre- sented in their daily lives by the police officer and gun. Yet in actuality, law has many faces and origins. Law Has Many Origins "But how can we understand this complex maze?" Think for a moment of how laws affect your own life.. .the clothes you wear and the food you eat are regulated by consumer protection, federal communications and trade laws. Your house is constructed according to zoning and building codes which are local laws. In your family re- lationship, family laws provide you with rights as well as obligations regarding marriage, custody and support, and juvenile rights. Law also pro- tects your individual rights as a member of society. Or perhaps you enjoy the wilderness; that too is protected by law. Law is everywhere affect- ing your daily life. "But why do we have to have so many laws?" you ask. There are no easy answers as to why we have so many laws, but one reason is that law gives order to our society. It regulates the behavior of individuals and helps to resolve conflict among and between individuals and governments. With- out the rules of law our community and social life would be chaotic. However, the result of having so many laws which govern our daily lives is that citizens are often mystified and afraid of "law." You can begin by learning the ways in which laws are created. All three branches of govern- ment-executive, legislative and judicial-at the federal, state, and local levels of government make laws. Federal statutory laws are made in the Congress. These include procedures for revenue raising (tax laws), definition of federal crimes, and the establishment and appropriation of funds for government programs. The impact of these laws is felt by all of the residents of the United States. Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : 1QIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 State legislatures enact laws which affect people Supreme Court. It is the highest appeals court in who reside or visit within their state boundaries. the country and orders made by its nine Justices Local governing councils and assemblies pass apply to each and every person and court system laws called ordinances, or regulations, which in the United States. The decisions reached here apply to people within an even narrower can only be overridden by an act of Congress or a geographical area. reversal by the Justices themselves. The executive branch at each level of govern- ment makes laws through administrative agencies.* Each of these agencies has been created to deal with certain issues and needs of the populace. Their laws are actually regulations governing the relationship between specific governmental bodies and citizens in areas such as welfare, public education, sanitation, libraries, criminal justice, housing, discrimination and transportation. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), for example, is a federal agency which regulates types of advertising as well as packaging and labeling of consumer products across the country. Another example is a state department of revenue which makes and enforces regulations regarding state tax laws. Agencies on the local level may include school boards, police and sanitation departments, and utilities.** The Court Systems Laws are also made in the federal, state and local court systems. These systems usually are divided into state, county and municipal courts, and are often broken down further into branches: small claims, landlord-tenant, domestic relations (family and/or juvenile), traffic, criminal and civil courts. The issues which are dealt with relate only to the citizens within the state and local juris- dictions. The federal court system, on the other hand, is comprised of courts located all across the country, and its judges decide issues which have an impact on all residents of the United States and its territories. It is made up of eleven divisions, called "circuits," which are further divided into districts. There are as many districts in each circuit as deemed necessary to administer and enforce the laws. Trials are held in the district courts, and appeals are heard in the Circuit Courts of Appeal. Above all court systems, of course, is the U.S. *Editor's Note: The President and many Governors also can make laws in certain cases through "executive orders". For a definition, see the glossary at end of Chapter One. **Editor's Note: For a fuller discussion of independent agencies and regulatory commissions, see Chapter Two on "The Federal Bureaucracy." Law Has Many Faces "Fine, "you say. "It's good to know where laws corm from, but how does this affect me on a day-to-day basis?" Your knowledge of where laws are made can give you an insight into your individual rights and responsibilities under the law. Let's take your role as a consumer as an example. The purpose of consumer law is to protect the individual who buys goods and services from another person or business. The legal relationship between a con- sumer and a seller is known as a contract. A contract is made when one party makes an offer which another party accepts. These two parties also agree on the terms or conditions of a con- tract. Both the consumer and the seller are then responsible for meeting the terms of the contract. If for some reason the goods purchased or services provided are not satisfactory, you have several avenues open to you. You can contact the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission to see if your product is on a list of defectively manu- factured or harmful items. Armed with this know- ledge, you could then get in touch with your local consumer agency to seek assistance in reaching a settlement of your grievance. Or, if necessary, you could use this information as evidence in a court suit. In addition, if you fail to meet the terms of the contract by missing payments, the seller can enforce these terms by filing a lawsuit against you. If you feel you are withholding your payments with good cause, you sometimes can depend on state laws which prohibit deceptive advertising and sales practices as defenses for non-payment and high interest rates. Through a consultation with a lawyer or your local consumer agency, you can learn if there are good defenses available to you. If you are a home-owner or renter, housing law is another area in which laws from different sources affect your daily life. The legal relations between the tenant and landlord, for example, are determined by a lease. If a landlord or tenant does not meet the conditions specified in a lease-for example, the tenant fails to pay his rent or the landlord does not repair leaky ceiling or pipes- Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 these responsibilities may be enforced through the The Constitution prohibits the denial of courts. Of all the areas of law which have an impact on you, none is more pervasive than family law. Many people think it is concerned only with marriage, divorce and custody of children. But suppose the family next door to you leaves their children, all under age twelve, at home alone at night and frequently on weekends. If you report this situation, anonymously of course, to your local police or social welfare agency, you would be reporting a possible case of child neglect, and this lies in the area of family law. You or someone you know may receive AFDC payments (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) or Social Security benefits. The state and federal laws which govern these assistance programs are usually studied as part of family law. The authority to provide these programs is based on the national and state constitutions which direct Congress and the state legislatures to enact legislation for the general welfare. Perhaps the most important area of law is that which affects your individual rights, con- stitutional law. Here we touch the very essence of the relationship between people and their society that the Founding Fathers sought to establish. The Constitution, especially through the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, protects individuals against government actions which infringe on their rights. State constitutions, in some cases, provide even greater protection from the actions of the state governments. individual rights and discrimination of any kind. Suppose you have applied for a job as a con- struction worker on heavy equipment but are refused because you are a woman. In most states you could file a discrimination action with the state Human Relations Commission. In addition, you might want to file with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in case the state agency is unable to resolve the confict. The basis of your complaint could be a state's own equal rights amendment or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This federal Act forbids discrimination in employment on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. State and federal agencies like the Human Relations Commission, Commissions for Women and State Equal Rights Commissions advise persons as to their rights in cases of discrimination in employ- ment, housing, public accommodations and voting. They also can institute court actions to eliminate such discrimination and, through their support of new legislation, expand persons' rights. Learning about the Law "Okay, I know where and how laws are created. I've learned some of the areas of law that affect my daily life. But where do I learn about these laws and how do I keep my knowledge current?" Photo Courtesy of National Street Law Institute Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 SAn D T VULTURE lease 2004/10/1 J:UCIAI-RCDP88IAL-0B1RANCH315ROO0200160007-2 UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT Washington, D.C. Tries lawsuits between the states. May review decisions of federal appellate Courts and specialized federal courts. May review decisions of the highest court of appeals in a state if a constitutional question or federal law is involved. U.S. COURTS OF APPEALS Eleven courts, often called circuit courts, sitting in each of 10 judicial circuits and the District of Coluiitbla. Hear appeals from U.S. district courts and review decisions of federal admire ittraeive agencies. U.S. DISTRICT COURTS Approximately 90 courts sitting in all parts of the United States and- in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Try loth civil and criminal cases, and sit as bankruptcy and admiralty courts as well. May review decisions of federal administrative agencies. Appeals from military tribunals Decisions of highest state courts of review U.S. COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS Washington, D.C. U.S. COURT OF CLAIMS Washington, D.C. Hears suits against the US. govern ment. Evidence may be given before court commissioners at various Inca, Irons throughout the country. FAX COURT OF TILE UNITED STATLS Washington, D.C. floats cases arising under federal tar laws. U.S. CUSTOMS COURT New York. N.Y. Hears uses arising under federal tariff laws. U.S. COURT OF MILITARY APPEALS Washington. D.C. hears appeals Iron court martial con vrclrom. Theta is rw further appeal Pram the decisions of this court. One way to do this is in your school. Sign up for law classes which are offered there. If you don't have a special law class and you want to know more about law, sign up to do a special project in your regular social studies class. Select a project that has legal significance such as find- ing out how your local consumer agency works or how a civil or criminal case proceeds through your local justice system. You and members of your family can attend classes and seminars on legal topics which often are held in libraries and community centers. You can read magazine articles and share the infor- mation with your family and friends. Letters to the editor in newspapers and magazines often refer to new legislation and court cases which affect people in these areas. Bar associations frequently offer assistance in arranging court tours and have special programs in which attorneys go out to schools and community groups to talk about law. As you can see, learning how law affects our lives is not a static topic suitable only for class- OUR STATE AND LOCAL COURTS No two states have identical court systems, but all are similar in their general outlines. This diagram shows the profile of an imaginary but typical system of state and local courts. STATE SUPREME COURT Hears appeals from all inferior courts of record. Court of last resort except for constitutional matters, which may be appealed to U. S. Supreme Court. 4 INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURTS (In some slates only.l Hear appeals from the decisions of courts of general and special jurisdic- tion and from criminal courts. I DISTRICT, COUNTY OR MUNICIPAL COURT Has general jurisdiction: hears civil wits and criminal cases. PROBATE COURT Probates wills and hears claims against estates. JUVENILE OR FAMILY COURT Hears domestic juvenile de linquency and youthful of- fender cases. CRIMINAL COURT Hears criminal cases. LOCAL COURTS (Caws heard in these courts frequent- ly cannot he appealed. Names may vary according to locality.l Traffic Court Police Court Small Claims Court Justice of the Peace room discussion. It is a process of learning and doing and is sustained by the changing nature of law itself. The only limit to your learning, then, is the degree to which you expose yourself to the many faces and origins of law. FROM ARREST TO SENTENCING: THE CRIMINAL LAW PROCESS Jason D. Kogan Jason Kogan has been an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia for seven years. Presently he is working in the Superior Court Felony Trial Division, but he also has tried cases in the Misdemeanor Appellate and Grand Jury divisions. In this article written especially for Perspectives, he presents you with a clear and informative, Approved For Release 2004/10143 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007 2 step-by-step narration of the criminal law "Stop! Police! You are under arrest!" These well-known words may be uttered during an exciting chase sequence on your favorite television series. But these words are all too familiar to the person arrested as the suspected perpetrator of a criminal offense. Once a person is arrested, he enters into the criminal justice system. A restraint on the individual's personal freedom is the initial and most obvious result of being arrested. Handcuffs may be placed on the hands to limit their movement. The police "pat down" the person's outer garments to determine if he is carrying a weapon, and he is allowed to move physically only when the police permit it. If the person is arrested in a car which is needed as evidence, it will also be seized. After he is arrested by the police, the accused becomes cloaked with certain constitutional rights. First and foremost, the arrestee must be advised of his rights: You are under arrest. You have the right to remain silent. You are not re- quired to say anything to us at any time or to answer any questions. Anything you say can be used against you in court. You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we question you and to have him with you during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer and want one, a lawyer will be provided for you. If you want to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time. You also have the right to stop answering until you talk with a lawyer. The arrestee may voluntarily waive his rights and speak to the police if he so desires. Interrogation From the scene of the arrest, the individual is transported to the police station to be processed. The arresting officer prepares a report on the crime with which the person is charged. He also attempts to obtain background information on the arrestee. Fingerprints are taken and compared with any that may have been lifted from the scene of the crime. These fingerprints are maintained in police files for future identifi- cation purposes. If the arrestee's clothing is needed as evidence, it will be removed by the police and replaced with jail-type or other available clothing. A Polaroid photograph of the suspect, or a "mug-shot" photograph (a two-part photograph consisting of a front view and a side view of the face) are taken. This photograph, along with photographs of other similar-looking individuals, may be displayed to the victims of or witnesses to the present offense, or to victims of or witnesses to future criminal offenses. Depending upon the type of the crime committed and the nature of the evidence in the case, further demands may be made on the physical being of the arrestee. A judge can order the individual to provide police with a sample of his blood, with head and pubic hairs and with handwriting, printing or voice samples. The arrestee may be ordered to submit to the removal of a bullet from underneath his skin or to the taking of a model of his teeth. Probably one of the most common demands made upon an arrestee is that he be required to stand in a lineup to be viewed by the victims of or witnesses to the crime. Court Proceedings: Preliminary Hearing, Grand Jury Within a reasonable time after the arrest, the person must be brought before a judge or magistrate and a formal complaint filed. At this point the arrested individual becomes known officially as the defendant. The judge or magis- trate again advises the defendant of his rights and determines whether or not he should be released on bond or detained in jail pending future court Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : 9 -RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approve For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 proceedings. A lawyer must a appointed for the appointed to represent the defendant if not done defendant if he cannot afford one. at any prior stage of the proceedings. If the defendant is charged with committing Before the start of the trial, which may be a felony (any crime which carries a possible many months after the defendant's arrest, the sentence of more than one year in prison) his next judge rules on any legal issues raised by the court appearance is at a preliminary hearing. At defendant that might result in prohibiting the the preliminary hearing, the government is re- government from trying the defendant or from quired to present evidence which shows "probable using certain evidence against him during the cause" to believe that a crime was committed and trial. For example, a defendant may claim that that the defendant committed the crime. Should evidence was seized illegally from his home, that the judge or magistrate find probable cause, the the indictment is defective, or that too much case is forwarded to the grand jury for its con- pretrial publicity will interfere with his -right to a sideration. The complaint against the defendant fair trial. If the judge rules against the defendant is dismissed if no probable cause is found. then the trial will begin. A grand jury is composed of citizens from the Jury selection, commonly known as voir dire community who must decide whether probable examination, commences with the questioning of cause exists to believe a crime was committed and a large number of prospective jurors concerning that the defendant committed the crime. How- their possible prejudices for or against the ever, unlike the preliminary hearing, neither the government and for or against the defendant. judge, magistrate, defendant or his lawyer are Jurors who admittedly cannot be fair to one side present when the prosecutor presents the evidence or the other, or who have specific reasons for to the grand jury. Grand jury proceedings are being unable to sit on the case, will be dismissed secret and not open to the public. In some juris- (called "stricken for cause") by the judge. Both dictions court reporters may be present in the the government and the defendant also have a grand jury to record the testimony of the specified number of "peremptory challenges" (the witnesses. The defendant may, if he wishes, right to eliminate a prospective juror for any appear as a witness before the grand jury. Of reason whatsoever). A final panel of twelve jurors course, the defendant cannot be forced to testify is finally selected to hear the case. before the grand jury because he has the right not to incriminate himself. After hearing the evidence the grand jury may, by a majority vote, return an indictment against the defendant. An indictment is a legal document which provides the defendant with notice of all criminal offenses he is charged with committing. It calls upon him to stand trial for these offenses. If the grand jury does not vote to indict the defendant, the government cannot proceed any further against the defendant unless state law provides otherwise. Still in Court: Arraignment, Jury Selection Within about ten days after the defendant is indicted he is arraigned before a judge. At the arraignment the defendant must plead guilty or not guilty. A plea of guilty is an admission by the defendant that he commited the crime(s) charged in the indictment and makes a trial unnecessary. If the defendant pleads not guilty then he has the right to request a jury trial. In addition, the judge may amend the bond set previously or set bond if no bond was imposed earlier. An attorney will be The Trial, the Verdict, and the Sentence Once the jury is chosen and sworn under oath, the prosecutor makes an opening statement to the jury in which he outlines the government's case against the accused. The defense attorney may, if he desires, also make an opening state- ment to the jury. Since the prosecution has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, it must present its witnesses and supporting physical evidence to the jury. The defendant has a right to cross-examine each government witness. After the prosecution con- cludes its case, the defendant has an opportunity, if he wishes, to take the witness stand in his own behalf or to present any other relevant evidence. The defendant cannot be forced to testify if he does not want to do so. "When judges do not agree, it is a sign that they are dealing with problems on which society itself is divided." Justice William 0. Douglas Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 At the conclusion of all the testimony, both final stage-sentencing. Among the many factors the prosecutor and the defense attorney give a which a judge may consider in determining the closing argument to the jury. During the closing sentence to be imposed on the defendant are: (1) argument the prosecutor argues to the jury all the nature of the offense, (2) possible penalties, (3) reasons why it should find the defendant guilty prior criminal record, (4) age of the defendant, (5) and the defense attorney argues to the jury all the employment history, (6) family background, (7) reasons why it should acquit the defendant. When educational background, and (8) comments from these arguments have been completed the judge family members, friends and people in the instructs the jury on the legal principles to which community. The defendant also has the it must be bound in deciding the facts of the case. opportunity to speak for himself at the sentence The jury then retires to deliberate its verdict. hearing. Then the defendant stands nervously A guilty verdict or a plea of guilty leads to the awaiting the sentence. GLOSSARY: The Law and the Judiciary In preparing this glossary, reference was made to Ballentine's Law Dictionary (Rochester, N. Y., Lawyers Co-Operative Publishing Company, 1969) edited by William S. Anderson, and to A Dictionary of American Politics, (New York, Barnes & Noble, 1964), edited by Edward C. Smith and Arnold J. Zurcher. Attorney General-member of the Cabinet, head of the Justice Department. Appointed by the President with Senate confirmation. Bill of Rights-the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States. These guarantee fundamental rights and privileges of all citizens against infringement by the government. Civil Disobedience-public, nonviolent, and intentional violation of public law without resistance to arrest, for the purposes of protest and encouraging a change in the law or social policy. Example: the sit-down strikes of the civil rights movement led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in the 1960's. Civil Law-area of the law which covers rights and liabilities of individuals. Cases may be between individuals or between the government and an individual or a group. For example, property damage cases are civil law. Class Action Suit-lawsuit brought by one party in the name of others or "the public." Examples are many suits brought by environmental or consumer groups in the name of the public interest. Common Law-"judge made" law, rather than by legislatures. Based on earlier decisions (precedents) by the courts. Constitutional Law-specifically, cases which deal directly with constitutional issues. Examples: U.S. v. Nixon case involving the Nixon tapes; freedom of speech cases. Criminal Law-regulates the conduct of individuals as citizens of a state. Defines violations of the law ("crimes"), appropriate punishment, and methods for enforcement of laws. Discrimination-unfair treatment or denial of normal privileges to persons because of their race, color, nationality, sex, or religion. Examples: denial of suffrage to women on the basis of sex; segregated schools. Due Process of Law-constitutional doctrine which implies that all people will be granted the same rights under the law. Speedy public trial, right to a lawyer, trial by jury, are all part of due process. Felony-a criminal offense of very serious nature in which the punishment can be the death penalty or imprisonment in a penitentiary (murder, treason, robbery); contrasted with misdemeanor which is also a criminal offense but of a less serious nature in which the punishment can be a fine and/or up to one year in jail. Grand Jury-differs from a trial jury in its function and its size (has more members). Duties are to consider evidence presented by the government prosecutors and decide whether or not an indictment should be issued. If so, a separate trial jury is selected to hear the case. Judicial Activism-describes judges on courts which in deciding the legal principles of cases before them, also rule on related matters of social policy or legislative acts. Contrasted with Judicial self-restraint, where courts rule on the cases before them, but shy away from broad policy implications. Judicial Opinions-written decision of the court in which its ruling is explained. Precedents, reasons, definitions and interpretations are discussed. Concurring Opinion-on the Supreme Court, written by a Justice who voted with the majority, but for differing reasons. Dissenting Opinion-on the Supreme Court, written by the Justice(s) who disagrees with the majority. Majority Opinion-on the Supreme Court, the ruling of the majority, written by one of the Justices. Judicial Review-authority of the courts to declare a legislative or executive act unconstitutional. Solicitor General-member of the Justice Department who is responsible for representing the federal government before the Supreme Court. Subpoena-an order for a person to appear or to surrender evidence (records, tapes, documents, memos, etc.) before a court or official body. Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 77 A Close Up Briefing Before the seminar on the judicial branch, one of your program instructors will conduct a short "Briefing" as an introduction to this subject. The purpose is to provide some background information which will help you participate in the seminar with your guest speaker. In addition to the Glossary and the "Structure of the Judicial Branch" diagram, some of the subjects which may be discussed in the briefing are outlined below. Use these pages to take notes during both the briefing and the seminar. ? What powers does the Constitution grant to the Supreme Court? To all courts? ? What is judicial review? ? What are some of the major current issues involving the law and the courts? NOTES (BRIEFING) NOTES (SEMINAR) Approved For Release 2004/1W93 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 .'.{ ~ Bales 04M1 { AMENDMENT FREEDOMS 4,111" U Ez 'RE TO ' TI O N: {M {'>^'x,.5{ , .r' r~ }{ . {^ {r {'ft>r?< { {. / r M i r { r { ,~.~ r{t{ r : .r { The Ro O The Press Anfd Oft obbyists WO p 707-1- M are .p er Belem 004/1 }/1 r. CIA C 8 1 ~i 2 Qt Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 5. THE PRESS: Focus on "The Fourth Estate" "Were it left for me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. " Thomas Jefferson "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech or press." The First Amendment could not have been much clearer in its wording; nor should it be surprising that such a high value was placed on freedom of the press. Benjamin Franklin knew well the importance of the printed word from his experience as a printer. Thomas Paine's pamphlet, Common Sense, had wide circulation and was instrumental in rallying support for the Revolution. Town criers, too, played a key role in bringing news from the battlefields to villages from Massachusetts to Georgia. Today, television commentators have replaced the town criers, syndicated columnists and investi- gative reporters have taken over for pamphleteers, and the "press" has grown to include the electronic media. At the same time, the press (media), traditionally called "the fourth estate" in recognition of its important and powerful role in our political system, has become even more powerful and more important. This has raised some dispute among its critics and defenders. Exactly how free should the press be? And how well has it performed its job? Do we have faith in the accuracy and objectivity of the information we receive in the press? Should reporters be forced to reveal their sources? These and other questions are explored by some of our country's most noted journalists in this chapter. In the first article Robert Pierpoint, a White House correspondent for CBS News, makes a strong case for freedom of the press. Hal Walker, also a CBS reporter, follows with a very candid discussion of what a journalist's role should be, which may leave you wondering whether or not you can believe everything you read or hear in the news. Think about this and use the What Am I Reading? exercise to begin to distinguish between fact and opinion in the news. Then, for a glimpse of what you don't see on the television screen, turn to John Goldsmith's account of what a reporter's life can really be like. Finally, you can reflect on the question of "what should be the political role of the press" through the five short articles in thePerspectives Panel. Approved For Release 200411 Olga : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 A FRE~pPREd For Release SS IS THE 2004/10/13 :CIA-RDP88-013158000200160007-2 News and The New York Times after much FOUNDATION OF A FREE discussion among top executives, did not publish the information, apparently on the grounds that it SOCIETY might compromise national security. That did not Robert C. Pierpoint In May, 1976, amidst the numerous con- troversies over freedom of the press, Mr. Pierpoint delivered the commencement address at the University of Redlands. This article, which has never before appeared in print, is based on that speech. Mr. Pierpoint may be familiar to you as White House correspondent for CBS News, a position he has held since 1957. I came to the University of Redlands today to propose that together we take a good hard look at the current state of American journalism and what that means to you. My talk is titled "Up- date... 1976," using the one word that journalists employ in overseas cables to save the cost of two words, and to convey the message that a con- tinuing story is to be brought up to date. The con- tinuing story is the two hundred year old ex- periment of a free press in a democratic society. There are many issues within the general area of freedom of the Press which we could discuss. I would like to focus on one subject of continuing controversy, both within and outside journalistic circles-government secrecy. How much of secret government activities does a reporter have a duty to report and the public the right to know? Basically, I am opposed to what might be called "self-censorship" by reporters or news organizations. In most cases a clever enemy agent could learn anything which a reporter knows and do so far ahead of the reporter. Let me give you an example. In early 1961, various reporters began to pick up evidence, both here and abroad, that the United States was organizing some kind of military action against Cuba. The Los Angeles Times, for example, reported on a training base in Central America where Cuban refugees were being trained and equipped, by men and funds that appeared to be directly connected with the CIA. Eventually The New York Times and CBS News learned that the CIA was about to sponsor an invasion of Cuba, directed at overthrowing Castro. Most of the sources for the information were Cubans in and around Miami. But CBS stop Castro's agents from picking up the same basic information, and perhaps much more, from the same kinds of sources available to The Times and CBS. As a result, Castro's soldiers were ready and waiting when the CIA put ashore at the Bay "Democracy is based on the assumption that citizens will make the proper choices, but democracy also assumes that the citizens have the information on which to base these choices." of Pigs. It was an operation that was badly conceived from the beginning, and the bloodshed, deaths and humiliation to the United States might have all been averted if The New York Times and CBS News had published in advance of the operation what they knew about it. But... and this is a serious problem for those of us in news. . . what would have been the reaction of the U.S. Government and of the public? Would the two news organizations in question not have been subjected to strong criticism for having unpatriotically given away American secrets and saved Castro? Sad to say, I think many in our society would still be calling us traitors, as some believe of us because of our coverage of the war in Vietnam. Some Secrets, Yes; Too Much Secrecy, No I do not suggest that there should be no government secrets withheld from the public. In this day of instant communication, and when we do indeed still have potential enemies in the world, that would be suicidal. Certain military plans and operations of contingency nature in peacetime, certain technological and scientific information having military application, and obviously most plans and operations during wartime, must be kept secret. But in my view, far, far less secrecy than the government now affords itself would be perfectly adequate for our democratic system. You and I would doubtless be appalled at how much government information is kept secret for the convenience and protection of people high up in government, and their friends in positions of power outside it. The recent scandals of bribery and political payoffs by Approved For Release 2004/10/13 8 f IA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 A Presidential Press Conference Photo courtesy of the White House Lockheed, Gulf Oil and other large corporations ought to be proof enough of that. The Freedom of Information Act* passed a few years ago by Congress has helped uncover some secrets that government would like to hide. That Act, for example, helped us at CBS News gain information on some of the shadier activities of Charles "Bebe" Rebozo, Richard Nixon's friend down in Florida. We won an "Emmy" for our investigative series on Rebozo's bank, and brought some tightening of certain banking laws and regulations. But the Freedom of Information Act is cumbersome to use, sometimes requiring, for example, a threat of a lawsuit or even the suit itself before the information is obtained. By then, it may be too late. Furthermore, and this is a criticism of myself and the media, the Act is not invoked often enough. But it is a step in the right direction. During 1975 and 1976, many in Congress and the executive branch were urging a step in another direction-backward- toward under- cutting freedom of information in this country. I refer to the infamous "Senate Resolution Number One" (S-1), a bill which was proposed but defeated in the Senate. In its *Editor's Note: The Freedom of Information Act was passed in 1966 and amended in 1974. It provides that any citizen can request and receive copies of any federal government documents or records. There are, however, nine specific exceptions, such as documents classified for national security. Many but not all states have their own freedom of information acts. original form, S-1 aimed at rewriting, simplifying, and updating the complex federal code of criminal laws. But certain sections were to do more than simplify the code of laws and were aimed at handcuffing the press. For example, in its original form S-1 would have made reporters subject to prosecution for receiving, passing on, or publishing government secrets. That would almost certainly have prevented the publication of The Pentagon Papers, and might well have put Woodward and Bernstein behind bars.* It would also effectively prevent YOU, the public, from learning a great deal about your government that you have a right to know. Fortunately, through the combined efforts of some guardians of the press within the Senate, S-1 was defeated. But its proponents live on, and may be determined to try again next year and beyond. You and I must remain vigilant that well meaning but misguided legislators do n, t destroy the system of a free press which has worked so well for so long. Almost equally dangerous to the free press *Editor's Note: The Pentagon Papers is the name given to the series of classified documents concerning the war in Vietnam. They were first published in mid 1971 by The New York Times, which obtained them from Daniel Ellsberg, a former government official. The Nixon Administration sued to stop publication, but the Supreme Court ruled against the government. The Pentagon Papers were eventually published in book form. Daniel Ellsberg was also brought to trial on charges of having leaked classified documents, but he was not convicted. Approved For Release 2004/10/Ii : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 are recent ruling' :& ffo of CIA3paWWipjaW QM%Vffi#Q8H fled sounds, and rulings which are still being tested in the courts. lurching into disastrous decisions like the Several years ago judges began ordering reporters Vietnam War. to disclose their sources of information. Some As my former colleague, the great journalist reporters, such as William Farr of The Los Edward R. Murrow used to put it, "We've got to Angeles Times, have gone to jail to protect their make 'em itch." We must, because we are not the sources and your right to know. Confidentiality of cheerleaders of our society, we are critics. We look sources is one of a reporter's most important deliberately for the faults and failures, to expose tools. Without that tool, a great deal that you them to you so you can correct them. Many know now, or need to know about the operations Americans take their free press for granted of our society and our government, will become because they have enjoyed its rights so long that unavailable. they are unaware of the constant struggle to Free Press, The Foundation of Democracy The necessity for a free press in a free society simply cannot be overemphasized. It is absolutely essential. In fact, one cannot exist without the other. A free press is the first institution to be shut down by a totalitarian government of either the right or the left. Anyone who is familiar with the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia by the Soviet Union knows that the first casualties included the television broadcasts of what was going on and the newspaper accounts of the suppression of the Czech people. The press in Communist countries is, of course, a mockery. Perhaps equally discouraging is the shutdown of the free press in Brazil, Chile, India, and many other nations where democratic institutions have been or are being stifled under dictatorships of the right and left.* We are your eyes and ears. . . on City Hall... the State House... the White House. Democracy is based on the assumption that citizens will make the proper choices, but democracy also assumes that the citizens have the information on which to base those choices. That information must not "We've got to make 'em itch." Edward R. Murrow only be accurate, but also complete, which means reporters must go beneath the surface of facts to find and convey background sufficient to put the bare information in its proper context. Cutting down or cutting off a flow of information is harmful to our system. America without a free and aggressive press could become that "pitiful, helpless giant" that Richard Nixon warned about in another context-a giant seeing *Editor's Note: In 1977 free elections were held in India and a new government was elected which has restored freedom of the press. preserve them. We in the media have a vested interest in this struggle, but so do you. I doubt that many of you will become reporters, but all of you must hope to grow and prosper in the free society. Certainly we in the press make mistakes. These may bother you as they should, but they are no excuse for limiting freedom of the press. In fact, despite what some self-serving, flag-waving politicians may say, nothing about our democracy is perfect, or ever will be. I have faith in our system, and I want it to survive for future generations. I warn you, however, that it will not do so without the support of a responsible, aggressive, critical, but above all FREE press. THE JOURNALIST'S ROLE IS TO INFORM THE PUBLIC Hal Walker In this article Hal Walker, also a CBS News correspondent, presents you with his thoughts on the responsibilities of a journalist. He has had a diverse career as a reporter, ranging from special assignments in Europe to covering the activities of every President since Lyndon B. Johnson. As you read his article keep in mind that what you are reading is the perspective of one journalist who has written this essay to get you thinking about some important questions. As Mr. Walker states in his article, a good journalist strives to inform rather than to convince. The thoughts I have on journalism do not come from an academic background in this field. As a matter of fact, I've never taken a journalism course in my life. Instead, the conclusions I have Approved For Release 2004/10/13 8 lA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 reached and the ie 3'r4vPi eo l {g j~1~i /13 : jfr- 8-~13t1a 0 ~1 Q~r fession as an come from nearly fourteen years of professional ideal. Of course, when we're talking about experience. I don't look at them as final answers, standards of honesty, fairness and objectivity, we but as answers which satisfy me now in a process, are talking about ideals for which to strive. which is a continuing one, and a learning one. Naturally, in a day-to-day practice, these ideals Fundamentally, I believe that the basic role are not always reached, and that is why a certain of journalism and journalists is to inform the pub- amount of responsibility must fall upon the con- lie. I do not believe it is to convince. It is to give sumer of journalistic output. the people the information that they need to be able to make informed and intelligent decisions about the things that affect their daily lives. Weather reports are as essential a part of the in- formation that the journalist can impart to his public as anything else. A weather report gives you the information that you need to decide how you will dress, what appointments you will make-in effect, how you will run your life for a given period of time affected by that particular report. I do not believe it is the role of the journalist giving weather reports to convince his readers, his viewers or his listeners to wear a cer- tain type of clothing or to cancel certain types of appointments. He is simply there to provide the people with the information that they need. News Must Be Honest and Factual This is not to say that there is no legitimate role for editorialists or commentators, people like that. I believe very strongly that those who are going to perform as editorialists and as commentators must very clearly label their material as such. I would like to mention here the subject of advocacy journalism which has become rather fashionable these days, especially with young people. For my part, I cannot accept the concept of advocacy journalism. I do not believe that the journalist can put himself in the role of an advocate and still expect to be accepted as an objective reporter of the truth, or even of the truth as he sees it. Objectivity has gone out of fashion as a word in journalism because we understand that it is impossible for any living human being to be completely objective about anything. Although the ideal may not be attainable., I believe it is a basic responsibility of the serious journalist to strive as mightily as he can to be as objective as possible. Perhaps we should substitute for objectivity the words honest, factual, careful and fair, because these, I believe, are the basic standards against which the work of any journalist must be measured. It is very easy, when talking about The nation's leaders, or the average television viewer or the radio listener on his way to the office, must exercise some degree of responsibility for what he takes in as valid news. I suppose this is why I become so concerned when I learn that for an extraordinarily large percentage of Americans, the only source of daily information is the evening television news program. That, of course, is very sad. It is, in fact, a travesty. More importantly,,it places a greater burden on the evening television news program than any one medium of journalism should be forced to carry. I believe it is very much the responsibility of the individual consumer to weigh, to check, and to compare his news sources. From among the many sources of information available, he or she can thus arrive at informed conclusions about which of the many sources is the correct one. The president of CBS News has been quoted as saying that he wished at the end of the CBS evening news, instead of having Walter Cronkite say, "and that's the way it is," he should say Approved For Release 2004/10$}i : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 instead "for furtii~r? nformation,aconsult /your3 : CIA-R[ PtIA~5~BR4%9~Wall rwise, has many local newspaper." I would give that advice to sides. There's the "cushion-warming, bus-riding, anyone who is honestly looking for a truly flying-and-more-flying" dull side. There's the balanced picture of the day's events. "take a press release on a non-story and try to make-news-when-there-isn't-any" side. There's People Need Good Information to Make Wise Decisions The one thing that sets a democracy aside, apart, and yes, above many other forms of government is the fact that major decisions that affect the citizenry are made by the citizenry. Therefore, to function at its highest level, a democracy is dependent upon an informed, intelligent and interested body of citizens who will be called upon to make the decisions that affect us all. The one thing that a free press can do is to make available the factual information that free citizens need in order to make intelligent decisions. That same free press cannot and should not be asked to make the decisions for the people. It should neither be allowed to strain the information nor to censor it. Above all, it must never knowingly distort or falsify the facts. I happen to have an unwavering faith in the ability of people to make decisions for themselves that are in their best interest, provided they are given access to the information that they need to know. "The press, like fire, is an excellent servant but a terrible master." James Fenimore Cooper (1838) THE LIGHTER SIDE OF POLITICAL REPORTING John O. Goldsmith Mr. Goldsmith is the former co-anchorman of the 10 o'clock Metromedia News. He has also been a highly successful investigative reporter and presently operates his own film production company. In this article, written especially for Perspectives, he offers you a glimpse of another side of the news business, of the foils and follies in the life of a reporter. the "real stories only break eight minutes before deadline" hurry-up and panic side. Then there's the "if I don't get a break in this grind, I'm going absolutely bananas" lighter side. I'd like to share with you a few interesting and revealing experiences. This man was running for the Washington, D.C. school board. At that time the school board was the only elected body in the city, all other positions being appointive. So the election was a pretty big event. The candidate had called a news conference outside one of the city's older school buildings. As I recall, ours was the only TV camera crew to show. The prospective board member, gesturing toward the building, proclaimed that it had only one rest room for all those children. A terrible disgrace, he charged, especially when one considered that the White House had 100 bathrooms. Returning to the studios, I decided to dig a little deeper. In a desperate attempt to save another political non- story, I called the White House press office. "How many bathrooms are there?" I inquired. The somewhat incredulous spokesman said he could only guess there were between twenty and thirty. His next line provided the closer for my story on the air that night: "We can't be sure how many there are. We haven't made a `head' count lately." As I came to the line something snapped. I went into hysterics and literally fell off my chair. You had to be there. Or at least watching. Setting Up to "Shoot" the President Terminology in our business almost got me into hot water with the Secret Service during the 1968 Miami Beach Republican Convention. You remember: that's the one that started Spiro Agnew on the road to being a "household word" and saw Richard ("you-won't-have-me-to-kick- around-anymore") Nixon make his return only to be kicked around like never before. To appreciate what follows you should know that Secret Service agents and local law enforcement people who are Approved For Release 2004/10/13 gclA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 p A r ed.For 2eleeQ 2004/1 /13 : CIA-RDP&8-01315~,QQ920q,1 D07-?h recruited to rotect a residen an is ami eware o ive icrou ones wear identifying pins on their lapels. This tells everyone that they are rightfully carrying guns. The pins change color and design each day so someone with ill intent can't copy them. Mr. Nixon had won his party's nomination the night before. Now he was about to host a news conference in the lobby of the Fontainebleau, his hotel headquarters. Our camera crew was in position to record the event. With a few minutes to spare, I went to a pay phone to check in with my Washington assignment desk. I had left the booth door open and two men strolled by at the very moment I was reporting our status in the jargon of the trade: "We're all set up in the lobby," I said, "to `shoot' Nixon." The men turned and looked at me. I looked at them. More distressing to me at the moment, I looked at their lapel pins. We exchanged nervous smiles as they kept walking. I thought to myself, "Very poor choice of words. Very poor." By the time I returned to the lobby to rejoin my camera crew, there were lapel pins everywhere I looked. It took more than a little explaining. For the remainder of my stay in Miami Beach, I had the distinct feeling that I was never alone! hews ', rm a reporter When said % was going to'shoof the Prtsl#14' x was taftin, 2bout... W, ya go}f'o belittle nt?..." If anyone ever tells you that covering a President travelling overseas is glamorous and exciting, don't you believe it. I was assigned Mr. Nixon's first trip to Europe in 1969. It was very much like running all out on a treadmill with someone tossing cold water in your face one day, shining hot lights on you the next. The weather ranged from wet snow to balmy sunshine as we shuttled from country to country, from chartered jetliner to bus to hotel room to news center to bus... Thanks to the time difference, we were out of bed every morning around six, but couldn't call it quits until stateside assignment editors said OK, which was frequently two or three a.m. in Europe. I'd been running like this for about a week before we reached London where, from the BBC studios, I was to send a report via satellite on the day's Presidential activities. It was pushing midnight and I was very tired, so tired that I temporarily forgot one of the cardinal rules of broadcasting: Always treat a microphone as though it is "alive." Many a career has come to a jolting halt because some technician threw the wrong switch and recorded some words which were not meant to be broadcast. The satellite would relay my story to a receiving center, shared by all broadcasting organizations, which happened to be a New York network news operation. Executives of the various news organizations were together awaiting their reporters' stories. As I waited in that studio and felt my fatigue I moaned at considerable length and in great detail about how rough the trip had been. How the people back home didn't understand my problems. How I had to work with film crews in various countries who didn't speak English because my company was too cheap to send along a crew with me. You guessed it! Every complaining word plus my image in living color beamed, via satellite, to that New York receiving center where my boss waited. His face, I must presume, was in livid color: a combination of embarrassment as he stood among his peers and anger at his reporter in far-off London Town. I vented my spleen totally unaware that it wasn't a conversation between me, the four walls and some technicians I'd never see again, but a gripe session that literally went around the world. Unaware, that is, until the phone rang with a call from the States. But that's a conversation that couldn't be reported. Approved For Release 2004/10/16: CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For R fA 14 10,E 11` E $$ 161000200160007-2 As readers (also listeners) it is very important that we develop the skills to be able to differentiate between fact and opinion in the news. An article on the editorial page, or one which is labelled "news analysis" or "commentary" obviously presents the opinion of the author on a particular subject. Others are supposed to "report the facts "; as Hal Walker writes in the preceding article, to inform the public without attempting to persuade or direct. In reading about politics you probably have discovered that it is not that simple to separate fact from opinion. Many times they are mixed together in a single article. Some passages present the facts while others analyze or comment on them. Consider the following examples of news, some of which appeared in the very same article, and label each as "FACT" or "OPINION. " These passages are excerpted from the July 9 and 13, 1977 editions of the The Washington Post. A good further exercise would be to go through an edition of your favorite newspaper, identifying facts and opinions as you perceive them. 1. By voting this week to continue the temporary ban against operations of the Concorde at Kennedy Airport... the Port Authority's members have abused their power. 2. President Carter yesterday urged Congress to vote initial production funds for a new generation of neutron nuclear weapons... Carter said, "It is my present view... the neutron weapons are in the nation's security interest." 3. The Panama Canal was high on Carter's list when he took office. A week before his inauguration he privately told members of Congress he planned to resume negotiations on a new treaty. 4. The Panama Canal is, perhaps, the last vestige of American innocence-or arrogance. They go hand in hand. For decades it was a proud symbol of The Flag, of American daring and might, the passageway that made the Pacific an American lake. 5. Since the collapse of the American-backed regimes of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, the United States has granted sanctuary to about half of the 300,000 refugees who have fled these countries. The White House... is considering the admission of 15,000 more... 6. Still this is not a problem that lends itself to the business-as-usual play of American bureaucracy and politics. The refugees are out there in misery, in the refugee camps and on the high seas. 7. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday tentatively approved a treaty that would allow Americans imprisoned in Mexico to serve out their jail sentences in U.S. prisons. . . One of the problems involved in ratifying the treaty with Mexico is the possibility that some returned Americans might seek to bring an action through the American court system to overturn their Mexican con- victions. Approved For Release 2004/10/13 8FA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 PERSPECTIVES PANEL: POLITICAL ROLE OF THE PRESS Within its own ranks, as well as among government officials and the general public, the press has been alternately acclaimed and criticized. The political influence of those referred to as "the fourth estate" has become more apparent over the past decade. -What do you see as the most crucial role of the press in our political system? -How effectively has it fulfilled this role? Paul Duke, PBS Television Correspondent; The fundamental function of the American press is to present the truth about the government to the American people. It is a difficult task, to say the very least. But the exposure of Watergate and other governmental abuses has reaffirmed the strength and vitality of the Constitution's First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of the press. It has proved, moreover, the virtue of James Madison's observation that "knowledge will forever govern ignorance." Some critics contend reporters are snooping into too many governmental corners these days, suggesting they are undermining people's faith in ouWi !tfff3 s 1I5 ?2 16WP7ri3ed more, not less, investigative reporting. If the politicians can make such a mess of things and arrogantly misuse their powers-as has happened-think how much worse the government would be if the press were silent. The time to be concerned about our freedom is when the press and the politicians start back-slapping one another. Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell recently noted in a decision upholding press freedom that history abundantly documents the tendency of government, no matter how benevolent, to view with suspicion those who question its policies. It was none other than President John Kennedy who cancelled all White House subscriptions to the New York Herald Tribune because he disagreed with some of its criticisms of his Administration's policies. Former Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina, a noted defender of the press, placed the issue in proper focus when he declared that the First Amendment was designed to protect the public, not the press. For this reason, he added, we must tolerate a press that is sometimes wrong, occasionally vindictive, and infrequently biased. It is a price-a small price, really-that we must pay for having the widest possible distribution of information, unfettered by government inter- ference. The distinguished journalist, Walter Lippman, once said, "There can be no higher law in journalism than to tell the truth and shame the evil." Hence, a vital press is needed to provide as much sunlight as possible on the activities of government, thereby helping to make certain that government always operates within the boundaries of our constitutional ideals. Morton Kondracke, Executive Editor, The New Republic: The basic purpose of the press is to tell people what is going on. In politics, those in office usually will take care of telling people what they have done right, so it falls to the press to tell what is going wrong. In general, the press performs its function well, especially when compared to the press elsewhere in the world. Watergate, leading to the resignation of a President; exposure of wrongdoing by the Central Intelligence Agency, leading to Congressional investigations; and awareness that this country's leadership was misleading the citizenry about the Vietnam War-all these are recent examples of the press Approved For Release 2004/10%? : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13: C IAa i ar-F~P8~-01uc 15FOor , it o WOOOM~Qt7 United States doing its job in a way that is hard to imagine in , any other country. Citizens' Congress: At the same time, the press has serious Under the First Amendment, I perceive a failings. Most reporters are lazy and editors are responsible media (press and electronic) to be unimaginative, with the result that only a few dispensers of untainted news; vehicles for newspapers (and, practically no television organ- opinion; guardians of individual freedom and izations) were responsible for Watergate, the CIA ombudsman against abuses and capricious acts of exposure, Vietnam disclosures and other public officials. important investigations. Also, people in the However, just as it has been argued that war media tend to run in packs, think alike, and is too serious an affair to be left entirely to the observe the same fads. One year, everybody will generals (which is why we have civilian control), so be writing about poverty; the next year, it is too may it be said that keeping the public corruption or war, and everyone has forgotten truthfully informed is too serious an affair to be about poor people. The press is part of the left entirely to the journalists. One must bear in American Establishment, so it lacks the ability to mind that freedom can never be total. The very criticize the society as a whole. safeguards of freedom preclude its totality; These findings do not mean the press should among them, freedom to publish slanted news, be less free or more controlled. To the contrary, half-truths and carnal sensationalism. This they mean the press has to be more energetic in cannot be rationally defended as within the doing the job the U.S. Constitution anticipated it purview of the First Amendment. would perform. Moreover, given the proclivities of the Nicholas Johnson, Chairperson, National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting: Television has the potential to increase the American people's understanding of the many complex problems that face their society, and thereby enhance their ability to make sound political choices. Over 95% of all Americans own a television; on the average weekday evening, 60% of them are watching. Driven by the corporate greed for ever-in- creasing profits, restrained by the fear of controversy and confrontation, the television industry is seldom willing to make the financial or journalistic commitment necessary to aid the citizen in understanding the political and social problems of our time. Broadcasters are even less willing to allow the diverse voices and opinions that make up this country to use the airwaves from which these broadcasters make their enormous profits. It is virtually impossible for a member of the public to use those airwaves to communicate with other fellow citizens. The technical and creative forces, the people eager to communicate with their fellow Americans, already exist. We need only get the corporate owners of television and radio stations to free up some portion of their time for improving our political system and our understanding of one another. Herein lies the greatest untapped potential of television. Let me hear from you. Together we can make it happen. predominately liberal working press (electronic included), the chance for opposing opinion and differing ideological persuasions is almost totally prevented. My personal experience with the media has been traumatic. They frequently savaged me by commission and omission and distorted my views to fit what they regard to be abomination. Some of the moguls, owners of leading newspapers and potentates of the three major networks and others, huge corporate giants with interests in other than newsprint, sit in their ivory towers dispensing "justice" and "benevolence," perhaps in atonement for their economic power and high living, or to contain the economically disadvantaged for fear of being toppled. In either case, they appear to me the avant garde of the Marxist revolution, planting the seed of their own destruction. After all, who subsidized Vladimir Ilyich Lenin? The role of the media under the First Amendment is a sacred trust, primarily for the protection of the individual against oppression, be it civil, moral, religious or economic. It was never intended as a power base to rival anything we have now in government. What distresses me is the way every office-holder from the President on down to the precinct level, stands in awe of the media. What unsettles me is that rather than embody "the fourth estate," the media have become the fourth branch of government, reigning over the three other branches without accountability to the people. While the media has Approved For Release 2004/10/138?IA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 been know to root heeRravpd ptF0% $ a01pc$g2ctJ?/13 :C Fd&- gP88i%tllq o00t3Pe0'~RRRTAs. The total they have also erected a citadel for their own brand of corruption. Victor Gold, Syndicated Columnist, Former Press Secretary to Former Vice President Agnew: Forty years ago, President Franklin Roosevelt could call his White House press corps into the Oval Office to answer questions put to him on a "background basis." These Presidential "press conferences" were usually brief, informal and conducted under a cramped format that suited the convenience of the White House. The growth of news media power and influence in Washington during recent decades can be measured not only by the relative size of today's White House press corps, but by the fact that no modern President could long govern the country with such limited access, through the press to the public. In the 1970's, the number of accredited White House journalists, both print and number of Washington newsmen, covering all branches and departments of our Federal Government, runs into the thousands. Recent years have witnessed events that draw attention to the adversary nature of press and government. And there will always be areas in a free society-if that society is to remain free- wherein newsmen and government officials clash. But we should not, in emphasizing these clashes, overlook the more fundamental role played by the press in its less dramatic coverage of "routine" events and activities involving the executive, Congressional, and judicial areas of government. The national capital press corps is more than a watchdog. It is a conduit without which most of the information regarding the decisions affecting our lives would never reach the public. To this extent, modern American government is depend- ent on the media to get its message out: a freely- elected government operating through a free press to communicate to a free people. REFLECTIONS The authors in this Perspectives Panel have presented you with different and sometimes conflicting views. Which authors do you think would agree with the following statements? 1. The major political role of the press is to inform the public. 2. The press must also be a "watchdog" for the American people. We can be assured that government officials will tell the public all about what they are doing well. It is the responsibility of the press to expose what is going wrong. 3. The press has abused the trust and responsibility placed in it by the Constitution. Too often, it reports half-truths, slanted news, and sensationalist stories. 4. Too much air time is given to game shows and police stories. Television needs to become much more effective as a medium for educating the American people about our government and about the challenges confronting our society. 5. Freedom of the press is one of the most sacred principles of our democracy. The press must always have enough freedom to be an adversary rather than a partner of the government. Approved For Release 2004/10/90 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 6. LOBBYING: Influencing the Policy Makers "In every country where man is free to think and to speak, differences of opinion will arise from differences of perception and the imperfection of reason.... " Thomas Jefferson Lobbying is one of the least understood yet most important aspects of our political system. The Constitution does not contain any clause which specifically defines the functions of a lobbyist, although the First Amendment right "to petition the government for the redress of grievances" has been inter- preted as guaranteeing the right to lobby. Nor do dictionaries give any strict definition of who is a lobby- ist. Nevertheless, if we are to genuinely understand politics and government, it is necessary to gain a more accurate knowledge of lobbying and lobbyists. In 1976 more than 1000 corporations, labor unions, law firms, trade associations, individual citizens and other organizations registered in Washington, D.C. as lobbyists. Based upon their membership and the interests which they represent, lobbyists can be classified into general groupings such as business, labor, environmental, consumer and "public interest" lobbyists. There are also professional lobbyists who contract to represent several clients who do not employ their own lobbyists. All lobbyists attempt to exert pressure on behalf of a particular interest group. In studying any issue, be it domestic or foreign policy, it is important to identify which lobbyists are attempting to influence the policy makers in the executive and legislative branches. The articles in this chapter are intended to help you gain a clearer idea of what lobbying is and why it is central to our governmental process. The first two articles define the job of a lobbyist and explain his functions; both are authored by actual lobbyists. Congressman Tom Railsback, a leading sponsor of lobby reform legislation, has authored an article on this subject. Finally, the Know the Lobbyists chart helps you become familiar with some of the major lobbyists. Approved For Release 2004/10/13 :cIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved WHO IS A LOBBYIST AND WHAT DOES HE REALLY DO?? Michael O. Ware Mr. Ware is the Government Affairs Coor- dinator for the National Association of Manufacturers, a position which includes lobbying among its responsibilities. He drew upon his own experience and expertise to write this article for Perspectives. It presents you with a very informative perspective on who these people called lobbyists are and what is their job. "A lobbyist," Senator James Reed of Missouri said once, "is anyone who opposes legis- lation I want." Probably most people feel that way. Lobbyists are envisioned as unshaven, cigar- smoking, political "fixers" carrying money- filled black bags with which to bribe legislators. Actually, although the term lobbyist is held in low esteem, everyone to some degree or other is a lobbyist. Any person who attempts to persuade another, be it in regard to community activities, PTA or social welfare programs, is actually lobby- ing. Who is a Lobbyist? Legally, a lobbyist is a petitioner of the government exercising a right granted in the First Amendment of the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establish- ment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there- of; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assembly, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This assumption, that all individuals and groups are entitled to representation in the mak- ing of public decisions, forms the basis for all lobbying activities; it is the truest essence of participatory government. The Washington Lobbyist by Lester W. Milbrath (Rand McNally and Co., 1963, pp. 7-8) describes the lobbying function in a more scholarly manner: Despite the imprecision of the word "lobbying," some boundaries can be defined. First, lobbying relates only to governmental decision-making. Decisions made by private organizations or corporations may be influ- enced by special interests within those organizations or from without, but they do not affect the entire body politic. Second, all lobbying is motivated by a desire to influence governmental decisions (many actions and events affect the outcome of governmental decisions), but if they are not accompanied by an intent to in- fluence, there is no lobbying. Third, lobbying implies the presence of an intermediary or representative as a communication link between citizens and govern- mental decision makers. A citizen who, of his own volition and by his own means, sends a message to a governmental decision maker is not considered a lobbyist-though he is attempting to influence governmental decisions. Some may not agree with this stipulation. However, if all citizens are potential lobbyists and if all voters are lobbyists (since voting is, in a sense, a message sent with intent to influence), the word lobbying would lose its usefulness. Fourth, all lobbying involves communication. Without communication, it is impossible to influence a decision. On the other hand, not all communica- tion-only that which attempts to influence govern- mental decisions-is lobbying. Broadly defined then, lobbying Is the stimulation and transmission of communication by someone other than a citizen act- ing on his own behalf directed to a governmental decision-maker with the hope of Influencing his decision. "If it Walks Like a Duck..." Most people, as mentioned earlier, without being very precise about the meaning of the term, seem to feel that any lobbying is corrupt. This concept exists because of many factors. The general assumption is that the "public interest" is somehow subverted by the lobbying process. The defeated party in a policy battle often charges that his opponents won because of the-evil activities of lobbyists. Such charges are easily accepted by the public because they confirm their preconceptions. As Milbrath found in his study ".. The public generally receives only negative information about lobbyists." With this kind of public image, it's no wonder that many people performing the same function call themselves by different titles. Few individuals admit to being lobbyists; instead they are a "Washington Representative," or "Legis- lative Liaison," and (worst of all in light of current revelations) "Coordinator Government Affairs." Borrowing an analogy from former Senator Sam Ervin(D-N.C.), however, "If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and when I see it, it is always Approved For Release 2004/10/41 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13: CIA-RDP88-01315R0002 1.60Q07-2 in the company of other ducks, I just naturally Washington to presen is views. People need to assume it is a duck." organize. They need representation as groups or For the same reason, some groups attempt to special interests, which means they need a person disassociate themselves from the seedy image of lobbying by proclaiming that they are "public interest" lobbyists, in contrast to "special interest" lobbyists. They refer to their own activities as educational and those of their opponents as lobbying . . . Sometimes a duck prefers to be seen as a peacock. "In every session of Congress over 20,000 pieces of legislation are introduced. The subjects of these bills cover every aspect of American society.... No Congressman or Senator can be an expert in all of these fields. . . This expertise is provided by the lobbyists." Lobbyists: Source of Information Whatever titles are used, the principal function of a lobbyist is education and his principal commodity is information. In every session of Congress over 20,000 pieces of legislation are introduced. The subjects of these bills cover every aspect of American society: energy, environment, health, welfare, job safety, education, economics, and so many other equally complex issues. No Congressman or Senator can be an expert in all of these fields, yet expertise is often called upon in the analysis of them. This expertise is provided by the lobbyist. On many occasions the lobbyist is the only individual to whom legislators can look for specialized information which they need. Without the information provided by the lobbyists, the legislative process would be severely hampered. For these reasons the lobbyist is very frequently an informal consultant to legislators, to adminis- trators, and their staffs. This is not a self-serving statement. Without the information which the lobbyist possesses, the Congress would be much more dependent upon the executive branch, thus further eroding the balance of power between the two. Lobbyist: Spokesman for Organized Interests Also, the Members of Congress need to know the "cross-section" of views which exist in the areas they represent. In a complex society every- one cannot come to a town meeting or to to act for them when they cannot. Members of Congress thus "hear" from their constituents as their special or unique interests are represented by the business lobbyist, the labor lobbyist, the consumer lobbyist, and many others. Combined with the letters received from "the people back home," this helps the legislators to represent the people who elected them. That is the service for which there is no sub- stitute-the clash of viewpoints. The creative function this serves in alerting decision-makers to all possible alternatives outweighs all the frus- tration involved in lobbying. This one function is also most clearly protected by the constitutional right to petition. Officials might find other sources for more services lobbyists provide, but they could never find a substitute for the essential representational function that spokesmen for organized interests provide. Former Congressman Emanuel Celler (D-New York) sums up this point rather well: " ..It is...true that the pressures generated by a well organized interest group can become irritating. But despite this I believe that too much lobbying is not as dangerous as too little. . . . The Congressman may know or suspect that there are serious opposing con- siderations (to legislation), but they are simply not presented. He is faced with a dilemma as to how far he should go to supply the omission." In addition, the lobbyist has a responsibility to protect the legitimate interests of his employer and to keep the employer informed on specific and general trends which affect a particular business, or a particular special interest. To those not familiar with Washington, this may seem to be a rather insignificant assignment. It must be realized, however, that the lobbyist is usually working for someone who is located far away from Washington and, who, in many instances, lacks a political orientation. The employer who is made knowledgeable of the present political situation and of possible future governmental actions is a much more capable businessman than the one who operates in a political vacuum. Lobbyists: Indispensable Parts of Our Political System The fundamental questions remain: What contributions do lobbyists make to the political system as a whole? Do these contributions tend to Approved For Release 2004/10/13 WA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 make the political system more or less workable? Ask any lobbyist and he will give you a re- sounding "Yes!" Many congressional officials claim they could function quite adequately with- out us. We are, however, probably indispensable. If information from lobbyists and lobby groups was, for some reason, unavailable to government officials, they would be largely dependent upon their own staff for all information and all ideas. Since the Congress is reluctant to staff itself ade- quately, it would have to turn primarily to the Executive for information. This would create an even further imbalance in policy-making. More important, cutting off lobbying communications would eliminate a most valuable source of creativity. There is no assurance that government institutions can turn up all the possible alterna- tive solutions to policy problems; as a matter of fact there is a great deal of evidence that points to the opposite. A decision-maker who has his mind made up may well have to have new points of view force- fully presented to him before he can perceive and accept them. The clash of viewpoints between contesting groups is not only informative, it is also creative. The best way to teach the realities of life, according to John Stuart Mill, is by hearing the opposition. Let the position be challenged, and let the challenge fail. This method was considered by Mill to be so important that he recommended inventing a challenging position if a real one was not forthcoming. Formerly unperceived alternatives may arise from the challenge to previously accepted possibilities. "If we had no lobbyists, we would probably have to invent them to improve the functioning of our political system." Through lobbyists and lobby groups, officials know what the effects of a given policy will be and how citizens will react to that policy. The lobbyist defines opinions for government in real and specific terms to a degree that cannot be achieved through political parties, the mass media, opinion polls and staff assistants. There is a good reason to conclude, then, that the "system" without lobbyists would not produce wiser nor more intelligent decisions. Instead the assumption could be made that if we had no lobbyists, we would probably have to invent them to improve the functioning of our political system. WHO IS A LOBBYIST AND WHAT DOES HE REALLY DO?? Richard W. Clark Mr. Clark is a member of the legislative staff and a registered lobbyist for Common Cause, a citizens' interest group. He has written this article for Perspectives in which he presents the views of a public interest lobbyist on his role in our political system. Mr. Clark and Mr. Ware represent different interests, and you will see that they have varying perspectives on their own roles as lobbyists. In its broadest context, lobbying can be defined as the process by which individuals and interest groups influence the governmental decision-making process. Professional lobbying activity involves far more than an occasional offer of assistance, visit with a Member of Congress, or "Dear Representative" letter on a favorite issue. The effectiveness of most lobbying efforts is directly related to such factors as the amount of money spent on influence seeking activities, the size of an organization, the sophistication of its technique and the socio-economic status of the lobbyist. Although the term "lobbyist" often carries negative connotations, it is important for you to understand that lobbyists generally serve a very important function as the communication link between the people whose interests they represent and public officials. Lobbyists also provide re- search and other information, monitor the development of legislation and regulations, and help stimulate action on issues of interest to their constituents. Lobbyists provide a representation for interest groups different from the geographical, elected representation of Congress- men. They also provide a representation in the executive branch, for lobbying activities are not confined to the halls of Congress. "Inside" and "Outside" Lobbying Lobbying involves a wide range of activities. These activities may be directed toward leverage building, agenda-setting or direct action on specific legislative proposals. They include electioneering, campaign contributions, gift- Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 94 Approved For Release 2.0p4110113 giving, favor granting and platform writing, to mention a few. Lobbying may also involve the placement of Members of Congress on key committees and sub- committees, drafting and introduction of bills and amendments, development of strategies for accomplishing legislative objectives, initiating and pressuring for favorable regulations and other administrative policy decisions, promotion of general or selective media campaigns and participation in litigative activities intended to challenge or defend a policy or program. These activities can generally be classified in two broad categories-"inside lobbying" and "outside lobbying." Outside lobbying generally refers to indirect activities which are intended to influence Members of Congress or the executive the Lobblilote ihe mar elous. magical lobb1~sf - f~nger' SoP~orrs ray ii on H he else -e people. er1 his c.latm 'rt- Is in ever( ~b,~bca\ pie. Gre pin-s+r fed 1"N For -the C0n5erVa}7Ue5 L.cud -he -F6r +he liberals list of loo influPn~ial le slags who love f-Fed Iobst ' t u ba ed s plus a guibe +o tuastim~~on's (es~aurant5. best _~Iunnin9 Shoes Io enab~P 4ie ea-,er ~obbyisf ~o ge+ -From One Cor1 re5Slonal k er meefinod -ia am C A-RD 8 0131 R00020016 007 2 ranc . xamp es are mem ership letter writing, telephone campaigns, press conferences and other media activities. Such "grassroots" activity is generally aimed at educating or mobilizing the members of lobbying organizations or the general public for the purpose of influencing decisions on a particular issue. In contrast, inside lobbying refers to activities aimed at influencing decision-makers in a more direct manner. Inside lobbying involves such activities as visiting policy-makers and their staffs, testifying before congressional committees, researching regulations and amendments, and (in the case of Congress) vote-counting and develop- ment of lobbying target lists. Although lobbyists spend considerable time engaged in outside lobbying, the most intense ac- In5i rik Cnmmunica+ion slsi'em... allows Ibbb~l t -~ , slaa~ ~ n con,tan~' UUIIl Lac.., W11 .1 Coups he (epe ~Jso enables i''n mon,tar t jsla-bVe on~ Mimeo raph mc2~+ln~ ma.onbNshee for eopiin9 infarma-hon n fv spens'n li-- l "- d d j t an h 1s lo jin cc' o M Sera Hrs and~ongrPssmdn? Ip ,p For ion lob? by' ISM' 11o~'e iS~)11. Cane employecd +o in-nuence- Iegtsla-iors -}-o it (oduc-e or Vote -For measures -favorable to -Hoe in-teres- he (epres,-Ats, credit cards. ~or wlniA_C~ a.nd dtnl n\ I?9islafioYS.,, The" ustneS5lunch is an e)(cellenf Way -1o Sound oot Po l -hcians On Issues. offer new Per5Qec-' -fives and ffestk inform&-hon, T-I- is also arl exce (lent- way to a~+ -Fat. The telephone 'Perhaps, +he reates+ aid -o -Fhe 1obb ish since -I-he inven ion of +he can pail" conJ(i boor . fsamor role of fhe iobb~is+, Approved For Release 2004/10/139SCIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 tivities of lobbying. rofessionarlo roebdbFo r Releao~ Qo41110/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 P Y Need For Lobby Reform Strategies At The Committee Level In Congress, the bulk of Congressional delib- erations occur in committee and subcommittee. It has been estimated that, in fact, 90 percent of the work of Congress takes place in committee. It is at this level that legislation takes its basic form. It is also at this level that lobbyists have their greatest impact. It is much easier for lobbyists to try to in- fluence the one, two or sometimes three dozen members of a committee than it is to try to in- fluence every member of the Senate or House. Lobbying at the committee level becomes even more intense when it is focused on the so-called "marginal votes"; i.e., those members who are undecided on a given bill or amendment at a. given point in time. "In recent years, lobbying has become big business with many organizations spending tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars." Lobbyists will work hand in hand with Representatives and their staffs in developing strategies for successful action. These strategies are in part substantive, part procedural and part political. The substantive aspects involve "educating" committee members as to what the lobbyist's position is and providing the informa- tion which will support this position. At the same time procedural factors must be considered, for legislative rules of procedure can be utilized very strategically to delay or advance a cause. Finally, lobbyists must be concerned with the political im- plications of the issue. They must know what are the prevailing sentiments among Republicans and Democrats, as well as among business, consumer, environmental and other interest groups. In order to be effective and to participate at each of these three levels of strategy, lobbyists must be informed and have open lines of commu- nication to all involved groups and individuals. Moreover, the lobbyists must be sensitive to the various interests at stake in order to operate within the realm of the possible, as well as to be prepared for the trade-offs which may be necessary to be successful. Lobbying is guaranteed under the First Amendment right of "petition for redress of grievances." In recent years, however, lobbying has become big business with many organizations spending tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars for purposes which go far beyond any reasonable concept of "petition." A 1976 Christian Science Monitor article estimated the expenditure for lobbying at $1 billion a year. Most of the groups spending major funds to lobby are in the full-time business of heavily influencing, if not manipulating, our political processes in order to achieve their desired objectives. Too often the activities and expenditures of such lobbyist groups occur outside the range of public scrutiny because of the ineffectiveness of current disclosure requirements. The first, current, and only general statute governing the activities of lobbyists is the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946. The basic approach of the 1946 Act is one of exposure rather than pro- hibition. Senator Kennedy commented on the 1946 Act recently stating that the Federal regulation of lobbying law is based on the principle that "sunlight is the best disinfectant, that disclosure is the most suitable control over lobbying, and that lobbying laws should identify pressures, not restrict them." In 1976 a new lobby reform bill was con- sidered by the Congress. It did not pass, but prospects are favorable for passage in the next session. (See the next article, The Need for Lobby Reform-Ed.) THE NEED FOR LOBBY REFORM Congressman Tom Railsback Congressman Railsback (R-Illinois) was first elected to Congress in 1966, after four years in the Illinois House of Representatives. In the 94th Congress, he was a chief sponsor of a new bill to reform lobbying; however, this bill was defeated in the waning hours before adjournment. In the 95th Congress, he has re-introduced a new bill and, as a member of the House Judiciary Committee, he has played a major role in hearings on this and other proposals for lobby reform. He wrote this article especially for Perspectives. Approved For Release 2004/10/~3b : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Government pol v ~s or sphouelci not, /e3 : CIA-RDP88-01 (~0M~W Tij Bill made in a vacuum. Efforts of individuals and groups to influence our government are an im- portant part of the American system. Their views are known at every level of government-state, local and Federal-and range from agricultural, business and labor to ethnic, racial and religious. I firmly believe that people not only have the constitutional right, but a very real duty as concerned citizens to contact public officials. As a legislator I have found the information lobbyists provide extremely valuable. Many times, I gain access to information which I would not otherwise have: how agricultural exports affect farmers in my district, the adverse problems price controls impose and whether a new consumer affairs office will actually help the average housewife. In fact, several of the bills I have introduced, such as those establishing a Youth Council and a Folk- life Center and even my lobby reform bill, are the direct result of lobbying efforts. Unfortunately, the picture of a lobbyist is often that of a "sleazy, under-the-table opera- tor." This description is grossly unfair to the vast majority of lobbyists who act in a professional and honest manner. However, unless the activities of all lobbyists are open to the public, the unsavory conduct of a few will condemn the reputation of all. The Weaknesses of the 1946 Act The 1946 Act, our only existing lobby regu- lation law, is a sham. Its faults have been well- documented by various Congressional hearings and by a 1975 General Accounting Office report. The law only covers those whose "principal purpose" is lobbying. It fails to cover "grassroots lobbying" campaigns. It fails to cover lobbying of the executive branch agencies. Finally, it fails to provide adequate administrative and enforcement authority. In my mind, there is no question that the current law is in need of revision. The difficulty in attempting any such reform, however, involves striking a proper balance between adequate accountability by those who seek to influence public policy and the safeguarding of our treasured constitutional freedoms. Further, Congress must be certain that no one group is unduly burdened by time-consuming and costly record-keeping and reporting requirements. Last year, the House and Senate passed their own versions of a new lobby reform bill. Un- fortunately, the two versions could not be reconciled before adjournment, and both bodies are now working on new approaches. The House Judiciary Subcommittee has just reported to the full Committee what is, in my opinion, a "watered down" version of last year's House bill. For example, lobbying organizations would not have to list their major financial contributors. I believe this is a mistake, because the public has a right to know who is providing substantial support to organizations influencing public policy. In the full Judiciary Committee, I will undoubtedly be offering an amendment to require disclosure of certain contributors. I will also offer other amendments to bring the subcommittee version closer to the bill (H.R. 5795) which Congressman Bob Kastenmeier and I sponsored along with approximately 60 other House Members. Briefly stated, our bill requires filing and quarterly reports by organizations which: make expenditures in excess of $1,250 in any quarterly filing period to retain another person, to make a lobbying communication or solicitation or for the express purpose of preparing or draft- ing any such communication; or (2) employ (a) at least one individual who spends thirty or more hours in any quarterly filing period making lobbying communications or solicitations on behalf of the organization or its member or (b) at least two or more individuals, each of whom spends fifteen or more hours in any such period making lobbying communications or solicitations on behalf of the organization or its members. Since the subcommittee finished its work in late July, I am hopeful the full Judiciary Committee will be able to report a bill by the end of the year. A new lobby reform bill needs to be enacted during this Congress. An effective, but fair and even-handed lobby disclosure law will assure that the doors to a previously closed and often secret part of the political process will be opened to the sunlight of citizen examination. The result will undoubtedly be a strengthening of our democracy and a restoration of public confidence in elected officials and those who seek to influence them. Approved For Release 2004/10/13 9 IA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved Fok"W0 3L EVM"!q1PY)ROO0200160007-2 Twelve organizations involved in lobbying are listed below with an accompanying description of their membership. Then six major issues of domestic and foreign policy are listed. Select the organization which favors and the one which opposes each issue; fill these names in on the chart. Space has also been left for your teachers to give you more issues on which you can work. How do you find the answers? First, consider that all lobbyists represent the interests of their membership. Second, read your local newspapers and the national newsmagazines. Third, use reference books on lobbying organizations in your library. For example, the information on memberships was drawn from The Washington Information Directory 1975-76 (Congressional Quarterly, Inc., Washington, D.C.) Fourth, you can write to the House or Senate committees which deal with that particular policy area (see the Special Close Up Guide to Capitol Hill in Chapter 3 for instructions). AFL-CIO-largest labor union in the nation American Medical Association-physicians Consumer Federal of America-national, regional, state and local consumer groups Atomic Industrial Forum-industrial firms, labor unions and other organizations interested in peaceful uses of nuclear energy Coalition for a New Foreign and Military Policy-religious, labor, scientific, peace and generally liberal groups National Rifle Association-hunters, gunsmiths and others interested in firearms. National Association of Manufacturers-corporations and manufacturers Committee for National Health Insurance-individual citizens, labor unions and other groups North American Rockwell Corporation-manufacturer of aircraft and many weapons for defense con- tracts National Council to Control Handguns-citizens' group Chamber of Commerce of the United States-businesses, trade associations and local chambers of Environmental Action-citizens' group concerned with safeguarding the environment DOONESBURY by Garry Trudeau Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Issue In Favor Against Gun Control Increase the Minimum Wage Create Agency for Consumer Protection National Health Insurance Build More and More Nuclear Power Plants B-1 Bomber Approved For Release 2004/10/13 :4IA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 App ov d or Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 A INTRODUCTION TO LOBBYING: A Close Up Briefing Before the seminar on lobbying, one of your program instructors will conduct a short "Briefing" as an introduction to this subject. The purpose is to provide some background information which will help you participate in the seminar with your guest speaker. The briefing will cover many points raised in this chapter's articles, so it would be valuable for you to have read them beforehand. Here is a general outline of some of the subjects which may be discussed. Use these pages to take notes during both the briefing and the seminar. ? What is lobbying? ? What are different classifications of lobbyists? ? What are the different methods of lobbying? NOTES (BRIEFING) Approved For Release 2004/1 MV : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2 NOTE ($EM1 Al 8-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 1RJA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 ApproveffpF'Repl?4120W'f3`l-RpP 01315R000200160007-2 Section III. AMERICA IN THE WORLD: Coexisting With 150 Other Nations Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 7. FOREIGN POLICY: Our National Interest and the Pursuit of Peace "We recognize and accept our own deep involvement in the destiny of men everywhere. '. Dwight D. Eisenhower Ever since the War of Independence, we as a nation have recognized that "No man is an Ilande, Entire of it selfe..." Immediately after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Franklin was dispatched to France as the first American diplomat. His mission was successful, and French support was a crucial factor in the victory over the British. Even in those earliest days, foreign policy was of great importance to the nation. In the 20th Century our own expanding interests, two World Wars, modern technology and the force of events in other countries have all caused an expansion of our global concerns. The United States is universally recognized as a world power, a position which carries great influence, yet also bestows serious responsibilities in an age in which the issues have grown increasingly complex. We have all been witnesses to the intense debate and bitter conflict within our nation over the priorities and objectives of our foreign policy. What should we do about the dangers of war in the Middle East, Southern Africa and other areas? What should our policy be towards those other world powers, the Soviet Union and China? What can we do about massive starvation in so many Third World nations? Furthermore, what should be the roles of the President, the Secretary of State, the Congress and the American public in the making of foreign policy? These are only a few of the questions to be discussed. Since foreign policy is supposed to advance and defend something called "the national interest," this chapter's first article focuses precisely on this question-what is the national interest? In the Point Counterpoint article which follows, two authors debate a series of questions concerning U.S. relations with the Soviet Union. Moving from the question of relations between the two superpowers to a broader look at the international scene, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Andrew J. Young examines the problems of world development. Then, in an exclusive interview, Ambassador Neville Kanakaratne of the nation of Sri Lanka lets you hear and read how a Third World nation perceives some of the major international issues. Finally, the Perspectives Panel presents the ideas of two Senators, two Representatives, State and Defense Depart- ment officials, and others on Future Directions for American Foreign Policy. A thoughtful reading of this chapter will help you to better understand the world in which we live. Approved For Release 2004110'd : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13: CIA-R P -01315R0 0 1 0007- in t ht epartmen o a e, or student learning CAN WE DEFINE THE "NATIONAL INTEREST"? Dr. Roger Leeds Dr. Leeds was Associate Dean of the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies and is now working as an investment banker for Salomon Brothers in New York City. His article, written especially for Perspectives, deserves to be read very thoughtfully by all of us who may at times feel overwhelmed by the number and complexity of foreign policy issues. Observers of America's behavior in the international arena-whether they are concerned high school students or professional diplomats in the Department of State-are confronted with a mind-boggling array of complex issues to and food for developing countries), what policy Union really lead to a lessening of tensions between the two "Super Powers," or will Russia take advantage of U.S. concessions? How should the United States treat traditional allies in Western Europe, particularly as countries such as Italy inch closer to Communist dominated governments? Is the nation getting its money's worth when it spends almost $300 billion of tax- payers' money for military hardware? Are we devoting sufficient attention to the awesome problems of poverty and hunger that keep many underdeveloped countries at a level of subhuman existence? What are the potential costs and benefits of supporting Israel in her perpetual struggle with Arab rivals? In each case, United States policymakers are striving for answers to complex problems in an effort to contribute to what former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger referred to as "the structure of peace." In each case, regardless of how simple or complicated the problem, the policy maker begins by asking a fundamental question: given the issue at hand (e.g., detente with the Soviet Union, peace in the Middle East and food for developing countries), what policy will most effectively promote the U.S. national interest? This seemingly simple question provides the one common denominator for all individuals concerned with foreign policy. Whether you are the Secretary of State, or a mid-level bureaucrat about foreign policy, this question provides the point of departure for a meaningful analysis of any given issue in international affairs. BUT WHAT IS THE NATIONAL INTEREST? On one level it may be defined in terms of protecting the physical survival of our national territory. For example, the placement of offensive nuclear missiles in Cuba by the Soviet Union in October, 1962, proved a potential threat to the survival of the United States. In this case, our international interests were threatened in the most fundamental way. Or, policymakers can analyze a particular issue in terms of the economic national interest. Recently, for example, a debate took place in the United States concerning the wisdom of exporting large amounts of grain to the Soviet Union. On one side, American farmers were in favor of this trade with the Russians because of its favorable impact on their business. However, critics felt that this trade was driving up the price of grain in the United States. And still a third group felt that U.S. surpluses should be channeled to the poorer nations of the so-called Third World. Each group had a different perception of the national interest. The national interest can also be assessed purely in terms of ethical considerations. How, for example, should the United States respond to widespread allegations of torture and other gross violations of human rights in countries such as Chile and Brazil? Although events in those countries will not dramatically affect economic or security interests at home, many critics claim that the United States has a moral obligation to take strong action against these countries. Others claim that the internal affairs of another country are not the proper concern of the United States; they claim that we should conduct business as usual. Whose perception of the national interest is correct? Finally, as is often the case, the policymakers encounter problems in foreign policy that affect a combination of the nation's interests. For example, the United States currently is one of the largest sellers of conventional weapons to countries around the globe. In this case, there are economic considerations for the U.S. manu- facturers, questions of morality for critics who claim that the U. S. is fanning the flames of conflict in foreign lands, and security considera- tions because those same arms could some day be aimed at American soldiers-in the Middle East, for example. Approved For Release 2004/10/13 1QA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Thus, althou h pine vfedeFor R I,e se 20044/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 r g t aIrs policy- Secretary of State to have a strong opinion on how g maker must deal with a vast, complicated array of the U.S. should conduct itself in the international problems, he normally begins his analysis by arena. Nor is it necessary to be a so-called foreign asking the relatively simple question about what policy expert to analyze intelligently a particular is in the national interest. Unfortunately, the issue in foreign affairs. Rather, by starting with a question is usually open to many different inter- simple question about how a particular issue pretations and conclusive answers on which every- affects U.S. national interests, any concerned in- one can agree do not occur frequently. dividual can participate in the ongoing foreign For this reason, one does not have to be the policy debate. n~q-~~attz~~>,ee~ Reprinted by permission of Chicago Tribune-New York News Syndicate. POINT COUNTERPOINT: THE UNITED STATES AND THE SOVIET UNION Carl Marcy-Committee on the Present Danger Ever since the end of World War II, the central issue of American foreign policy has been relations with the Soviet Union. This nation of 250 million people, with a political and economic system based on Communism, has been our chief rival in the world and the major threat to our national security. From Presidents Truman through Carter and Soviet leaders Stalin through Brezhnev, American-Soviet relations have been an ever-changing mixture of competition, cooperation and conflict. Here in the late 1970's it is important to gain a better understanding of U.S.-U.S.S.R. relations. The purpose of this Point Counterpoint article is to present you with two contrasting perspectives on this subject. Approved For Release 2004/10/133 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 POINT: CARL MARCY Carl Marcy was formerly chief of staff for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Presently, he is co-director of the American Committee on East-West Accord, a non- partisan educational organization founded in July, 1974, "aimed at improving East-West relations, with special focus on U.S. - Soviet relations. " Two co-chairmen of the Board of Directors are George F. Kennan, former Ambassador to the Soviet Union, and John Kenneth Galbraith, professor and former Ambassador to India. The views expressed in this article are those of Mr. Marcy. 1) NATURE OF THE SOVIET THREAT: Is the Soviet Union still pursuing world domina- tion? If so, how does this threaten the interests of the free world? Suppose the question were reversed to read, "Is the United States still pursuing world domination?" A Russian is likely to answer in the affirmative, just as an American is likely to answer with a strong YES when asked, "Is the Soviet Union still pursuing world domination?" Emotionalism is so strong on the issue of U.S. - Soviet relations that one would think from reading the press that the U.S. and the Soviet Union were mortal enemies, having fought war after war. Not true. We have at one time or another been at war with most of our present great allies-Germany (twice), Japan, France, Great Britan-but not with Russia. The trick is not to become a prisoner of emotion rather than fact, not to become locked into what George Kennan has described as the self-fulfilling prophecy. "History has proven," writes the former U. S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union and Pulitzer Prize recipient, "that the exaggeration of an adversary's negative attributes, including the evilness of his intentions and the strength he possesses... tends to promote the arrival of the very dangers it attempts to portray. We have serious enough problems in world affairs today without convincing ourselves of the existence of ones we don't really have." (From George F. Kennan, The Cloud of Danger, Boston: Little, Brown & Company, 1977, pp. 171- 72.) Clearly there are many Russians and Americans who attribute the most evil intentions to each other. Americans who believe the Soviet Union is out for world domination can "prove it" by citing figures on Soviet manpower, missiles, tanks and aircraft. They can quote Communist books calling for world revolution, point to Russian involvement in Southern Africa and with other leftist political leaders in the developing world... and, after all, Communist Castro is only ninety miles from Florida. On the other hand, Russians who believe the U.S. seeks world domination can "prove it" by referring to a re-armed Germany which in World War II cost the Russians 20 million lives; by pointing to U.S. military bases around the world; by referring to the Korean and Vietnamese wars in which over 100,000 Americans died, but no Russians; by quoting U.S. Defense Department figures showing that the U.S. has 8500 strategic nuclear weapons against 4000 for the Soviet Union; by citing Soviet military needs to protect against Chinese military capabilities along the longest land frontier in the world; by pointing out that in addition to the U.S. supply of 8500 strategic nuclear weapons, the U.S. has 22,000 so- called "tactical" nuclear weapons based in Europe (7000), Asia (1700), with the U.S. Pacific Fleet (1500), and with the Atlantic Fleet (1000). (Tom Gervasi, Harpers, June, 1977.) In short, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. can threaten each other, and we have. We know we can destroy each other. Certainly there are few Americans, or Russians, who would subscribe to the remark of a former U.S. Senator who said that if a nuclear war occurred and there were only two people left, he wanted them to be Americans. World domination cannot be achieved by nuclear weapons, because what would be left would not be worth dominating. The danger of Russian Communist power spreading abroad is not military in nature. Instead, it is to be found in any political and economic appeal of the Soviet society in contrast to the appeal of our democratic society and form of government. Fortunately, the U.S. is perceived in most of the world today as the nation with the form of government and economic system which offers the greatest good to the greatest number with the greatest freedom in the shortest period of time. Let us not lose that advantage. Whoever heard of the flow of refugees from any nation toward the Soviet Union? There may be unreported people pounding at the Iron Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : % -RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 saIR 2x0044110/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Curtain to get in, b {?r~~re?c g%A~F detente is good only if it serves a U.S. interest? many more trying to get out. As long as that Would not the Russians abandon the concept if it condition exists, we need not fear world did not serve their interest? domination by the Soviet Union. Also, it is well to The question is asked whether "there has remember that the Soviet Union has not been been an actual reduction in the causes of tension particularly successful in trying to keep Eastern between the two nations; why or why not?", as if European and the Chinese Communist govern- detente were intended to dull awareness of ments under close rein. differences between the U.S. and Soviet societies. 2) DETENTE OR A SOVIET GRAND STRATEGY: From the perspective of the American national interest, what have been the principal achievements of detente? Or, do you see a "grand strategy" underlying the Soviet military buildup? "The word `detente' simply refers to the policy of actively working to improve relations with the Soviet Union. The idea behind detente is essentially that, despite conflicting interests and a continuing adversary relationship, the overriding interest of both the United States and the Soviet Union is to agree on rules of the road for co- existence in order to avoid blowing each other-to say nothing of a good deal of the rest of the world-to smithereens." (Fred Warner Neal, Executive Vice President of the American Committee on East-West Accord.) It would seem hard to find anyone who would disagree with this definition. There are, however, individuals who reject even the use of such a word-Presidential candidates Ford and Reagan, for example. Ironically, it was the conservatives in the Republican Party, President Nixon and Secretary of State Kissinger, who used the word to describe the new relationship between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, if one wishes to discuss issues in a rational manner, it is often necessary to avoid use of words which have acquired an emotional meaning, thereby destroying their usefulness. The phrase "peaceful coexistence" was captured by the Russians some years ago. Even the word "peace" seems now to be more a part of the Russian vocabulary than of the U.S. There was a period when the French word detente seemed to mean the same thing to Russians as to Americans. Whether that is still the case is questionable. Detente is a process whose success or failure should be measured from the perspective of both the American AND Russian interest. If detente is a bust for the U.S., may it not also be a bust from the point of view of the Soviet Union? Must Americans believe that Anyone who follows press reports recognizes that there have been increased tensions between the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the past year. However, those tensions did not result from a policy of "detente", which has been a conscious effort to improve relations between the two countries. The tensions have developed because of events which are much like ships passing in the night. The Russians extend help to Angolan revolutionaries, the Americans talk tough on the cruise missile and human rights. The Russians threaten an American reporter, the U.S. steps up its broadcasts of the Voice of America. Who is to blame? The answer is about as simple as answering the question of which comes first, the chicken or the egg. Certainly the answer is not to be found in exchanging charges and countercharges. The point is to rise above blame and guilt to move forward from there. Detente is a word which needs to be pre- served, not usurped by either the Russians or the Americans. Those in the U.S. who interpret "detente" to mean surrender to the Soviet Union make the false assumption that the Soviets "lack all the normal attributes of humanity and are motivated by nothing but the most blind and single-minded urge of destruction towards the peoples and substance of the United States and its allies." (Kennan, op. cit.) There are elements within the Soviet society who make the same erroneous assumption about the United States. The national security of both the U.S. and the Soviet Union is dependent upon new genera- tions in each society able to surmount the hyper- bole which too often characterizes the statements of the leadership in both nations. 3) PEACE WITH SECURITY: Based on your analysis of the Soviet threat, prescribe a plan for American foreign policy. In particular, focus on the questions of defense spending and nuclear arms. e will bury you," said former Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev when he visited the United States. Did he mean the Soviet Union Approved For Release 2004/11" 3 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/1.3 CIA- P -01315R000200160007- would bury the U.S. with weapons, or economi- to rig en an enemy into some ind of surrender. cally, or both? If that doesn't work, then the weapons are to be It is my view that the present Soviet leaders used to destroy the very thing governments are believe, as did Khrushchev, that the Soviet created to save. economic and political system is the wave of the The first nation to recognize that its security future and competition for the hearts and minds rests more on giving priority to dealing with its of men and women will be won by the Soviet internal problems and on promoting global de- Union. Thus the "Soviet threat" to American velopment and human rights (without telling security comes not so much from the muzzle of a every society precisely how to do it), than on being gun, but rather from whatever economic or Number One in military spending will, in my political appeal the Soviet system may present to view, be on the best path to promote its security the world. and peace. The U.S. can win this competition hands Specifically, I would like to see the United down. We know, and so does most of the world, States take the initiative in bringing the arms race that the American free enterprise system is the under control. One step would be a one year 10% most effective instrument for production of goods reduction in our military budget as a challenge for and services which has been developed. We also the Soviet Union to match. Others would be the know that a democratic form of government suspension of all nuclear tests for a specific period offers a means whereby individuals can live with- of time, and the promotion of an agreement out oppression and develop as individuals, even promising not to be the first to use nuclear though the system falters at moments. As weapons. Winston Churchill once remarked, a democratic At the same time, the U.S. should take ad- government is the worst form of government, vantage of every opportunity to engage in trade, except for all others. cultural and scientific exchanges with the Soviet The threat to the United States, therefore, Union. We certainly can't expect to make head- comes from the danger that we become so pre- way in arms control without trade and cultural ex- occupied with building a military machine that we changes, and we can't make headway in trade lose sight of the fact that our strength and our without some control of the arms race. Both are to security are in large part attributable to our form our mutual advantage. of government and economic system. In short, the Russian leaders are not crazy I do not want to be understood as advocating enough to seriously contemplate nuclear war with a U.S. foreign policy based on "pop gun the U.S. except in defense of themselves, nor are security." What I do advocate is a policy in which they perceptive enough to compete successfully security is not viewed as dependent exclusively on with the U.S. in global politics or economics. preeminent military strength and which recog- Secretary of State Rusk during the Cuban nizes the dangers of reliance on rigid military missile confrontation indicated he thought the solutions to the exclusion of our other sources of U.S. was winning when he said the Russians had strength. "just blinked." The survival and security of the American security is more likely to be U.S., the Soviet Union and the world depend on assured by ending the arms race than by aggra- understandings more profound than those of the vating it. We are not a warlike people, and we pistol-packing frontiersman. must not be perceived as such. We must be viewed as a nation which puts peace ahead of military pursuits. How does one go about promoting American security? I subscribe to the proposition that the U.S. and the Soviet Union are involved in an arms race which has become a vicious circle based on the proposition that "more is better." The fact is, though, that "more is worse" for both societies. Both societies know that the world's resources are limited, yet we both continue to deplete our re- sources to produce weapons whose only purpose is Approved For Release 2004/10/13 :11j-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Apprnvcrt Fnr PplpagP 2004/10/13 COUNTERPOINT: COMMITTEE ON THE PRESENT DANGER The Committee on the Present Danger is a non-partisan and non-profit organization which was established in November, 1976. It states its purpose as "to facilitate a national discussion of the foreign and national security policies of the United States. " It has issued a declaration of principles and other policy statements. Members of its Board of Directors include former Secretary of State Dean Rusk, former CIA Director William Colby, and former Deputy Secretar y of Defense Paul H. Nitze. This article was prepared by a staff member of the Committee. 1) NATURE OF THE SOVIET THREAT Is the Soviet Union still pursuing world domina- tion? If so, how does this threaten the interests of the free world? The Soviet Union is radically different from our society; it is organized on different principles and driven by different motives. The most im- portant reasons for these differences are based on its history and geography, its economic conditions and structure, and its political system and beliefs. Russia-whether Tsarist or Soviet-has been driven toward conquest or domination of neighboring lands. No empire in history has expanded so persistently as the Russian. The Soviet Union is the only great power to have emerged from World War II larger than it was in 1939. Soviet difficulties are aggravated by the rigid control maintained by its ruling regime. Except for brief periods, Russia has been governed by small groups whose grip on power has been sustained by military force. After the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, power became even more con- centrated than under the Tsars.* In the Soviet Union today, the ruling elite and their followers live comfortably, even luxuriously, while the * Editor's Note: The Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 brought the Communist Party to power, under the leadership of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. The Tsars (also spelled Czars) had been the hereditary rulers of Russia before the Revolution. : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 remaining 250 million citizens have few material advantages and are deprived of basic human liberties. Soviet leaders, as directed by the Politburo, exercise total control over the country's political institutions, economic resources and media with little regard for the wishes of the population. They pursue their goals in an organized manner and take advantage of every opportunity to enhance their power, changing their tactics to suit different circumstances. The idea of a world in which nations founded on different political principles cooperate rather than oppose each other is not acceptable to Soviet psychology and doctrine. According to Soviet theory, "peaceful co-existence" is a deceptive strategy for waging international conflict with reduced risk in the era of nuclear weapons. Due to its aggressive policies, the Soviet Union has been able to extend its political and military influence throughout the world: in Europe, in the Middle East and Africa, even in Latin America, and in all the seas. In recent years the Soviet drive for domination-based upon an unparalleled military buildup-has become the principal threat to our nation, to world peace and to the cause of human freedom. The Soviet campaign, recently expanded in scope, seeks to inflame every problem that arises among the developed and underdeveloped countries. At the same time, the Soviet Union has been acquiring a network of naval and air bases in the Southern Hemisphere to give added support to its influence in the Middle East, the Indian Ocean, Africa and the South Atlantic. For more than a decade, it has been enlarging both its nuclear and non-nuclear conventional military forces more rapidly than the United States and its allies. The rate of growth of Soviet military power cannot be explained or justified by claims of self- defense. This power is being built to support the drive for world domination by the Soviet bloc of nations. Soviet leaders believe that this will permit the Soviet Union to transform the conditions of world politics in its own favor. Increasing Soviet military strength threatens the political in- dependence of our friends and allies, our fair access to raw materials and the freedom of the seas. The interests of the free world can be threatened not only by direct attack but also by indirect aggression. The defense of the Middle East, for example, is vital to the defense of Western Europe and Japan. In the Middle East, Approved For Release 2004/1 T11d : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 the Soviet Union opposes those fair agreements between Israel and her Arab neighbors which are necessary to establish peace in the area. In the same way, the United States and many other countries are threatened by a second round of Soviet-encouraged oil embargoes. 2) DETENTE OR A SOVIET GRAND STRATEGY: From the perspective of the American national interest, what have been the principal achievements of detente? Or, do you see a "grand strategy" underlying the Soviet military buildup? Reaching the eventual Soviet goal-a Communist world order-requires the reduction of the power, influence and prestige of the United States, the country perceived by Soviet leaders as the central fortress of the enemy camp. They see their task as isolating America and destroying its relationship with the rest of the world. They are pursuing a "grand strategy" involving many different ways to reduce the ability of the United States to resist this aggression. Included in the Soviet arsenal are economic, diplomatic, political and ideological strategies supported by vast military strength. Soviet desires to increase trade with the Western world, to acquire the food and the industrial capacity which it desperately needs, or to participate in arms control negotiations, do not prevent it from conducting political and military campaigns against centers of non- Communist influence. Examples of this strategy are the long and persistent efforts of the Soviet Union to penetrate and dominate the Middle East and the present drive supported by allies such as Cuba to establish friendly governments in Africa. Undoubtedly, the Soviet rulers would prefer to gain their objectives without another war, but they believe they can survive and win a war if it comes. Therefore, they are willing to act with greater confidence, despite risk of conflict, to reach their goals. The primary objectives of Soviet "grand strategy" are: 1) Strengthening the Soviet economy to sustain the improvement in the country's military capacity. This can be aided by borrowing capital and importing the technical expertise of advanced capitalist nations. The need for foreign funds and know-how is an important factor in Soviet support of the policy of "detente." 2) Trying to extend Soviet influence in Western Europe, thereby cutting it apart from the United States. The Soviet Union hopes to link Western Europe's economy with an expanding Soviet economy to increase the productive and technological capacity of the Soviet bloc of nations. With this in mind, Moscow supports current efforts by Western European Communist parties to adopt more flexible tactics, as has occurred in Chile and Portugal. Only in this way can the Communist parties have a chance of coming to power. If this occurs, it could be a fatal blow to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), pave the way for Soviet domination of Western Europe and lead to removing the United States from any in- fluence in Europe. 3) Destroying the trade con- tacts between Western nations and the develop- ing countries of the Third World, so that their raw materials, labor and markets would no longer be available to the West. 4) Isolating China from the rest of the world because of Soviet fears of its potential as a military opponent. Although these goals call for the use of economic and political policies, the backbone of Soviet strategy is military power. The military build-up of the Soviet armed forces has not been restrained by the arms limitations agreements (the first round of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks) with the United States. As a matter of fact, the main effect of SALT I has been to restrain development of those weapons in which the United States enjoys a technological advantage. Soviet strategy regards the possession of more and better strategic weapons as a definite military and political asset. The lavish Soviet civil defense program, as well as the strengthening of nuclear command and control posts against attack, indicate that the Soviet rulers seriously believe in the possibility of nuclear war and that, if it breaks out, they will be more likely to survive, to recover than we. In recent years, the Soviet Union has been increasing its military expenditures at a rate of three percent. Experts disagree as to whether the Soviet Union is already ahead of the United States in military strength around the world or in specific areas. However, we are convinced, and there is widespread agreement among experts, that if past trends continue, the U.S.S.R. will within several years achieve strategic nuclear superiority over the United States. The U.S.S.R. already enjoys non-nuclear conventional superiority in several important areas. Soviet Communist doctrine Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 111 Approved For Release 2004/10/13: CIA-RDP88-01,315R00Q2001f0007-2 ambitious goals; Soviet actions prove that it continues persistently to pursue those goals. It may meet temporary delays because its resources are limited, and it is forced to deal with major internal and external difficulties. Nevertheless, it is driven by historical and ideological pressures toward a policy of expansion which, together with its enormous military strength, makes it a highly dangerous opponent. There is no evidence that past or present SALT talks, expanded trade and cultural exchanges, the international Helsinki agreement on human rights, or any of the other features of "detente" have weakened the Soviet drive for dominance. 3) PEACE WITH SECURITY: Based on your analysis of the Soviet threat, prescribe a plan for American foreign policy. In particular, focus on the questions of defense spending and nuclear arms. The expansionist policy of the Soviet Union threatens to unbalance the world relationship of forces on which the survival of freedom depends. If we see the world as it really is, and if we restore our will, our strength and our self-confidence, we shall find resources and friends to effectively oppose the Soviet threat. There is a crucial moral difference between the two superpowers in their character and ob- jectives. The United States-imperfect as it is-is essential to the future of those countries which desire to develop their society in their own way, free of outside force. There is still time for effective action to en- sure security and prosperity through the peace- ful policies and diplomatic efforts of our country and its allies. Only on that sound basis can we seek reliable conditions of peace with the Soviet Union rather than through a policy of detente based upon false hopes. We must restore the strength of allied de- fenses in those areas vital to our interests. The goal of our strategic forces should be to prevent the use of, or the threat to use, nuclear weapons in world politics; that of our conventional forces, to prevent other forms of aggression directed against our interests. Without a stable balance of forces in the world and policies of collective defense based upon it, no other objective of our foreign policy is attainable. Taking inflation into account, United States defense spending is lower than at any time in the past years. or t e unite Cates to be free, r as secure and influential, high levels of spending are now required for our land, sea and air forces, our nuclear defenses, and above all, the continuing modernization of those forces through research and development. While supporting increased levels of spend- ing, we should insist on the effective use of defense funds. We must also expect our allies to bear their fair share of the burden of defense. Based on a foundation of strength, we can pursue a constructive and confident diplomacy with the many economic, military and social problems around the world. It is only on this basis that we can expect successfully to negotiate hard- headed and verifiable agreements to control and reduce armaments. If we continue to drift, we shall become second best to the Soviet Union in overall mili- tary strength; our alliances will weaken; our growing friendship with China could be reversed. Then we could find ourselves alone in a hostile world, facing the powerful pressures of aggressive Soviet policies backed by overwhelming military strength. We would then face bitter choices be- tween war and knuckling under. On the other hand, if we meet the Soviet threat, we and the other democratic industrial- ized nations can cooperate with the developing Third World countries to create a just and pro- gressive world economy. Under those circum- stances, we would be better able to promote human rights and to help cope with the over- whelming problems of food, energy, population and the environment. We live in an age in which there is no alter- native to vigilance; indeed, it is essential to the pursuit of genuine detente and the achievement of prudent and verifiable arms control agreements which would realistically serve to reduce the danger of war. Weakness invites aggression; strength deters it. Thus, American strength holds the key to our quest for peace and to our survival as a free society in a world friendly to our hopes and ideals. Approved For Release 2004/1 7/113 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 WORLD DEVELOPMENT The World in 1977: Facing Grave Perils AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY: THE OPPORTUNITY BEFORE US U.N. Ambassador Andrew J. Young In 1972 Andrew Young was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Georgia's Fifth District, the first black elected to Congress from the "deep South" since Reconstruction. During the 1950's and 1960's he had been a leader of the civil rights movement and a chief aide to the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. In December, 1976, President-elect Carter appointed him U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. In this article he discusses the problems of develop- ment faced by so many nations in the world today. He also proposes changes in American foreign policy which will make us more of a world leader in meeting these problems. His article, written especially for Perspectives, helps you understand why relations with the Russians is not the only issue in foreign policy. Thirty years ago, Secretary of State George C. Marshall brought to the American people the challenge of what came to be known as the Marshall Plan. It was a bold but thoughtful response to meet a grave situation that was as serious a threat to freedom in the world as had been the just-defeated Axis.* It was the danger of collapse of the recently liberated European countries and their possible domination by the ruthless Stalinist government of the Soviet Union. Europe was in ruins from the War, its economy was disorganized, its equipment and machines were worn out or outdated, its political systems were in chaos, and its people were left listless and leaderless by the War. This year, in 1977, we. are probably in as great a peril as the world was in 1947. Yet, if we can forge a foreign policy based on the same creative spirit of the Marshall Plan, this can also be a time of great opportunity for all nations and for the United States as a world leader. *Editor's Note: "Axis" was the name given to the alliance of Germany, Italy and Japan during World War II. Our grave situation today can be summar- ized under the following headings: ? A steadily escalating world arms race is building more and more weapons for destruction. The annual world military budget in 1976 is $350 billion (1976), unprecedented in a time of relative world peace. This translates into an average of one dollar in six of all money spent by all the governments in the world, going towards military arms. This arms race is being led by the two super-powers, the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Rather than contribute to the world development process, the U.S. and the Soviet Union divert much of their resources to the arms race. "There are as many as 400 million people (15% of the world's population) starving, and hundreds of millions more are mal- nourished." ? Hunger and famine affect most drastically and directly the greatest number of human beings. Because of unusually high harvests the past few years, the danger of immediate, wide- spread famine was lessened temporarily, but the long-range prospect is still very dim. There are as many as 400 million people (15% of the world's population) starving, and hundreds of millions more are malnourished. More and more people are simply not being integrated in useful ways into the spreading industrial and technological society. The gap between the poor and the rich in each nation continues to grow. ? Human rights continue to be repressed. Political opposition leaders are tortured, the press is censored, labor unions are outlawed, univer- sities are muzzled and peasant movements are repressed. However, we can all take heart from the fact that during the past five years, four na- tions-Greece, Portugal, Spain and India-have restored democracies in their lands without bloody revolutions. In the same vein, we should gain hope from the new style of democracy that emphasizes social and economic rights perhaps more than civil and political rights as it has de- veloped in the new nations of the world, such as Mozambique and Tanzania. But the problem is that unless there is more development, there will be more repressive regimes, as the social pressures build up to the bursting point, and bloody revolution becomes inevitable-and perhaps self- defeating. Approved For Release 2004/10/13 SIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 ? A world energy crisis could wreck the economic system of the industrialized nations within twenty years unless massive and serious remedies are started within the next five or ten years. ? The growing gap between the rich and the poor nations, the "developed" and the "develop- ing" nations, may hold the most serious threat to world peace in the long term. This gap stems from the problems of development. Development: Social, Political and Econom Increasingly, we are recognizing that "development" as applied to nations means about the same thing as it does when applied to people. When a person develops, it means that he or she is moving towards realization of his or her full potential as a person. We would not say that a fat person who is getting fatter is necessarily "de- veloping"; at least we would not confuse the fat with development, though it certainly is a "growth" of some sort. So development must mean more than economic growth. How the growth is distributed must be taken into account. If the economic growth is concentrated in the hands of a few, there is no social development. The shine of steel from a new mill is quickly dulled if the workers or their brothers and sisters must live in fear, be it fear of political repression or fear of not being able to feed their children. The problems of development are faced by nearly all of the nations of Latin America, Africa and Asia. What is needed is a dynamic develop- ment model that is flexible enough to include the many, many lessons learned over the past thirty years in the many different developing nations. No longer can we afford to try to export the de- velopment model of the United States of the last generation-too much has changed, and it keeps changing! The new model of development must con- sider the special conditions of climate, geo- graphy, culture and human resources of the different nations. It must be developed from the best thinking of many nations. In 1947, the European nations met with the United States in Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/14143 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 ~4pprove F.or Release 2004/10/13 Paris, and they r w up t eir own mode or e- velopment under the Marshall Plan. We must not be afraid to let other nations say how they want to develop, as long as their goals are consistent with the goals of the United Nations Charter, which is the best expression of the common conscience of humankind. Four principal elements must be included in any development model today. Firstly, there must be a new style of cooperation or partnership between the public and private sector. We must move beyond the distrust and sometimes open hostility that so often characterize relations between corporations and governments. The big corporations are in so many ways innovative and creative, and they are organized to produce and spread technology and ideas and to distribute goods and services-to meet the challenges of development. "If we attempt to be `ostriches' and bury our heads in the sand or any other policies of isolationism, we shall be a part of the problem rather than the solution." Secondly, there needs to be a realization that economic and political development must go hand in hand. One without the other is dangerous to both. Growth without development means growth without justice, and no society can ever afford to neglect its search for a more just society at any moment in its history. Any dynamic model of development must put as one of its top prior- ities the quest for social justice for all. Thirdly, for development to be a reality in terms of the quality of life of the poor, their pur- chasing power must be expanded. Efforts to employ those who are now outside the money economy must be rewarded. Incentives must be given to those who will produce the basic necessities, and distribute them, to those who are lacking these now. There is a tremendous world market waiting to be developed. Fourthly, there must be a massive investment in human resources. Lack of education is both the mother and child of poverty. Even after the losses of World War II, Western Europe had a trained labor force, high literacy rates, and many pro- fessionals. In the training and education of the poor lies part of the solution to widespread poverty. CIA-RDP8Leader Once the leadership of the United States realized how seriously Europe had been affected by World War II, it was decided that the American people must "be shocked into assum- ing leadership" (in the words of then Under- Secretary of State Will Clayton). This is also true today. If we attempt to be "ostriches" and bury our heads in the sand, or any other policies of iso- lationism, we shall be part of the problem rather than the solution. This is a task for which I believe the American people to be ideally suited. We have the skills and we have the good will. We have the experience of our own New Deal, as well as the Peace Corps and ACTION of more recent years. Are we ready to enter into an international program of this sort? Are there still American youth ready to give several years of their lives so that the world might live and develop? To me, this is perhaps the key: sharing of skills with the Third World-technical skills, teaching skills, social skills, organizational skills. Notice that I said, "sharing". I think, as was the case of the Peace Corps, volunteers will learn as much as they teach-and we will enrich our own nation in the process. Conclusion: World Development is the New Name of World Politics International politics has traditionally been defined as the struggle for the accommodation of interests among nations. But I believe that the world has become so interdependent that our national interests are inevitably and rapidly merg- ing. We must build on the community of interests and values, or the world will destroy itself in chaos. So, rather than continuing to try only the way of compromising among conflicting interests, we need a whole new vision of what world politics is really about. World politics, I say, is the struggle for world development. World development is in the interest of every person and every nation. It will help to preserve our scarce natural resources, protect and promote human rights and dignity, and strengthen freedom. These are compelling motives for build- ing a world community. Approved For Release 2004/10/131lnA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 FORETM WtrX'ffM&ckK'6W THE WORLD When the League of Nations was founded in 1920, there were 42 member nations. In 1977, the United Nations has 147 members. This chart will help you learn about some of these other countries with whom we share the Earth. For each country, fill in the name of the continent on which it is located. Then, select the letter or letters from the list below which best describe that country's relations with the United States. Consult the Glossary at the end of this chapter for any definitions you need. There are spaces at the bottom of the chart for you to add more countries. A) MernberofNATO B) Member of Warsaw Pact C) Non-aligned D) Receives American military or economic aid E) Trades with American businesses RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES SOVIET UNION ( EUROPE/ASIA B, E Approved For Release 2004/1011 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 TABLE: AMERICAN FOREIGN AID (Economic Assistance) The United States gives two types of foreign aid: economic and military assistance. This table examines economic aid, and the one in Chapter 8 looks at military assistance. Foreign economic aid is given to poor developing nations, primarily to assist them in agriculture, health, education, technology and other problems of social and economic development. Aid is given either directly to a nation (called bilateral aid) or to an international organization which uses member nations (called multilateral aid). TOTAL: $5.7 billion it for Egypt $912 million Israel $746 million International $375 million Development Association (World Bank, International Monetary Fund) Inter-American $345 million Development Bank Pakistan $145 million Indonesia $126 million India $123 million Portugal $115 million Bangladesh $108 million Syria $ 98 million "U.S. Economic Assistance, Military Assistance and Credit Sales Programs Estimated for FY 1977" in report to the U.S. Congress, "Fiscal Year 1978: Summary", March 1977, Agency for International Development. "I hope that we shall not forget that we created this nation, not to serve ourselves but to serve mankind." Woodrow Wilson CIA-RDP8 20F A THIRD WORLD NATION: An Interview With Ambassador Neville Kanakaratne of Sri Lanka His Excellency Neville Kanakaratne has been Ambassador of Sri Lanka to the United States since 1970. Sri Lanka is an island nation of about 14 million people, located in the Indian Ocean. It became an independent nation in 1948, under its old colonial name of Ceylon, and in 1972 formally changed its name to Sri Lanka. Its government is headed by a president, prime minister and uni- cameral legislature. The majority of the population are Sinhalese; the principal religion is Buddhism. The economy is based on the export of tea, rubber and coconuts supplemented by some small manufacturing industries such as chemicals, ceramics and textiles. Approved For Release 2004/10/1311QIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 This interview w can uctea onJun2e0 10/13 1977, in Ambassador Kanakaratne's office. The Close Up Foundation wishes to express its gratitude to the Ambassador for sharing his time and knowledge with our students. In the study of American government and es- pecially of foreign policy, it is vital to be ex- posed to the views of the leaders of other nations, whose positions on the issues and whose national interests frequently differ from those of the United States Government. Q-Close Up: Ambassador Kanakaratne, you represent a nation which is considered part of the "Third World", a term which may be unfamiliar to many people. How do you define "Third World" and to what other nations does this refer? A-Ambassador Kanakaratne: Third World is generally used to describe the group of nations who are not industrialized and are primarily agricultural and producers of raw materials. Geo- graphically, they almost all happen to be situated in the southern hemisphere: Latin America, Asia and Africa. Historically, nearly all Third World nations were once colonies of some great European power-Britain, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain or Portugal. NORTH AMERICA CIA- JDP88-0131 OOcO2o016 007;2 ecause of is co onia Heritage, we never were given the opportunity to learn how to process our own raw materials into manufactured goods. This was done by the so-called mother countries in Europe who took the raw materials over there and processed them with their own industrial technology. So we continued to be primarily agricultural, non-industrialized and techno- logically imperfect. This common colonial heritage and its economic legacy have brought us together in the past twenty years. We are all suffering from the same economic problems. We all must import nearly all of the manufactured goods we need, including agricultural equipment. We are all dependent on raw materials for our income, and these are subject to changing world prices over which we have no control. Of the 147 members of the United Nations, about 121 are regarded as economically under- developed, as Third World nations. You can see that common experiences and also common interests have linked us together. Now we are try- ing to use this commonality of interests to exert some degree of leverage on the rich countries of the world. ANTARCTICA The Third World What is the Third World? Which nations are "Members"? Refer to the definition in this chapter's glossary and read what Ambassador Kanakaratne says on the subject. Then shade in the Third World nations on this mapApproved For Release 2004/10/i1: CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Q-Close Up: Ba~ rm ethe ~r9 s mos2tOnations3 were perceived as either allies of the United States or of the Soviet Union. In more recent years, how- ever, more and more nations define their foreign policies as "non-alignment." Could you explain what this term means, and what the difference is between a "Third World" nation and a "non- aligned" nation? A-Ambassador Kanakaratne: Surely. Whereas Third World is basically an economic grouping, non-aligned is political. A non-aligned nation follows policies independent of any alliance or special military agreements with either the United States or the Soviet Union. While many Third World nations are also non-aligned, some are allied with one or the other of these powers and therefore are not members of the non-aligned bloc. Sri Lanka, India and many African nations who are non-aligned are members of the British Commonwealth, but this is not a military alliance. If Great Britain were to get involved in a war, that doesn't mean every Commonwealth nation has to be on her side, as it did when we were colonies. Last August (1976) my country hosted the fifth Conference of Heads of State of the Non- Aligned Nations. There were 84 nations who participated. You can see that the political group, the non-aligned, is smaller than the economic group, the Third World, although the trend has been that more and more countries have ended their military links with the super powers because they find themselves getting dragged into other people's problems. Q-Close Up: Wasn't there a declaration issued at last year's conference? A-Ambassador Kanakaratne: Oh, yes, the "Colombo Declaration."* It consists of about 27 resolutions divided into a political section and an economic section. A number of the political resolutions passed dealt with the situation in southern Africa-the apartheid policies of South Africa, independence for Namibia and the Rhodesian situation. Q-Close Up: When I was in school we were taught to view the world as divided into the West-the United States, Western Europe and other fellow "democracies"-and the East-the Soviet Union and other Communist regimes. From what you've already said, I get the feeling *Editor's Note: Colombo is the capital of Sri Lanka. rl. that you believe that this is no longer an accurate perspective... A-Ambassador Kanakaratne: Yes, there is no doubt that the economic divisions which separate the rich nations of the North and the poor nations of the South are much more crucial than the differences in ideology or political systems. Two years before he retired as Secretary General of the United Nations, U Thant made a very inter- esting statement at a news conference. When asked about the future tensions in the world, he said that in his view the future problems would arise from a conflict of interests between the northern hemisphere-the rich, developed, industrialized nations-and the poor, agricultural and technologically underdeveloped nations of the southern hemisphere. He said this division would create more problems than the East/West peril. Q-Close Up: In this context what is the meaning of the call for "a new international economic order," made by leaders of some Third World nations? A-Ambassador Kanakaratne: I think the phrase you have used is unfortunate. When one says a new international economic order, it is presumed that one is talking about pulling down the entire structure and starting from scratch. But this is not the intention. The intention is to bring up to date an economic system created two hundred years ago when the world was dominated by six or seven European maritime industrial nations. These Approved For Release 2004/10/1311SIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 leaders worked out i R tql tFd4reS ! 10/13 g l&F n$lerRA~8e0 9P41? WROJAtical reasons, ments around tables in Paris, London, Brussels or but suddenly the world awoke to the fact that the The Hague which didn't take our interests into Third World controlled much of the world's account. wealth. What we are agitating for is a restructuring, or a revision, of the existing system taking into consideration the needs and interests of all nations in the present day world. When we ask for a new international economic order, all we are stating is that like every human system-whether it is the Roman Catholic Church, the Communist Party, or the Constitution of the United States-it has to be amended from time to time. Let me add that this has already begun to happen. The nations of OPEC proved that they could exercise some clout, because while they are not developed nations they control a raw material upon which the rest of the world is very de- pendent. Until the 1973 oil crisis, we were just complaining at the United Nations and other international agencies, pleasing and arguing, but we lacked strength. We certainly did not have military strength, nor financial or economic clout either. ..we were like people flying around the tables of the rich and every so often a crumb would be thrown to keep us quiet. Then in 1973 there was a revolution. The oil countries got to- "It is a question of partnership, of inter- dependence. You are necessary for us, and we are necessary for you. It is in your interests to give us a fair share of the economic pie." Q-Close Up: So America really does need not only the oil producing nations but also other Third World nations for our economy, as much as you need us? A-Ambassador Kanakaratne: That's correct. You see, the trouble with Americans is that your nation is so big and so powerful that the average Amerian cannot imagine that America depends on the materials of other nations. Cobalt, manganese, bauxite, nickel, copper, tin, rubber- the United States imports supplies of all of these. In fact, the United States does more trade with the Third World than with all of Western Europe. Interdependence in a World Plagued by Hunger and Poverty Photo courtesy of the State Department Approved For Release 2004/10/l1) CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approvd For Release 2904/10/13: CI RDP88-013158000200160007-2 It is a question of partnership, or inter- their own han s. our governments fall to dependence. You are necessary for us and we are radical movements it won't be because Moscow or necessary for you. It is in your interests to give us Peking was poking around. It would be because of a fair share of the economic pie. If our people lack of food, lack of jobs, and a lack of education. improve their standard of living, it will also benefit you by making more markets available for Q-Close Up: So world peace and the internal your exports. stability of nations seem to be linked together We want a situation where the United States through economic factors. Maybe we all need to Government will encourage freer trade. The more fully realize how important and how per- difficulty here is that there are certain vested vasive the interdependence of nations is. . . My interests who place their special interests before thanks, Mr. Ambassador, for having shared your the interests of the American nation and cer- thoughts on this subject with our students. I have tainly the interests of the rest of the world. greatly enjoyed our conversation and I know that it will be an important contribution to the global Q-Close Up: From your perspective as an education of Close Up students. Thank you, sir. Ambassador and from the perspective of your A-Ambassador Kanakaratne: Thank you very nation and its interests, what are the prospects for much. As we all know, and as the charter of a stable world order and even a lasting peace? UNESCO states, "it is because wars begin in the A-Ambassador Kanakaratne: Personally I don't minds of men that the seeds of peace must be see a danger of armed conflict in the sense of sown in the minds of men. . . " especially in the another world war. But that doesn't mean that the minds of the younger generation. Once they are world will be either peaceful or stable. There will made aware of world problems, they are intelli- be many, many problems-some political and gent and sensible enough to work towards solu- military, others economic conficts. tions. It still is unclear what will happen in the Middle East. Israel has just elected a new govern- ment and there have been many pressures within the Arab nations. We still don't know what is the future of southern Africa. My country has always ad- vocated non-violent solutions, and both the American and British governments are trying their best to avoid a major racial confrontation. But I fear that too much time has been allowed to go by during which the white regimes of South Africa and Rhodesia have felt that they could continue to rely on Western support. Fortunately, President Carter, Vice President Mondale and Ambassador Young have made it clear that these regimes can no longer expect the U.S. to back them against any effort to bring majority rule to their countries. I don't know what will happen but I am not too optimistic. There will unfortunately be a lot of bloodshed. In the economic field the world will continue to go through a very tough time. There is going to be a lot of muscle-flexing by the oil-producing countries and by other poor countries which produce other minerals. If the economic situation is not satisfactorily worked out, it will produce very serious political problems for our govern- ments at home. When people are starving and un- employed, they're not just going to wait for the next generation. They will try to take the law into "It is because wars begin in the minds of men that the seeds of peace must be sown in the minds of men..." UNESCO Charter PERSPECTIVES PANEL: FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY? In recent years there has been as much in- tense debate over both the ends and the means of our foreign policy as at any other time in our history. Old definitions no longer explain the world to us, old strategies no longer effectively cope with its challenges and crises. We are confronted by radically different global realities. -In our search for a new consensus, what should be the guiding philosophy and goals of our foreign policy? -What do you identify as the most crucial foreign policy issue(s) for the present and near future? Approved For Release 2004/10/1312CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Senator Claiborne PW49MR. jor Release 2004/10/13J.Pr481JJA5R000200160007-2 Member of Senate Foreign Relations Committee Administrator, Agency for International Coming to grips with today's world requires that we view the world realistically. Lord Palmerston once said, "We have no eternal allies, we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual and those interests it is our duty to follow." Our task today is not to determine whether the United States should remain involved in the world or withdraw, but rather to take stock of our interests-and the commitments that flow from them-in light of changed conditions. To do so, we must shed the vocabulary of isolationism and internationalism. The all-or- nothing choice inherent in these concepts is in- creasingly unrealistic. As a result, I prefer the vocabulary of contraction and expansion-con- tracting those activities which respond largely to yesterday's challenges, and expanding those activities which are urgently required to meet today's challenges. Our resources are not un- limited, and we must ensure that in planning for the future, we direct our financial and intellectual assets where they are most needed. Militarily, we are over-extended. The latest figures (1976) show that the U.S. has 481,000 military personnel at 305 major bases and 1,428 other installations in 34 foreign countries. We must also reduce confrontation and weapons competition with the USSR, and we should de- emphasize military assistance and arms sales. Politically, just as we cannot be the world's policeman, nor can we always be the world's peacemaker. We should press for a more active U.S. role in peace negotiations. CIA covert activities should be limited to those few cases where our vital security interests are directly in- volved. Economically, trade negotiations and the lowering of trade barriers deserve higher priority. This will be greatly assisted by a coherent export promotion policy, which we now lack. We also should give greater food aid to those in need, The international environment and oceans also deserve greater attention. Ideologically, the U.S. should utilize the Helsinki Final Act to increase humanitarian cooperation and exchange of information/people with Eastern Europe. We should spend a great deal more on international exchanges. Development (AID) Hunger-disease-illiteracy-unemploy- ment. These inter-related problems comprise one of the great challenges facing the world in the next twenty years. They afflict the vast majority of people in the developing countries and are a goad to conscience, a deterrent to progress, and a threat to world peace for those who live in the more affluent nations. For the past quarter-century, the United States, through its foreign economic assistance program, has sought to help the developing countries solve these problems. Today, more than ever before, we are concentrating most of our assistance on helping the poorest people of the world. Under this "New Directions" policy, the United States is helping the poor nations improve food production, nutrition, health care, education and voluntary family planning. To implement these efforts, AID employs modern technology, where appropriate, and person-to-person techniques to reach the poor. We help small farmers grow more food and help in providing better health care and education for their families. We also try to involve more women in the development process, and to help the poor countries find new sources of energy and conserve their environment. A major aspect of our approach to develop- ment is also the belief that economic development can be achieved without sacrificing or ignoring human rights. The rights of all individuals to live in dignity-and in decency-is an attainable goal, and what is at stake is a better world for this and future generations. Congresswoman Millicent Fenwick (R-NJ.) No one, I think, seriously questions world peace as a continuing goal of U.S. foreign policy. A war between the great powers, armed with nuclear weapons, is unthinkable. The questions come when we consider the means toward this end. Addressing the question about the philosophical basis for our foreign policy this is what I wrote in March, 1975, when The New York Times asked me to write an article about my in- spection trip to South Vietnam and Cambodia: Approved For Release 2004/1011Z: CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 "We must have ~~ : CIA 881 0 pOGS7d3th and Central public debate and consensus as to our responsibilities. With America? these firmly in hand, we should concentrate on a sincere concern for all people and sensible actions to express that concern." There is really no other idea, or attitude, that has such wide support in long-standing American reactions to world events. The age of adventurism is over. Very few of us would cheer nowadays for events such as the Spanish-American War, or the landing of the Marines at Veracruz. The reper- cussions of the actions of major nations today are not easily calculated or controlled; public opinion in a free society, with a free press, is not easily directed. The applications of the principle of sincere human concern would have to be studied in re- lation to each particular case. To take Angola as an example: should we have intervened with troops when the Soviet Union arranged to have Cuban troops sent there? I think not. An anti- colonialist war had turned into a fratricidal tribal war and, even if U.S. public opinion had been prepared to support the sending of an expedi- tionary force (which I don't think it was) the end result would have been counterproductive. To extend the duration of such a tribal war, with all the suffering it entails, would certainly not be humane. Neither would it have served any abiding national interest. Africa has repeatedly proved itself willing to accept foreign intervention for awhile-while it is useful-but in the long run the foreigners have been asked to leave. Although human concerns are primary, practical concerns must follow. A good heart must be supported by sound common sense. We should send food to the starving, no matter what kind of government is sitting in the palace, because that is the right thing to do. But we should not hand the food over to a government which may sell it for profit or exchange it for guns (both have happened). We should give the food on the condition that it be distributed directly to the people by bona fide groups such as World Service, Catholic Relief, Lutheran Relief, CARE, etc. These groups were organized in Cambodia, for example, in such a way that members of the groups met the food at the airport and stayed with it until it got into the rice bowls of the starving right before their eyes. Now, as to the two most crucial foreign policy issues-how does one choose two among them all: the Soviet Union, the Pacific, Korea, China, and Taiwan; India and Pakistan; the Middle East; Photo courtesy of the State Department Granted that all are important, I believe that the Middle East and the Americas are the most vital to us. In the first issue, we must be absolutely firm that Israel has the right to exist as an in- dependent state within secure borders. This is im- portant because we must support the principle of an orderly world. Israel's right to be an inde- pendent nation was established by the United Nations. We cannot stand by and watch naked force trample on small states without losing all the safeguards of a just and lawful world. In the second issue-the Americas-we must make every move in the same spirit of seeking justice. This certainly does not mean that the United States should acquiesce in any arrange- ment because it fears trouble, or is anxious to appease ruffled feelings; but it does mean that because we are so conspicuously the biggest nation in the Western Hemisphere, we must avoid at all costs any action which suggests that we are trading on the fact. The bully is out of fashion at home and abroad. It is right to seek justice and stand up for it, and it is a glory and honor to a strong nation to submit to principles of justice and law. To sum up-if our goal is peace, and it surely is, we must pursue justice, because without jus- tice, there is no peace. Ray S. Cline, Director of Center for Strategic and International Studies and Former CIA Official American foreign policy must reflect our society's moral and political traditions but also has to take into account that many nations in the world around us have different values and goals. In promoting our safety and interests abroad, our policy should be founded on prudence and prac- Approved For Release 2004/10/112'PIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 ticality. Unrealism-however high-minded-is a recipe for disaster. The United States is the strongest and richest among the world's approximately 160 indepen- dent nations. It is also a leading model of repre- sentative government, human and minority rights, and freedom of political and economic choices for its individual citizens. Only five percent of the world's four billion people live in the United States. Many nations are hostile to our ideals, envious or indifferent. The primary task of American foreign policy is to maintain a strong alliance system linking us to at least ten to twenty other strong, friendly countries with similar aims and interests. We must guarantee our allies against all hostile encroachments, especially from powerful dictatorships like the Soviet Union and the Chinese People's Republic. These Communist nations' leaders plan gradually by force and in- timidation to gain control of scarce economic resources around the world, particularly oil, on which our high standard of living is based. Our alliance system must protect the world sea lanes and air lanes along which economic commodities and mutual detense forces move. With strong allies the United States can preserve a global power balance that protects political freedoms, facilitates worldwide trade and investment, and insures nonviolent resolution of social and inter- national conflicts. Congressman Dante Fascell (D-Fla.), Member of House International Relations Committee The 1973-74 oil crisis made Americans conscious of our increasing dependence on inter- national developments. Since then, we have been importing an even higher percentage of our energy, and thus we are more dependent on other nations now than before the oil embargo. A similar trend is true of other raw materials which we need from "Third World" and developing supplier nations. Because of these and other factors, we know that previous foreign policy goals and the mechanisms for achieving them must be re- examined. We need to devote as much interest and effort toward sound international strategies as we do to domestic programs. We cannot succeed in one area without moving ahead in the other. Above all, our foreign policy should be well- founded and clearly stated so that it can receive the sustained support from the American people that is necessary for long-term progress. This means that foreign policy must be based on es- tablished principles that enjoy a broad consensus in this country-individual freedom, the rule of law, and an economic order that fosters maxi- mum opportunities for growth. These factors must be implemented by officials and perceived by the people in an honest, open and consistent manner. Peace is the end product of successful foreign policy, not a stepping stone to another goal. Liberty, social justice and economic development are among conditions which permit political amity to exist. Therefore, we should encourage these values in our relations with other nations. Hopefully, the result will be reduced hostility and greater cooperation in meeting international needs in such areas as health, food supply and environmental pollution. Time is growing desperately short for putting aside the negative conflicts which are remnants of barbarous times, and getting on with the positive tasks we face in meeting the real needs of the world population. Dr. Brenda Forman, Policy Analyst, Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs I think our immediate future will be molded most decisively by one thing: resource scarcity. The world's population is expanding at a greater rate than ever in all of world history. Each one of these new persons, moreover, consumes a greater amount than ever in history of this planet's finite resources-energy, food grains and raw materials. Our existing sources of energy are limited and dwindling, and thus far at least, no grand scientific breakthrough has liberated us from our traditional dependence on fossil fuels or solved Approved For Release 2004/10/1114 CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 the difficult pro- 'IiPi iosveac fo~f&~pVfl0pfitl@&1.3 : CIA-RDg58?-Qi14' (AQZ4Qi' QWM&don the welfare energy. More and more of the world's people are of our citizenry to unrealistically hopeful foreign altering their eating habits to eat more meat. It policy objectives. National self-interest-in- takes four or five times as much food grain to feed people on meat as it does if they consume the grains directly. Meanwhile, the industrial age is spreading to more and more areas of the world, heightening the material expectations of millions of the world's people and consuming historically unprecedented amounts of the planet's raw materials. None of these trends is reversible to any significant extent. We cannot call a halt to technological and industrial advance; not only would we ourselves be most unwilling to do with- out the comforts it produces, but the advances it brings represent the chief hope for millions of the world's people to improve their lot. And even if we are able somehow, miraculously, to lower the entire world's birthrate, right now, the world's population in absolute numbers would continue to grow for many years more. In short, I see a difficult future in which more and more people are going to be wanting the world's material benefits, at a time when the world's total available resource pool is stretched in some areas at least (such as energy and food) very nearly to its limits. If I am right, then this is a relatively "high risk" future. It contains a much higher potential for friction and conflict than we like to assume when we think about our future as a nation. It poses a world in which the United States is going to have to remain a strong world power, both politically and militarily. Our national interests are unlikely to contract-and by interests, I mean the ideals we stand for, as well as things like our overseas investments. The challenges to these interests, however, are very likely to grow. We would do well to be prepared. Maybe I am wrong. Certainly, there are those who confidently maintain that technology will bail us out, producing yet more wonders that will make today's disturbing predictions into tomorrow's bad dreams. But I believe we cannot plan our future on the basis of a technological rabbit appearing on cue from the sceientific hat. Senator Dick Clark (D-Iowa) Member of Senate Foreign Relations Committee The fact of change has brought about a necessary pause and reevaluation of American foreign policy goals, the means of attaining them, and the entire philosophical framework of our international conduct. eluding economic strength and the ability to pose a credible deterrent to potential adversaries- must have a high priority in our world outlook. But this is clearly not enough. Our policies must also reflect the best of what Americans are-an elemental humanism and compassion for peoples and nations different from and less advantaged than our own, as well as a basic respect for the rights of the individual. Five international issues stand out as de- manding our most urgent attention: the pro- liferation of nuclear weapons technology; stability and order within the international economic system, as well as a rational and compassionate approach to critical North-South issues; stable reductions of strategic arms between the U.S. and the USSR; resolution of the Middle East conflict and resolution of the southern African situation. Dr. Robert J. Pranger, Director of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute In the immediate aftermath of Vietnam it became somewhat fashionable to speak about declining American power and diminishing public will to keep the United States as active in world affairs as it was in the cold war years after World War II. Evidence now exists, however, that some observers may have spoken too soon about these matters: analysis of informed public opinion now indicates that there is still substantial support for a strong, principled American foreign policy that rests on our traditional values of world peace and national freedom. Debate will persist over just what kind of peace and what definition of freedom is most appropriate for international action by the United States, because I doubt that the same kind of crusading consensus that bound America together during the cold war years will exist in the future. One new direction that foreign policy will take, therefore, is to find basic areas of agreement among Americans about specific international programs, while at the same time recognizing that foreign and defense policy will be subject to the same kind of on-going debate that is typical of other policies of the national government. Sacred cows will be fewer in the so-called national security area, and this means that goals will have to be made more articulate for an increasingly sophisticated audience. But I don't think this will Approved For Release 2004/10/13 1A-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 indicate any lessening of American commitment waste of our taxes and resources, at worst to un- to strong international action. On the contrary, believable devastation. If, on the other hand, the more public participation in the life-and-death problems are identified as the spread of nuclear issues of foreign policy may actually improve this weapons, the superpower arms race, shortages of policy by keeping it consistent with traditional food and natural resources, population pressures Mr. Sanford Gottlieb, Director, Citizens' Organization for a Sane World (SANE) In seeking new guidelines for foreign policy, much depends on how the problems are identif- ied. If the main problem is identified as the Soviet military threat, then the response is likely to be a continuing, costly and dangerous arms competition between the superpowers. In an age of mutual overkill, that path leads at best to the and pollution of the oceans, then the response should logically move in a different direction. These problems do not stop at borders. They cannot be solved by the use of military force. (In fact, military force becomes less relevant in this kind of world.) They require new forms of inter- national cooperation. U.S. foreign policy should be based on a hard-headed understanding of the need for cooperation on a tiny and dangerous planet, with priority given to reversing the arms race and halt- ing the spread of nuclear weapons. REFLECTIONS The authors in this Perspectives Panel have presented you with a wide range of viewpoints on many issues. In the space provided fill in the names of those authors who would agree with the various state- ments. As you do this think about whether YOU agree or disagree and indicate this by "YES" or "NO. " 1. A strong alliance system is central to our national security. 2. We should give food aid to all needy nations, regardless of the form of government which rules. 3. Containing the Communist threat is still the major concern of our foreign policy. 4. Resource scarcity, food shortages and population growth are the most important issues. In particular, whoever controls the world's oil resources will exercise a great deal of power. 5. A successful foreign policy must be based on established American values such as human rights and social justice. 6. We need to redefine our commitments and priorities in foreign affairs without becoming isolationist. Approved For Release 2004/10f12~ : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Fj~l~a Ue4/ A A-R g 8-L~3 I.R300200160007-2 (ij-, oreign ojic Alliance-formal treaty between two or more nations in which they pledge mutual military, economic and/or political support. Detente-literally, "the relaxation of tensions." Characterizes relations between the U.S. and the Soviet Union in recent years in which both nations have attempted to move away from the confrontation of the Cold War and towards cooperation. Various aspects include increased trade, cultural and educational exchanges, cooperative space exploration (Apollo-Soyuz missions), SALT negotiations and the Helsinki accords. Embassy-the official diplomatic mission of one nation in the capital city of another, headed by the Ambassador. Over 140 nations maintain embassies in Washington, D.C. The United States has embassies in London, Moscow, Mexico City, Tokyo, Nairobi and over 100 other capitals around the world. The Ambassadors are nominated by the President and must be approved by the Senate. Their responsibilities include the administration of political, economic and cultural relations be- tween the nations, as well as representing the American government at official and social functions. Executive Agreement-agreement between the chief executives (Presidents, Prime Ministers, Premiers, Kings) of two nations on a particular matter. Differs from a treaty in that it is law without having to be ratified by the Senate. Foreign Policy-a nation's course of action towards the other nations in the world. Interdependence-applied to international relations, means the mutual and inescapable dependence of all nations-big and small, rich and poor-on each other. Isolationism-attempt to withdraw from international affairs, to isolate yourself or your nation from world problems. Con- trasted with internationalism. Multinational Corporation-corporation which has expanded beyond its home country base and has direct investment in other nations. Has a "global perspective," in that its management makes its decisions based on alternatives available any- where in the world. Examples are the major oil companies, IT&T, General Motors, United Fruit and Anaconda Copper. Nonaligned Nation-refers to those nations who claim to follow neither strictly pro-U.S. nor pro-U.S.S.R. policies; similar to "netural." Many Third World nations are nonaligned; 84 attended the fifth Conference of the Nonaligned Nations in August, 1976, in Sri Lanka. Organization of American States (OAS)-established in 1948 as an alliance of the nations of the Western Hemisphere. Presently has 25 members; Cuba was suspended in 1962. Purpose of OAS is to promote cooperation and preserve the peace in this hemisphere. Third World-the poor, economically underdeveloped nations of Asia, Africa and Latin America. "Fourth World" refers to the least developed and most poverty-stricken of these nations, such as Bangladesh. Approved For Release 2004/10/13 iPA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 AN INTRODUCTION TO FOREIGN POLICY: A Close Up Briefing Before the seminar on foreign policy, one of your program instructors will conduct a short "Brief- ing" as an introduction to this subject. The purpose is to provide some background information which will help you participate in the seminar with your guest speaker. Refer to the Glossary and to the general outline which follows for some of the subjects which may be discussed. Use these pages to take notes during both the briefing and the seminar. ? In the formulation of foreign policy, what are the roles of: the President, his advisers, the State De- partment, the Defense Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Congress? ? What are some of the groups which influence the making of foreign policy? ? What are the major issues of American foreign policy today? NOTES (BRIEFING) Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 128 Approved For Release 20Q BQ(13. -P% 01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 1%A-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 8. DEFENSE POLICY: `(,To Provide for the Common Defense" "World peace like community peace, does not require that each man love his neighbor-it requires only that they live together with mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement. " John F. Kennedy There is only one principle which has been common to all forms of government throughout the history of the world. Tribal organizations, monarchies, dictatorships and democracies have all had the function of "providing for the common defense." For the newly independent United States, war was a living and continuing reality, and a national defense was crucial to its survival. The Constitution designated the President as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and vested the powers to create a standing army and navy in the Congress. Yet it would have been extremely difficult for them to have envisioned the problems of supersonic bombers, chemical warfare, overseas troops, nuclear weapons and cost overruns. As in so many other aspects of our government, the constitutional principles have remained the same while the problems to which they apply have grown more complex. No one has ever disputed the need for a strong defense, but many will and do heatedly debate the definition of what is a strong defense. "Providing for a common defense" is now a major industry, a source of employment for millions of civilians. American troops are stationed around the globe, as "providing for the common defense" has become intermeshed with the defense of our Asian, European and other allies. Finally, the development of nuclear arms has raised the spectre of possibly destroying the world in the process of "providing for the common defense." Lieutenant Colonel H. A. Staley and Major Rob Purdie have written an article which provides an important overview of the "what, why and how" of American defense policy. This is followed by a detailed discussion of nuclear arms policy by Thomas Halsted, who answers many of your questions about this complex and controversial subject. This chapter also features a diagram illustrating the general structure of the Department of Defense and a series of tables which provide some interesting facts on how our government and its armed forces "provide for the common defense" here in the late 1970's. Approved For Release 2004/10/13 CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 AMERICAN MILITARY AROUND THE WORLD Army (Number of Troops) Europe 198,400 West Germany 189,000 West Berlin 4,400 Turkey 1,200 Italy 3,000 Greece 800 South Korea 30,000 Air Force (Number of Troops) Europe 73,000 West Germany Turkey Spain Great Britain Italy Greece (exact figures unavailable) Pacific 50,000 Japan Okinawa South Korea Taiwan Philippines (exact figures unavailable) Atlantic Navy 5 carriers, 68 surface combatants (Second Fleet) 2 carriers, 16 surface com- batants (Sixth Fleet) Eastern Pacific 4 carriers, 59 surface com- batants (Third Fleet) Western Pacific 2 carriers, 18 surface com- batants (Seventh Fleet) (plus one Marine battalion landing team) Persian Gulf 1 command ship, 2 surface combatants Source: Military Balance, 1976-77 International Institute for Strategic Studies, London, England Approved For Release 2004/10/131-?IA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13: CIA-R AMERICAN DEFENSE POLICY: WHAT, WHY AND HOW? Lt. Colonel H. A. Staley and Major Rob Purdie Lt. Colonel Staley and Major Purdie are faculty members of the Air Command and Staff College at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. Both hold Master's degrees in political science. Lt. Colonel Staley is also the author of Tongue and Quill: Communicating to Manage in Tomorrow's Air Force. Major Purdie is a lieutenant colonel selectee and pilot of the world's largest aircraft, the C-5. Their article is a highly informative explanation of this complex subject of defense policy. What is Defense Policy? You might be surprised how close you could come to guessing what defense policy is, why we have such a thing, and how we use it. It's really not as complicated as many people think. The dictionary defines "policy" as "any plan or course of action adopted by a government... designed to influence and determine decisions, actions and other matters." You already know that the word "defense" means to "protect" something. United States defense policy, then, is the general plan of action our government uses to maintain our security as a free nation. American defense policy is an important part of a larger plan called U.S. foreign policy. Defense policy could also be described as a collection of ideas or guidelines. Defense Sec- retary Harold Brown has said that the spread of sophisticated nuclear and nonnuclear weapons technology has three major implications for U.S. defense policy and programs. First, our defense planning should encourage prospects for reasonable arms control agreements. Second, we should maintain a strong nuclear capability while also placing emphasis on nonnuclear forces. Third, defense planning should stress the importance of nuclear and nonnuclear forces in preventing war.l In broad terms, these are the defense policy guidelines of the Carter Adminis- tration. fly-fiJ J%W01%N&7p;licy? These guidelines represent this adminis- tration's approach to achieving a broad set of long range objectives known as national security goals. At the present time our goals are: to protect the U.S. from attack or enemy pressure. to assure our ability to buy and sell freely in world markets. to contribute to a world environment that allows democratic values and institutions to survive and prosper.2 To achieve these long-term national security goals it is necessary to develop more specific shorter term goals. These are called national security policy goals. In 1975, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger listed six national security policy goals; they remain basically unchanged today: Maintain national strength and purpose. Revitalize bonds with allies. Reduce perils of nuclear war. Build rational relationships with potential enemies. Help settle regional conficts. ? Help solve crucial economic issues.3 Are you beginning to understand the "what" and "why" of defense policy? Those two questions are difficult to separate. "To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace." George Washington Are you beginning to understand the "what" and "why" of defense policy? Those two questions are difficult to separate. Defense policy is a general plan to keep our nation secure. It should be obvious that if we had no goals or plan we would be like a football team without a play book-we would lose every game. *Authors' Notes: 1. Statement by Harold Brown, Secretary of Defense, February 22,1977, Survival (May-June 1977), p. 121. 2. Testimony of Amos A. Jordan, then Principal Assistant Secretary of Defense, International Security Affairs., to Committee on Armed Services, U.S. House of Representatives, December 9, 1975 (H.A.S.C. No. 94-32), p. 141. 3. Henry A. Kissinger, Statement to House Committee on International Relations, November 1975. Approved For Release 2004/1041: CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R00020016 007-2 How is Defense Policy Made and Used? The Instruments of National Power We've saved the hardest question for last: "How is defense policy really made and used?" It's also the most interesting question because the answer often involves us personally. Defense policy is made through a process that can be illustrated like this:4 701, E M S INTERNATIONAL CONDITIONS If we start with international conditions, or more specifically, a change in these conditions, we find that new problems are constantly being generated. Let's take as an example a major increase in the price of oil. The problems created by such an action would be considered in depth by the President, his advisors, and the Congress. The decision or decisions concerning the problems would then be translated into policy. In our example, the decision might be to restrict arms shipments and manufactured goods to the countries that raised their oil prices, or simply to apply diplomatic pressure. Any such decisions would require minor to major changes in policy. The changes would affect international conditions; although the original problem may be solved new problems are bound to be created. The complex and changing nature of the international system insures that this process will never stagnate. 4. Lt. Colonel Conrad C. Gonzales, Chief, Military Environment Division, Air Command and Staff College, Maxwell AFB, Alabama. You'll recall that our defense policy is a "plan" to guide government leaders. In many ways it is like a carpenter's blueprint, and we all know a carpenter needs tools. So too does our government need "tools" to carry out policy; these tools are called instruments of national power. America's three basic "tools" or instru- ments are: ? The political instrument. ? The economic instrument. ? The military instrument. These instruments are used to project power; that is, to influence other nations to undertake or avoid certain courses of action. To understand these instruments, it helps to consider them separately, although in practice they are seldom used alone. The political instrument encompasses diplomatic pressure, treaties, executive agree- ments, and a host of other actions, activities and agreements. The economic instrument includes tariffs, embargoes, special trading privileges, monetary policies and various other forms of pressure. Finally, the military instrument (the armed forces) is used to deter or encourage actions through its existence or when it is determined to be in the national interest to apply force. Focusing on the military instrument more specifically, see that it is embodied in civil authorities of the Department of Defense (DOD), the senior military officers in the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), and the armed services. The head of DOD, the Secretary of Defense, is the President's' principal civilian advisor for defense matters and is immediately beneath him in the line of authority to the military. This is consistent with the American tradition of civilian control of the armed forces. The JCS acts as the principal military advisory body to the President and Secretary of Defense. Each member of the JCS, with the exception of the chairman, is also the military head of his respective service branch. The chairman's position is rotated among the various services. In addition, each service is represented by a civilian secretary appointed by the President. Naturally, defense policy is implemented through the armed forces in many ways short of actual war. For example, troops stationed over- seas or naval fleets in the Mediterranean do far more than stand by waiting for war. The power represented by these forces helps convince potential enemies not to start a fight! These forces Approved For Release 2004/10/131-CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 also demonstrate to po~ir~lies ourejti?R0aj(A0/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 determination to preserve order or protect our interests. Paradoxically, the most successful defense policy may well be one in which the armed forces never fight. Our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen are really "doing their best" when they are not fighting because their extensive train- ing, advanced weapons and high morale in- fluence potential enemies to keep the peace. If members of your family have ever served in one of our military services or worked for the U.S. government, they have been personally involved with American defense policy. You may decide in the future to serve America in some capacity-if you do, there is a-good chance that your work will, in some way, be aiding our President and Congress in keeping the United States free and prosperous. Now that you know what it is, why we have it, and how we use it, perhaps you can tell others about... American Defense Policy. TABLE: AMERICAN FOREIGN AID (Military Assistance) This table should be studied with the one on foreign economic aid in Chapter 7. There are many different kinds of military assistance which the United States gives to friendly governments. This table covers grants, sales and credits for the purchase of American military equipment, training and other military related services. Figures cover the period from October 1, 1976 to September 30, 1977. TOTAL: $2.5 billion Israel $ 1 billion Turkey $214 million Greece $170 million South Korea $158 million Spain $137 million Jordan $136 million Brazil $ 60 million Thailand $ 57 million Indonesia $ 47 million Philippines $ 47 million Source: See Chapter 7 &1't Supost You fee( tiko heating up x`ht'C` rations? ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT IN THE NUCLEAR ERA Thomas A. Halsted Many novels have been written and numerous movies have been produced about nuclear war; coffeehouse folksingers have lamented the impending doom. We have practiced air raid drills at school and have frequently heard "this is a test. . . in case of a real emergency. . . " on our local radio stations. Fortunately, the world has thus far avoided nuclear war, but we continue to live under the menacing spectre of The Bomb. In this article Thomas Halsted discusses in detail the problems posed by the nuclear age and explains why he believes arms control and disarmament to be the only possible road to a true national security. Mr. Halsted is Director of the Arms Control Program of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Executive Director of the Arms Control Association. Read his article care- fully. As our government continues its attempts to negotiate a treaty with the Soviet Union for arms control, and encourages the rest of the world not to develop nuclear weapons, it becomes increasingly important that we as citizens understand and have a voice in nuclear arms policy. Approved For Release 2004/10419: CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Relegse2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-Q11315R0 020Q160007 2 They shall beat their swords into plow- power o most merican an Russian nuclear shares and their spears into pruninghooks," says weapons. Some American bombs are 1,000 times the prophet Isaiah. The prophet Joel says, "Beat as powerful; the Russians have a missile warhead your plowshares into swords and your pruning- that's nearly 1,700 times as powerful as the single hooks into spears." bomb that fell on Hiroshima thirty-two years ago. "The likelihood of a disastrous new war has been growing, with the very real possibility that it might involve nuclear weapons, and awesome destruction never before seen." Since the end of World War II and the be- ginning of the atomic age, Joel has clearly had more influence than Isaiah. Over 1 trillion (1,000,000,000,000) dollars have been spent, chiefly by the United States and the Soviet Union, on sophisticated armaments in efforts to improve their security. Yet few would argue that the world is more secure because of this vast expenditure. Rather, the likelihood of a disastrous new war has been growing, with the very real possibility that it might involve nuclear weapons, and awesome destruction never before seen. Only a lunatic fringe really believes that a full-scale nuclear war could be fought and won. Political and military leaders are well aware that the use of even a small number of such weapons, in a conflict involving the United States and the Soviet Union or even other adversaries, could expand into an all out war. This is why efforts to control armaments have concentrated on the control of atomic weapons. More than half the people on earth have lived with nuclear weapons all their lives, and have come to accept them as a fact of life. Yet nuclear war, for which these weapons are designed, would mean an end to civilization as we know it. "The living," as President John F. Kennedy quoted Soviet Premier Khrushchev, "would envy the dead" after a nuclear war. Nuclear weapons are very different from "conventional" (non-nuclear) ones. A single atomic bomb dropped over the Japanese city of Hiroshima killed nearly 100,000 Japanese civilians in a few seconds and leveled the heart of the city. The bomb, which was dropped from a B- 29 bomber, exploded with a force equal to 15,000 tons of high explosive TNT. It was three thousand times as powerful as the largest bomb that had been used in warfare before then. Yet today that 1945 bomb is puny compared to the destructive The U.S. and Soviet Union now have over 30,000 nuclear weapons between them. Some are warheads on intercontinental ballistic missiles (each side has over 1,000 of these ICBM's); some are on missiles carried by nuclear submarines; some are on bombers capable of flying 6,000 miles or more. Others are on shorter-range "tactical" missiles and aircraft based in Europe and the Far East. The U.S. has over 7,000 such tactical nuclear weapons in Europe alone, the U.S.S.R. an estimated 3,500. Given the enormous numbers of weapons available on both sides, if a nuclear war were to break out between the United States and the Soviet Union, over 100 million (100,000,000) lives could be lost in each country. Great cities would be in ashes, and the surviving population would be desperate for food, shelter and medical care. Furthermore, not just the two "superpowers" would be devastated. All of Europe might be in ruins as well, and, depending on how many other countries (China? Japan? others?) were drawn into the conflict, most of the northern hemisphere could be the victim of a nuclear war. There are other possibilities for nuclear war. A small country may acquire a bomb, and use it on its neighbor; the larger powers are one way or another drawn into the fight. Or a group of terrorists steals or manufactures its own weapon and uses it to extort concessions from a govern- ment. Perhaps they actually set off their weapon and destroy a great city; perhaps not. The fact remains that we, who have created this monster and allowed it to dominate thinking about war for the last thirty-two years, have barely begun to find ways to bring it under control. Military superiority has little real meaning in a world of nuclear weapons, yet we and the Russians continue to build up our arsenals in efforts to stay ahead of each other. Seeing so little restraint on the part of these two superpowers, other countries, seeking better security in the face of threats from their neighbors, may also be tempted to obtain nuclear weapons. This is a problem of growing seriousness as more and more potential bomb material (plutonium and enriched uranium) becomes available around the world as a by-product of increasing reliance on the atom to generate electricity. Approved For Release 2004/10/13 :19134-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 The Objectives of Arms Control and Disarament under which they agreed not to build antiballistic In the face of these and other security problems involving advanced weapons and the threat that they might be used, and the increasing high cost of armaments world wide, arms con- trol-a system of imposed restraints-has become increasingly important as an alternative to the endless search for security through military strength. Arms control consists of a pattern of measures of restraint in developing military planning and force structures which accomplish some or all of these objectives: ? reduce the likelihood of war; ? reduce the destructiveness of war one nevertheless occur; ? reduce the costs of armaments, thereby permitting resources, both human and material, to be used to better our lives. Disarmament, on the other hand, means an extensive reduction in levels of armaments. Arms control does not necessarily lead to disarma- ment; that process could be much harder to achieve while successfully resisting pressures for actual disarmament. These complaints are voiced increasingly by spokesmen for smaller countries who feel that the big powers' concen- tration on large military forces is at the expense of development in the impoverished regions of the world, and that the two superpowers are increas- ing the likelihood of a war between them that would imperil everyone else. Thus there have been growing demands for a vigorous international approach to disarmament, not just arms control. In response to these demands, a Special Session of the United Nations devoted to exploring dis- armament problems will take place in 1978. What are the major problems of arms control and disarmament, and what efforts are being made to deal with them? Some of the more pressing concerns are identified below in the following sections: Strategic Arms Limitations Talks (SALT) The United States and the Soviet Union have been carrying out Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (so-called "SALT" negotiations) since 1969, in an effort to stabilize the arms competition between them in strategic (i.e., intercontinental) weapons: the ICBMs, long-range bombers, and submarine-launched missile programs noted above. In 1972, they signed the SALT I Treaty missile (ABM) defenses. Both sides agreed that it was not possible to successfully defend their countries against missile attacks. Accordingly, they agreed to scrap attempts to do so, thereby eliminating the possibility that any political leader in the future might, erroneously, conclude that it could be to his advantage to start a nuclear war. An important result of this "ABM Treaty" has been to reinforce the concept of mutual deterrence.* Since an effective defense is not attainable, both countries are vulnerable to a first strike or a retaliation. Because both know they are vulnerable, they are deterred from attacking one another. "Six countries (the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, France, China and India) have exploded nuclear weapons and a seventh, Israel, is widely believed to have nuclear weapons, although it has never tested them." Since the 1972 ABM Treaty, SALT negotiations have focused on setting ceilings on the number of offensive weapons, and hopefully, on eventually reducing their numbers. In 1974, a tentative agreement was reached at Vladivostok (a city on the Pacific coast of the Soviet Union) between President Ford and Soviet General Secretary Brezhnev on the framework of a treaty which would allow each side no more than 2,400 "delivery vehicles" - ICBMs, submarine- launched ballistic missiles, and long-range bombers, and would require that no more than 1,320 of these could have "MIRVs" on them (a missile armed with MIRVs carries a cluster of nuclear bombs on it, each bomb able to be dropped on a different target; thus a MIRVed missile can be many times as effective in destroy- ing targets as one without MIRVs). However, that Vladivostok framework has not yet been trans- lated into a permanent treaty. Early in 1977, President Carter proposed a new framework for agreement, incorporating lower numerical ceil- lings as well as proposals to prevent moderni- zation and replacement of weapons. This proposal has formed the basis of present SALT negotiations. *Editor's Note: "Deter" means "to prevent, to check, to discourage from acting through fear or doubt." Approved For Release 2004/1 ?!3'163 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 N cPt 010FANKAWOW'Pse 2004/10/13 : CIA o-RENA -g4i1R{ q? $$RZ rograms. There is Six countries (the United States the Soviet Union, Great Britain, France, China, and India) have exploded nuclear weapons, and a seventh, Israel, is widely believed to have nuclear weapons, although it has never tested them. Recognizing that a world of many nuclear powers would be even more dangerous than the fragile situation which exists today, governments have worked on a number of arms control measures to limit the chances that nuclear weapons could spread to other countries. The problem has taken on particular urgency in recent years because of the fact that nuclear energy, which can be used to generate electricity, can also be used to produce plutonium, the ele- ment from which nuclear weapons are made. Many countries are building nuclear reactors to generate electricity. Many more are planning to do so, particularly as growing oil shortages and higher oil prices force countries to give a higher priority to nuclear power in developing their national energy plans. With nearly 500 nuclear power plants in operation, under construction, or on order in 41 countries, the chief concern is that without adequate safeguards against theft or diversion some of the plutonium from these reactors could be used to make atomic bombs. A hostile government could secretly make a bomb, or-a growing possibility-a terrorist group could steal bomb material and either make a bomb with it or persuade its would-be victims that it had done so. Concerns about both these possibilities have led to a number of international efforts to make it more difficult to acquire weapons. A Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (the "NPT") has been in effect since 1970; over 100 countries are parties. It and other less formal mechanisms establish certain international standards and procedures to make it more difficult for peaceful nuclear programs to turn into weapons programs. But the NPT and other means of controlling peaceful nuclear programs only deal with capabilities. They do not address the more fundamental issue of intentions. A government that has decided it needs nuclear weapons for its own security will not be deterred from that goal by technical controls on its ability to make bombs. It is further inspired, morever, by the superpowers' unwillingness so far to put any noticeable controls 'Editor's Note: Proliferation means "an excessive, rapid spread". a long way to go before both the ability of other countries to become nuclear weapons states and their desires to do so are brought under control. Comprehensive Test Ban Many arms control experts believe that a very important way that the nuclear weapons states can demonstrate that they are, in fact, willing to put some restraints on their own nuclear weapons program is to agree to end all nuclear weapons explosions. A ban on nuclear explosions has been an arms control objective since the mid-1950's, when the first test-ban talks began in Geneva. In 1963 a "limited" test ban treaty committed its parties, which included the United States, the Soviet Union and Great Britain, not to set off any more nuclear explosions in the atmosphere, in outer space, and under water but it allowed them to continue testing underground. The Treaty neither slowed nor stopped the testing of nuclear weapons. Of the more than 1,000 nuclear test explosions which have taken place since 1945, more than half have occurred since the 1963 treaty went into effect. Furthermore, France and China, who did not sign the treaty, have conducted nuclear weapons test programs. Pressure to bring about a complete or "comprehensive" test ban, which would prohibit tests everywhere including underground, has in- creased in recent years. In 1974, the United States and Soviet Union signed a "threshold" Test Ban Treaty which would limit the size of tests each would carry out to no greater than 150 kilotons (but this is 10 times the size of the Hiroshima bomb!), and two years later they signed a separate treaty governing the conduct of so-called "peaceful" nuclear explosions. Neither of these treaties has been ratified, however, and in view of President Carter's strong interest in a complete test ban instead, they may never come into force. Considerable obstacles remain in the way of a total test ban, involving all nations. France, China and India (which has conducted one underground test of what it calls a "peaceful device") are unlikely to join, and several countries, notably the USSR, maintain an interest in the idea of nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes. Since such explosions involve technologies identical to those needed for bombs, they will make a comprehensive test ban extremely difficult to bring about as long as they are not also banned. Approved For Release 2004/10/13: ff-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Ann Mutual and Balanced Force Keduct nns(MISFK) 0/13 Since the end of World War II United States and Soviet military forces have faced one another in Central Europe. Today, more than thirty years after the conflict ended, nearly 800,000 NATO troops and 900,000 Warsaw Pact forces remain deployed there. Both sides have been modernizing their forces, equipping them with new kinds of weapons, and backing them up with long-range sea and ground-launched missiles and long-range aircraft. In hopes of reducing the potential for surprise attack as well as lessening the possibility that conflict in Europe could lead to all-out war, the two sides agreed in 1973 to attempt to negotiate an agreement to reduce the levels of forces on both sides. Discussions to date have not been very productive, for a variety of reasons. Firstly, the Soviets may not have great confidence in their allies, and fear that a reduction in U.S. forces could lead to an expansion of West German influence. Secondly, the United States' NATO allies have been reluctant, on the other hand, to increase their contribution, preferring to keep a strong U.S. presence there. Both the U.S. and Soviet Union have, in fact, retained or increased forces in Europe, rather than reducing them, in part to gain some bargaining leverage for the negotiations. Nevertheless, there are some grounds for hope that some reductions can take place, and be accompanied by understandings on force deployments which will improve stability there. A tradeoff involving lowering the level of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons in Europe by 1,000 in exchange for a reduction in Soviet tank forces is one such possibility. Conventional Arms Transfers In recent years, particularly since the end of the Vietnam War, the developing world has become a supermarket for the sellers of con- ventional (i.e., non-nuclear) armaments-high performance aircraft, ships, tanks and artillery, and a wide variety of other military equipment. The upsurge in this market has been phenomenal, both in terms of amounts and sophistication of the weapons involved. The United States, by far the most energetic arms merchant, accounts for more than half of all the arms sold worldwide, with as many as $12 billion worth of orders in a single year. The Soviet Union, the closest com- petitor, accounts for less than 1/4 as much. CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Much of the arms sold, by the United States and such other suppliers as the French and British have gone to the Middle East, principally Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel. The Soviet Union has provided sophisticated weapons to others in the region. The last Middle East war, fought in 1973, involved new generations of high-per- formance aircraft and anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles. The opponents in that war have since been rearmed many times over, and still more advanced weapons, and their neighbors have raced to follow suit. The next Middle East war, should one come, could involve many more ad- versaries, perhaps even drawing in the countries outside the region. Thus there have been increased pressures to develop a policy of restraint, not only in the United States but regionally as well, with respect to arms sales. In mid-1977 President Carter announced a policy, so far with little effect, of approving arms transfers only where the case for doing so is compelling (until then, the burden of proof had been on those arguing against such sales), and of not allowing new types of weapons to be introduced into a region. For such a policy to succeed, it must be emulated by other potential suppliers. Further- more, the potential customers must also see it in their interest to restrict arms purchases, or there is little reason to expect that the arms market will slow down. Nevertheless, the Carter adminis- tration, recognizing that the United States is by far the worst offender in this practice, is attempt- ing to start a dialogue with others in an effort to reach international agreement on limiting con- ventional arms traffic. These are only a few of the pressing arms control problems the world faces today. The United States has taken the lead in many in- stances in trying to come to grips with these issues. President Carter has set forth an im- pressive agenda for arms control and dis- armament, and has appointed to his adminis- tration a competent and dedicated team of senior officials committed to translating agenda into action. For his arms control objectives to succeed, however, he must overcome considerable public skepticism about the value of arms control as an essential element of national security, as well as about the wisdom of negotiating with the Soviet Union; he must also deal with widespread misper- Approved For Release 2004/1 q/31g3 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 ceptions about the meaning of security in the suit of military superiority, but only when we and nuclear age. He must convince a now-doubting our adversaries are ready to bring the arms race public that greater safety is not going to be under control through negotiated arms control attained through an endless and impossible pur- agreements that really control arms. Approved For Release 2004/10/13139 A-RDP88-01315ROO0200160007-2 Approved F1~,~2OSSAOf l: nse / ue eT -RD I,315R000200160007-2 .1 Arms Control-policy of restraint in the development of military weapons. Used most often today with reference to nuclear arms. Arms Sales-a very controversial issue today, concerning the sale of large quantities of weapons by the United States and other developed nations to Third World nations; e.g., Saudi Arabia and Iran are two of the largest purchasers of arms from the United States. Deterrence-the doctrine that war can be prevented by the maintenance of large military arsenals by two foes because the threat of an effective counterattack will discourage both from ever striking first. Disarmament-rather than just the restraint of arms control, calls for a total reduction in nuclear weaponry towards the ultimate goal of elimination of all nuclear weapons. North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)-an alliance of the United States, Canada and Western European democracies for mutual security against Communist aggression and expansionism. Established immediately after World War II. Nuclear Parity-the condition of roughly equivalent nuclear forces between the United States and the Soviet Union. Nuclear Proliferation-the spread of nuclear weapons to nations which did not previously possess them. Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) -negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union on the limitation of nuclear weapons for the mutual benefit of decreasing the likelihood of nuclear war. SALT I-treaty signed in 1972 placing a permanent limit on missile defense systems (called anti-ballistic missile or ABM systems). Another part of SALT I was a five-year limit on the number and the kind of offensive nuclear weapons. SALT II-with SALT I due to expire in October, 1977, a new treaty becomes necessary to continue the arms control. A pre- liminary SALT II pact was signed in 1974, but a permanent treaty was still to be reached at the time of this printing (August, 1977). Warsaw Pact-alliance of the Soviet Union and its Eastern European allies for mutual security against possible NATO aggression. Warsaw is the capital of Poland, one of the member nations. Weaponry Strategic Weapons-long-range nuclear weapons with an intercontinental range. Tactical Weapons-also nuclear weapons. but have shorter range. Conventional Weapons-nonnuclear, such as tanks, land troops, etc. U.S.Air Force Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 140 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 AN INTRODUCTION TO DEFENSE POLICY: A Close Up Briefing Before the seminar on defense policy, one of your program instructors will conduct a short "Briefing" as an introduction to this subject. The purpose is to provide some background information which will help you participate in the seminar with your guest speaker(s). Refer to the diagram and the outline below, as well as the Glossary on the preceding page, for some of the subjects which may be dis- cussed. Use these pages to take notes during both the briefing and the seminar. ? What is the Department of Defense? Who is the Secretary? Who are the Joint Chiefs of Staff? ? How is defense policy formulated? What roles are played by the President, the Congress and the Defense Department? ? What is meant by the doctrine of deterrence? Containment? ? What is American policy with regard to nuclear weapons? What is the meaning of arms control? ------------------ ARMED FORCES POLICY COUNCIL ASSISTANT ASSISTANT ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL COUNSEL DIRECTOR OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE OF THE ASSISTANT TO DEFENSE RESEARCH SECRETARY OF DEFENSE OF DEFENSE (INTERNATIONAL OF DEFENSE (MANPOWER AND 1 (PROGRAM DEPARTMENT THE SECRETARY ATOMIC ENERGY AND ENGINEERING LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS) SECURITY AFFAIR S) RESERVE AFFAIRS) ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION) OF DEFENSE DIRECTOR ASSISTANT ASSISTANT ASSISTANT ASSISTANT ASSISTANT DEFENSE SECRETARY SECRETARY SECRETARY SECRETARY SECRETARY TELECOMMUNI- OF DEFENSE OF DEFENSE OF DEFENSE OF DEFENSE OF DEFENSE CATIONS (INSTALLATIONS AND (COMPTROLLER) (INTELLIGENCE) (HEALTH AFFAIRS) (PUBLIC AFFAIRS) AND COMMAND AND LOGISTICS) CONTROL SYSTEMS THE JOINT STAFF CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMY CHEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS CHIEF OF STAFF, AIR FORCE COMMANDANT, MARINE CORPS I H DEFENSE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY DEFENSE INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE F DEFENSE CIVIL PREPAREDNESS AGENCY DEFENSE SECURITY ASSISTANCE AGENCY DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY DEFENSE COMMUNICATIONS AGENCY ATLANTIC COMMAND EUROPEAN COMMAND PACIFIC COMMAND DEFENSE MAPPING AGENCY READINESS COMMAND SOUTHERN COMMAND DEFENSE NUCLEAR AGENCY STRATEGIC AIR COMMAND UNDER SECRETARY AND ASSISTANT SECRETARIES OF THE ARMY DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY SECRETARY OF THE NAVY CHIEF UNDER COM- OF SECRETARY MAN- NAVAL AND CANT OPERA- ASSISTANT OF TIONS SECRETARIES MARINE OF THE NAVY CORPS UNDER SECRETARY AND ASSISTANT SECRETARIES OF THE AIR FORCE Source: U.S. Government Manual 1976-77, Government Printing Office Approved For Release 2004/10/13 :1cIf-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release ~Q4,~/110// 133 : CIARDP 8-01315R000200160007-2 NOTES (SEMINAR) Approved For Release 2004/10112 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 9. THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY: National Security in a Democracy "Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachments by men of zeal, well- meaning but without understanding. " Justice Louis Brandeis (1928) "It is now clear that we are facing an implacable enemy whose avowed objective is world domination by whatever means and at whatever cost. There are no rules in such a game... We must learn to subvert, sabotage and destroy our enemies by more clever, more sophisticated and more effective methods than those used against us. " Hoover Commission (1954) The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was established in 1947 to gather and analyze intelligence information relating to the nation's security. While each of the armed services has its own intelligence arm, the Truman Administration believed that the dangers of the Communist threat and the complexit- ies of the modern world made it necessary to create the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA was offi- cially made a part of the Executive Office of the President, responsible to the newly created National Security Council. Congress also was given oversight powers, divided between the appropriate House and Senate committees. However, in recent years tremendous controversy has raged over the failures of Presidential control and Congressional oversight to prevent illegal activities of the CIA, other intelligence agencies and also the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Since 1974 the so-called "intelligence community" has been in- vestigated by a special Presidential commission (headed by then Vice President Nelson Rockefeller) and by two select Congressional committees (chaired by Congressman Otis Pike and Senator Frank Church). Their findings revealed illegal intelligence operations within the United States as well as abroad. Continued investigations by Congress and by journalists have uncovered more illegal programs such as mind control and drug experimentation. Public confidence in the intelligence community had never before been so shaken. The recommendations made by these investigators have fueled the public debate over what actions need to be taken to prevent future abuses while allowing for the intelligence operations necessary for our f1" national security. How can we meet national security demands in a dangerous world while guarding against violations of our democratic principles? This chapter's first article is written by an official of the Central Intelligence Agency. The author presents a general explanation of American intelligence operations and then offers a perspective on the questions of covert operations, budget oversight and secrecy. Senator Frank Church, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Operations which conducted extensive investigations in 1975-76, has also authored an article. He surveys some of his committee's major findings and presents a case for reforms of the intelligence community to give greater oversight powers to the Congress. Approved For Release 2004/10/1143 IA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 i Approved For Release 2004/10/13: CIA-RDP8&O1 a1 R 't00200 6000 -2 he n e igence true ure INTELLIGENCE Central Intelligence Agency This article on intelligence was submitted by the Public Affairs Office of the Central Intelligence Agency. The authors present you with an authoritative discussion of the structure and operations of the intelligence community. As you read, refer to the structure diagram at the end of the article, which will help you understand the power and authority relationships with respect to U.S. intelligence agencies. General Sun Tzu, who was a supreme military strategist in China long before Christ was born, wrote, "To win 100 victories in 100 battles is not the acme of skill. To find security without fighting is the acme of skill." It is the goal of intelligence to help America achieve security without fighting. The mission of intelligence is to see that America's leaders know what is happening abroad and to alert them. to what might happen tomorrow. This combination of informing and alerting is what intelligence is really all about. The United States has conducted foreign intelligence activites since the days of George Washington, who wrote to Colonel Elias Dayton on July 26, 1777: "The necessity of procuring good intelligence is apparent and need not be further urged. . ." Funds for foreign intelligence including a so-called secret service fund, were sought by President Washington in his first inaugural address. The legality of keeping such funds secret has been upheld in the Congress ever since. Both the notion that foreign intelligence is the responsibility of the Chief Executive and that there should be Congressional oversight can also be traced to the early days of the Government. "The National Security Act of 1947 gave birth to a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) under the guidance and direction of the National Security Council-composed of the President, Vice President, Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense." But the need for an American central intelligence apparatus grew out of Pearl Harbor and the experiences of the Second World War. The Congress wanted to make certain that the U.S. would not be caught short again because of a lack of good intelligence information. Thus the National Security Act of 1947 gave birth to a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) under the guidance and direction of the National Security Council-composed of the President, Vice President, Secretary of State, and Secretary of Defense. The Act established a Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) to be the Director of CIA and the coordinator of the intelligence activities of the "Intelligence Community"-that is, the units of other Federal departments (Departments of Defense, State, etc.) that have foreign intelligence responsibilities. As part of his responsibility as Director of CIA, the DCI is designated the President's chief intelligence advisor. As the coordinator of the activities of the Intelligence Community, the DCI subsequently has been given the responsibility of being the President's advisor on intelligence concerns. The charge by the 1947 Act to be coordinator of intelligence activities did not carry with it the authority for the DCI to discharge the responsibility intended by Congress, and in 1971 the President instructed him by letter to take a more active role in coordinating resources and activities of the entire Intelligence Community. Still dissatisfied that the DCI was not exercising the authority desirable, President Ford issued Executive Order 11905 in February 1976, and President Carter reaffirmed it in Executive Order 11985 in May 1977, to strengthen further the DCI's management of all foreign intelligence functions. Especially meaningful for the collection and production of intelligence is the new Policy Review Committee (PRC), which is chaired by the current DCI, Admiral Stansfield Turner, whenever intelligence matters are discussed. This Committee establishes policy 1W priorities for collecting and producing national-' intelligence and oversees budget preparation and resource allocation for the intelligence activities of the entire Intelligence Community. There is also established the Special Coordination Committee to make recom- mendations to the President concerning special intelligence activities that support foreign Approved For Release 2004/10/x: CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004I1QI13 : ClA RDP88-0}1 a15R00102001,60007-2t policy objectives-so-called covert action. ~i ~nis Director o entr0 me igence hen presents and group also reviews and approves sensitive defends the overall budget for the Intelligence intelligence collection operations. President Community, as well as the one for CIA, before Carter has also created an Intelligence Oversight appropriate congressional, committees. Thus, the Board of three prominent private citizens to process for budget formation and review is the ensure that the Attorney General and the same as that for any government agency, except President are properly advised concerning any that the budgets for the intelligence agencies are activities of questionable legality and propriety. not publicly disclosed. (The organization of the Intelligence Community The reason budgets for intelligence are not is shown in the accompanying chart.) Finally, made public is that over a period of time and strong Congressional oversight mechanisms have with careful study, America's adversaries could been established to assure that intelligence detect trends in intelligence spending. For activities are properly guided and controlled. example, when an expensive new collection Congressional Oversight Traditionally the Intelligence Community reports to and receives guidance from seven Congressional committees; four are in the Senate and three in the House. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, created in May 1976, has assumed major responsibility for overseeing such national intelligence activities as covert action, all funding requests, counter-intelligence, the analytic process and collection activities. Oversight for departmental intelligence, that is intelligence for use by a specific agency, remains largely the responsibility of the Senate committees with traditional oversight responso- bilities-Armed Services, Appropriations and Foreign Relations. The House of Representatives established its own committee to oversee intelligence activities on July 14, 1977. When operative, this new committee will assume exclusive responsibility for all activities of the CIA and will share responsi- bility for the activities of the individual agencies of the intelligence community with those House committees that traditionally have exercised over- sight responsibility-Appropriations, Inter- national Relations and Armed Services. The addition of this new committee will bring the number of congressional committees to which the DCI reports to eight. Budgets and Secrecy Review and authorization of proposed fund- ing for intelligence activities is an integral part of the government's control of intelligence activities. Budgets for the intelligence agencies are of course reviewed by the Intelligence Community staff, by the Office of Management and Budget and finally by the President, who approves them. The system is being developed-such as the U-2 in the late 1950's-then the intelligence budget in- creases. Such surges in the budget would easily tip off others to new developments. This question whether budget figures for the Intelligence Com- munity, and more particularly the CIA should be disclosed publicly has been debated for years. Thus far Congress has upheld the need for con- tinued secrecy. However, the Senate Select Committee is reviewing the need to continue this secrecy. Admiral Turner has testified before the Senate Select Committee that he would not object to the disclosure of a single, all inclusive figure representing the entire Intelligence Community's budget. But Admiral Turner stated strong objections to revealing detailed budgets, noting that in the hands of enemies "they would be a powerful weapon with which they could make our collection efforts more difficult, more hazardous to life and more costly." Secrecy and Openness Leaks of classified information to the press from many sources pose one of the more serious threats to an effective intelligence service. Protection of the country's foreign intelligence sources and methods-a responsibility assigned to the DCI by the National Security Act of 1947- is severely weakened by such disclosures. First, disclosures of sources and methods make it a simple matter for hostile forces to take necessary precautions that terminate the flow of information. Second, friendly intelligence services and individuals cannot risk cooperating with the U.S. when their activities stand a chance of becoming publicized. If divulging sources and methods is to be avoided at all cost, so is "overclassification" and using secrecy as a way of hiding from the public. Approved For Release 2004/10/13t4IA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 AtIV 0/13 ? LR Q O "48A a "finished" Admiral Turner is a ' a ~$M1ckEipr $J fronts. He has established the policy of releasing intelligence for the policymakers. to the public, in unclassified version, as much of There are various types of finished the CIA product as legitimately possible. Recently a complicated analysis of world oil reserves that projected serious shortages by 1985, given the current usage trends, was released to the public under this new policy. Admiral Turner has also made information about the Central Intelligence Agency more easily available to the press and to the public. For the first time news cameras have appeared inside Agency headquarters. CBS was allowed to film a segment for their Sixty Minutes series there. Through this and other such activities, Admiral Turner is attempting to lift some of the mystique from intelligence and to inform the public on the continuing need for an effective intelligence service. The Intelligence Process Intelligence as we know it today goes far beyond traditional concepts and impressions. Today's concerns are with all aspects of the capabilities, intentions and activities of foreign powers and organizations-and with the impact of political, economic, sociological and technological developments. Consider a few of the problems America faces: disarmament, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, overpopulation, imbalances between rich and poor countries, oil and reserves distribution, exploitation of the sea and space. This country's leaders must have a systematic knowledge of these and other complex subjects, a full awareness of the U.S.'s capability to deal with them, and an understanding of the intentions of other nations concerned with the same problems. To provide the accurate evaluations and estimates required, information is gathered from a wide variety of sources. A large part of it is collected openly from publications, radio and television broadcasts and from normal diplomatic exchanges. It is also collected by technical means. Still other, smaller amounts of information are collected clandestinely. This method is only used when there is no other way to obtain necessary information and when the information is judged to be sufficiently important to justify the risks of secret operations. While the sheer volumes of information dictate the use of large computers and complex storage and retrieval systems, intelligence is the product of the human mind-the work of analysts intelligence, each is in the form that is most useful to the particular needs of the users. Current intelligence takes the form of daily publications that analyze current developments and evaluate their impact in the near term. The most important of these, the President's Daily Brief presents to President Carter each morning the critical events on the foreign scene. Another form of finished intelligence, the National Intelligence Estimate, is a more in-depth analysis of international situations that judges new developments in terms of what they imply for the future. A third form is the longer research studies done, for example, on strategic weapons programs of foreign countries and long range political developments. Admiral Turner's fundamental goal as Director of Central Intelligence remain the same as that of his predecessors: to produce the highest quality intelligence possible to meet the needs of the President, the Congress, and other decision- makers in government. Rebuilding the confidence of the U.S. public in the Intelligence Community and the CIA by earning their trust through fair mindedness and excellence is a primary tenet of this fundamental goal. Approved For Release 2004/10/44: CIA-RDP88-01315R000200160007-2 Approved For Release 2004/10/13: CIA-RDP88-01315R00 UTO 6 F - Z Q za HW , aH zz wzw w V) O E - z w ~H zU "' a w < a`~1 9 .flea, 4 a rr&eo -2,o points per carne Jur;'? -he regu;ar ra ;r," NVf m Utratr l ' w -:ame Ourirui -f'ie -ne '_el ;.ER, ~ee sfw rnade 1rrD'tn~?, (,nf r +r,P f~