16086 - US Government Publishing Office

16086 and the establishment of American government and legal institutions.

FACTUAL DESCRIPTIONS OP Bn.LS AND RESOLUTIONS INTRODUCED

Prepared by the Congressional Research Service pursuant to clause 5(d) of House rule X. Previous listing appeared in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of May 27, 1976, page 15539:

BOUSE Bn.LS

H.R. 13631. May 7, 1976. International Relations. Authorizes the President to make assistance ava.Ua.ble for the rellef and rehabilitation of victims of the recent earthquakes in Italy, under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. Authorizes appropriations :tor such purposes.

H.R. 13632. May 7, 1976. Ways and Means. Authorizes a. taxpayer, under the Internal Revenue Code, to elect to treat quallfled architectural and transportational barrier removal expenses which are paid or incurred during the taxable year as expenses which are not chargeable to capital account. Deems such expenses so treated as allowable tax deductible expenditures.

H.R. 13633. May 7, 1976. Ways a.nd Means. Authorizes a taxpayer, under the Internal Revenue Code, to elect to treat qualUled architectural a.nd transportational barrier removal expenses which are paid or incurred during the taxable year as expenses wh.Jch are not chargeable to capital aecount. Deems such expenses so treated as allowable tax deductibillty expenditures.

H.R. 13634. May 7, 1976. Ways and Means. Authorizes a taxpayer, under the Internal Revenue Code. to elect to treat quaJ.Uled architectural and transportational barrier removal expenses which are paid or incurred during the taxable year as expenses which are not chargeable to capital account. Deems such expenses so treated as allowable tax deductible expenditures.

H.R. 13635. May 7, 1976. Ways and Means. Authorizes a taxpayer, under the Internal Revenue Code. to elect to treat quallfied architectural and transportational ba.rr!er removal expenses which are pa.ld or Incurred durJng the ta.xa.ble year as expenses which are not chargeable to capital account. Deems such expenses so treated as allowable ta.x deductible expenditures.

H.R. 13636. May 7. 1976. Judiciary. Amends the omnibus Crime Control a.nd Safe Streets Act of 1968 to establish in the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration the omce of Community Antl-Crlme Programs to asstst in aiding community and citizen groups to pa.rtletpate in crime prevention and other law enforcement activities.

Revises the requirements for State comprehensive law enforcement plans to require plans for the impro-vement of Juvenlle justice, adequate assistance to high crime areas, programs to combat crime against the elderly. and minimum standards to Improve local jails.

Requires specific Congressional authorization of .Tustlce Department appropriations for 1lscal years beginning after October 1. 1977.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS H.R. 13637. May 7. 1976. Judiciary. Author

Izes the Attorney General and the President to admit certain refugees to the United States. Permits such refugees to become permanent residents of the United States upon approval of the Immigration a.nd Na.tura.llzation Service two years after admission.

H.R. 13638. May 7. 1976. Armed Services. Permits the enlistment of Vietnamese and Cambodian alien refugees into the U.S. Armed Forces.

H.R. 13639. May 7. 1976. Interior and Insular Affairs. Increases the amount of lands authorized to be added to Morristown National Historical Park in New Jersey.

H.R. 13640. May 7. 1976. Judiciary. Permits the Attorney General. under the Immigration and Nationality Act, to adjust the status of any allen from Indochina to permanent restdent without regard to 1m.m1gra.tion quotas or lack of possession by such alien of specified required lmmlgra.tion documents. States that such alien need only be eligible to receive an lmmlgrant visa. to qualify for such change of status.

H.R. 13641. May 7. 1976. Post omce and Civil Service. Revises provislons prohibiting Federal, Postal Service. and District of Columbia. employees from engaging in political activities.

Establishes the Board on Political Activities of Federal Employees to decide cases regarding violations of this Act. Sets forth procedures to be followed in such cases.

Directs the Civil Service Commission to conduct a continuing program to inform all employees of their rights o:t pollttcal parttclpation under the Act and to educate employees with respect to those activities which are prohibited.

Creates a speclfl.c crlm1nal offense for extorting political contributions from Federal personnel.

H.R. 13M2. May 7, 1976. Post omce and Civil Service. Reamrms the intent of Congress with respect to the structure of the common carrier telecommunications industry rendering services in interstate and foreign commerce. Grants additional authority to the Federal Communications Commission to authorize mergers of carriers when deemed to be in the public interest. Rea.1Jlrms the authority of the States to regulate terminal a.nd station equipment used for telephone exchange service. Requires the Federal Communications Commission to make speclfied findings In connection with Commission actions authorizing specla.lized carrters.

H.R. 13643. May 7, 1976. Ways and Means. Authorizes every individual whose income tax lia.bllity, under the Internal Revenue Code, 1s $1 or more to designate that $1 shall be used to reduce the public debt of the United States.

H.R. 13644. May 7, 1976. Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Reafllrms the intent or Congress with respect to the structure of the common carrier telecommunications industry rendering services in interstate and foreign commerce. Grants additional authority to the Federal Communications Commission to authorize mergers of carriers when deemed to be in the publlc interest. Rea.tnrms the authority of the States to regulate terminal a.nd station equipment used for telephone

June 1, 1976 exchange service. Requires the Federal Communications Commisslon to make specified findings in connection with Commission actions authorizing specialized carriers.

H.R. 13645. May 7. 1976. Judiciary. Allows judicial omcers to deny pre-trial release of defendants in non-capital cases if there 1s no reasonable assurance that such person will not pose a danger to other individuals or the community.

H.R. 13646. May 7, 1976. Public Works and Transportation. Amends the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 to increase the amount of available Federal assistance as a percentage of the total costs of Appalachian development highway projects.

H.R. 13647. May 7, 1976. Interstate and Foreign Commerce. ReaJfirms the intent of Congress with respect to the structure of the common carrier telecommunications industry rendering services in interstate and foreign commerce. Grants additional authorIty to the Federal Communications Commission to authorize mergers of carriers when deemed to be in the public interest. Rea.tnrms the authority of the States to regulate terminal and station equipment used for telephone exchange service. Requires the Federal Communications Commission to make specified findings in connection with Commission actions authorizing specialized carriers.

H.R. 13648. May 7. 1976. Ways and Means. Amends the Social Security Act to provide that an individual who would be fully qualified at age 62 for benefits under the OldAge, Survivors, and Disabllity Insurance program may qualify for disabllity benefits under such program if such individual has 40 quarters of coverage, regardless of when such qua.rtel"S were earned.

H.R. 13649. May 7, 1976. Ways and Means. Amends the Second Liberty Bond Act to allow the interest rates pa.ld on United States retirement plans and individual retirement bonds to be increased to the rate paid on the United States series E savings bonds.

H.R. 13650. May 7. 1976. Banking, Currency and Housing. Provides that elderly persons residing in dwelling units receiving Federal assistance shall be entitled to specified rights concerning lease terminations.

H.R. 13651. May 7, 1976. Interior and Insular Affairs; Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Establishes procedures for a.dmlnlstra.tive review and deeis1onmak1.ng concerning the selection and construction of a natural gas transportation system to del1ver Alaskan natural gas to the contiguous 48 States.

Suspends various procedural requirements imposed by the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 a.nd the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Imposes limitations on judicial review of administrative actions taxed pursuant to this Act.

H.R. 13652. May 7, 1976. Judiciary. Declares certain individuals lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence. under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

H.R. 13653. May 10. 1976. Judiciary. Requires specified minimum prison sentences for any Individual who uses or carries a firearm during the commission of a. felony that may be prosecuted by a State court of a. firearm transported in, or aflecting. interstate commerce during the commission of a. felony.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS PERSONAL ANNOUNCEMENT

HON. RICHARD C. WIDTE OF TEXAS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, June 1, 1976 Mr. WHITE. Mr. Speaker, it has been

my honor and privilege to represent the people of the t6th District of Texas in

the U.S. House of Representatives for the past six consecutive terms. During this tenure, I have maintained a voting and attendance record averaging in the mid-90-percent range. This year, I found it necessary to be in my district during several weeks leading up to the May 1 Texas Democratic primary elections. At the time, I made a public statement in the mass media. of my district

that upon my return to Washington I would submit information to the CoNGRESSIONAL RECORD indicating my stand on issues before the House during my necessitated absence. This is how I would have voted on the following:

February 26, 1976, H. Res. 868, "yes.'' March 4, 1976, H.R. 12203, "yes," Burton

amendment. March 4, 1976, H.R. 12203, "no," Obey

amendment.

June 1, 1976 March 4, 1976, H.R. 12203, "yes," Alexander

amendment. March 11, 1976, H.R. 3981, "yes." March 11, 1976, H.R. 11481, "no," Emery

ainendment. !\!arch 11, 1976, H.R. 11481, "yes." 1\Iarch 18, 1976, H.R. 8532, "no," Flowers

substitute amendment. March 18, 1976, H.R. 8532, "no," motion to

recommit. March 19, 1976, H.R. 8532, "yes," Flowers

amendment. March 22, 1976, H.R. 12226, "yes." March 22, 1976, H.R. 12046, "yes." March 22, 1976, H.R. 12453, "yes." March 23, 1976, H.R. 9803, "yes," Rule. March 23, 1976, H.R. 9803, "no," motion to

recommit. :M:a.rch 23, 1976, H.R. 9803, "yes." March 23, 1976, H.J. Res. 280, "yes,'' Bu

chanan amendment. March 23, 1976, H.J. Res. 280, "no," Flow-

ers amendment. March 23, 1976, H.J. Res. 280, "yes." March 23, 1976, H.R. 10799, "yes," Rule. March 24, 1976, H.R. 10799, "no." March 25, 1976, H.R. 11698, "yes." March 25, 1976, H.J. Res. 801, "no." March 25, 1976, H.R. 12566, "no," Bauman

amendment. March ?5, 1976, H.R. 12566, "yes," Conlan

amendment. March 25, 1976, H.R. 12566, "yes." March 29, 1976, H. Res. 1097, "yes," motion

to recommit. March 29, 1976, H. Res. 1060, "yes." March 29, 1976, H.R. 12262, "yes." March 30, 1976, H.R. 8617, "yes." March 30, 1976, H.R. 200, "yes." March 30, 1976, H.R. 12406, "yes," Rule. March 31, 1976, H.R. 12406, "no," Frenzel

amendment. March 31, 1976, H.R. 12406, "no," Frenzel

amendment.

THOMAS E. MORGAN, DOCTOR OF LAWS

HON. JOSHUA EILBERG OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, June 1, 1976

Mr. En..BERG. Mr. Speaker, on May 5, 1976, Capitol Hill was the unusual setting for an important event-perhaps the first time in the history of Congress that such an event has taken place here.

Late that afternoon in a moving and colorfct ceremony the honorary degree of doctor of laws wac confer~·ed by Wayne State University, Detroit, Mich., on a distinguished alumnus and our beloved colleague, THOMAS E. MORGAN.

The chairman of the Board of Governors of Wayne State University, Max J. Pincus, University President George E. Gullen, Jr., and otaer officers and professors of the university, accompanied by the university band, came to Washington, D.C., to make the award. The impressive ceremony took place in the hearing room of the International Relations Committee, House of Representatives, and was witnessed by the Speaker and ot her Members of Congress, as well as many other friends of Congressman MoRGAN and of the university.

In 1934, Congressman MORGAN was graduated from Wayne State University School of Medicine, where he was president of the graduating class. In conferring the degree upon Congressmr "l MoRGAN, Gov. Max Pincus made the following presentation:

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS DOCTOR OF LAWS PRESENTED TO THOMAS E .

MORGAN, M.D., BY Gov. MAx PINCUS

The Congressional career of Dr. Thomas E. Morgan has been characterized by a fine combination of great administrative ability, integrity, and a strong advocacy of bipartisanship in foreign affairs policy.

Chairman of the Committee on International Relations longer than any other man in United States History, Dr. Thomas E. Morgan ha-s led historic reforms which have included a. substantial enlargement of the Committee's jurisdiction. First named to the House Foreign Affairs Committee in May in 1946, he was appointed Chairman in 1959. He has been the principal sponsor of numerous international affairs measures that have been enacted into law and a frequent participant in conferences called by the President at the White House. He has been a leader in reasserting the proper constitutional role of Congress in the foreign affairs field.

The Dean of the Pennsylvania. Cong"l·essional delegation, Dr. Morgan has been selected to each succeeding Congress since first winning election in 1944. He served as Congressional advisor to the 1961 British-American Parliamentary Conference; a-s a member of u.s. Delegations to various NATO Parliamentary Conferences; as a member of the u.s. Delegation to various U.S.-Cana.d.ia.n In· terparliamentary Group meetings; and most recently was Vice-Chairman of a Special Congressional Delegation to the People's Republic of China. in 1973.

While representing the people of his district for 32 years, he ha-s also continued to serve them as practicing physician and surgeon, the profession he entered upon graduation from the Wayne State University School of Medicine in 1934.

It is in recognition of these facts that the Wayne State University Medical School in 1964 presented Dr. Morgan with its Distinguished Service Award. It is with pride that his University confers yet another honor on Dr. Thomas E. Morgan, Congressional leader, humanitarian and foreign affairs expert, the degree, Doctor of Laws.

We, his colleagues, are tremendously pleased with this high honor which has come to Congressman MoRGAN and congratulate him on it.

The announcement of "Doc" MoRGAN's retirement, however, at the end of the present Congress has saddened many of us. For 32 years he has served his constituents, his State and country. As chairman of the Committee on International Relations, formerly the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and a dean of the Pennsylvania congressional delegation, he has been an outstanding leader in the Congress and one of the most influential and well-liked figures in Washington.

"Doc" MoRGAN will be sorely missed in the 95th Congress.

ESTATE TAX CREDIT FOR QUALIFIED FARMS AND SMALL BUSINESSES

HON. JOSEPH L. FISHER OF VIRGINIA


Tuesday, June 1, 1976

Mr. FISHER. Mr. Speaker, the Ways and Means Committee h_,arings conduc~cd in March of this year focused attention upon a number of asp~cts of the Federal estate tax laws that badly need reform. Of all the problem areas

16087 addressed dw·ing the testimony presented at the hearings, perhaps the one area in which the need for relief was most dramatically depicted was with respect to the impact that the Federal estate tax has had on the small family farm or business upon the death of the senior member of the family. Repeatedly, the testimony drew attention to the problem which farming or closely held business estates have encountered in raising sufficient cash and other liquid assets to pay the Federal estate tax as well as other debts without being forced to sell all or a portion of the business. Too often the farm has been sold to the real estate developer and the small business to the conglomerate simply to raise the cash to pay the taxes due.

A recent report prepared by the Department of Agriculture illustrates the liquidity problem faced by estates in which an interest in a farm or business constitutes a substantial portion of the value of the estate. The report found that an astonishing 91 percent of the farm estates analyzed in the survey would not have had sufficient liquid assets to p a y the estate tax and death taxes plus settlement costs. Even if liquid assets held in joint .tenancy and life insurance payable to named beneficiaries were used to pay the taxes and other debts, half of the estates surveyed would not have had an adequate amount of liquid funds to meet their obligations. In addition, most of the estates which do not possess sufficient liquidity to pay their Federal taxes are also those which have substantial debts or loans outstanding.

The report further shows that the percentage of illiquid assets in the typical farm estate has grown progressively larger over the past decade. In 1970, 78 percent of the total value of all U.S. farm assets consisted of real estate and machinery which are not easily sold without disrupting the continuity of the farming or small business. The alternative of using the farm property as collateral to obtain the cash required to pay the tax is unlikely to be available, because in most instances the farm property is already heavily mortgaged to supply the cash needed to conduct the day to day affairs of the business.

Mr. Speaker, for the reasons which I have discussed, I have introduced a bill designed to promote the preservation of the family farm or business after the death of the senior family member and thus prevent one of America's great institutions, the family business, from being dismantled simply for the purpose of paying the Federal estate tax. My bill provides a tax credit of up to $40,000 for estates in which the interest in the farm or closely held business represents a substantial portion of the decedent's estate for Federal estate tax purposes and that interest is transferred at death to a member of the decedent's family. The bill establishes a number of requirements which must be met before an estate may be eligible for the credit. In addition the bill requires that the tax plus interest be paid if all or a part of the business is sold to a nonfamily member or if the business is otherwise converted to a nonconforming use within 20 years after the decedent's death. This

16088 would encourage the continuation of the family business and protect against investment in small business simply as an estate tax shelter.

My bill provides a credit against the Federal estate tax of up to $40,000 for estates in which an interest in a qualified closely held business constitutes 75 percent or more in value of the decedent's estate for Federal estate tax purposes, reduced by the amount of deductions allowable under Internal Revenue Code section 2053. The reduction of the value of the estate by the amount of the decedent's debts and expenses will enable an estate in which the business relies heavily on debt financing for its operations to meet the 75 percent test to qualify for the credit. My bill adopts the definition of a qualified, closely held business found in section 6166(c) of the Internal Revenue Code which requires a qualified business interest to be either a sole proprietorship conducted by the decedent or a member of his family; a partnership in which the decedent retained a 20-percent capital interest or a partnership in which there were 10 partners or less; OT a corporation in which the decedent owned voting stock equal to 20 percent or more in value of all the voting stock in the corporation. In addition, the estate must establish that the qualifying business interest was conducted by the decedent or a member of his family as his principal trade or business for each of the 5 years prior to the decedent's death. Lastly to discourage investments in farms or small businesses as estate tax shelters, the qualifying business interest must not have been characterized by the Internal Revenue Service as a business-not-engaged-infor-profit within the meaning of Code section 183 for any of the 5 years preceding the decedent's death.

An obvious need arises for a requirement that the business interest qualifying for the credit be continued for a substantial period after the decedent,s death. The purpose is to encourage the continuation of the farm or the small business. If the business is sold, converted to a nonconforming use, or transferred to a person who is not a member of the family within a short time after the decedent passed away, the reason for providing relief from estate tax vanishes. Accordingly, my bill provides for the payment by the estate or beneficiaries the entire amount of the credit plus interest from date of death if any of a number of specified events occur within 10 years following the decedent's death. The amount of the credit to be paid upon the occun·ence of any of the events set forth below gradually declines for each year thereafter, until by the end of the 20th year after the decedent's death, the estate cannot be required to repay any part of the credit granted under my bill. The occurrence of any one of the following events will cause all or a portion of the credit plus interest to become due:

If all or any portion of the qualifying business interest is sold, disposed of. or otherwise transferred to a person who is unrelated to the transferor;

If 50 percent or more in value of the business interest is withdrawn by the transferor within the meaning of current code section 6166 (h) ;

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS If the estate does not post adequate

security to insure that the tax plus interest will be paid upon the occurrence of the proscribed events; and

If the business interest is characterized as one not engaged in for profit under current code section 183 for 5 years of the 20-year period following the death of the decedent.

In addition to creating a new credit against the Federal estate tax for farms and closely held businesses, my bill improves existing law in a number of respects. Under current law, an estate may defer payment of that portion of the Federal estate tax attributable to a decedent's interest in a closely held business, where the value of the business interest constitutes a significant portion of the decedent's estate. However, this provision has been of little value to most estates experiencing a liquidity shortage, because the executor must rema.in personally liable for the payment of the estate tax whenever the tax is deferred beyond the normal due date. Few executors have chosen to risk personal liabllity for a period as long as 10 years. My bfil releases the executor from personal liability for payment of the estate tax where the executor either elects to defer payment of the tax or where the benefits of the credit are sought. Instead, the executor is given the choice of either providing collateral in the form of a lien against certain fixed assets of the business or, at his discretion, or he may post a bond equal to twice the amount of the tax deferred. The combined thrust of these changes should further ease the liquidity crisis of farming and small business estates by eliminating one of the practical problems that exists under present law.

Finally, my bill will enable more estates to defer payment of the estate tax pursuant to current code section 6161, which heretofore has afforded little relief to illiquid estates, because of uncertainties arising out of the language of the statute. Code section 6161 allows an estate to defer payment of the estate tax for a period of 10 years where it can be shown that the estate will experience ''undue hardship" if it is required to pay the entire amount of the tax on the due date. The practical problem with this provision has been between taXPayers and the Internal Revenue Service regarding what circumstances constitute "undue hardship." My bill amends code section 6161 to require that only some hardship be shown to defer the payment of the estate tax beyond the due date.

I believe that the Committee on Ways and Means will take action on this important issue in the near future and I intend to offer my proposal for consideration by that committee.

REGULATORY REFORM IS STTIL NEEDED

HON. SHIRLEY N. PETTIS OF CALIFORNIA

June 1, 1976

my distinguished colleague, Representative JoHN Moss of Caliioinia had predicted that Congress will not consider regulatory reform in this session.

Congressman Moss, who is most knowledgeable regarding Government regulation, told the Senate Government Operations Committee that a "lack of time" would make it impossible for this Congress to get around to considering reform measures such as the one which I recently cosponsored.

Congress has neglected to address itself to many important issues this session, Mr. Speaker, but that does notalter the fact that regulatory reform is still needed.

The bill, which I cosponsored earlier this year-the Regulatory Reform Act of 1976-would require the President to submit to Congress by March 31 each yearfrom 1977-81-a separate reform plan covering one of the five following specific areas of the economy: First, banking and finance, 1977; second, energy and environment, 1979; fourth, food, health and safety. and unfair or deceptive trade practices, 1980; and fifth, labor, housing, Government procurement and small business, 1981.

Each plan submitted by the President would include recommendations for increasing competition, and for procedural, organizational and structural reforms, including the merger, modification, establishment or abolition of Federal regulations, functions and agencies. The committees to which a plan is referred would clear it for :floor action by September 15. The committees would be authorized to report a modified or alternative version. If a plan has not been enacted by December 31, and neither House was voted to disapprove the President's plan within that 9-month time frame, but Congress fails to enact an alternative plan by the following June 31, all powers of the agencies covered by that plan would terminate on that date.

Mr. Speaker. the arguments which we are hearing on the :floor this week regarding whether energy problems should remain in the domain of the Federal Energy Administration and the Energy Research and Development Administration, or whether FEA should be abolished and the program authority transferred to ERDA, or whether an entirely new "energy" agency should be created, bear excellent testimony for the need to eliminate excessive, duplicative, inflationary and anticompetitive Government regulations as soon as possible.

Until such legislation is passed, taxpayers will continue spending billions of dollars every year because of the numerous unnecessary Federal regulationsand regulatory agencies-which remain a part of a festering Federal bureaucracy.

TRIBUTE TO STEPHEN MARTIN

HON. THOMAS M. REES OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, June 1, 1976 Tuesday, June 1, 1976

Mrs. PE'ITIS. Mr. Speaker, I was Mr. REES. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, greatly distressed to hear last week that June 3, Mr. Stephen Martin will be the

June 1, 1976

recipient of the Sword of Haganah Award at the State of Israel Tribute Dinner.

stephen Martin is an active community leader in the Los Angeles area and is recognized for his contributions in the areas of organized labor, the arts, and athletics. He is curTently secretarytreasurer of Local 578 and vice president of the Joint Council 42 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Under hls direction, the Teamsters Joint Council 42 was the first Southern California labor organization to commemorate our Nation's Bicentennial by presenting the communities of Southern California, through various mayor's omces, with special Fort Bennington Bicentennial flags.

In the Arts, Steve Martin is known for his past role as president of the Valley Artist Guild, the American Institute of Fine Arts, and the California Arts Council. He is currently director of the Teamsters Joint Council 42 Institute of Fine Arts, and in that capacity has mounted several effective art shows. Steve attended Chouinard Art School, Otis Art School, and Temple University. He has exhibited his own work in Los Angeles and San Francisco and sold paintings to many private collections and the Motecito Jesuit Seminary.

As a former heavyweight champion of the Southern States, he has contributed hls knowledge of athletics to help in the prevention of juvenile delinquency, both through a youth program sponsored by Local 1 of the Shipbuilding Workers of America, and as an original supporter of the Los Angeles Police Department's cross-country run which was part of the National Law Enforcement Week.

Mr. Martin is also cochairman of the board of advisers of Ocean State Bank in Santa Monica, and is a founder and director of the Bethlehem Foundation. He has twice received the Award for Peaceful Negotiations given by the catholic Labor Institute, of which he is a director.

In light of Steve Martin's many accomplishments and contributions to the community in which he lives. I am sure that my colleagues will join me as I offer my sincere thanks and congratulatioru.

CHANNEL 4 FINALLY SCORES OUTSIDE POLITICAL CONTRmUTIONS

HON. BURT L. TALCOTT OF CALIFOKNIA



Mr. TALCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I was amazed to watch and listen to "News Center," channel4, Washington TV, take editorial umbrage about Virginia firms, people, and utilities sending contributions to California to support or oppose the initiative to impose a nuclear moratorium throughout California under the now famous proposition 15.

Why the sudden ind:lgn.ation? Because businessmen are sending contributions to oppose the moratorium which they perceive to be destructive of business, energy

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

sufiiciency, our way and standard of life and work? I trust this is not so.

For years, people, groups, political organizations, and unions have been sending huge numbers and amounts of contributions all over the Nation to influence elections of all kinds. I have heard no one, including "News Center 4" or any other media person, complain or even mention this enormous interstate trafficking in political money during almost every election campaign.

I agree with channel 4. I simply fault their tardiness and their failure to report this serious degradation of our electoral system by many more persistent and pernicious interstate contributors. When the political activists and the national unions were so freely sending their moneys, and people, often in violation of disclosure and reporting laws, into every State of the Union no one seemed to give a hoot.

For years I have been urging everyone I can to enact legislation to prohibit contributions from outside an electoral district.

We do not permit persons from outside an electoral district to vote in any electoral district on any issue. Why should we permit any person or group from outside an electoral district from influencing that vote with money or workers?

I think we should not. This degrades representative government and distorts the vote in every election.

Elections should be "of the people,,. "by the people" of the electoral district.

In many elections, outside contributions often dominate the election. This ought to be prohibited.

I wish channel 4, "News Center'' would interest themselves in other outside contributors who are trying to influence elections everywhere, many of which are much less their business than those trying to influence the nuclear moratorium initiative, proposition 15, in California.

I wish everyone who is dissatisfted with our electoral system and our election practices would join me in trying to prohibit all outside contributions in all elections.

DOMINGA VELASQUEZ AND 75 YEARS OF CARING

HON. FORTNEY H. (PETE) STARK OF CALIFORNIA


Tuesday, June 1~ 1976

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, someone once said that "the capacity to care is that which gives life its deepest significance." No more is this the case than with Dominga Velasquez-an individual who as been helping, giving, and caring all her life. Her "capacity to care" is indeed special.

Dominga adopted this country over 60 years ago. Her affection for the Oakland Spanish-speaking community is as deep as it is significant. Dom.lnga has served in every conceivable capacity. She is a cofounder of the Association of Latin American Women, as well as the Spanish Speaking Unity Council-both organiza-

16089 tions being dynamic forums for Spanishspeaking community development.

But more than the formal structures, Dominga's caring is illustrated in her personal commitment. As an example. she volunteers for Our Lady's Home in Oakland-a convalescent facility. She shares her kind nature with the senior citizens she takes on walks, to doctor's appointments, and on shopping errands. Her presence is legendary. That benevolence reaches into her own home. Dominga often welcomes people in need of food, in want of shelter, or in search of a kind word. Her door is always open.

The community has often exPressed its appreciation for Dom.inga's service. She has received awards of recognition at one time or another from every Spanish-speaking organization in Oakland. Last year, she was honored as the Mexican Immigrant of the year by the International Institute of the East Bay. On May 21, the Oakland Museum Ethnic Guild honored Dominga as the outstanding person in the community.

Dominga just celebrated her 75th birthday and is going strong. At this milestone in her life, Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues join me in paying tribute to a fine human being. We can all learn from her infinite capacity to care, and her remarkable willingness to share.

STATES RIGHTS

HON. MARJORIE S. HOLT or MARYLAND



Mrs. BOLT. Mr. Speaker, as the Federal Revenue Sharing Act, H.R. 13367, emerges from the Government Operations Committee, it contains policy provisions that are an abomination to those of us who are committed to the survival of freedom in these United States.

It is well to remember, in this 200th anniversary of American independence, that the authors of our Constitution intended the States to retain autonomous powers for most public policy decisions that affect the lives of the citizenry. Indeed, they regarded States rights to selfgovernment as essential to check the power of the Central Government.

We all know that State autonomy has been dramatically eroded during the past 40 years by the exPlosion of Federal programs that offered .financial grants in return for submission to Federal rules and guidelines. It can be argued that these Federal programs were the only effective way of dealing with public needs beyond the capacity of the States. A counterargument can be offered that the Federal Government has used the tax dollars of the people to steadily erode their right to self-government.

In 1972, Congress enacted the Federal revenue sharing program, which was designed not only to increase Federal assistance to the States, but also to free them from most of the onerous Federal control that normally accompanies such assistance.

16090 We now approach the decision on

whether to extend revenue sharing, and we find that a House committee has attached policy provisions that could ultimately bring the final devastation of eelf-government in this Republic. I refer b the provisions known as the Rosenthal amendment.

This amendment would require each State government to develop a master plan and timetable for reorganization of State government and all local governments within its jurisdiction. The Secretary of the Treasury would become the czar of such reorganizations, annually reporting to Congress on development of the State plans and their implementation.

The Rosenthal amendment suggests that the State plans include subjects such as assignment of government functions, local government consolidationmetro government-state and local tax structure and administration, management capacity, citizen participation, interstate agreements, personnel systems, local home ru1e, zoning powers, and the planning process.

I know that State and local officials have been lobbying for a continuation of revenue sharing, because these funds have become part of their annual budgets, but they never bargained for conditions such as are attached to this legislation.

Many of us will do all within our power to delete the Rosenthal amendment from the legislation, but if we fail, are those State and local officials ready to sell their people's rights to self-government for the funds authorized by this act? I hope not.

It is emphatically not the business of the Federal Government to mandate the reorganization of State and local governments. It is the right of the people to determine whether, when, and how their State and local governments need reorganization.

The Rosenthal amendment violates the spirit of the Constitution, and more, it completely perverts the original intent of Federal revenue sharing.

In conclusion, I wou1d comment only that most State and local governments are models of efficiency and usefu1ness compared with the huge, lumbering bureaucratic monstrosity that has been created in Washington. If Members of this Congress wish to devote themselves to governmental reform, and correcting abuses and incompetence, there is surely much to occupy them in Washington.

SUPPRESSION OF INNOVATION: PHARMACOLOGISTS SPEAK OUT

HON. STEVEN D. SYMMS OF IDAHO



Mr. SYMMS. Ml·. Speaker, the following excerpts are taken from testimony which was prepared by several noted doctors and pharmacologists and presented to the HEW Review Panel on New


Drug Regulations. Dr. Gifford's statement points to some of the difficulties with FDA which have been factors causing the "drug lag" which this country is currently experiencing. Unlike Dr. Gifford. I cannot be sanguine about the prospects for upgrading FDA personnel by ever-increasing appropriations. The remarks made by the Director of the Bureau of Drugs of FDA, which appear in another section Of today's CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, indicate to me that even HEW is cynical about the prospects of upgrading the in-house staff of the FDA. Thus, calls for "solutions" such as betterqualified agency staff may be unheeded, and may avoid the root cause of our problems-which is the 1962 law.

The health of Americans should never, never, I repeat never, be subjected to the whims of Congress when it comes time to pass an FDA appropriation bill. The only long-term solution is to take away from FDA, and its oftentimes inadequate staff, the power to make the terribly subjective determinations about drug "efficacy." For too long these agency determinations have been made in a secretive atmosphere, removed from critical review by qualified and disinterested parties such as academicians, pharmacologists and physicians. Many people who are critical of the shortcomings of the FDA have complained to me that nowhere else in the Government, with the exceptions of the CIA and Defense Department, is there so much secrecy.

Also a part of the "secrecy problem" is the manner in which the agency acts as a cenoor over information distributed to doctors. The FDA takes upon itself the task of determining which uses of d1·ugs are "approved" and disseminates information only on these Governmentapproved uses. No dosage information is given about so-called "unapproved" uses.

However, it is a fact that many physicians find drugs useful for various purposes, other than those on which the government has stamped its seal of approval. Certain antihypertensives, for example, are the first drug of choice in the treatment of hypertension overseas. Those same drugs may not be approved for use in hypertension here in the United States, however. Yet doctors who take special care to stay current in the medical literature and to render top-notch treatment to their patients, learn of these unapproved uses prevalent in other countries and sometimes treat accordingly. But they are not given the valuable information about dosages and optimal treatment from FDA. And the drug industry's detail men are not permitted to give out information to these physicians which is derived from the foreign literature if it relates to unapproved uses.

In 1973, the FDA approved the use of propranolol in treatment of anginamany years after it had been approved for such use in England. However, they remained firm in their refusal to approve the drug's use in treating hypertension. A number of physicians had been using the drug for treatment of hypertension and decided to stop its use after FDA's 1973 decision. However, drug detail men were not permitted by FDA

June 1, 1976

to warn these physicians about the dangers of precipitous withdrawal of the drug in hypertensive patients. British journals had mentioned that such withdrawal cou1d bring about myocardial infarctions. No one knows the exact number of patients who may have died or suffered severe heart problems due to this. But everyone acknowledges that there were such cases. And what was the cause? Well, I feel that a blameworthy body is the FDA, which has set itself up as a censor over the dissemination of valuable medical information.

The article which follows shou1d be most enlightening to my colleagues, who have pondered the reasons for the drug lag in this country and who are anxious to resolve the problem. It is my feeling that the Medical Freedom of Choice Act offers the only enduring solution to this problem. STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR

CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY AND THERAPEUTICS TO HEW REVIEW PANEL ON NEW DRUG REGULATIONS READ BY RAY W. GIFFORD, JR., M.D., PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN SoCIETY FOR CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY AND THERAPEUTICS ON MAY 10, 1976 Dr. Chalmers and distinguished Members

of the Review Panel: I am Dr. Ray w. Gifford, Jr., Head of the

Department of Hypertension and Nephrology at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation and President of the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics. I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear at this meeting of the HEW Review Panel on New Drug Regulations and read, on behalf of the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, the following statement which was prepared by the Drug Regulatory Committee of our Society under the chairmanship of F. Gilbert McMahon, M.D., Professor of Medicine and Head of Therapeutics section of the Department of Medicine, Tulane University School of Medicine who is with me today. Also with me is William B. Abrams, M.D., immediate past president of the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics and Executive Director of Clinical Research at Merck, Sharp & Dohme Research Laboratories.

We thank the Review Panel for giving us this opportunity to present our views which we hope will be helpful to you in your deliberations.

The American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, hereinafter referred to as the Society, consists of over 1000 members including eminent clinical pparma.cologists from academia, industry and the FDA, teachers of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, and practicing physicians who are motivated to improve therapeutics in the day to day practice of medicine.

Our inter.asts range from the development and testing of new drugs to sponsoring continuing education programs to update practitioners of medicine in the rational use of drugs, old and new, in the clinical setting. A statement of principles of the Society is furnished as Exhibit I for your information.

Our Society is unique in that its members come from industry, from the FDA, from academia. and from the private sector, yet we do not speak for or represent any special interests-rather we speak for a group of scientists and physicians whose overriding concern is for the development, introduction and rational use of better and safer therapeutic agents for the patients of this nation. In a. very real sense, then we speak for the consumer-for ow· patients, who look to us in their time of illness for advice about treatment. Like others mindful of consumer

June 1, 19i6 interests, we are concerned with the safety of new and old therapeutic agents~ but we are in a better position than most to perceive and to judge whether the patient is being overprotected from new and useful therapeutic agents to his/her detriment.

There can be no doubt that the KefauverBarris amendments of 1962 have sharply reduced the number of new drugs ("New Chemical Entities") that survive the approval process and reach the market for clinical use each year. Moreover, for those drugs which are eventually approved, the length of time from the lnltiation of investigative studies (flling the IND) until final approval of the NDA has on the average, increased several fold since 1962.

It is equally true that many important new drugs, some of which are lifesaving, have not reached the market in the United States until several years after they were available to patients in Europe, Australia and 1n some cases in Canada. Other valuable therapeutic agents are still not available in the United States even though they are marketed widely throughout the world. Finally, FDA approval of new and widely accepted indications for already marketed drugs has been slow and in some cases has not been granted at this writing.

That a "drug lag" exists in this nation cannot be denied. The questions for debate are: 1) Is the drug lag harmful? 2) Whose fault is it? 3) What can or should be done about it?

IS IT HARMFUL

As comfortable as it would make us, it would be naive to deny that the drug lag has cost some Americans their lives or well being. To deny this would be tantamount to saying that none of the drugs listed in Exhibit ll have lifesaving potential. While it is true that alternatives to most o! the drugs listed in Exhibit m have been available in the U.S., every practicing physician knows that adverse or idiosyncratic reactions prohibit their use for some patients and no drug is universally effective !or all patients.

Adverse and unfavorable reactions to drugs are always more apparent, at least to the public, than the harm that can come !rom not having an efrective therapeutic agent available when it is urgently needed. The thalidomide tragedy is a horror story that won't soon be forgotten, but nobody can count the Americans who have died or suffered prolonged illnesses because effective new drugs were not available in this country. It is important that drugs be as safe a.s possible but it is unrealistic to demand that every new drug, or even old drugs, be 100 percent safe. There is no such thing. Every physician realizes that each time he makes a therapeutic decision, whether it is to treat or not to treat, he makes a. value judgment of the benefits and risks of the treatment versus the risks of the disease untreated. This concept of benefit/risk ratio is not a new discovery.

It is axiomatic that evexy worthwhile venture involves some risk and every individual, every day, consciously or subconsciously subjects himself/herself to certain risks. Statistics show that most accidents occur in the home and that the most common site for accidents in the home is in the bathroom and on the stairsteps. Yet, who of us is not willing to accept the risk of taking a bath or of going up and down stairs? Every one in this room today took a risk in getting here, whether by plane, taxi or on foot, yet obviously, each felt that the mission we have warranted the risk, or we wouldn't be here.

No matter how long a new drug is stu«2Ied in laboratory animals or in phases I, n, and III, the risks attendant upon its use can never be absolutely predicted or eliminated. To strive for perfect safety of any drug is uru·ealistic and will stifle development and

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS approval of all new drugs and to deprive our fellow Americans. Olll' children and ourselves o! the advantages of many new therapeutic d.iscoveries which other nations now enjoy. Undoubtedly, some of us 1n thiS room today owe our lives to therapeutic agents which would not have been available to us if the researchers and investigators of the previous generation had met the same obstacles which we are creating in this generation.

It is the opinion of our Society tha. t the pendulum has swung too far and that not enough emphasis !s placed on potentia.l benefit when considering the benefit/risk ratio in the evaluation of a new drug. As much attention must be given to the risks of not having the drug ava.llable as is now given to assuring that it is as safe as possible. This crucial decJsion must be made by experts in the FDA and their advisory committees and should not be unduly lnfluenced by those with little expertise in this sophisticated field, however expert they may be in othet'" areas.

WHOSE FAULT IS :rr? As is the case in most controversies, the

blame for the drug lag cannot be attributed to any one of the many participants in the drug approval process. We must all share it.

There are those who believe that the requirements of the Kefauver-Barris amendments and/or their interpretation was too rigid in the first place.

The FDA, curiously enough, has been blamed both by those who feel there is a detrimental drug lag as well a.s by those who hold the view tha.t too many drugs have been released without adequate evidence for safety and/or efficacy. There seems to be general agreement that for the fl.rst 7 or 8 years after the Ke!auver-Harris amendments, the FDA had a rather inflexible, overly stringent and uncommunicatively dilatory attitude towards many NDA's. Rejections without helpful suggestions for modifications were followed by resubmisslons, further rejections, ad infinitum, thus prolonging the approval process endlessly.

Industry in turn became discouraged, suspicious and defensive. Stung by so many rejections with requests !or more and often seemingly lr!"elevant data, the protocols for evaluation o! new drugs and the report forms becam.e longer and more complex, thus discouraging the cl1nical investigators and increasing the costs for cllnical studies. Motivation :Cor developt.ng new chemical entities in industry research laboratories was sttfied and when new compounds were developed they were often given to European investigators first; in a sudden change of roles, the American clinical pharmacologists were consistently learning about newly developed compounds from their foreign colleagues instead of vice versa.

The truth of the matter is that for msny of the drugs which are available in countries other than the United States, NDA's (and m some cases IND's) have not been filed. Presumably industry, and not the FDA. is at fault, because FDA cannot act until an NDA. is filled. In reality however, the hostile ellmate created by the FDA in earlier years is still having its efrect in stagnating the development of new drugs in the United States. Because of so many rejections in the pr.st, industry is reluctant to proceed with NDA submissions until voluminous data covering every contingency are collected.

Protocols have become so complicated, yet stereotyped, and report forms so voluminous that many clinical investigators have given up or sharply curtailed the evaluation of new

- drugs. In their desire to collect as much data as possible to satisfy the anticipated de:mands o! the FDA, industry has lnsiste£1 more and more that investigators follow a prescribed protocol rather than to use their

16091 own ingenuity and ideas, which makes the pedestrian job of drug trials even less attractive.

Several years ago I was asked by a well known pharmaceutical company to study a new drug for hypertension. Not only because o! the size of the case report form (over 200 pages per patient for a 66 week study period!), but also because they insisted I follow their stereotyped protocol without any deviations or embellishments, I declin~d to do the study.

There is little doubt that the interest of clinical pharmacologists and investigators in new drugs trials has waned as the defensive posture of industry has increased the tedium of reporting voluminous and irrelevant data in order to satisfy some referee at FDA. From 1952 to 1962 I evaluated and reported on 13 new drugs, all o! which were eventually marketed. From 196:1 to 1970 I studied and reported on three new drugs, one of which (methyldopa) was already under investigation in 1962. Since 19'70 I have not investigated one new drug.

That my experience is not unique, I cite the result of a new survey made in 1974 in preparation for the Bethesda Conference on ''Development and Introduction of New Cardiovascular Drugs". A questionnaire was submitted to 28 members of our Society who in the past were recognized for their interest in evaluation of new cardiovascular drugs. Thirteen responded that they had curtailed or stopped doing Phase m drug trials since 1968, eight stated that their act:lvttles in this regard were unchanged and seven did not respond.

Four of the 13 who were doing less or no clinical Investigation of new drugs gave as their reason that fewer new drugs were being offered to them and nine stated that they objected to stereotyped protocols and/ or what they perceived to be unnecessarily complicated protocols and/or report forms.

WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT IT?

Obviously changes must be made if the log jam is to be broken so that new and effective drugs are made available to our patients without undue delay.

First and foremost. the FDA Bureau o! Drugs must be provided with the funds and personnel to get their monumental task done effectively and efficiently. While there ar& many knowledgeable physicians and scientists in the FDA, more are needed. Too often, important decisions regarding drug approval have been made by physicians who have little or no experience or expertise in cllnical investigation or practice. Rejection of NDA's have sometimes reflected the inability to interpret data rather than any deficiency in data. Clinical pharmacologists and investigators become disillusioned when their data and conclusions are reviewed and criticized by FDA referees who are less knowledgeable and experienced than they.

More reliance must be placed on the declsions and opinions of review committees that are selected for their experience and competence so that they command the respect of the scientific community. In the past, in the selection of members of review committees, undue emphasis has been given to the possibility of remote "conflicts of interest" which precluded the appointment of many knowledgeable scientists.

Career opportunities in the FDA must be made more attractive, both scientifically and monetarily, to qualified and competent scientists. Scientists of lesser ability should not be allowed to remain in key positions because of Civil Service regulations or political pressure.

No other agency or bureau has been the target of so much Congressional inquiry as has the FDA. This Review Panel is the dlrect result of one of these Congressional hearings; and the Commissioner and his stati have devoted untc.ld hours t o compiling

16092 an enormous volume of data to evaluate charges made during the Kennedy hearings of 1974. Some of the most capable scientists in the FDA must devote too much time to these activities-time that could be better spent in effective administration and devel· opment of policy. If the Congress is unhappy with the FDA, then it is their prerogative to change it-but in the interest of more efficient operation of the FDA, let us put an end to these repeated hearings that syphon off precious man hours and keep the FDA in a constant state of turmoil.

Secondly, the FDA should be encouraged to adopt new policies that will expedite the approval process without abdicating their legal, ethical and moral responsibilities or sacrificing the scientific quality of their reviews. The FDA should be encouraged to make greater use of data generated by reputable foreign scientists. This would reduce duplicative research and avoid the questionable ethics of conducting clinical trials for regulatory purposes only.

The FDA should be encouraged to pursue its present policy of conferring With industry and clinical Investigators during the IND phases. Rather than play a guessing game With the FDA, regarding what information they will require before approving a new drug, sponsors should design their protocols and report forms in collaboration With FDA and the clinical investigators who wlll be involved in their execution. Simplification of protocols and report forms by eliminating unnecessary procedures and data collection would rekindle the interest of many clinlcal investigators who have given up drug trials. Qualified clinical investigators need to be encouraged, not discouraged from participa· tion in drug studies.

Expert advisory committees should be given more responsibility in adjudicating differences that arise between industry and the FDA over design of protocols and inter· pretation of data.

While the law and ethical and moral con• siderations require that a drug must be safe and effective before it is approved for market· ing, safety and effi.c'\cy are relative and not absolute terms. More consideration should be given to balancing safety and eftlcacy for ind.ivJdual classes of drugs. It must be ap· preciated that efficacy is rapidly determined in relatively short-term studies, while the total spectrum of safety may require decades to be exhibited. Thus, consideration should be given to developing an effective post· marketing surveillance (or Phase IV) system to expedite the marketing of new drugs With sign!.flcant therapeutic potential, while gathering better drug therapy is the way consumers benefit b.r medical research, there should be some governmental agency whose concern it is to work With clinical pharmacologists and other scientists in industry, government, and in the private sector to foster the development of new drugs.

Lastly, the present climate of adversarlal confrontation impedes the approval process and is not in the best interest of the consumer whom we all profess to serve. Congress and consumer advocates question the motives of the FDA and industry; industry mistrusts the FDA and the FDA mistrusts industry. Caught in this cross-fire, the bewildered clinical investigator is turning his attention to areas of research other than clinical trials of new drugs. As a result, the drug lag continues. Better communications should improve this situation and dispel the doubts and suspicions that are impeding progress. Men and women of good faith should be able to resolve these differences.

It is reassuring that all of us who are embattled in this controversy over the FDA and drug regulation have as our primary concern the welfare of the private U.S. citiz en. How is it, then, that we can take such diametrically opposed views? Perhaps it is because we do not share the same viewpoint

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS of the private citizen. To the legislators, whose repeated investigation of the FDA eventually led to the formation of this Re· view Panel, the private citizen is a constit· uent who must be cultivated; to th~ HEW who impaneled this review body, the private citizen is a taxpayer who must be satisfied; to the self-appointed watchdogs of the FDA, the private citizen is a consumer who must be protected from pressure groups, real or imagined, that would prey upon his/her gullibility; to the physician the private citizen is a patient who seeks our counsel to get well when he is ill and to stay well when he isn't ill.

Of all who share concern for the private citizen, only the physician can realize the anguish of seeing a patient suffer or even die because the appropriate therapy is not available. It is the desire to be able to pro· vide better care and better and safer drugs to our patients and to promote a better state of health for the private citizen-our patient--that motivates us to come here today. I hope that our testimony has been helpful to this Review Panel which tn a very real sense has the responslbUity for seeing to it that drug regulations promote rather than imperil the health of this Nation.

FOREIGN MILITARY SALES REDUCE U.S. WEAPONS COSTS

HON. CHARLES H. WILSON OF CALIFORNIA



Mr. CHARLES H. WTI.SON of California. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the House will resume consideration of a bill which would among other things, establish a $9 billion ceiling on all U.S. military sales abroad. Before my colleagues cast their votes on the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act, I urge them to consider the financial savings to our own defense programs which result from foreign military sales.

The Congressional Budget Office has just recently released a comprehensive study entitled: "Budgetary Cost Savings to the Department of Defense Resulting from Foreign Military Sales." Prepared by James R. Capra, Robert E. Schafer, and Patrick L. Renehan at the request of the House Armed Services Committee, this report finds that the current $8 billion sales program generates $560 million in cost savings to the United States annually. The primary sources of these reductions are recovery of research and development costs and lowered per unit production costs. The savings which accrue to individual weapons systems aFe often substantial, rangi:ng up to 15 percent of a weapons procurement costs in a given fiscal year and 8 percent of its total R. & D. bill. While the paper notes that not all programs generate such financial benefits, it estimates that those which do save the American taxpayer 14 cents for every dollar of sales. The report concludes that a reduction in the level of foreign transactions would result in a proportional decrease in savings.

These facts are important in the face of our pending debate. I urge Members to read the excerpts whic-h follow and perhaps to obtain a copy of the full report

June 1, 1976

from CBO in order to consider more fully the merits of this presentation:

EXCERPTS FROM CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE REPORT

INTRODUCTION

This is a report on the financial aspects of the sale of U.S. arms abroad. Specifically, this report deals With the budgetary cost savings to the U.S. Department of Defense which are generated by foreign military sales. Based on the current mix of sales of weapons, services, and construction, an $8 billion sales program would on the average generate $560 million in savings annually. This estimate of savings presumes then the U.S. would not significantly alter the defense production base in the absence of foreign military sales. If only research and development (R&D) savings are considered, an $8 billion sales program would on the average generate $160 million in R&D recoupments. If the mix of sales were to remain the same but the foreign military sales program were reduced, the savings would be reduced proportionally. For example, a $4 billion program would on the average generate $280 million in total savings of which $80 million represents R&D recoupments ...

CATEGORIES OF SAVINGS

The savings generated by foreign military sales can be classified into five major categories. Following is a brief definition and characterization of each category. A more detailed discussion of these categories, especially research and development (R&D) recoupmenta and "learn-curve effects," leading to lower unit costs, can be found in CBO staff working paper, Foreign Military Sales and U.S. Weapons Costs.

Research and development recoupment The first and most readily identifiable sav

ing from foreign military sales is R&D recoupment. R&D recoupment refers to the R&D surcharge which is added to the purchase price of a weapon system sold to a foreign buyer. This surcharge represents R&D expenses which would otherwise have been borne by the U.S. alone, and consequently would appear to be a clear cut example of a cost saving. The magnitude of R&D recoupment varies, of course, with the weapon system.l Learning curve effects and economies of scale

Savings from learning curve effects refer to those savings which result from a longer production run for weapon systems, especially aircraft and missiles. As described in "MUitary Equipment Cost Analysis," it is a relatively well-documented fact that in the absence of other factors the cumulative average cost of aircraft and missiles decreases as the total number produced increases.~

Factors which are frequently mentioned as being responsible for this decreasing average cost are job familiarization by workmen, general improvement in total coordination, and development of more efficiently produced subassemblies. If the sale of arms to a foreign country makes it possible for some of the items produced for the U.S. to be purchased at a lower average cost due to learning curve effects, then the foreign sale in fact produces cost savings.

Economies of scale refer to the economic principle which states that, under some circumstances, expanding the rate of production (for example, fully utilizing an existing

1 F{)r a detailed discussion of the guidelines for setting the size of the R&D surcharge, see: CBO staff working paper, Foreign Military Sales and U.S. Weapons Costs (May 1, 1976), p . 7; and DoD Directive 5105.38 (Aug. 11, 1971: amended May 10, 1973).

2 Rand Corporation, Military Equipment Cost Analysis (Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corporation, June 1971) .

June 1, 1976 production facllity) can result in lower average costs. Again, if a foreign sale enables U.S. weapons to be purchased at a lower average cost, then the foreign sale can be said to generate cost savings.

Despite the general agreement among analysts that learning curve effects and economies of scale can generate cost savings, such savings are relatively ditficult to estimate since accounting records do not facilitate isolation of these savings from other savings, such as overhead savings.

OVERHEAD

Another source of potential cost savings is related to overhead costs. In general, not all of the costs which are charged to a contractor for a weapon system are attributable to the materials and labor which are going into that weapon system. The contractor also bears certain indirect costs that are passed on to his customers. To the extent that foreign buyers pay for indirect costs that would have otherwise been borne by the U.S. Government, foreign military sales generate overhead savings.

Overhead costs can be classified in many ways. One particularly useful classlfl.ca.tlon is that between fiXed and variable overhead costs. Fixed overhead costs are costs which do not vary With the number of goods produced; that is, they are costs which are relatively insensitive to changes in the volume of sales. The costs of facilities or of a fixed staff of design engineers are examples. Variable overhead costs are those which do vary with the volume of sales. To the extent that the costs of facllities or the size of the staff of design engineers vary With the volume of sales, these costs can be said to be variable.

Foreign military sales generate overhead cost savings when they make lt possible for fixed overhead charges to be paid partially by foreign buyers rather than solely by the U.S. Government. Unfortunately, these savings are relatively ditficult to estimate. An upper bound on such savings would be the amount of overhead costs paid by foreign buyers. However, it should be noted that, to the extent that these overhead costs are not fixed or would be borne by other than U .8. Government business (e.g., privaw buyers such as commercial airlines) , they do not represent savings which are the result of foreign military sales.

The attribution of significant overhead savings to foreign military sales assumes that in the absence of foreign sales the U.S. would not significantly change lts production base. A rationale for this is the argument that the U.s. production base is sized to meet emergency requirements and would not be reduced in peacetime in the ab~nce of foreign military sales.

The sharing of overhead costs is one savings which could theoretically result from a commercial foreign military sale as well as a government-to-government sale. For example, if a foreign country is buying equipment directly from a contractor and the contractor is simultaneously producing a weapon system for the U.S., then the commercial sale may result in the U.S. having to pay lower overhead costs than would have otherwise have been the case. It does not appear at first glance that commercial sales very often result in savings of this type. The only example identified to date is the C-130 aircraft.

Production line gap The next major category of cost savings

which may result from. foreign military sales is associated with the closing and opening of production lines with concomitant setup and termination costs. If a foreign sale allows a contractor to keep a production line open for a subsequent U.S. buy, then it would

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS appear that the foreign sale generates some cost savings. Like other savings, those associated with avoiding gaps in production lines are difficult to validate. A major cllillculty is that they depend on a comparison of current, proposed, and hypothetical production plans. For example, it is clearly not the case that every time a foreign sale occurs in the middle of two production runs for the U.S., the U.S. would have incurred costs for a production line gap were it not for the foreign sale. In certain instances, the U.S. would most likely have merged the two production runs into one were it not for the foreign buy.

Other There are other savings which may result

from foreign militay sales. Most of these fall into the category of nonrecurring costs whlch the U.S. Government 1s able to share with foreign buyers. For example, suppose the U.S. wants to ex.pand or accelerate the production of tanks from thirty to forty per month. Also, suppose the acceleration causes the opening of a new production line capable of producing an additional thirty tanks per month. Setting up a new production line involves certain nonrecurring costs for tooling and so forth. If a foreign buyer decides to purchase twenty tanks per month and assumes a prorata share of the nonrecurring costs of setting up the new production line, then the foreign sale generates savings .••

THE EFFECT OF A BAN OR REDUCTION OF FOREIGN MILITARY SALES

The current level of foreign mllitary sales is approXimately $8 billion per year. Tables 8 and 9 contain estimates of total savings and R&D savings under an $8 blllion sales program, using the current mix of sales (mix 1) and the previous mix of sales (miX 2). (As discussed earUer, R&D savings have been broken out separately since they are relatively insensitive to particular assumptions about the U .8. production base and the pace of U.S. procurement.) Under the current mix of sales, total savings would on the average be $560 mlllton annually, while R&D savings would be $160 milllon per year. Tables 8 and 9 also contain estimates of the savings under a $4 billion sales program. It should be noted that the estimates are averages and in any one year the savings might be different from the estimates, depending on the mix and timing of rates.

Using Tables 8 and 9 it 1s possible to estimate the budgetary impact of a complete ban or a substantial reduction 1n the level of foreign military sales. Under the current mix of sales, a complete ban on foreign military sales would on the average result in the loss of savings of $560 milllon per year, which includes a $160 milUon loss in R&D recoupmenta. If the level of sales ·were to be reduced to $4 billion and the percentage of sales with the potential to generate savings were to remain at the cur~·ent level of 50 percent, then the loss in savings would be $"10 million per year, including an $80 million loss in R&D recoupments. However, 1f the mix of sales for a $4 blllion program were assumed to be similar to the mix under $4 billion programs in previous years (70 percent of sales have the potential to generate savings), then the loss in savings would be $168 million per year, including $48 million in R&D recoupments.

TABLE 7.- AVERAGE SAVINGS PER DOLLAR OF SALES FOR FOREIGN MILHARY SALES PROGRAM

Total R. & D. Other savings savings categories

----MixL _ $0.07 $0.02 $0.05 Mix 2_. _ ~~~= ====~=== • 10 .03 .07

TABLE 8.-TOTAL SAVINGS

(In millions of dollars]

Mix 1-----------------------Mix 2----·------------------

$8 billion sales

program

560 784

TABLE 9,-R. & D. SAVINGS

(In millions of dollars)

Mix 1----------------------Mix 2-------------- --------

$8 billion sales

program

160 224

16093

$4 billion sales

program

280 392

$4 billion .sales

program

80 112

ERDA ISSUES GEOTHERMAL LOAN GUARANTY REGULATIONS

HON. MIKE McCORMACK OF WASHINGTON



Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, in 1974 the Geothermal Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Act was enacted into law. Ninety-eight Members of the House joined me in sponsoring this legislation. Title II of that act established within the Energy Research and Development Administration a loan guaranty program to encourage the commercial production of energy from geothermal resources. This provision of law was precedent setting in that it was the first program of its kind intended to spw· the commercialization of a new energy source.

In the intervening time, the ERDA has prepared draft regulations for administering the loan guaranty program and published them in the Federal Register on October 24, 1975. After receiving public comments on the draft regulations, the ERDA has revised them to reflect the comments received.

On Tuesday, May 25, I had the privilege of attending the ceremony at which Dr. Robert C. Seamans, the Administrator of ERDA, signed the final regulations and authorized their publication in the Federal Register. I believe that the Geothermal Energy Demonstration loan guaranty program will move forward at a rapid pace under the able direction of Dr. Seamans; Dr. Robert L. Hirsch, Assistant Administrator for Solar, Geothermal, and Advanced Energy Systems, and Dr. Eric H. Willis, Director of the Geothermal Energy Division.

I wish to insert in the RECORD the text of the ERDA press release, dated May 25, 1976, announcing the issuance of the final regulations for the geothermal loan guaranty program:

TEXT OF ERDA PRESS RELEASE

Regulations governing the geothermal loan guaranty program-the first Federal loan guaranty program aimed at speeding-up the commercial development o! an energy resource-were issued today .

16094 Dr. Robert C. Seamans, Jr., Administrator

of the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA), signed the regulations at a ceremony attended by several members of Congress: Senator Paul J. Fannin, Senator Mark 0. Hatfield, and Representative Mike McCormack.

The regulations will be published in the Federal Register. The guaranty program w1ll go into e.tfect thirty days thereafter.

Dr. Seamans said the geothermal loan guaranty program will assist in the growth of e geothermal industry by encouraging the flow of credit necessary to permit reservoir developers and electric utilities to undertake geothermal projects.

A total of $200 million in loans is expected to be guaranteed during the next twelve months. About $50 million has been requested in ERDA's budget for fiscal year 1977 to provide funds for promptly honoring guaranties in case of default.

In complying with the objectives of the Federal geothermal loan guaranty program, priority will be given to those projects which would result in the earliest production of useful energy.

"The loan guaranty program is financial insurance for the lender," said Seamans. "This goes hand in hand with the technical and research support which ERDA provides to the borrower."

"Neither can succeed by itself," he continued, "but, with federal support in both areas, we can help develop the full potential of our nation's geothermal resources faster, and in an environmentally safe manner."

The geothermal loan guaranty program is authorized under terms of Public Law 93-410 (The Geothermal Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Act of 1974).

The Manager of ERDA's San Francisco Operations omce will evaluate and process all guaranty applications. Responslbfiity for ftna.l approval of all guaranties, though, rests with the ERDA Administrator.

In October, 1975, ERDA published a proposed regulation concerning the geothermal loan guuanty program, and invited interested persons and Federal agencies to comment on the regulation.

Approximately sixty responses were received and considered thoroughly. Many are incorporated into the final regulations.

A copy of the final regulations and more detailed information on the geothermal loan guaranty program may be obtained by contacting Mr. Robert D. Thome, Manager, ERDA San Francisco Operations Omce, 1333 Broadway, Wells Fargo Building, Oakland, California 94612 (415-273-7881).

A special conference for lenders will be held in san Francisco in June.

DISSENT AND THE AMERICAN JEWISH COMMUNITY

HON. STEPHEN J. SOLARZ OF NEW YORK



Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Speaker, there has been a recent spate of stories concerning supposed divisions within the Jewish community over some Israel Government decisions as well as the most sensible path toward peace in the Middle East. Indeed, these stories have been accompanied by suggestions that there has been an erosion in the American commitment to the state of Israel.

In a recent speech to the Hadassah Northern Seaboard Regional Conference, Hyman Bookbinder, the Washington


representative of the American Jewish Committee, dealt at great length with the subject of dissent within the American Jewish community. Mr. Bookbinder, who, through his many years of hard work on behalf of many worthy causes, has earned the respect of all Members of Congress, points out that the vigorous discussion going on today is only a continuation of a long-standing practice within the Jewish community. As Mr. Bookbinder so aptly points out:

Dissent and criticism-private as well as public-is not new in Jewish life-neither in Israel nor in America.

But as Mr. Bookbinder concludes, whatever the voices of dissent, whether they be from the left or the right, the overwhelming message that Israel is getting from American Jews "is that we understand the agonies of their plight, that we share their yearning for peace, that we want to help them every way we can, that they have earned our respect and our support."

Mr. Speaker, I feel that these timely views deserve the consideration of every Member:

REMARKS OF HYMAN BOOKBINDER

Yesterday, in Baltimore, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger assured a synagogue audience that the United States government was sympathetic to Israel's political, economic and military needs and would not impose a diplomatic solution. These were welcome assurances in light of the growing speculation and concerns that there might have been an erosion in the American com.mltment to Israel.

It is all the more disturbing then that last week the Washington Post carried two articles that suggested an erosion not only 1n the American support generally but within the American Jewish community itself. One week ago today, the Post featured a major article by Marjorie Hyer with an eight-column headline that declared: "U.s. Jews Beginning to Go Public in Criticism of Israel." That very evening, Washington Post columnist, Steve Ronsenfeld, was the speaker at the Western New England Hada.ssah convention and told the delegates-as he himself reported it in a Post article later 1n the weekthat "the most desirable thing !or Israel would be the onset of an Arab-Israeli relationship in which Hadassa.h itself would decide to hand over its Mt. Scopus Hospital in East Jerusalem to the Arabs." At which point, he reports, one Hadassah lady declared "Never!"

Despite this rejection of his proposal, Rosenfeld wrote: "But I suspect that out there in the Hadassa.h chapters of the land, at the Jewish grass roots, there is growing a constituency that would support or at least tolerate more Tight-minded American pTessure on Israel."

In other words, Rosenfeld believes that people like you are inclined to say to Henry Kissinger: "Cut out the kind of talk we heard in Baltimore last night. Don't be so understanding. Press Israel a little more. It'll be good for them." I just don't believe that. I don't believe you do either.

From the numerous calls I've already gotten and from the comments I've been hearing, it is almost inevitable that the Hyer and Rosenfeld pieces will cause much talk in the days ahead-and will lead to many other articles and columns--about the changing attitude of Alnerlcan Jews towards Israel. And I fear that much of it w1ll reflect the misconceptions contained in the Hyer and Rosenfeld pieces. So I'd like to offer some perspective.

June 1, 1976 There is indeed much discussion these days

among American Jews about what might be the best policies for Israel to pursue in order to produce a breakthrough for real and lasting peace. But there always has been. Every Jewish publication, every Jewish agency's convention proceedings provides ample evidence of this.

There are indeed some voices of criticism over present Israeli government policies. But there always have been voices of dissent--the inappropria.teness of a reprisal raid following some Arab terrorist act, the risks involved in establishing new settlements, the wisdom of the Sinai accord, the refusal to participate in a. Security Council debate, the moral and political correctness of trade relations with South Africa-and other iSSues. Subjects that are fiercely debated 1n Israel itself become the subjects of debate among American Jews too.

So let's get one thing out of the way. Dissent and criticism--private as well as public-is not new in Jewish life-neither in Israel nor in America. Miss Hyer betrays both ignorance and a faulty sense of humor when she writes that American criticism till now has "rarely risen above the level ... of invidious comparisons of the quality of the lox served at the King David Hotel with that of shops in Flatbush."

Israel is a democratic nation, and Jews are a democratic people. They have exercised their rights to freedom of expression, and they will continue to do so--in the Knesset and in the Cabinet, in the streets of Tel Aviv and in the streets of Flatbush. If Hyer and Rosenfeld are wrong in their

suggestion that there is something new and particularly foreboding in the fact that some American Jews are voicing concern about some cun·ent Israeli policies, they are not wrong in reporting, as I have already indicated, that there is a vigorous discussion now going on among Jews about the alternatives facing Israel. How could there not be? The intensified discussion-and with it, some intensified dissent--is an echo of what is happening in Israel itself There are some critical, new realities. They have compelled agontzlng assessment and reassessment of policies past and present. The economic and polltical clout of the oil-powerful Arab states; the lynch spirit against Israel tn the United Nations; the escalating demands for Palestinian identity; the ambiguities of American commitment-these are the current realities that compel thoughtful and frank exploration.

What disturbs me about the Hyer and Rosenfeld articles is that the casual and unsophisticated reader will get a terribly wrong impression about the size, the nature, and the significance of JeWlSh misgivings about Israeli policies - today.

The present interest in Jewish dissent stems in part from the stepped-up publicrelations-motivated activities of Breira, a small but articulate and effective group of American Jews. They have chosen not only to discuss issues and forward their ideas to Israeli authorities but to "go public" in a big way, urging others to apply pressures on both American JeWish leadership and on Israeli officials. Even in this, Breira is not really unique. If they are now applying pressures ln the "dovish" direction, the ZOA and some extremist groups like the JDL have been applying pressures in the "hawkish" direction. My guess is that the latter far outnumber the former. Again, this broad spectrum of American Jewish views Is thus mirroring the countervailing forces in Israel itself.

Breira has every right to function. If you'll pardon the expression, "some of my best frlends"--some, not many-are in Breira. Their credentials and their Intentions are impeccable. They seek security for a Jewish Israel no less than other Jews. But what

June 1, 1976 troubles me about Bretra-as I have been troubled about JDL, though obviously they are quite d11ferent--ls a shrlllness, a selfrighteousness, a certitude that is beginning to characterize their position. Things are just too complicated, too uncertain, too fragile to permit dogmatic, moralistic pronouncements. I don't believe that Israel needs to be lectured about morality.

I am conVinced that the overwhelming majority of American Jews continue to feel fully supportive of Israel-not only supportive of a secure Israel; that we take for granted-but basically satisfied that that beleaguered country has not been guilty of intransigence or lnfiexibility; that it has been willing to take major risks for peace, such as the Sinal pact: that it has accepted tremendous sacrlfices in order to defend itself.

This does not mean, of course, that every Israeli action or inaction has had unanimous or automatic backing by American Jews. The Israelis have not been unaware-even before there was a Breira---of occasional American misgiVings. For example, a good number of American Jews and Jewish agencies felt that Israel was wrong not to acknowledge sooner that there was indeed a Palestinian problem. Representations were made on this subject. Even resolutions got discussed and adopted. But thi:3 was not done in a scolding or censuring manner. We shared our feelings and our concerns with our Israeli friends-and they did listen.

There are now some Jews in the United States, as there are some in Israel, who have decided it's time to deal with the PLO, or to abandon all settlements in administered territories, or to offer the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians, or to go back generally to the 1967 lines-and other such proposals. They have a right to their opinions. They deserve a hearing. They might be right.

But they might also be wrong. And wrong policie.-> on basic security matters for Israel cannot be erased like the words in a convention resolution or in a Breira speech. For Israel it could mean life or death.

Life or death-that's what the fundamental issue really is, what it has always been and what it will continue to be until a genuine peace is achieved. And it is this root issue that unfortunately Hyer and Rosenfeld fail to grasp in their respective articles.

Rosenfeld's suggestion that Hadassah hand over the Mt. Scopus hospital to the Arabs is an illustration of this basic error. If only the Israelis would say that they're going back to the 1967 borders, he suggests, then everything else would be easy.

Territories are indeed important. Perhaps a good case can be made that under proper circumstances, Israel should in fact essentially abandon all administered territories. But that's clearly putting the cart before the horse. The issue is not territories. It is not geography. The iss1te is Israel. That has been the issue for every one of the 28 years since its rebirth in 1948.

There are those today-jom·nalists, retuTning Congressmen, well-intentioned Quakers-who report private assurances from Sadat, Assad, or Hussein about finally accepting the State of Israel. But every day their actions belie these private assurances. The issue is not the Hadassah Hospital. It is not the West Bank or Gaza. It is not Sharmel-sheik or Golan. It is not even Jerusalem. Each of these presents tough problems for Israel and Israel's resistance to withdrawal is not difficult to understand. But the real issue is the integrity of the Jewish State.

After all, the Arabs had all these areas before 1967. That did not satisfy them then. What assurances are there that if they llad them in 1976, peace would be assured?

For 28 years, Israeli Jews and American Jews-and Jews and non-Jews around the world-have waited to hear at least one major Arab leader say one simple thing: "We will insist upon justice for Arabs, but we are

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS prepared to start negotiating a peace that will include a secure, recognized Jewish State of Israel." These few words could electrify the whole world, could start a process that would soon yield that peace for which Jew and Arab alike have been yearning. Israel, I am satisfied, would need no pressures from any quarter to seize the opportunity thus made possible.

On numerous occasions, the leaders of Israel have repeated that in the context of peace and recognition the Arabs would be surprised at how generous the Israelis are prepared to be. In fact, even in the absence of such full peace, the Israelis have shown their readiness to be generous. Even though Resolution 242 does not require that Israel abandon a single inch of land until and unless there is such recognition and peace, they have given up parts of the Sinai, including critical passes and oil fields, and parts of the strategic Golan Heights.

It's not for me to say, but I suspect that if the Israeli government came to Hadassah and said, "If you give the Arabs the hospital, we can have peace," Hadassah would not hesitate for a second. Even though that hospital on Mount Scopus means more than walls and beds and surgical instruments and reasearch labs; even though it is a symbol of Israeli creativity and humaneness that is much older than the new State itself, even though 77 Jewish doctors, nurses, and scientists died on the road to the Hospital in a raid during the 1948 war, even though the Hospital has always provided loving care for Arab and Christian as well as Jew.

Rosenfeld asks you to do more than give up the hospital. He writes approvingly of Jewish pressures on the Administration to help it "edge Israel toward the compromises considered necessary for a Middle East settlement" and he seems to be inviting more such pressm·es to "edge" Israel. This advice will surely be resented and rejected by his Jewish readers as it should also be by nonJews. Om· government needs no more urging to edge Israel. If it needs any advice, it's to start leaning on Egypt and other Arab States we have been befriending recently rather than constantly pressuring Israel in order to e ·tablish our "even-handedess."

American Jews, to repeat, may have some differences over some specific issues-but on the central issue of Israel's integrity and on Israel's essential correctness in pm·suing peace, there is close to unanimous agreement.

The near-unanimity was forcefully manifested just about one year ago-in the aftermath of the initial failure to obtain a Sinai agreement. When the Administration, disappointed and impatient, engaged in private and then public scolding of Israel for the failure, charging it with intransigence and inflexibility, American Jews just knew that that was unfair and they protested vigorously. Men and women now associated with Breira were among those who then protested this scolding of Israel. It would be most unfortunate if Breira were now engaged in such scolding of Israel. Israel did not deserve it then, and doesn't deserve it now.

The new realities in the Middle East do require flexibility, risk-taking, even greaterthan-usual sacrifices by the Israelis. They will need both support and honest advice from their American friends-and we should, with sympathy and understanding, offer both.

Recent articles and speculation notwithstanding, the Israelis do not stand alone. They have two principal allies-the United States and world Jewry. Let the Arabs and the Soviets not be misled by occasional differences between Israel and its friends. Mr. Kissinger's remarks last night are most welcome, because some recent Administration policies might have led to the wrong impression that the U.S. commitment to

16095 Israel was weakening. The American people and the Congress would not tolerate any Administration's weakening of that commitment. And despite the talk about American Jewish misgivings, the Jewish community has never been more united and committed to the cause of Israel.

Only last week here in Washington over 600 delegates from all over the country came to the policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, AIPACone of the most successful, enthusiastic meetings ever. They enthusiastically endorsed the warnings voiced by both Senator Hubert Humphrey and former Defense Secretary James SChlesinger that recent Administration actions could be perceived as a weakening commitment and tha,t this would be unfortunate both for Israel and for America.

In summary, then, the American Jewish community is not monolithic; it is free to speak its mind and to express differences. Israel is hearing some voices of dissent from the left--and some from the right. But the overwhelming message it is getting from American Jews is that we m1derstand the agonies of their plight, that we share their yearning for peace, that we want to help them every way we can, that they have earned our respect and our support.

Hadassah surely does not have to be told this by me. But I wanted to say it anyway.

PREMIUM PAY FOR FAA EMPLOYEES IN ON-CALL STATUS

HON. JOE MOAKLEY OF n!ASSACEnJSETTS



Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have today introduced legislation (H.R. 14082) amending title 5, United States Code, relating to pay for certain Federal workers in on-call status.

The purpose of this bill is to authorize premium pay for employees of the Federal Aviation Administration who are officially assigned to an on-call status dw·ing specified hours after they have completed their regular tours and have left their duty stations. This new authority would provide more equitable treatment for employees who now perform such service without additional pay and would permit agencies to formally assign employees to be on call.

The nature of the FAA mission precipitates operations where potential emergencies or other situations that cannot be scheduled make it necessary or desirable to have certain personnel readily available if they are needed. In some instances, the need is of such a nature that the employees must stand by at their duty stations. This type of duty is compensable under present law at up to 25 percent of that part of base pay that does not exceed the minimum rate for GS-10. In other instances, the nature of the potential events is such that employees need not be confined to a particular station but must be readily available to return to work or to respond to telephone inquiries or instructions. This is particularly true of personnel assigned to the Electronics Branch Airway Facility Divisions of the FAA; that is, electronic technicians.

16096 While review of the practices in pr1-

vate employment and in State and local government does not reveal a widespread practice of paying for telephone standby or on-call duty, a number of provisions for such pay were found for employees in communications and other public service organizations. There is no typical rate of compensation. In some cases, a fixed dollar amount was specified; in others the rate was prescribed as a proportion of regular salary. The amounts ranged from $1 for each 8-hour on-call period in one telephone company to 75 percent of regular base pay for certain hospital employees. In almost all cases, the employees were paid at overtime rates if they were actually called back to work and were guaranteed credit for a minimum number of hours' pay for that work.

This bill would provide compensation for certain FAA employees at a rate equal to 35 percent of their overtime rates for all hours they are offi.cially in an on-call status and are not entitled to other premium compensation. When an employee who is in an on-call status is required to return to duty, he would be compensated under the provision that would otherwise be applicable. For example, should he be called back to perform overtime work that is compensable under 5 United States Code 5542, he would be guaranteed a minimum of 2 hours• premium pay or be compensated under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act---FLSA-whichever provided the greater benefit.

The proposed rate of premium pay for ''on-call duty" is designed to maintain equity with the existing rates of additional annual premium pay for regularly scheduled "standby-duty" under 5 United States Code 5545 (c) (1).

Payment of premium compensation under this draft bill would be subject to regulations of the Civil Service Commission. These regulations may include guidelines for determining the conditions under which this form of premium pay is appropriate; its relationship to additional annual pay for standby duty.,. and to other forms of premium pay; the kinds of restrictions that may be placed ,on the employee's whereabouts; et cetera.

It is estimated that about 9,000 employees will benefit from the enactment of this proposed legislation. The increased annual cost is expected to be around $500,000. However, this may be offset to some extent by a savings where the needs of certain activities can be met by having employees in an on-call status under this new authority rather than on regular standby duty for which they receive additional pay on an annual basis under 5 United States Code 5545 (c) (1).

Mr. Speaker, I insert the text of the bill at this point in the RECORD:

H.R. 14082 A bill to amend title 5, United States Code,

to provide premium pay for employees for time in an on-call status away from their duty posts Be it enacted by the Senate and House

of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That sub-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS chapter V of chapter 55, title 5, United States Code, 1s amended by adding the following new section after section 5546: "§ 5546 a.. Pay for time 1n on-call status

for certain employees of the Federal Aviation Administration.

"An employee of the Federal Aviation Administration, employed in the Airway Facility Division, who is officially required to remain in an on-call status away from his post of duty 1s entitled to premium pay at the rate of 35 percent of his hourly overtime rate of pay for each hour outside of his basic administrative workweek that he is-

" ( 1) in the on-call status; and "(2) not otherwise entitled to premium

pay under this subchapter." SEc. 2. The analysis of subchapter V of

chapter 55 is amended by inserting the following new item after 5546:

"5546a. Pay for time in on-call status." SEc. 3. Section 5547 of title 5, United

States Code, is amended by striking out "and 5546 (a), (b)" and inserting "5546 (a), (b) and 5546a" in place thereof.

SEc. 4. The amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the first day of the first applicable pay period which begins on or after the 90th day following the date of enactment of this Act.

THE RELATIVE ENERGY POSITIONS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE U.S.S.R.

BON. MIKE McCORMACK OF WASHINGTON



Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, in the April 30, 1976 issue of the Journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science-the editor, Philip H. Abelson, makes some disconcerting observations about our energy status vis-a-vis the U.S.S.R. He points out that, at present, Russia is a net energy exporter and that their natural gas production will exceed that of the United States in about 4 years. He further states that the United States has joined Western Europe and Japan in facing a long era of vulnerability to crippling damage from energy supply interruptions.

If we are to minimize or avoid the negative consequences of these predictions, Mr. Abelson says, we must do everything in our power to further the development of domestic sources of energy. Coal and nuclear development must proceed with all the speed possible, consistent with sound environmental policy. The three long-range energy technologies--solar, the nuclear breeder, and nuclear fusionmust be supported to the fullest. Without such support, we may find ourselves, at some time in the future, again the target of "energy blackmail."

The text of the editorial is as follows: ENERGY DIPLOMACY

The Soviet Union is becoming powerful in energy matters while the United States continues its drift into dependence on others. Proved Soviet oil reserves are 80 billion barrels (11 billion metric tons) in contrast to 33 blliion barrels for the United States. Soviet production 1s about 9.8 million barrels a day (b/d) and rising, that of the United

June 1, 1976 States 1s 8.1 million b/d and dropping. The Soviet Union 1s a net exporter of oil; it reinforces its milltary control of Eastern European countries by sending them 1.4 million b/d. In contrast, the United States is importing about 7.2 million b/d of oil and its products.

The proved reserves of natural gas in the Soviet Union (800 trillion cubic feet or 22.4 trillion cubic meters) are by far the largest in the world; those of the United States are 228 trillion cubic feet. During 1975, production in the United States (20.1 trillion cubic feet) exceeded that in the Soviet Union (10.2 trillion cubic feet). But U.S. reserves are declining rapidly. If present trends continue which 1s likely, Soviet production will b~ exceeding that of the United States in about 4 years. Already the Soviet Union 1s an exporter of natural gas, and it has been negotiating with Japan and West Germany to supply part of their needs.

In late 1973 it was hoped that a. combination of conservation and expanded domestic production of fuels would render the United States energy independent by 1980. This hope has been frustrated. For a. short time during the embargo the public was conservationminded, but this did not last and public consumption of energy has been increasing. A combination of industrial conservation measures and lower production levels cut overall consumption of energy by a few percent in 1974-75. But in the first 3 months of 1976, electricity demand was up 5.9 percent from a year ago. The public, responding to a. price rollback on domestic oil, has been burning more gasoline and buying the larger automobiles. .

A major factor in the optimJ.sm of government omcials during late 1973 was the expectation that higher prices would lead to greater production of oil. This was to be accomplished by exploiting new discoveries and by enhanced recovery of oil from existing fields. The higher prices did lead to more drilling activity, but in 1975 only 1.3 billion barrels of oil was found while a. total of 6 blliion barrels was being consumed. In 1973 enhanced recovery of oil from exlsting fields was a hopeful prospect. In existing fields, conventional techniques had produced roughly a third of the oil in place, leaving about 300 blllion barrels. Thus an improvement of a. few percent would make a big difference. More intense exploitation of earlier methods and use of some new ones has led to an increase of 270,000 b/d, but the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) now estimates that only an additional 300,000 b/d will be forthcoming by 1985. Moreover, the cost of additional oil has been as much as $20 to $25 per barrel.

In early 1974 there was hope that substantial amounts of oil might be obtained from coal or shale. Now ERDA states that comparatively little synthetic oil will be available before 1985. As for using other major energy sources instead of oll, there has been little progress. Because of environmental constraints, consumption of coal has not expanded appreciably. Nuclear energy which has replaced some oil in generating electricity, 1s under heavy attack. In consequence, there Ls no alternative but to expand dependence on foreign on. At a. recent press briefing, Exxon predicted that in 1985 the United States wlli be importing 11 million b/d. Most of it will come from the Middle East.

The United States has joined Western Europe and Japan in facing a long era of vulnerability to crippling damage from interruptions to energy supplies. The Soviet Union is not subject to such stoppages and indeed has much to gain by fomenting trouble. A new embargo 1s not the only hazard. The precedent of Angola suggests other scenarios for interruptions of oil from the Middle East.-PHILIP H. ABELSON

June 1, 1976

THE COST OF GOVERNMENT HEALTH STANDARDS: TOO IDGH FOR SMALL HOSPITALS




Mr. SYMMS. Mr. Speaker, the Congress will soon be considering H.R. 11341, the Clinical Laboratories Improvement Act. I have been contacted by concerned health o:tncials in Idaho regarding this legislation. Most hospitals in Idaho are small, rural institutions. The economic impact of Government health standards, particularly under the medicare and medicaid programs have been heavY indeed. Fortunately, my colleague Congressman BAucus has introduced legislation to alleviate the problems of small hospitals unable to cope with increased Government regulation. However, I believe that the Congress needs to be alert to pending legislation which would have an adverse impact upon small hospitals. This 1s the case with H.R. 11341.

Around 50 percent of the hospitals in the United States have 100 beds or fewer. Many are isolated, and offer the only hospital services in a large area. Many are community supported, and try very hard to keep their charges low for patients from the surrounding community. However, the battle to keep costs reasonable is a losing battle in view of the health legislation this Congress has been passing, and the regulations being implemented by DHEW.

The Cl1n1cal Laboratories Improvement Act 1s illustrative of this point. The bill sets up many standards, and directs DHEW to write still more standards, governing laboratories. The bill overlooks the fact that small hospitals cannot possibly afford many of the sophisticated tests, nor do they presently offer these types of tests, which the bill would require. The administrator of one small hospital in Idaho reviewed the bill, and reported to me his :finding that the cost of an ordinary urinalysis would go up from $5 to over $60 if the legislation became law. Another problem is presented by the sta:tnng requirements of the bill. Not only is the cost of additional personnel prohibitive, but the plain fact is that there are often not enough personnel available in rural areas to be hired by hospitals.

Idaho institutions must go to great lengths to recruit personnel from California and other States just to meet their existing standards under state law. The Federal legislation would impose a heavier burden, and one which is impossible of attainment.

The final question I have is, is this legislation really necessary? Most small hospitals are already operating under two quality control programs such as that established by the American College of Pathology. Most States have established standards also. So the question naturally arises as to whether Congress, by further extending its powers under the commerce clause, should act to preempt State programs and the private programs run by qualified specialists. Do

CXXll--1015-Part 13


the costs outweigh the benefits? I think that most Members, if they would take the time to consult with the small hospitals in their district and study the economic impact of this legislation, would conclude that the costs are too high.

John Hutchison of the Idaho Hospital Association has written an excellent article which appeared in the Idaho Statesman newspaper regarding the economic impact of Government regulation upon health care costs. I think that at this time, when the President's Council on Wage and Price Stability has fingered the health care industry as a prime culprit in the battle against runaway prices. we should all give serious consideration to the ways in which the Federal Government has been responsible for increased health costs. The article follows:

[From the Idaho Statesman, May 12, 1976] MEDICARE, INCREASED DEMAND BOOST IDAHO

HOSPITAL COSTS

(By John D. Hutchinson) "Government" 1s the most talked about

word today 1n hospital economics. Startled and concerned by the unabated rise 1n health care costs, 1ntluent1al political groups turn to Washington for answers. The appeals often center on health care as an American .. right," not a privilege to be enjoyed only by those who can afford lt. These appeals are effective. Government 1s moving at a rate which, 1n the minds of hospital people. ranges from confusing to alarming.

Without attempting to evaluate all the health-related legislation that has passed or is stlll under serious consideration, it should be pointed out for those who think government 1s not yet in the picture that hospitals already are responsible to scores of agencies with hundreds of regulations. The preparation of government forms alone constitutes a significant factor in the cost of running a hospitaL Two recent acts o! Congress, Public Law 02-603, the 1972 Medicare Amendments, and Public Law 93-641, the National Health Planning Law. when fully implemented, will give government a large voice in hospital construction. bed use, rates, disclosure of information, medical and surgical standards, when equipment may be introduced or replaced, when a patient may be adm.ltted and how long he may be kept in the hospital . . . the list goes on.

The passage of Public Law 8~97 (Medicare) , in 1965, marked the beglnning of large-scale federaJ. involvement in the voluntary sector of health care. Since that time a massive amount of federal funds, particularly from the Social Security Trust Fund, have been poured into the American health care system.

During the early 1960s private spending for heaJ.th care, either through private insurance or direct out-o:f-pocket payment, grew slightly faster than federal spending. But !rom 1965 to 1970, with both Medicare and Medicaid operational and expanding, federal spending for health care grew at an average of 24: per cent a year, nearly three times that of the private sector. Since 1970, the federal goevrnment's share of health expenses has continued to increase 13.4: per cent annually.

One might look at this trend in federal financing as beneficial to the system, i.e., more dollars from government, fewer dollars out-o!-poc~t. more health benefits !or people in general. A closer look will reveal that it has not worked as smoothly as originally intended by Congress. No one can argue the !act that Medicare and Medicaid have provided payment for quality heaJ.th services rendered to people who otherwise would not have had them, or have been able to afford

16097 them. We are all paying, through our tax structure. to finance these ~rograms; the Congressional intent was that people tn the working levels support the .. right" the elderly and the disadvantaged have to quaJ.lty medical services. Group health insurance operates in a s1mllar m.ann.er by spreading health case costs over a large number of people enrolled for coverage.

Yet, when those incurring the bills are not those paying for them directly, an alarming fact occurs, which 1s the essence of the health care problem today. That 1s, when people using medical facilities see the service as being "free" or inexpen.stve, rising frequency of use w1ll send the total cost skyrocketing. Between 1960 and 1970, the number of persons in the United States rose only about 13 per cent. But the number of hospital adm1ss1ons Jumped nearly 27 per cent. To accommodate th1s increase, hospitals increased their employees to mo~ than 2.5 m1llion people in 1970, compared to 1.5 m1111on a decade before. It might be noted that federal regulations require hospitals to staff adequately to assure quality services are being received by those covered under federal programs.

Government demands expensive compliance with new laws and regulations. That means greater cost for both the providers of service and the public in general. More people are hired by hospitals to perform new functions and new services, and the respons1blllty for supporting the constantly groWing bureaucracy that writes, interprets and enforces the regulations 1s placed squarely on the back of the public. Government establlshes new standards, as in the case of Medicare and Medicaid, which revise drastically the demand fOl" services, again, almost always at great cost. That done, government sends out releases complaining about the rising health care bilL With the complaints, the health industry gets a long list of recommended correctives. most of them proposing .. solutions"-more government legislation a.nd regulations.

A number o! the llberal members of Congress, the majority o:f the offi.cials in the Department of Health. Education and Welfare. organized labor, and various elements of the media, have argued that private medicaJ. care 1s a shame and disgrace that should be corrected by instituting some form o! federal health scheme. Being created 1s some form of national health insurance program.

The members o! the Idaho Hospital Association do not favor such an approach, ma1nly due to the cost increase that would be the result 1n a federally controlled cradleto-grave system. Rising utillzatfon of services, as stated previously, would soon price the system far beyond today's range. A probable government reaction to such a situation would be significant cutbacks in federal spending, slmilar to current proposals in the Medicare program, which would curtall the increase, but at the same time decreased benefits and Impair the quality of care rendered to patients.

The private sector ot health care admits that the existing system has problems, some severe, some not, but all are within the reach of solution if cooperation between government and the health industry could be established and maintained.

Contentions, by the proponents of a federalized health care system, that in the present situation the cost is increasing, but the quality is declining are without basis. The quality of medical care in the United States. 1n fact, improved continuously across the decades, conquering once dreaded diseases such as polio, tuberculosis and typhoid fever. Tremendous gains have been made through cancer research, 1n treating cancer patients. Because of these and many other achievements, average life expectancies have increased dramatically-from 4:9 years in 1900 to more than 70 years today. Those 1n the

16098 private sector of health care realize that if Americans want good health, the system must not be directed solely at treatment after illness strikes. More emphasis must be placed on preventive medicine if optimum results are to be achieved. And yet, many Americans continue to smoke excessively, fall to eat or exercise properly, shun regular physical examinations.

The crucial point of this editorial is that members of the health care industry, here in Idaho and over the rest of the country, are deeply concerned about the direction the government continues to lead the industry. It is impossible to attempt to preserve high quality medical care, make adequate health care available to everyone, and at the same time impose cost controls without running into problems of conflicting priorities and points of view. Viable solutions to those problems are not found easily. But awareness of the dilemma by the public is the essential starting point.

The continuing rise in the cost of health services is a valld concern we all share, but continuing government action, if not applied discrlmlnately after weighing the relevant economic factors, may only result in deepening the problem. We, the hospitals in the membership of the Idaho Hospital Association, know of no way to Judge the future but by the past. ------EASTERN ORTHODOX MEN'S SO

CIETY 14TH ANNUAL AWARDS DINNER

HON. CHARLES J. CARNEY OP OJilO


Mr. CARNEY. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, May 23, 1976, I had the pleasure and the prlvllege of attending the 14th annual awards dinner of the Eastern Orthodox Men's Society. The awards dinner was held at the Ukrainian Orthodox Center, 1025 North Belle Vista, Youngstown, Ohio.

The idea of forming the Eastern Orthodox Men's Society originated with a group of dedicated orthodox laymen. Their purposes were: To effect a more perfect and harmonious understanding between the community at large and the members of the various Eastern Orthodox churches in the Mahoning Valley; to stimulate the spirit of good fellowship and cooperation, and to serve the community and country by taking a more active role in community affairs.

The Eastern Orthodox Men's Society has become the first organization of its kind in the Midwestern United States. It has effectively become the instrument by which its members, representing the Orthodox churches in Mahoning County, are able to join together as one family of brothers in Christ.

The official motto of the society is "Unity Through Truth," signifying its existence because of the truth which the Eastern Orthodox faith represents, and the belief that thl:ough truth alone can unity come about.

Mr. Speaker, the Eastern Orthodox Men's Society honored me with its "Community Service" Award in 1972. During this year's awards dinner, I pre· sented a eulogy to the late Jack Sulligan, who ably served as Mahoning County

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS Democratic Party chairman for 26 consecutive years.

The Eastern Orthodox Men's Society has made a great contribution to the cause of understanding, cooperation, and good will among all the people of the. Mahoning Valley. Because of the society, more men and women are taking an active interest in the well-being of our community and the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to heartily commend all of the officers and members of the Eastern Orthodox Men's Society, and to congratulate this year's award winners. I would also like to insert portions of the 14th annual awards dinner program in the RECORD at this time:

PROGRAM

PLEDGE OF ALLEG~CE

Invocation: Very Rev. Wlll1am Olynyk. Pastor, Sts. Peter and Paul Ukralnia.n Qr• thodox Church.

Dinner Music: Jim La.llo. Welcome: Dr. Matthew Stman. Program.

Co-Chairman. Toastmaster: Harry Meshel, Ohio State

Senator, 33rd District. Remarks: Rev. James Clark, Vice Chan

cellor, Catholic Diocese; Rabbi Samuel Meyer, Temple E1 Emeth; Rev. Richard W. Braun, Pastor, John Knox Presbyterian Church; Rev. George T. Pappas, Pastor, Archangel Michael Greek Orthodox Church; Emanuel Ca.tsoules, President of CouncU; Rocco Greco, State Treasurer, Fraternal Order of Pollee.

Closing Remarks: Nicholas Pavelko. Benediction: Rev. Paul Michelldes.

PRESENTATIONS

Community Service Award to Mr. Anthony Vivo, presented by Dr. Matthew Stman.

Certiftcate of M:ahonlng County presented to Mr. Vivo by George Blndas, County Commissioner.

Humanitarian Award to Doris Burdman Rlnkov, presented by Dr. James W. Klrlazls.

SOcial Service Award to Patricia. Vivo, presented by Michael Varveris.

C<mlmDCUty Service Award to Antbony Vivo, presented by Dr. Matthew Stman.

Humanitarian Award to Doris Burdman Rlnkov, presented by Dr. James W. Klriazls.

Social Service Award to Patricia Vivo, presented by Michael Varveris.

Eastern Orthodox Clergyman of the Year Award to Rev. George Hutnyan. presented by Rev. John Pslnka.

Eastern Orthodox Man of the Year Award to Stephen Serednesky, presented by George Mays.

Eastern Orthodox Woman of the Year Award to Helen Mays, presented by Julia. Klmotek.

Sportscaster of the Year Award to Don Gardner, presented by Don Altemese.

Eastern Orthodox Youth of the Year Award to George Shirilla, presented by Miss Ann Davis.

Special Service A ward to Jlm Bilas, presented by Anthony Fusco.

Memorial Award to Florence Deeter, presented by Senator Harry Meshel; Eulogy by Rev. William Jackson, Pastor, Westminister Presbyterian Church.

Memorial Award to Jack Sulligan, pre-sented by William Karelin; Eulogy by Con· gressman Charles Carney.

Senator Harry Meshel: Will present Ohio State Senate Resolutions to All Recipients.

County Commissioner George B1ndas: W111 Present Certificate of Mahoning County, to Anthony Vivo, Patricia. Vivo, Rev. George Hutnyan.

Closing Remarks: Nicholas Pavelko. Benediction: Rev. Paul Michelides, Pastor,

St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church.

June 1, 1976 Eastern Orthodox Youth of the Year

Award presented to George Shtrilla, presented by Miss Ann Davis.

Pledge of Allegiance: Boy Scout Honor Guard Troop 11. of Saint John's Orthodox Church, Campbell, Ohio; Kennlth VanSuch, L.arry VanSuch, Sam Ska.rote, John Kandracik, Scout Master.

EASTERN ORTHODOX MEN'S SOCIETY

Officers 1975 President: Steve Serednesky. 1st Vice-President: George Mays. 2nd Vice-President: Mike Baltic. Treasurer: Willla.m Sywy. Financial secretary: Wlllia.m Karelln. Recording Secretary: Dr. James W. Klrla.-

zis. Corresponding Secretary: John Reslnka.. Captain of the Guard: John Wasylko. Warden: John Popa..

Board of Trustees Chairman: Nicholas Pavelko. Trustee: John Parlmucha. Trustee: George Mlrich. Trustee: John Wasylko. Trustee: Nick Denlakis. Trustee: Thomas Krlstia.n. Trustee: John Bllas. Trustee: Edward Phillips. Trustee: George Nicholls. Trustee: Gus Nan.

Committee Chairmen Social: George Mays, Scholarship and Ed

ucation, Dr. James W. Klrlazls, Dr. Matthew Siman.

Civic: Dan Altemese. Athletic: Theodore Baxevandes. Cultural: Steve Varmega. Membership: John Parlmucha.. Welfare: Nicholas Pavelko. Public Relations: George Meshel. Investigation: Gregory Demetrl.

Banquet Committee Chairman: Nicholas Pavelko. Co-Chairman: Dr. Matthew Siman, Dr.

James W. Kirlazls. Tickets: Steve Serednesky. Program Book: Nicholas Pavelko. Publicity: James W. Klria.zis, Matthew

Stma.n. Flowers: Gregory Demetri. Refreshments: William SywY. Jeff Sa.varin. Arrangements: George Meshel. Dinner: John Yurchyk, Steve Serednesky. Flna.ncta.l: William Karelln, William SywY.

Reception Committee All Past Presidents. EASTERN ORTHODOX "MAN OF THE YEAR"

AWARD RECIPIENTS

1963-Harvey Meshel. 1964-Nicholas Pavelko. 1965-Theodore Baxter. 1966-Dr. A. K. Phillips. 1967-Attorney Charles Zubyk. 1968-Wllliam Karelin. 1969-George Mays. 197o-James W. Klriazis, Ph.D. 1971-Matthew Slman, Ph.D. 1972--Jacob Gricuk; Harry Kiddon. 1973-Nicholas Deniakls. 1974-Michael M. Baltic. 1975-Stephen Serednesky. "COMMUNITY SERVICE" AWARD RECIPIENTS

1963-Willlam F. Ma.a.g, Jr. 1964-Samuel C. Sharp. 1965-The Hon. Anthony B. Flask. 1966-Dr. Howard W. Jones. 1967-The Hon. Michael J. Kirwan, the

Hon. David 0. Jenkins. 1968-John W. Powers. 1969-John Pa.rimucha. 1970-Leonard P. Caccamo, M.D. 1971-Ra.y T. Davis. 1972-The Hon. Charles J. Carney. 1973-Fred Beshara. 1974--Willia.m M. Cafaro. 1975-Anthony Vivo.

June 1, 1976 1975 EASTERN ORTHODOX "COMMUNITY SERVICE"

AWARD

The Eastern Orthodox Men's Society is concerned With Civic and Community matters, both as citizens and participants. The "Community Service" Award this year is awarded to Anthony Vivo 1n recognition of the outstanding contributions he has made to our Community. 1975 EASTERN ORTHODOX "MAN OF THE YEAR"

AWARD

With the objective in mind of rewarding service performed, as well as providing incentive. The Eastern Orthodox Men's Society annually honors a "Man of the Year."

The Eastern Orthodox Men's Society "Man o! the Year" Award is given to Stephen Serednesky for outstanding Lay activity and personal achievement. 1975 EASTERN ORTHODOX "WOMAN OF THE YEAR"

AWARD

With the objective 1n mind of rewarding service performed, as well as providing incentive, The Eastern Orthodox Men's Society annually honors a "Woman of the Year."

The Eastern Orthodox Men's Society "Woman of the Year" Award is given to Helen Mays for outstanding Lay activity and personal achievement. 1975 EASTERN ORTHODOX "YO'OTB: OF THE YEAR"

AWARD

With the objective 1n mind of rewarding service performed, as well as providing incentive, The Eastern Orthodox Men's Society annually honors a "Youth of the Year."

The Eastern Orthodox Men's Society "Youth of the Year" Award is given to George Sh1rllla for outstanding Lay activity and personal achievement.

1975 EASTERN ORTHODOX "HUMANITARIAN'' AWARD

The Eastern Orthodox Men's Society is concerned With Civic and Community matters, both as citizens and participants. The "Humanitarian" Award this year is awarded to Doris Burdman Rinkov in recognition of the outstanding contribution she has made to our Community.

1975 EASTERN ORTHODOX

"Social Service" Award The Eastern Orthodox Men's Society is

concerned With Civic and Community matters, both a.s citizens and participants. The "'Social Service" Award this ye61' 1s awarded to Patricia Vivo 1n recognition of the outstanding contributions she has made to our Community.

197 5 EASTERN ORTHODOX

"Clergyman of the Year" Award With the objective in mind of rewarding

service performed, as wen as providing Incentive, The Eastern Orthodox Men's Society annually honors a "Clergyman of the Year."

The Eastern Orthodox Men's Society "Clergyman of the Year" Award 1s given to Rev. George Hutnyan for outstanding Lay activity and personal achievement.

197 5 EASTERN ORTHODOX

"Special Award of Becognition, The Eastern Orthodox Men's Society 1s con

cerned With Civic and Community matters, both as citizens and participants. The "Special Award of Recognition" this year 1s awarded to James Bllas in recognition of the outstanding contributions he has made to our Community.


"Sportscaster of the Year" Award With the objective in mind of rewarding

bervice performed, as well as providing incr:!ntive, The Eastern Orthodox Men's Society 2"1Dually honors a "Sportscaster of the Year."

The Eastern Orthodox Men's Society "Sportscaster o! the Year" Award is given to Don Gardner for outstanding Lay activity aud personal achievement.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 197 5 EASTERN OBTHODOX

L~femorial" Awam The Eastern Orthodox Men's Society 1s

concerned With Civic and Community matters, both as citizens and participants. The "Memorial" Award this year 1s awarded to Florence Deeter in recognition of the outstanding contributions she has made to our Community.


"M emoriaZ" Award The Eastern Orthodox Men's Society is

concerned with Civic and Community matters, both as citizens and participants. The "Memorial" A ward this year is awarded to Jack Sulllgan in recognition of the outstanding contributions he has made to our Community.

MESSAGE IN A BOTTLE: FRED HARRIS ON FOREIGN POLICY

HO . MICHAEL HARRINGTO OF MASSACHUSETTS



Mr. HARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most important byproduct of our electoral process lies in the educational value it holds for the Nation. As voters narrow down the field of candidates, many important ideas concerning the future directions and policies of government are debated, disseminated, and refined-especially in a Presidential campaign. And it is not unusual for the eventual winner to implement the proposals of the candidates he defeats.

Unfortunately, some of the best ideas inevitably get swept away by the rhetorical tide, only to wash up on our shores years later in hindsight. Such was the case with the 1900 Presidential campaign, in which William McKinley defeated William Jennings Bryan. The losing party platform of that year asserted that "no nation can long endure half republic and half empire-imperialism abroad w.J.llead quickly and inevitably to despotism at home." As Fred Harris pointed out in a February 27 speech at Harvard,

It has taken America 75 years to realize the wisdom of what populism was saying in 1900.

I supported the candidacy of Fred Harris for President this year because I thought his creative, bold revival of the populist tradition was uniquely suited to the fundamental issues America confronts today. His policy proposals on domestic issues received some attention, but his stance on foreign affairs went virtually unnoticed. I am therefore plea.sed to insert into the RECORD Mr. Harris' Harvard address entitled "A People's Foreign Policy," in the hope that Panama will not haunt future generations the way the Philippines haunts us today.

A PEOPLE's FOBEIGN POLICY

(By Fred Harris) Domestic Issues have, thus far, dominated

the 1976 election-and they are fundamentally important. But our hopes for America and Americans cannot be separated from our relations With th~ rest of the world. Domestic po11cy and foreign policy are inter-

16099 twined. And the underlying principles which should govern both are also Intertwined.

But 1976 marks a. watershed 1n postwar American politics. For the first time since World Warn, a presidential election is being contested prim.arlly on domestic issues. The questions in 1976 are not how to respond to the Communist takeover in Eastern Europe, or aggression 1n Korea, or Soviet missile strength, or civil war in Vietnam. The most pressing issues are jobs, prices, and taxes.

The change in Issues re:tlects a change 1n our national mood. In the late sixties when I headed the Democratic Party, I thought I sensed this new mood. I used the phrase "the new populism.. to describe people's growing frustration about the !allure of our government to deliver on basic economic and political rights.

Today, almost every candidate for public office seems to be a "populist". And it 1s a stark political fact that acr06S our land there is a rlgh tful anger among so many of our people who feel forgotten ln domestic atrairs and betrayed 1n foreign affairs. How will candidates respond? One approach is negative and manipulative. Its mast prominent feature 1s a denunclatlon of government and an unproved assertion that efforts at reform invariably make things worse. The other a.pproa.ch 1s positive, and responsive. It accepts the need to renounce programs that have not worked but refuses to renounce the idea of progress itself.

Conservatives are worried about the new popular attitude. The Tri-Lateral Commission, which Chase Ma.nhatts.n Bank President David Rockefeller helped to launch, recently commissioned a study on "governabillty" in open marltet countries, and the authors reached the conclusion, comforting for those who believe 1n the status quo, that not the mistakes of our leaders but the demands of our people are responsible for our problems. In the words o! one of the authors. we are suffering from a. "democratic distemper" and urgent steps need to be talten to reinforce authority in society.

This kind of response harkens back to the way turn-of-the century populists were received. The American Journal of Politics warned ln 1894, as the great tide of populist action was laying the way for the emergence of William Jennings Bryan and ultimately Wilson's New Freedom, "the Army of discontent 1s organlzlng . . ., involving a great many elements and tendencies dangerous to the state." A prominent bishop of the time attributed the rise ot populist feeling to the mistake o! educating the farmer. In the words of Bishop Worthington of Omaha, the problem is farm boys "who have absolutely no ability to rise and get a taste of education and follow it up."" Like Bishop Worthington, the authors of the Tri-LPteral Commission paper appear to fear the people. (Fortunately several members of the Tri-Lateral Commission spoke out aga.\nst this extraordinary conclusion and the Commission did not formally adopt the report.)

But i! the conservatives are most concerned about the impact o! the populist mood on domestic policy, it should be noted that they are joined by others, more liberal, who are genuinely worried that "populism" in forefgn policy may be synonymous with smallm1nded isolationism or aggressive nationalism. One prominent foreign policy analyst has warned that "An atavistic 'America first' economic movement is entirely consistent with the isolationist mood of the mass public."

It is true that older populism's dominant focus was almost entirely domestic. And it has frequently been charged that there was sometimes a narrow nationalism or even regionalism in early populist beliefs. Attention is often called to the fact that Senators George Norris of Nebraska a.nd Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin opposed America's en-

16100 try into World War I, and that, because of his opposition to the war, William Jennings Bryan resigned as Secretary of State. In retrospect, opposition to World War I now seems less narrow and unpatriotic than it once did. (A recent account of Bryan's resignation in the widely-acclaimed book, "Resignation in Protest," reached a highly favorable assessment of his motives and b1s logic.) Nevertheless, such "populist" actions of the past have pers~ded many that whatever the ccntributions of individuals like Bryan, Norris and LaFollette domesticallyand they were enormous-such men had little to tell us in the field of foreign affairs.

Yet such an assessment is too abrupt. Populism put down its domestic roots before the United States became a major force in world affairs. Nevertheless, as foreign issues began to vie with domestic issues for attention, those 1n:fl.uenced by populist and progressive thought did speak out, and the record is instructive.

In 1900, for example, the issue before the country was McKinley's decision to acquire colonies for the United States in the Caribbean and in Southeast Asia. William Jen• nings Bryan's 1900 campaign platform today sounds remarkably modern, warning that "to impose upon any people a government of force is to substitute the methods of imperialism for those of a republic." Moreover, following today's revelations about the illegal activities of the FBI and CIA against American citizens, we can appreciate more clearly the Democratic Party's 1900 assertion that "no nation can long endure half republic and half empire, and we warn the American people that imperialism abroad will lead quickly and inevitably to despotism at home." Condemning the American "criminal aggression" against the Philippines, the platform also called for independence for that island nation. And the 1900 Democratic Platform further warned that militarism, if permitted, meant conquest abroad and intimidation at home.

It has taken America 76 years to realize the wisdom of what populism was saying in 1900.

LaFollette in his 1924 Presidential campaign gave perhaps the most succinct and accurate description of long-run American foreign policy goals when be called for equal opposition to "the dictatorship of plutocracy and the dictatorship of the proletariat." -a fundamental precept which, if followed, would have prevented most of the serious mistakes in postwar U.S. foreign policy.

As the old populists knew, in foreign policy as in other policy, we need not fear the people. The elitists are wrong; our people are more principled and progressive than our leaders. Not a day goes by without some national figure decrying a supposed flight into isolationism on the part of the American people. Yet pollster Louis Harris has found that 66 percent of the American people reject the notion that we ought to stay out of world affairs, a figure virtually unchanged since the end of World War II. Americans are not isolationists. As Louis Harris puts it: " ... The American people are prepared to take giant strides towards international participation, well beyond what their leaders have asked."

There is nothing wrong with the people of this country. It is not the people who have failed, but their leaders. We cannot change our government's policy without changing our government's leaders ....

There is a foreign policy elite in America. It started with the economically powerful and then reached into the universities, and foundations for the Rostows, the Rusks, and t he Kissingers, and into business cir~les for t he Dillons, the Wilsons, the Packards, and the McNamaras. It has created a virtual monopoly on official and shadow-government foreign policy thought. The members of this small and powerful group are not consciously

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS evil in intent, but they have devised and administered an American foreign policy which in recent years has caused our influence and reputation in the world to dwindle almost to nothingness.

Confused efforts today to develop what 1s called a "post-Vietnam" foreign policy result from the fact that too ms.ny of the leaders of the foreign policy elite do not see the connection between what America is at home and what it should be abroad. And many do not hold a strong enough commitment to economic and political democracy within our own country.

America must be a country here at home which 1s open and democratic and one which stands for a widespread dltfusion of economic and political power. Those are exactly the same principles, too, which must characterize and guide our policies and actions throughout the world ....

A shorthand way of saying what 1s wrong with American foreign policy is: Kissinger must go. American foreign policy is wrong in construction, wrong in goal, and wrong in method.

America's foreign policy has been wrong in construction. It has been elitist and secretive, characterized by basic distrust of our people. Part of the secrecy has been due to the fact that the elitists have maintained that the great mass of Americans are milltarlstic and jingoistic and that, therefore. a. certain amount of blocking of popular control of foreign policy and national security is essential. That is not true, and it is a slander of the American people. Richard Hamilton's book, "Polltlcs and Class in Amerloa," a scholarly survey of American public opinion in recent years, proves that working· class Americans are less mllitaristic than other Americans, because, it is shown, that wage earners have come to understand, consciously, that it is they who pay a disproportionate share of the costs of wars and it is their young men who mostly die in such wars.

Part of government secrecy is also a result of the fact that our leaders know they cannot justify what they are doing. So, the Soviets, the Chinese, and the Cambodians knew we were bombing Cambodia, but Americans did not. The Soviets and the Angolans knew we were intervening in the internal struggle in Angola, but Americans did not. There is no accident in this pattern.

Those in authority have felt that Americans must be shielded from the facts for fear that our government's actions could not be justified as being in the best interests of our own people. It is in exactly that way that America, step by step, became so deeply and tragically involved in South Vietnamprecisely because no justification to Americans was thought by our leaders either to be necessary or required.

America's foreign policy must be based upon consent of the governed. And consent of the governed requires that the governed know what it is they are being asked to consent to. There are many well-qualified foreign policy experts, inside and outside the government, who believe that America's foreign policy, like its domestic policy, must be justified to our own people. I would appoint just such a person as Secretary of State.

The White House staff should be cut back at least. to Harry Truman's numbers, and the Cabinet should be allowed to function again-not just for show, but for policy and administration.

America must reject the unseemly and excessive concerns of President Ford and Secretary Kissinger about so-called "leaks" and breaches of security. Most government secrets prot ect the governors and not the governed.

My Secretary of State would actually be in charge of foreign policy, so that, once again, the Congress and the country could look to that office for explanation and justification for America's actions and phile>~<'Pl' ies. I

June 1, 1976 would require that, once each quarter, the Secretary of State appear before the Congress, in a public forum chosen by the Congress, to set forth our foreign policy positions and submit to questions.

As President, I would myself appear before the Congress at least twice each year in a public forum chosen by the Congress and submit to questions on foreign and domestic policy.

Foreign policy is too important to be left to the "experts". The mystique of secrecy must be swept away. The false idea that only the President has sufficient facts to make lifeand-death security and foreign policy decisions must be discarded. People are, as Jefferson thought, smart enough to govern themselves-if they are allowed to know whalt it is they are being asked to decide.

America's foreign policy has been wrong in goal. In has been characterized by two main aspects, anti-Communism and the preservation of the status quo. We should have learned in recent years that anti-Communism is not enough for people to die for; they must have something to live for. And, while preservation of the status quo may be pleasing to the U.S. multinationals, it places us against people and against the tide of history, because most people are not happy with the status quo-and understandably not.

The missing ingredient in American foreign policy is a statement of what sort of world we would like to see. Without that, we are engaged in little more than an attempt at a Metternichian manipualtion of the global balance of power.

The kind of world we should want to see is the same as the kind of America we should want to see; a. place where there 1s a widespread dltfuslon of economic and political power.

Our abllity to bring about that kind of world is limited indeed, but our ability to refrain from making it worse is unlimitedand that alone would be a marked change in American foreign policy.

But if America is truly to espouse a widespread dlffusion of economic and political power in the world, it must show that it really believes in that goal for its own citizens.

At the root of our loss of prestige and influence in the world, is an adverse foreign judgment about our future here at home. Charles De-Gaulle and the French press in the mid 60's began to proclaim that the U.S. was an unrealiable ally, not so much because we had the wrong foreign policy toward Europe, but because, it was said, the domestic situation in the U.S. would prevent us from carrying out the promises we were making to our allies and others abroad. Hence, DeGaulle argued, it was time for France and Eupore to strike out on their own.

In the last 10 years, it seems almost as if we have been determined to prove De-Gaulle's thesis correct, as we have allowed the sense of community in America to become weaker and weaker. Millions in our work force are idle. Too many of our people cannot get housing. The schools attended by the children of poor families and workingclass families, starved for funds, are often almost criminally inferior. Our central cities are rotting to the core. And a health care delivery system for a large percentage of our people is virtually non-existent.

If our society is to be held together, it must be as the result of an implied social contract based upon mutual self-interest. Today, too many of our people feel that our social contract is either unfair or is being unfairly enforced. A majority of people in America today, as a recent survey showed, feel "there is something deeply wrong" with om· country. Asked to explain their pessimism, seventy-six percent of those surveyed agreed with the statement that "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer."

If we are not to slip into a stagnant eddy of hist ory, where we are no longer relevant

June 1, 1976 to the lives of others, a country whose example has lost its force and whose institutions have lost their vitality, we must return to basic American principles of economic and political democracy.

We must have a graduated income tax rather than graduated loopholes. We must enforce anti-monopoly laws and principles against the monopolies and giant corporations that overcharge us. We must get people back to work.

Only when there is real movement toward economic and political democracy here at home will our own people support our foreign policy initiatives. Only then, to, will 01..1r influence in the world be restored,

We should seek to normalize relations with the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China..

We should draw closer to those remaining countries in the world that are democratic.

We should recognize our self-interest in development in the Third World to help create a more stable world-and we should level a special tax on the foreign income of U.S. multinationals, earmarking such funds for development aid. This is not going to be a. stable world, or one in which America's actions will give us much cause for pride so long as so many of the people in the southern half of this globe have less to eat than many of us feed our cats and dogs.

America's foreign policy iS wrong in method. There is no way to separate principle from practice. And the practice of America's foreign policy has in no way paralleled our announced principles.

No agency of our government should be involved in "covert operations"--overthrowing governments, subverting free elections, attempting to assassinate leaders. There is no way that these practices can be made to comport with our principles. And, as Tom Braden, who formerly headed so-called "dirty tricks" in the CIA has made clear, they have never worked. They have always blown up in our faces and embarrassed us.

Our foreign policy should be based on announced public goals which define and state each year our intended relations with the world's democracies, with the People's Republic of China and the Soviet Union, with third world countries.

The President of the United States should meet annually with those democratic countries with which we have special economic, historic and ethnic ties-and, thereafter, issue his statement about joint foreign policy. Here at home, the President should encourage the Congress to hold hearings annually on these statements.

We must scale down our dominance in NATO and 1·educe our military presence throughout the world. This is not only importnt to us financially-and, therefore, domestically-but is also important in order to begin to provide for regional mutual security arrangements that are more credible because they are principally conceived and supported, with our help, by the area people and governments themselves.

In short, America's foreign policy must be an open foreign policy, openly arrived atopen with our own people and open with the governments of the world. Our goals must be clear and well-stated-and they must comport with our announced principles of economic and political democracy. And, our practices must be consistent with our stated principles.

The people of America want to be proud of their country again. And there is no reason why America ca:..1not again be the beacon of economic and political d~mocracy as we were in Franklin Roosevelt's time, at the end of World War II. ·

Thomas Jefferson said, "Equal rights for all; special privilege for none." I! we place this nation squarely on the side of people, against privilege-America can again bring hope and pride into the lives of our own

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 16101 people, and set a standard for the nations a rare privilege and honor for me to be inof the world. vited to address yo1..tr conference which will

explore the availabilities and the potentials to provide both food and fiber to the ever

GOV. ROBERT F. BENNET!' OF KAN- growing populations of our world. Though SAS SPEAKS ON FOOD POLICY my expertise in this area is perhaps llmlted

HON. KEITH G. SEBELIUS OF KANSAS



both by knowledge and provinciality I hope that I will be able to lend something of value to your deliberation in understanding the part which the American farmer can play in providing nourishment to his international neighbors in days which may grow more perilous as times go by if action is not taken and taken now.

Mr. SEBELIUS. Mr. Speakel·, for some The civilization of our world is locked in time now I have been receiving letters a basic struggle between population growth from concerned citizens in behalf of the and n. currently limited food supply. Right to Food Resolution. At the outset, While population growth can and should during our Bicentennial Year, I can be limited, its complex causes are more difthink of no greater commitment more in ficult to address and less susceptible of re-k · •th th h · t• •t f striction on a worldwide basis. Overpopula

eeping WI e C ns Ian spin ° our tion stems from a rare blending of personal great Nation, than an expression of will freedom and preference, religious convicdeclaring America's intent to provide tions, lack of knowledge, indolence, imfood and fiber to those who are less for- proved health care, to name but a few of tunate. its causes. Some of these causes, in the pas-

I would like to add that the USDA re- sage of time, can be effectively addressed. cently reported 5 percent gain in the Others, by virtue of their personal or spiritfarm output of developing nations out ual character will be with us always. To me paced recent population gains and that this means that the crisis of food and fiber

which comes from overpopulation growth is certainly good news. However, this re- must be solved by increasing the availability lief is temporary and the problem of of food and fiber supply. It is here that r hunger remains acute and serious. may offer to you a word of hope which comes

While those of us who have the privi- from a small part of our world known as lege of representing rural areas strongly Kansas, a sovereign state located in the support the need for America t-o resolve ·· middle of the Unit-ed States of America and basic intent in support of a growing and frequ.entiY,,refen-ed to as the "breadbasket of h ·ta . . ult 1 I" I b the " ·orld. .uma~ . nan a~nc ura P 0 ICY, .e- While I will speak primarily of the Kansas

lleve It I~ also rmp_ortant. to recogmze farmer, whose industry and capability are the practical aspects of thiS problem; to best known to me, I would hasten to add make sure our "food policy" is fair to that my comments are equally true of other the man whose job it is to feed America American farmers who till the soil of a great and to help feed a troubled and hungry and bountiful nation. world. In this regard, the farmer has be- As I am sure. you must know, the United come a vital national resource and his States of A~enca produces more food and

bili·ty t . d f d t t b _ fiber for fore1gn export than any other na-a o pro uce oo mus no e en tion in our world. In truth and in fact we dangered. produce far more than our own citizens need

Last month, the Honorable Robert F. or can use. We still have not reached the Bennett, Governor of Kansas, was asked limits of our production capabilities. Kansas to keynote the Conference on Food held farmers contribute greatly to this tremenin Madrid, Spain. Governor Bennett's re- dous productive capacity. In each of the last marks are not only timely but I feel rep- three years exports of food and fiber proresent what should be required reading duce~ by the Kansas farmer have exceeded for all concerned with out Nation's food $l billion in tot':ll value. Kansas grown

. , . wheat, sold on an International market, has policy. Bob Bennetts speech did attract accounted for about $900 million in each of considerable attention in Kansas. Press these years. reports stated: More important, as productive as the

The Governor put his finger on the prob- farmers of Kansas and the United States lem. have been, they do have the capacity, with

He put the agricultural situation in proper perspective.

The Governor has a recipe for assuring better farm prices.

Our Kansas Governor did an excellent job speaking for farmers.

appropriate encourgement from the marketplace and the removal of artificial barriers and restraints, to produce even more. It is for this reason I am optimistic that the world food race can indeed be won. But for victory to be achieved the encouragement for maximum production must also be pres-

Perhaps the best summation of Gov- ent. To better understand the Kansas farmer ,

ernor Bennett's speech, however, came who is not dissimilar from farmers in other from the Russell Daily News: areas of our nation, it is appropriate to know

Governor Bennett should be hea.rd in Washington by the boards of trade, labor unions and provincial urban citizens who dominate policy in the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the News and that is precisely why I would like to commend to the attention of my colleagues and everyone interested in this Nation's food policy, the following speech made by Kansas Gov. Robert F. Bennett at the recent World Food Conference held in M:;~,drid, Spain: l\IJ:ODERN GOLD FOR CORONADO: THE BOUNTY

OF THE KANSAS HARVEST

Mr. Chairman, members of the Conference on "Food, a Right of the People," it is indeed

something about his character and something of his achievements. In our country he is known as a "rugged individualist"-a person who works hard from before dawn til after dusk-who asks little from government except to be let alone-who braves droughts, floods and pestilence to produce the kernels and muscles of life to feed his neighbors. He is involved in the oldest and most basic of civilization's endeavors. His endeavor, in fact, represents civilization itself. He has proven time and time again that he is capable of meeting and rising above adversty because he is inttmately involved in life itself.

The American farmer, and particularly the Kansas farmer, is concerned with production improvement-knowing that with

16102 it more of his neighbors both at home and abroad can enjoy the nourishment that is essential to life.

The improvement in that production can be dramatically illustrated by what has occurred in my state over the last 100 years Obviously Kansas was not always th~ .. breadbasket of the world" but today it does grow more hard red winter wheat than an y other state or province in the world. It all commenced a century ago when Mennonites migrated from Russia and introduced a new variety of wheat to our state. This introduct ion changed the way of early Kansas agriculture and paved the road for Kansas to become a leader in worldwide productlon of hard red winter wheat. This new variety of wheat greatly infiuenced my state's history, particularly its economic history. By the time of World War I wheat had become the most important crop of my state. Almost 45 years ago Kansas wheat production exceeded 250 million bushels in a single year, which gained it a position of leadership in the marketplace. During World War II additional demands were placed upon agriculture which the Kansas farmer readily met, experimenting with new and improved varieties and expanding production acreage so that at one time as much as 80 per cent of the acreage of my state was involved in wheat production. During the last 25 years production per acre has grown because of increased efficiency and technological advances, and because of the willingness of the Kansas farmer to stick to his task despite adversity. Through the help of private industry and academic research vastly improved varieties have been developed, improved fertiliZer programs have been implemented, improved farming techniques have been ut111zed.

In the 1920's our Kansas farmer averaged 13.1 bushels of wheat for each acre harvested. During each decade this yield has increased until in the 1970's the average yield per acre harvested is 32 bushels.

Even today private industry and academic research continue to explore possib111ties of further improved yields and there are thoSe who esttma.te that with the proper economic encouragements average yields in excess of 40 bushels per acre can be anticipated in 1980 or soon thereafter.

As I have said, this story of success is not a typical of other American farmers who have increased thelr production through industry and research over the last quarter century.

Knowing of the world's need !or wheat, the Kansas farmer has responded. Each year more and more acres have been seeded. Kansas alone has increased its seeding since 1970 by some 36 per cent and all American farmers have increased their seeding by some 12.5 per cent.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS on their labor and thelr investment. Tbls, in fact, is the encouragement for the increased production which has occurred in my state and in other areas of my country. Profit opportunities and open access to markets are the essential factors that must be involved if food production is to be accelerated and if the crlsls of food and fiber is to be adequately addressed.

The farmer, wherever he lives and farms 1s entitled to the same consideration as any other human being who labors to provide a product or a service which is essential to life and living in a troubled civilization.

In short, the price of food and fiber-both nationally and internationally-must be at a level sufficient to entice farmers of the world to commit the factors of productionland, labor, capital and management--to bring forth the abundant supply of food that is needed and that is in fact possible with the proper incentive. If farmers receive a fair price for thelr labor and if they are not expected to produce food and fiber at a loss I am confident that they have both the capabilities and the desire to be effective partners in the solution of this crisis. Without these economic incentives, however, there is little inducement for the farmer to produce an abundant supply for the world, yet reap but an empty vessel for himself.

There are some who argue that this 1s selfish and the personification of greed. The argument is false and misleading. The Kansas farmer does not seek untold wealth. Nor does he seek to live in the lap of luxury. These goals are not his prime motivation. He does seek to regain his cost, to protect against his losses, and to have a reasonable assurance that his labors will be rewarded by his being able to adequately provide for his cost of living. These assurances are not considered unusual when applied to the businessman, to the laborer, to the academician, or to the politician. They should not be considered unusual when sought by the farmer.

Consider the plight of the Kansas farmer at the present time. Prices are now ranging from between $3.50 and $3.30 per bushel fot wheat produced in our state. This 1s down considerably from the $4 and even t5 which was received during 1973 and 1974. Unfortunately, though the price per bushel Is down, the farmer's cost of production continues to grow year by year. The latest figures developed by Kansas Stat& Uni'Ve7Sity, a great agricultural institution in the midwest, show that production costs vary from $3.10 to $3.40 per bushel. These costs have increased 45 per cent in the last five years and 72 per cent in the last 10 years.

Unfortunately, these increases cannot be passed on from the farmer to the consumer as is the case with so many products and .services. Consequently, at current levels, wheat prices barely cover production costs for many of our Kansas farmers. Current prices do not provide the kind of income farmers need to achieve a basic standard of living. Nor do these prices provide additional dollars needed to be able to afford the new research that would enable increased product ion. In my opinion, if the current price trend continues farmers will produce less wheat, instead of more. This means fewer bushels of grain will be available to feed a hungry world.

The Kansas farmer-the American farmer-has the capability and the desire to produce far more in both food and fiber if it is profitable to do so. But the economic incentives must be present. It is far past time for the world to realize that part of the solution of its food problem is to provide better incentives to its farmers--not only in Kansas and in the United States but in every other nation of 0\.1.1' world.

It is appropriate at this p<>int for some to ask, "Why has your Kansas farmer increased his production to yield more than the American people need?" The answer 1s simple: he knows there are needs beyond the boundaries of the United States and he wants to assist in meeting those needs, knowing that he has the capabilities so to do. At the same time it should be recognized that the Kansas farmer, the American farmer, or, for that matter, free farmers anywhere in the world are not and should not be considered philanthropists. Because of need and because of their capabilities to respond they have produced more, produced better, expended more hours of their own labor, purchased better and more efficient equipment, paid greater t axes, purchased expensive fertilizers and agricultural chemicals, and in general incurred substantially increased costs-still gambling against drought, flood and pestilence. They have done so because the need wh ich exists offers the opportunity-an opportunity created by innovativeness, produc- Many developing countries have a "cheap t ion efficiencies and technology-to recover food policy." As a consequence the farmers t hese cost s and to make a reasonable profit are not rewarded for their efforts. The pre-

June 1, 1976 dictable result is that they do not produce that which is possible.

There can be no doubt that the cancer of starvation must not be allowed to spread, for from it grows the seeds of anarchy and the potentials for the distribution of our civilization. . Steps must be taken now to assure that an 1mp1'oved free market exists, and that with that market there is sufficient economic inducement to encourage those in agriculture to take additional risks, to spend additional money and to produce the food that is necessary to feed all peoples.

Nations have no diJD.culty in paying substantial prices for arms and munitions. They have no reluctance in supporting the dignity of labor by providing adequate sums for living. They have no timidity in paying increased prices for machinery and equipment or for other goods and services. It is long past time that they make the conscious decision to afford equal treatment for the basic life-giving vocation of agriculture.

In my view adequate economic incentive and free world trade, though not the sole solutions to the collision of overpopulation with limited food supplies, are basic and essential ingredients to any solution that may be developed. The sooner the leaders of the world recognize the potentials for their implementation the sooner we will approach our capability to feed the starving peoples of our world.

I realize that there are those in my country and in yours, as well as other nations of the world, who now speak of national, multinational and International grain reserves, arguing that they are a solution to our crisis of food and fiber. Quite frankly I question the completeness of such a solution and I question even more the pollilcs both national and tnternational. that 'might be played if such solutions were Implemented. The potent1al for political and diplomatic manipulations at the expense of the producing farmer could easily amount to a decentive to essential increased production. A grain reserve program, with ita known vicissitudes, should be viewed with caution. Should a reserve--for other than humanitarian need-be considered and created, then it must, I submit, contain iron-clacl guidelines and restrictions which would absolutely assure that the seeds of the world's salvation would not become the tools of the world's destruction.

I most respectfully submit to you that today we have a world grain reserve and it is where it should be, essentially in the hands of the farmers who husband its production. We have the capacity to increase that world grain reserve 1! we have the willingness to provide the incentive and the world free trade capabilities that are essential to the encouragement of that increased production.

This 1s not to say that Kansas farmers, or American farmers, or farmers of other nations of the world would not generously contribu te to an international disaster grain reserve. In truth and in tact farmers of m y state and of my nation have been willing to do more than their share in implementing programs of our government to ship grain to hungry nations of 0\.1.1' world. Since 1955 more than $28 billion of agricultural products have been shipped abroad to other nations found in need by force of circumstance. I am confident that this program will continue; that in cooperation with other producing nations and other contributing nations it can address the specific problem which in the spirit of humanitarianism must be addressed with the advent of national natural disasters.

The thesis of my comments to you here this evening is that the farmer has the productive capability and desire to be an effective partner in solving the crisis of food and fiber. But he must be accorded a position

June 1, 1976 of equality in that joint venture and not be placed in a position of subservience. By nature he was born free, by conviction he will remam free and by encouragement he will produce free. The potential nourishing bounties of our world cannot be developed Wit h our farmers in bondage, economic or otherwise. A policy of fair plice and free world trade is essential to the continued E'xistence of our world civilization.

Some 400 years ago a Spanish conquistador, Francisco Vasquez de Coronado soJourned to my state of Kansas in search of gold. History tells us that this Spaniard was the first white man to come to my state, where he placed the fiag of Spain. Coron ado roamed the gentle prairies of Kansas in search of the fabled riches of Quivira. According to folk legend near the end of his expedition he climed a lone tall hill which lies between what is now the city of Lindsborg and what is now the city of Salina. He looked in every direction and saw only gently rolling plains without evidence of the wealthy Seven Cities of Cibola and without evidence of the gold for which he quested. He left what is now Kansas in disenchantment and disgust, for gold was nowhere to be found.

Were the conquistador Coronado to return to Kansas today in midsummer and were he to climb the bill now know as Coronado Heights, he could look in all directions and see the gold which over 400 years ago he sought but never found. He would see it in fields upon fields of "amber waves of grain" waiting to be harvested and to be shared with all the peoples of the world in that partnership so well described as "our world civiliz8,tion."

And so it is that I appreciate very much your invitation to speak to your conference and I find great pleasure in coming to the nation of one of my state's founders, the conquistador Coronado, to tell you that which he could not tell his King. "There is in fact gold in Kansas. But it is sown there and grown there, with the help of Divine Providence, by the industry of the Kansas farmer."

CONSTITUENTS VOICE OPINIONS

HON. THAD COCHRAN OF MISSISSIPPI



Mr. COCHRAN. Mr Speaker, For the information of my colleagues I am submitting to the RECORD the results of a questionnaire I sent to my constituents in southwest Mississippi. I think my colleagues will find their opinions significant on certain issues we are facing in Congress:

QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS

1. On the question of abortion, would you favor:

a. letting the individual states make their own law on the subject? 56.5 percent.

b. adopting an amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibiting abortion? 22.0 percent.

c. leaving the law as it is with no change by either the state or federal government? 21.5 percent.

2. Do you favor legislation to provide federal financing of Congressional election campaigns? yes, 14.8 percent; no, 83.6 percent; no opinion, 1.6 percent.

3. On the question of the United Nations, would you favor:

a. withdrawal from the United Nations? 18.2 percent.

b. reduction of U.S. financial cont ributions to t he U.N.? 65.7 percent.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS c. continuation of full U.S. participation

and financial participation? 16.1 percent. 4. Do you favor efforts to allow members

of the U.S. Armed Forces to join unions? yes, 3.2 percent; no, 95.8 percent; no opinion, 1.0 percent.

5. Do you favor federally financed jobs as a means of reducing unemployment? yes, 31.0 percent; no, 66.6 percent; no opinion, 2.4 percent.

6. Do you favor enactment of a law requiring a balanced federal budget? yes, 87.5 percent; no, 11.0 percent; no opinion, 1.5 percent.

7. Do you favor continuation of revenue sharing to assist local and state governments? yes, 69.8 percent; no, 27.4 percent; no opinion, 2.8 percent.

8. Do you favor deregulation of natural gas? yes, 53.5 percent; no, 39.6 percent; no opinion, 6.9 percent.

9. Do you favor proposals that would change the law to allow private business to compete with the Postal Service in delivery of first class mail? yes, 78.0 percent; no, 20.7 percent; no opinion, 1.3 percent.

THE RETIREMENT OF . ALBERT GUARINO

HON. RONALD A. SARASIN OF CONNECTICUT



Mr. SARASTI'>l'. Mr. Speaker, this Saturday, June 5, will mark a milestone for organized labor in Waterbury, Conn., as Albert Guarino winds up almost 40 years as a key man in Laborer's Union Local 390. AI's retirement is well deserved, but it would represent a major loss to the labor movement and the community if AI's many friends and admirers were not convinced he will remain just as active and involved in the futlJ,re.

AI is a local boy, born in Waterbury in 1918 and a continual resident of the area, with the exception of time out to serve with the Marines in the Pacific in World War n. He had already begun work as a laborer in 1937, joining local390 at that time, and he returned to his job and his union after the war. AI served as president of his union until 1955, when he was elected business manager.

This was a mixed blessing, however, as the assets of the local at that time consisted of an empty cigar box, a broken desk, a bounced check, and 146 members. AI was up to the challenge, and built local 390 into a dynamic and effective organization, numbering almost 1,000 members as its peak.

AI's union activity extended beyond the local. He was cochairman of the Connecticut Laborers' Pension Fund, a trustee of the Connecticut Laborers' Health and Welfare Fund, a foundertrustee of the Connecticut Laborers' Training Trust Fund, president of the Connecticut Laborers' District Council, a member of the Waterbury and Connecticut Building Trades Councils, the Italian-American Civil Rights League, and an honorary member of the NAACP.

As a trustee of the union funds, AI was instrumental in putting together one of the most advanced and progressive health, welfare, vision, dental, and pension programs in New England, and he

16103 also has contributed greatly to the Connecticut work-release penal program, helping parolees obtain jobs and adjust to civilian life.

While AI Guarino may be officially retiring, everybody who knows him knows he will continue to contribute, so I would like to say for the record, "congratulations, AI, and keep up the good work."

A SOVIET TRAGEDY

HON. BENJAMIN S. ROSENTHAL OF NEW YORK



Mr. ROSENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, on May 18, I inserted into the RECORD a statement detailing the harassment and death of a prominent Soviet dissident, Colonel Yefim Davidovich. Following Colonel Davidovich's death, a group of 32 Jewish activists sent an open letter to the West condemning the KGB's brutal persecution of the former Red Army hero.

The act of penning the protest was itself a courageous gesture in honor of a brave individual. I reprint the letter below in hopes that this plea will make us all more aware of the persistent Soviet violation of the Helsinki Accord and fundamental human freedoms.

OPEN LETTER ON DAVIDOVICH

What they tried to achieve for so long bas happened. Colonel Yefim Davidovich, hero of the war against facism, recipient of eighteen Soviet Orders and medals and an adamant fighter for the rights of Soviet Jews is dead. This man, the possessor of rare courage and charm, has been killed by the organs of the KGB. He was killed because he had selfiessly fought for the rights of Soviet Jews to emigrate to Israel and because, not sparing himself, he had defended every victim of persecution.

What the bullet of the Hitlerites had been unable to do has been cold-bloodedly done by the butchers for the KGB. This is how they paid Davidovich for the blood he shed on the battles for Russia, for the Ukraine, and for Belorussia.

He was killed because he, a Jew, wanted to go where the Jewish State has been built , where his daughter and grandson, his near ones and his relatives would not have to submit to insolent and cowardly indignit ies infiicted by the anti-Semites in power.

The murder has been perpetrated Without beatings-up, without needles introduced under nails, without punishment cells and other accessories of the Stalin era The present day successors to Beria and Ezhov know to kill without leaving clear traces of their crimes. They murder people by devilish methods, according to a well worked out system of psychological terror, threats, blackmail, provocations, indignities, slander and insults. They destroy a person's health, they cause fatal injuries to his heart, his nervous system and to his vitality. And people, as if of their own volition, throw themselves out of windows or die from heart failures or from other fatal illnesses. This is what happened to Davidovich.

After he expressed a desire to go to Israel over three years ago, he was incessantly subjected to indignities and persecution. He was repeatedly summoned to the KGB, subjected to interrogations, to written and spoken threats, as well as hounded in newspapers. Finally he was demoted to the ranks and de-

16104 prived of his army pension, his only source of income. All this fell upon a person who gives his blood and health in the ranks of the So• viet Army.

The executioners knew what they were doing. After his fifth heart attack, when a real threat to his life appeared, we applied to the Central Committee of the CPSU and to the Ministry of Interior Affairs. We warned t hem that Davidovich was in a critical state and asked them to permit him to go to the country that he considers his homeland. It is possible that this would have prevented h is untimely death. However, even if he would have died in Israel, at last his last wish would have been granted. The wish to die in his homeland.

Those to whom we appealed to grant the last wish of a dying man replied to us through the Ups of A. Ivanov (Central Committee of the CPSU) and V. Obidin (Ministry of Interior Affairs of the USSR), that, according to the information in their possession ... 'Davidovich feels very well.'

This hero and martyr has been murdered cruelly and senselessly. Those who like so much to call themselves . . . Defenders of Human Rights ... Adherents of Detente •.. Fighters for Peace and Justice, and who like to don the toga of peace makers, they are murderers, hypocrites and demagogues.

Gentlemen from the West, with beautiful souls, here it is. Your detente in action, here it is, the spirit of Helsinki. Who will be their next victim? If the butchers are not stopped today, then tomorrow many people won't be able to escape from their clutches.

FULL EMPLOYMENT AND BALANCED GROWTH ACT OF 1946

HON. MARVIN L. ESCH OF MIClllGAN



Mr. ESCH. Mr. Speaker, the Humphrey-Hawkins bill is one of the most important issues being considered by the Congress. I would like to insert in the RECORD a letter which I S3nt to all Members of Congress on May 27 1·egarding this measure.

HouSE OF REPREsENTATIVES,

Washington, D.C., May 2:7,1916. DEAR COLLEAGUE: There is a strong possi

bility that within the next week or two the House Will be considering H.R. 50, "The Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act. of 1976". This legislation will set the stage for a public discussion on the directiiln our nation will take 1n the yea.rs ahead. I believe, therefore, that it is es:;ential that all Members of the House fully understand the implication of what may alJl()unt to the single most important vote in this entire session.

It is my contention, along with other Members of the House, through Dea.r Colleagues and statements in the Congressional Becor4 to 1n.form you and your statf of what we beneve a.re the real implications of H.R. 60. I know you will take the time to see these communications and become familiar with the consequences of this legislation.

Of course, the goal of H.R. 50 is laudable. Everyone concurs that it 1s desirable to develop an economic system in which each of our citizens can make a contribution and become gain!ully employed. The goal is good; but the e1fects of the processes go much turther. Conceptually the bill proposes that government should, and can, make economic decisions which will bring about the desired goal-that is, through central economic planning rather than utillzation of the private sectoc and the normal market mechanism we can achieve utopia.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS It ha.sn"t worked in other countries. It

won't work here. The fundamental issue which is before this

House is not just the specific weaknesses of the blll, which are many-its abrogation of Congressional responsibility; the power it places in the hands of a few non-elected officials; its reliance on centralized planning; its faulty, if not irresponsible, economic thinking; its prescription of millions upon millions of public service jobs; or the wholesale abandonment of the rules of this House which make lt a truly democratic body. No, the issue is much larger than this, for underneath the rhetoric and high blown promises is a major encroachment on individual freedom.

On its surface, H.R. 50 is an "employment bill". The legislation establishes the goal of 3 % tmemployment to be reached within four years, and requires the President to develop specific plans and programs to reach this goal. Chief among these would be the institution of a potentially massive public service employment program-estimated to entail perhaps 2,000,000 to 8,000,000 individuals, operated out of a Full Employment Office within the Department of Labor.

The legislation establishes elaborate procedures which, in my view, would grant inordinately vast authority to an array of government officials to make far-reaching economic decisions which would impact on almost every aspect of our lives.

The unfortunate reality of H.R. 50 is that i t is not an employment bill, and fails to actually create a single job, outside of a. small army of highly-paid government advisors. Rat her, H .R. 50 is a blueprint for centralized government planning-and control-with no assurances whatever, that such planning will lead to either a short-term or long-term solution to our Nation's unemployment problem.

We believe that this Congress can, and must, move to address the needs of the unemployed. For example, youth unemployment has averaged well over 15% for the entire decade. Yet the Congress has done nothing. Pockets of unemployment, spectllcally in our Nation's larger cities, continue without Congressional action. The need to assure long-term, productive jobs 1s likewise essential, but Congress has failed to act on an incentive to stimulate growth in the private sector. We already have the tools, but not the "will"-and H.R. 50 would do little to change either.

During the days ahead, I will be addressing many of the more specific problems with H.R. 50. But before we do so, we must first address the fundamental choice before us. If we choose to enact this legislat!on, we will be opting for increasing government control-and the arbitrariness and intrusion that it implies-into all of our lives, and will, at the sa.me time be "covering up" for the past failures of this House to act.

If we choose not to support this bill, we will be assuring that the American people Will continue to have the right to choose their own destiny; at the same time commiting ourselves to solving the specific needs of the unemployed with those tools we already have. and with attention and reform, we know will work.

Sincerely, MARVIN L. EscH, Member oj Congress.

CONGRESS CALLED INTO SESSION BY RINGING OF LIBERTY BELL

HON. GLADYS NOON SPELLMAN OF MARYLAND



Mrs. SPELLMAN. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, May 11, the 94th Congress of the United States was called into session

June 1, 1976

by the ringing of the Liberty Bell on Capitol Hill. It was my honor and privilege to have hosted the event.

The bell, an exact replica of this country's famous Liberty Bell, was made available through the courtesy of Fort Lincoln Cemetery in Brentwood, Md. It was cast at the Piccard Foundry in Savoie, France, and arrived in the United States January 1, 1976, aboard the U.S.S. Young America.

Fort Lincoln offers the bell as a community service to schools, civic clubs, and organizations in the metropolitan area during our country's Bicentennial celebration. The intent of the program is to instill in the public an appreciation of the important role the Liberty Bell has had in our American heritage.

Mr. Speaker, to you and to all those who joined me in the bellringing, I wish to express my appreciation, along with my special thanks to the Fort Lincoln representatives, Alvin E. Melton, Albert M. Sunday, Jr., Denise A. Sturm, Kenneth Melton, and Roger Judy.

INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

HON. BENJAMIN A. GILMAN OF NEW YORK



Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, last week on May 27, I testified before the House Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations and Human Resources on a measure I cosponsored, H.R. 5302, establishing the Office of Inspector General in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

HEW is the largest department of the Federal Government, a sprawling bureaucracy staffed by over 129,000 employees who are responsible for some 300 programs involving a budget of $116.7 billions-estimated budgetary authority for 1977 is over $145 billion.

Under these conditions, the Office of an Inspector General in HEW is urgently needed if the American people and their elected officials are to correct and control the waste, fraud, and abuse that exi.st within the myriad of HEW programs, to ferret out welfare cheaters and to provide effective and efficient management of taxpayer dollars.

Mr. Speaker, in th.J interest of accomplishing this goal, I request that the text of my statement be inserted at this point in the RECORD for the consideration of my colleagues: TESTIMONY OF CONGRESSMAN BENJAMIN A.

Gn.MAN

Mr. Chairman, I would Uke to take this opportunity to thank you and the other distinguished members of the Subcommittee of Intergovernmental Relations and Human Resources for conducting these important hearings and for affording me this opportunity to testify in support of the measure I have co-sponsored, H.R. 5302, establishing the Office of Inspector General in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

The thrust of this measure authorizes the Inspector General to investigate programs that are administered by HEW to determine

J~o~e 1, 1976 the extent to which these programs are complying with applicable laws and regulations and to recommend improvements in the organization. plans, or procedures of the Department's programs. The Inspector General is further authorized to submit a report to Congress and to the Secretary of HEW setting forth a summary of complaints, investigatory findings, and recommendations concerning the operations of the Department's programs. This is no small underta.klng considering that HEW is the largest department of the Federal Government, a hydra-headed, sprawling bureaucracy staffed by over 129,000 employees who are responsible for some 300 programs involving a budget of $116.7 btllions (estimated budgetary authority for 1977is over ~145 bUllons).

Mr. Chairman, the Office of an Inspector General in HEW 1s urgently needed 1f the American people and their elected officials are to correot and to control the waste, fraud, and abuse that eXists within the myriad of HEW programs, to ferret out welfare cheaters, and to provide effective and efficient management of taxpayer dollars. The Inspector General, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate for a ten-year, nonrenewable term, removable by impeachment, would be independent of partisan political and institutional pressures to perform the necessary oversight functions that are needed to bring the massive health. education, and welfare programs under manageable control and to provide the necessary mechan.lsm to correct the waste, fraud, and abuse that exist within these programs.

Mr. Chairman, a recent UPI story from Chicago, printed in The Tlmes Herald Record of Middletown, New York, in my Congressional Dtstrict on Monday, May 24th, provides an Wustrative but pathetic example of the abuse that exists in the welfare system. The story reads:

BODIES FOUND IN WOMAN'S APARTMENT

CmCAoo.-Pollce found a 63-year-old woman living with the bodies of her mother and her son. There were also 22 llve dogs 1n the apartment on Chicago's north side.

"She sa.1d she kept the bodies because she needed the social security checks," a policeman said Friday. "It looked like the mother has been dead approximately siX weeks and the son four weeks."

Pollee said Lllllan Glines told them her mother, about 90, died of natural causes, as had her son, aged 42. They were found 1n separate bedrooms. Mrs. Glines was not charged.

Pollee said the 22 dogs, "12 adults and 10 puppies" appeared to be wen fed, but the house was filled with feces.

Unfortunately, legislators and administrators are accustomed to dealing in aggregate terms, data that can cloud the human element, the human event--in this instance, the tragic misuse of the welfare system.

The w~te. fraud, and abuse within HEW programs have been detaUed in the excellent Tenth Report of the Committee on Government Operations entitled, "Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (Prevention and Detection of Fraud and Program Abuse).·· Summarizing the study made by this distingulshed Subcommittee, the Report stated: "There 1s no central unit [Within HEW) with the overall authority, responsibility and resources necessary to insure effective action against fraud and abuse," and it further indicated that "HEW officials apparently have little or no reliable information concerning the actual losses resulting from [large-scale fraud and program abuse)."

Mr. Chairman, by way of a compa.rlson, in New York State, an Oftice of Welfare Inspector General has been established to oversee the New York State Department of Social Services. It 1s an SO-member agency of the audit and control system of the Comptroller ot the State o! New York, and it has a mod-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS est budget of $1.4 mlllion. I have been informed that this is the only state Inspector's General Office in the Nation.

This agency's job is staggering considering that one out of every seven individuals in New York City is receiving some form of welfare assistance that consumes about 60% of the State's $6 billion welfare program. The waste and abuse 1n the State's welfare system for New York City amounts to an estimated $800 mlllion. Although I do not have detailed information concerning the agency's operations, I understand that these dedicated investigators are performing an outstanding public service.

Mr. Chairman, the need for establishing the Office of Inspector General in HEW !s obvious. Accordingly. I respectfully urge favorable consideration of H.R. 5302.

Thank you.

THE RURAL HOUSING RIPOFF

HON. JIM SANTINI OF NEVADA



Mr. SANTINI. Mr. Speaker, to my dismay, I have discovered that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has grossly neglected the unique housing needs of the elderly in the small rural States.

Under section 202 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, funds are provided for direct Federal construction and permanent mortgage loans for housing projects to serve elderly and handicapped families and individuals.

Upon review of the list of those applicants approved, it is distressingly evident that small and rural States with the highest comparative need for housing assistance did not receive their fair allocation of section 202 funds. There is a crisis need for adequate housing in many of our rural areas.

It 1s a revealing and distressing fact that substandard housing 1s not confined to the inner cities. The 1970 census established that the Nation's nonmetropolitan counties, while supporting approximately one-third of the Nation's total population, contains about twothirds of occupied substandard units. Further the President's Committee on Urban Housing in 1969 concluded that nonmetropolitan residents required a higher income than metropolitan counterparts to obtain adequate housing. These facts create a serious dilemma for housing of our rural elderly who have to rely on limited and fixed incomes.

I have detailed my protests and concerns about the arbitrary HUD action in a letter to Secretary Carla A. Hills. For all of my colleagues concerned with the housing plight of our elderly and rural populations, the letter to Secretary Hills follows:

CoNGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPREsENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., May 27, 1976.

Hon. CARLA A. HILLs. Secretary of Housing ancl Urban Develop

ment, HUD Building, Wa3hington, D.C. DEAR SECRETARY HILLs: I have been advised

that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has made final selection of

16105 those nonprofit applicants who are to be awarded. fund reservations under the Section 202 program. I understand that 1,500 applicants were received by HUD, requesting the financing of 230,000 units. I am also aware that the loan fund authority was allocated on a. regional basis 1n an attempt to ensure eqUitable distribution of funds.

However, upon review of the list of those applicants approved, it is demonstrably clear that small and rural states with great need tor housing assistance did not get their fair share of Section 202 funds. This has been a constant fa.Uure of the Federal housing effort.

The 1970 Census shows (contrary to popular belief that substandard housing is prlm.a.rlly confined to the inner cities) the nation's nonmetropolitan counties, whUe supporting approXimately one-third of the nation's total population contains about twothirds of occupied substandard units. WhUe 3.5 percent of year-round houslng units in metropolitan areas had deficient plumbing facUlties, 14.1 percent of such units outside of metropolitan areas had deficient plumbing. In addition, approximately 25 percent of the substandard homes ln rural areas are owned by the elderly. Further the President's Committee on Urban Housing in 1969 concluded that nonmetropolitan residents required a. higher income than metropolitan counterparts to obtatn adequate housing. In the meantime, the cost of housing has increased by 74 percent in the last five years. Incomes are lower 1n rural areas and small towns which espec1ally holds true for the elderly who rely on lim1ted and usually fixed. incomes.

Rural areas do not only lack adequate housing facUlties, but they also lack specialized housing for the elderly designed to meet their unique needs. The Federal housing programs designed to serve small towns and sparsely populated areas have fallen short of the expressed need of senior citizens. The State of Neva..da with an elderly population of 64,50Q--7,000 of which live in poverty-has not been a. beneficiary of these programs.

The Subcommittee on Housing and Consumer Interests of the House Select Committee on Aging, of which I a.m. a member, held field hearings and has published a report entitled "Elderly Housing Overview: HUD's Inaction." The Nevada hearings and the report document the elderly housing needs of the State. For example, Nevada was only allocated $157,000 under Section 8 for the entire state. Dividing 7,000 needy older people into $157,000 yields a per person allowance of less that $23 per year which would hardly be enough to pay the utUity blll for one month. You must remember. however, that Nevada's allocation must be used for all low-income fa.m.Uies-not just the elderly.

I was appalled upon discovering that none of the Section 202 lund reservations went to the State of Nevada. A survey conducted by the University of Nevada shows that a large portion of the elderly population in the state is spending as much as 50 to 75 percent of their incomes for rent. In addition, there 1s a serious shortage of elderly housing projects in the State. Reno, With a senior population of 17,200 only has 250 units housing 298 elderly persons. Clark County has an elderly population of 33,200 and only 747 units of elderly housing. The other 14,100 senior citizens are located in the rural areas of the state and have not received any type of Federal housing assistance.

I a.m. deeply disturbed with the lack of concern shown the housing needs of the elderly in Nevada. It 1s difficult to comprehend why none of the five applicants did not meet approval.

HUD must take steps to begin giving small and rural states their fair share of Federal housing assistance funds.

16106 Although funds have been committed lfor

t his fiscal year, I am urging that Nevada, and other small and rural states, be given fair and serious consideration !or future funding under the Section 202 program.

Sincerely, JAMES D. SANTINI,

Member of Congress.

CRUELTY TO PORPOISES

HON. HELEN S. MEYNER OF NEW JERSEY


Mrs. MEYNER. Mr. Speaker, the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee has completed its consideration of H.R. 13865 and reported it to the full committee. I am sure that everyone in this Chamber is aware of the effect that this legislation would have on the May 12, 1976, ruling of a U.S. district court regarding the incidental killing of porpoises in sieve nets. It would be to nullify that decision which was based on the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, and which reiterated our concern for the survival of these magnificent animals. I insert the following editorial which appeared in the May 28, 1976, Washington Post. I urge my colleagues to read this editorial and, if the time comes when we are asked to cast our votes on this legislation, to consider the effect that our leniency toward this senseless slaughtering will have in the future as more and more species become threatened with extinction as a result of our self-serving predation.

The article follows: CRUELTY TO PORPOISES

Judge Charles R. Richey spoke plainly and firmly in his recent ruling that ordered an end to the use of tuna-fishing technique that takes a heavy toll of the tuna's favorite swimming companion: the porpoise. Because these fun-loving mammals of the sea. also swim close to the surface (they are airbreathing), they are easy to spot. And because they are so often accompanied by tuna., tuna fishermen tend to cast their nets indiscriminately whenever they see porpoises, with the result that porpoises all too often get caught up in the tuna nets and drown either from lack of oxygen or shock. The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 was supposed to put an end to this senseless killing of porpoises; enforcement was duly turned over to a fishery agency within the Department of Commerce. But in the best tradition of regulators falling unde1· the influence of the regulated, the agency was found by the court to be "in violation of both the letter and spirit of the law." After reviewing the record, Judge Richey had this to say:

"Steps which ensure the protection and conservation of our natural environment must, almost inevitably, impose temporary hardships on those commercial interests which have long benefited by exploiting that environment. The people of this country, speaking through their Congress, declared that porpoises and other marine mammals must be protected from the harmful and possibly irreversible effects of man's activities. It is the obligation and intention of this court to honor that declaration."

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS Environmental groups celebrating the

Richey decision-14 were plaintiffs-had but a short victory party. To the cheers of the tuna industry, Rep. Robert L. Leggett (DCalif.) jumped in to propose amending the law in a. way that would lift current restrictions against the industry regarding the killing of porpoises. The effect of the proposals would be to render the Richey decision mea.ningless. Mr. Leggett bases his position on the belief that the tuna industry will suffer econoinic hardship unless his bill goes through. And by way of making this sound more reasonable, he offers the prediction that, in any case, less than half as many porpoises will be killed this year than last--60,000 compared with 134,000.

Congress ought to be wary of the Leggett bill. It has the tna.rk of special interest legislation. The industry Inight be owed some sympathy if its record since 1972 suggested much zeal for compliance. But the Richey order reveals little more than fishing and killing as usual. Environmental groups, well aware that a successful court decision often means that an attack on the law will be made on another front, are arguing persuasively that econoinic hardship for tuna fishermen is unlikely because most of the U.S. tuna. catch this year is expected to be from fishing that does not involve porpoises. Even if the industry tna.de a case for the fact of economic losses-which it hasn't, to our satisfaction-Judge Richey believes s:uch hardships would be "temporary." As for the projected 60,000 porpoises to be killed this year, the l<Bw as written actually calls for "insigni.ficant levels" of killing, approaching a zero mortality rate. It would be one thing if the predicted decline in the porpoise killrate this year was predicated on the promise of a greater show of care on the part of the fishermen; that might at least offer the hope of further declines leading to a permanent solution. But the hope of a. cutback in the killing this year is apparently based largely on the prospect of a more plentiful harvest among tuna. caught in schools where porpoises are not trapped by nets, and this may be only a. temporary trend.

There is a larger reason for defeating the Leggett bill. I.t offers a loophole to the tuna industry just at the moment when the United States is trying to stop other countries from slaughtering whales. For Congress to approve the Leggett bill (it is now before the Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment Subcominittee) would be to create a double standard: What it would be saying is that it is all right for Americans to decontrol the killing of one form of harmless and threatened ocean life but it is all wrong for foreign fleets to engage in uncontrolled killing of other creatures of the sea. The point here is that these are not questions that lend themselves to compromise--if you believe, as we do, in the value of protecting the world's wild creatures from the predations of man. Cruelty to animals is only a part of it. In the end, the issue all too often is survival: When the mere existence of one or another species of wildlife is threatened, and extinction is clearly only a matter of time, the only sure means of preservation is to draw a firm line somewhere and call a halt.

MURTIS TAYLOR HONORED IN CLEVELAND

HON. LOUIS STOKES OF OHIO


Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring before my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives the out-

June 1, 1976

standing achievements of one of Cleveland's most respected and revered citizens. Murtis Howard Taylor has done a monumental job in promoting the social and economic welfare of Cleveland's many inner-city neighborhoods. As a social worker and community mentor, she has done much to meet the crucial human needs of the urban family, helping it to maintain a healthy and sound structure in the face of often overwhelming odds.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to give some historical perspective on Mrs. Taylor's achievements. She is the founder and past president of the Community Services Center of Mount Pleasant, guiding its growth from 1948 to 1971. The creation of the center, which was to become the first multiservice center in Cleveland was the outcome of a special study by the late Edward C. Lindeman, of the New York School of Social Work, who saw it as a needed potential force for closer cooperation and programing between public and private agencies.

During the early years of the center, Mr. Speaker, Ml·s. Taylor saw the need to add further service components to meet community needs. These services included a chlld day care center, a teen drop-in center, a headstart/preschool program and a vocational counseling drop-in office.

During these early formative years, Mrs. Taylor's empathy and interaction with local residents made the center an effeotive clearinghouse for community concerns.

At the present time, Mrs. Taylor is continuing to build upon her long record of service. She is currently the director of the Project Committee for Older Persons with the Federation of Community Planning.

Mr. Speaker, my recitation of Mrs. Taylor's accomplishments is by no means finished. She has applied her skills and expertise to the following important positions: Education director of the Karamu House, director of the Kinsman Branch of the Hiram House, and director of the Alexander Hamilton Community Center.

On Saturday, June 5, friends, colleagues, coworkers, and local and State officials will attend a testimonial dinner in honor of Mrs. Taylor at the Sheraton Cleveland Hotel.

Mrs. Taylor has been honored many times before. Let me take a moment to list but a few:

1960-0ne of 10 social workers chosen by West Ge1many to study social work there.

1964-Mr. and Mrs. Taylor received Ukaya Award for outstanding contribution to the educational and cultural life in Cleveland.

1965-0ne of a team of six researchers with Dr. St. Clair Drake on "Race Relations in a Time of Rapid Social Change."

1967-Received Catholic Interracial Justice Award.

1968--Taylor family was chosen "Family of the Year" by the Cleveland Urban League.

Selected for "Who's Who of American Women."

1969-Cleveland Area Chapter Social Work Merit Award.

June 1, 1976

1971-Mt. Pleasant Community Council Award for dedicated service to the community.

1975--Certi:ficate for completing Geriatric Sensory Training for Volunteers.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Taylor is part of a proud family tradition. Together, she and her husband, the late Arthur L. Taylor. raised two fine sons, Howard and Bruce, who in turn made their parents the proud grandparents of two granddaughters and a grandson.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to call upon my colleagues to join me in honoring Murtis Howard Taylor. Like many of our pioneering black women, both in Cleveland and nationally, she has done a yeoman job in improving lives of her brothers and sisters. Murtis Howard Taylor wanted the best for her community, and being the committed woman that she is, she was not content to sit down and wait for a better day. She knows that the fight for human dignity is still an up-hill battle, especially for black people and other disadvantaged minorities.

Mr. Speaker, the road before us is still rocky. But in Cleveland, we wm continue the perilous journey as long as Murtis Howard Taylor is walking with us.

JOBS: BOON OR BOONDOGGLE

HON. AUGUSTUS F. HAWKINS OF CALIFORNIA



Mr. HAWKINS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to call the attention of the Members to an editorial published in the Christian Science Monitor entitled "Jobs: Boon or Boondoggle." The editorial calls for comprehensive discussion not only of the economic concepts, but of the social and moral goals exPressed by the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1976. The editorial, which appeared in the May 19, 1976, edition of the Monitor, follows:

Joss: BooN o:a BoONDOGGLE?

Whlle the results o! yesterday's primaries are being sorted out, the Democratic Party platform committee is meeting in Washington with an eye on the party's convention in July and subsequent election battle. The "centerpiece" of the platform, as proposed in a five-year plan by House Democrats, is tun employment combined with balanced growth. A bill specifically designed to promote this goal is the subject of Senate subcommittee hearings this week. So in many ways the lines are being drawn at the moment on a major campaign issue for the rest of the year.

No candidate would admit to being in favor of unemployment, of course, even it willing to tolerate it for the sake of avoiding lnfiation. But by conspicuously placing a priority on jobs the Democrats dramatize their contrast with a Republican admlnlstration whose head calls their full employment bill "a vast election-year boondoggle."

Mr. Ford can point to the decline in unemployment under current policies. But the rate remains too high for the Democrats and, indeed, for any country with the wealth and the work that needs to be done which the United States has.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS How to reduce it? That is where the public

has to decide whether to rely on a continuation of the conservative Ford approachwhich Ronald Reagan's would no doubt resembl~mphasizlng the improvement of business to provide jobs in due course. Or will the public cast its lot with the Democratic sense of urgency that more has to be done about Jobs now without waiting tor corporate progress to trickle down?

Indeed, the b111 now being considered calls for adult unemployment to be brought down to 3 percent as soon as possible or within tour years at the latest. The president 1s given the responslbillty of reporting to Congress any obstacles to such improvement and, 1t necessary, proposing the corrective economic measures to ensure that the timetable is achieved.

This 1s the so-called Humphrey-Hawkins b111-the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1976. It would certainly be vetoed it passed this year, and its sponsors already look hopefully ahead to the next president and next Congress.

A chief value of the b111 now 1s its crystalllza.tlon of a controversial sort of decision that Americans are going to have to deal with one way or another. The right to employment was supposed to have been legislatively established 30 years ago. Rep. Augustus Hawkins of Ca.lltornla--coauthor with Sen. Hubert Humphrey--Bays their b111 1s really not to write new policy but clarity that old policy. It makes governmental cooperation and planning a significant part of the process.

Mr. Hawkins emphasized the bill's hopes for achieving its goals through the private sector, as he spoke at a Boston seminar this week sponsored by the Boston Herald American and the First National Bank of Houston. He said he was all in favor of corporate tax incentives-it they could be shown to serve not merely profits but the goals of full employment and balanced growth. It would only be the failure of the private sector to provide the Jobs which would require the governmental programs provided for in the bill.

Critics say there is no way to meet the 3 percent goal without such programs. The question then burgeons into the hard economics of how far both unemployment and infiation can be reduced simultaneously as in the past--and to some degree now-or how far lnfiatlon Will outstrip gains it, tor example, productivity is not increased along with employment.

But Mr. Hawkins keeps coming back to the idea that this is not just economics, that it is a matter of deciding what social and moral goals the society is seeking, or deciding what the economy is really for--certainly not just to pile up riches. Economists, in this view, are not to establish the goals but to use their skills to achieve them.

This bill may turn out not to be the ideal vehicle for expressing America's goals. But full discussion of it should help illuminate them~and the kind of public and private action necessary or acceptable In their accomplishment.

B-1 BOMBER-$3 BILLION HEADACHE

HON. ROBERT W. EDGAR OF PENNSYLVANIA



Mr. EDGAR. Mr. Speaker, a syndicated article by Herbert Scoville, former Deputy Director for Research for the Central Intelligence Agency, was printed on May 22 in the Delaware County Daily Times. The article discusses the limitations of the B-1 bomber should

16107 it be the successor to our B-52 strategic bomber force. For the benefit of my colleagues who have not seen this provocative analysis of what may be the greatest public works boondoggle in ot•:- history, I insert it in the RECORD at this point:

B-1 BOMBEK-$3-Bn.LION HEADACHE

(By Herbert Scoville, Jr.) (Herbert Scoville is a former deputy di

rector for research at the CIA, a.nd as.sLsta.nt director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.)

The B1, a new intercontinental strategic bomber for which the Air Force has been fighting for more than 10 years, reaches its moment of truth in 1976.

Almost $3 bUllon has been authorized to develop the B1 after the earlier B70 program was halted by Secretary McNamara In the early 1960s.

Since the inception of the program, costs have skyrocketed and performance plunged, but it was argued that the proper time to stop it would be after development and evaluation tests were completed rather than in mid-stream. Now the decision on procurement is omcially scheduled for November 1976, but the Congress is being asked to authorize in advance about $1 billion to start production.

Secretary of Defense Ronald Rumsfeld and senior Air Force omclals are acting as if they had already made the decision without waiting until November for the completion of the evaluation tests which a recent GAO report indicates are running behind schedule.

The current omclal cost of the Bl 1s $88 million per plane 1f all the proposed 244 are procured. Thus the total program tor the aircraft alone is already estimated to exceed $20 billion, and the price continues to rise dally. FUrthermore, this does not include the costs for the armament, such as miSSiles, nor for a whole new fieet of tankers which would be required to make the force truly useful.

A recent Brookings study, Modem.izlng the Strategic Bomber Force, by Quanbeck and Wood, estimates that overall 10-yea.r (FY '76-'85) expenditures for our strategic bomber force 1t the B1 were incorporated into it would reach a total of $91.5 billlon. The B1 will be the most expensive weapons system ever built.

Why do we need the B1 and what are we getting for all these blllions? The B1 is intended to be a replacement !or the B-52 as the intercontinental bomber part of our strategic deterrent triad. Submarine-launched ballistic missiles are the primary element in our deterrent, but landbased ICBMs and intercontinental bombers provide a back-up in the event o! some un!oreseen threat to our submarines.

Both the Minuteman ICBMs and the bombers on the ground are potentially vulnerable, but together they are secure since there is no scenario by which both can be knocked out in a surprise attack.

Bombers have the advantage of being able to fly away from their bases without waiting for the final decision to launch an attack since, unlike missiles, they ca.n be recalled at any time until they reach Soviet borders. On the other hand, the bombs they deliver will be arriving hours after much of both countries will have been turned to rubble by misslle warheads. In fact, one of the uncertainties about the B1 is whether it can fly through the debris clouds that are an inevitable aftermath o:r nuclear explosions.

The Bl is planned to be the replacement tor the B52, but Secretary Rums!eld admits this year that the strategic use of B52s equipped with long-range air-to-surface missiles would be an appropriate mission .. through the 1980s and 1990s." Thus, there is no urgency in procuring a next-generation bomber.

In fact, premature procurement of the B1 could mean that both systems wlll be wear-

16108 ing out almost concurrently since the life of a new supersonic plane is Ukely to be much shorter than the extremely durable B52. We should take advantage of this breathing spell to design the best follow-on aircra-ft system that could be procured in the 19908 if at that time one still appeared necessary.

The one characteristic driving up the cost of the Bl more than any other is its supersonic fiight capability. Although originally planned to be supersonic at all altitudes, the Bl is now designed to fl.y supersonically (Mach 1.6 instead of the originally planned 2.2) only at high altitudes and subsonically (450 mph) at low altitudes.

Because of the great effectiveness of current Soviet air defenses at medium and high altitudes, our operational plans have long called for the penetration of Soviet air space only close to the ground, thus precluding supersonic speeds over the Soviet Union.

Moreover, supersonic fiight uses up so much fuel that it drastically curtails the Bl range and prevents supersonic speeds for any significant portion of a mission unless tankers are available for multiple aerial refueling.

Basically, the Bl is a subsonic bomber with a short supersonic dash capability at high altitudes. Since planes at high altitudes are vulnerable to Soviet defenses at any speed, this supersonic dash will only be practical outside the Soviet Union where it is not needed.

Thus, the expensive, high-performance characteristic of supersonic speed is largely wasted since it can almost never be used on any mission. Furthermore, if the plane is to :fly supersonically the engines cannot be designed optimally for subsonic fi.ight, so the supersonic capability degrades the plane's performance under conditions normally used in operations.

Military effectiveness has been sacrificed to the desire by the Air Force to :fly faster and to the challenge for aircraft designers of building a supersonic plane. The U.S. taxpayer must pick up the tab for the billlons of do11ars these whims cost.

T.he Bl supersonic capability, 11 it is ever used, not only costs dollars but creates serious environmental hazards. A study by the Environmental Action Foundation, "Boom and Bust, the Bl Bomber and the Environment," has calculated that when B1 bombers fiy in the stratosphere at supersonic speeds, they will release prodigious quantities of pollutants, such as oxides of nitrogen, threatening the same ozone depletion that has caused such concern with its civil cousins, the SST and aerosol dispensers.

Its supersonic boom would force it to fiy on training missions only over uninhabited areas to avoid intolerable effects in population centers. In its life span of 2~. years, billions of ga11ons will be consumed by a B1 :fleet, hardly a pleasant outlook in an era when energy will be increasingly limited.

Reference has already been made to the limited range of the B1 when fi.own supersonically at high altitudes. However, even when flown subsonically the B1 only has an operational range of about 6,100 miles, so that refueling tankers are required for most missions. A Bl could not, without refueling, :fly even subsonically with a full payload from the United States to the Soviet Union, penetrate Soviet defenses at low altitudes, and get back- to European bases.

The plane cannot loiter, awaiting a decision to attack, but must :fly directly to its assigned targets, thus reducing a key advantage of bombers over missiles. The B52 while far from having ideal endurance, has been :flown 12,500 miles without refueling.

Thus, after having spent billions we will end up with a plane which will be little if any better than our current B52 for the types of missions that will normally be :flown.

Despite extensive Soviet air defenses, our bombers are still believed able to reach tar-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS gets in the interior of the USSR as long as they stay near the ground. However, Rumsfeld predicts that we can expect the Soviet Union to develop and eventually deploy interceptors with a look-down, shoot-down capability for destroying low-fi.ying aircraft; thus all planes, even the B1s, will be vulnerable unless they are equipped wlth longrange air-to-surface missiles to saturate area defenses and avoid the need for penetrating Soviet air space.

This factor would argue strongly that any follow-on to the B52 should be optimized for a stand-off mission rather than for penetration. In the meantime the B52s should be adapted for stand-off missions by equipping them with long-range air-to-surface missiles.

Another important factor leading to the high cost of the Bl is the ability to get the planes into the air and away from the field rapidly. Because of the vulnerability of bombers on the ground to destruction by a nuclear explosion, it is important that a portion of our strategic bomber force be kept on alert so that planes can take oft' on warning of an attack and before the incoming missile warhead arrives at the airfield.

Although the increased weight of the B1 over the original design criterion has lengthened its takeoff distance, the B1 is still able to get off the ground and out of range faster than the current B52s. However, a recent detailed a.nalysis of its survivab_llity in the monograph by Qua.nbeck and Wood shows that this advantage is marginal.

If depressed trajectory ballistic missiles_ or long-range cruise missiles can be l·aunche~ from Soviet submarines, capabilities the Soviets have not yet shown any evidence of developing, then all types of planes including the B1 are vulnerable to a surprise attack: if they cannot, all types can be satisfactorily protected. ·

Furthermore, if a t·efueling tanker is needed for the B1 to complete its mission, as it is in most cases, then the vulnerability of the tanker will be controlling rather than that of the B1 lt.self.

Only airborne alert, which is not practical for a plane with the short endurance of the Bl, will provide complete protection against such a surprise attack, which is admittedly not very likely.

Even if we were prepared to pay the high cost, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the B1 is not what is needed for our security. The Brookings study, after analyzing all the factors involved, comes to the conclusion that when the B52 bombers must be replaced it would be far better to have a standoff bomber-i.e., a plane which can launch its missiles from outside the Soviet Union rather than one which ha-s to penetrate it.s air defenses.

Such a plane could have a long endurance· so that it would take off on any type of alert, thereby decreasing it.; potential vulnerability to surprise attack.

Unlike the B1, which would have to fiy directly to its targets or run out of fuel, a plane designed for stand-off delivery could loiter and stay airborne for long periods of time and only be ordered to approach Soviet borders and launch its missiles after a full evaluation of the situation had been made.

It would not waste money on supersonic and other high performance capabilities which would never be used. It would be far more effective and flexible than a force of Bls supported by tankers; in fact, the tankers themselves or some similar cargo aircraft could actually be used to carry the longrange missiles, thus avoiding the need for any true bomber aircraft.

One of the strongest pressures for proceeding with such weapons programs as the Bl is the jobs that the program will produce in this time of high unemployment.

However, the thesis that we must continue military expenditures to keep people em-

June 1, 1976 ployed is a sad delusion fostered by the military-industrial complex.

Economic studies ~ave again and again shown that dollars spent on defense employ fewer people than dollars on other types of federal spending programs. For example, using the analytical procedures developed by Roger Bedek, economist and manpower expert, in his book, Long Range Forecasting of Manpower Requirements: Theory and Application, it can be shown that $1 billion for B1 procurement will provide about 59,000 jobs; a similar sum for miscellaneous transport construction will employ 84,000 persons; and for public housing 85,000.

Furthermore, a major problem with weapons production jobs is that they create a demand for consumer goods without providing an offsetting supply, thus fueling in:flatlon.

The a~inistration, Congress and labor have got to realize that the shortsighted policy of allocating 70 per cent of the federal controllable funds, year after year, to national defense is a major contributory cause of our current financial difficulties.

Studies show that 44 of our states have paid out more in taxes to support the Bl than they have received back in contracts for the program. For example, it has cost the state of New York, which can m afford it, $198 milUon while returning $88 million.

Finally, this is not an area where we need. to be stampeded into unnecessary weapons pr.ocurement in order to maintain equiva-lence with the Russians. The American in• tercontinental bomber force is superior in every way to the Russian one and will remain so indefinitely.

The U.S.S.R. has only about 150 old bombers far inferior to our 500 B52s and FB111s. The new backfire, which is just beginning to be deployed, is not designed to be an Intercontinental bomber. Although supersonic, It can't reach the United States even on a oneway mission if it rues at such speeds.

Unrefueled, it can only fi.y subsonically at high altitudes to reach the United States on one-way missions; if refueled, a capablllty which the Soviets have largely ignored, lt could reach the United States and return only if staged from Arctic bases and fi.own subsonically at high altitudes.

The debate on the B1 procurement, which began in 0ongress last week, will be the successor to the ABM and the Trident, both of which passed only by close votes in the Senate.

Mter expenditure of more than $7 btllion, ABM deployment has been phased out because it was possible to get the Russians to forego missile defense In the Moscow ABM Treaty of 1972 and because it became almost universally recognized that the Safeguard IBM was ineffective.

The Trident program goes on with the cost rising to more than $18 billion for 10 sub· marines and the administration planning now to buy more than 10.

If the decision is made to go ahead with the Bl this year, then it may never be possible again to stop this program and avoid this colossal drain on the taxpayer's pockets. It will always be argued that we have sunk so much into the program that we cannot afford not to go ahead. It will also be said that buying a smaller number of planes will not significantly reduce the over-all expense.

Although the administration claims it will not make its own decision until November, it is asking Congress to endorse an advance check now. Officials undoubtedly estimate It will be more difficult to stop the program in the midst of the election campaign that it would be a year later.

The lobbyists, pro and con the Bl are out in full force. Those that have fought rising defense budgets and are satisfied with nuclea.r sufficiency believe that unless the

June 1, 1976 B1 is halted, there will be no stopping mammoth additional increased expenditures for the military in future years.

On the day before the House vote (the vote went against deferring funding for B1 production), the Air Force by happy coin· cidence fiew the B1 at its fastest supersonic speed to date, and the wide press coverage conveniently ignored the fact that these supersonic speeds will never be usable in any combat mission.

Congressmen, in making the multi-billiondollar decision, must look beyond all the smoky rhetoric that the Russians are outspending us and that the United States is becoming a second-rate power, and remembering that:

(1) The strategic bomber is only a backup in the event of completely unforeseen vulnerabilities developing in our submarinelaunched ballistic missile force.

(2) Its costly supersonic capability will almost never be used in any operational mission.

(3) It will be a major contributor to atmospheric pollution and an avid guzzler of in· creasingly scarce fuel.

(4) The Russian strategic bomber force 1s far inferior to our present B52s so the B1 fs not needed to maintain equivalence with the Soviet Union.

( 5) There is no urgency in procuring a new bomber since the B52s will continue to operate satisfactorily in the 1990s.

(6) The expenditures for the B1 system, which during its lifetime could reach $100 billion, will produce both a net decrease in employment and an infiationary stimulus.

(7) A stand-off aircraft equipped wtth long-range missiles 1s a more militarily effective system than the B1 if and when a follow-on to the B52 1s found necessary.

The B1 is a costly, wrong answer at the wrong time to our real security needs.

SOCIETY OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE

HON. ALAN STEELMAN OF TEXAS



Mr. STEELMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues the existence of the Society of Nuclear Medicine, an organization founded in 1954, presently composed of 8,000 nuclear medicine specialists. The Society of Nuclear Medicine <SNM> , the largest all-encompassing umbrella-like organization dedicated to the field of nuclear medicine in the United States, is comprised of physicians, physicists, chemists, radiopharmacists, nuclear medicine technologists, and others with career interests in the diagnostic and therapeutic use of radiopharmaceuticals.

The discipline of nuclear medicine has become a significant component of American health care. The major contributions of nuclear medicine relate to the development of tracer methods for the study of disease and the development of diagnostic procedures which influence the care of patients afilicted with various diseases ranging from pulmonary embolism and heart attacks to cancer and bone disease. The widespread application of nuclear medicine can be appreciated by the fact that one of every four hospital admissions result in a nuclear medicine procedure, and there were some 12 million procedures performed in 1975 in the United States. The field has grown


to where it has a significant influence on a major segment of our total population.

The 23d annual meeting of the Society of Nuclear Medicine will run from June 8-June 11, 1976 at the Dallas Convention Center in Dallas, Tex., with an anticipated attendance of over 6,000 people. This meeting will include 4 days of indepth scientific and clinical presentations and teaching sessions where the latest concepts in nuclear medicine are presented and discussed for the purpose of permitting postgraduate continuing education to our membership. The annual meeting of the Society of Nuclear Medicine has grown to become the sixth largest medical conclave in the United States.

The Technologist Section of the Society of Nuclear Medicine was formed in 1970 to meet the needs of the nuclear medicine technologist. It is a scientific organization formed within, but operating autonomously from, the Society of Nuclear Medicine for the ultimate benefit of patient care. The ongoing objectives of the organization are to enhance the professional development of nuclear medicine technology, to stimulate continuing education activities, and to develop an international forum for the exchange of ideas and information. Through this association, nuclear medicine technologists have a mechanism for handling issues that concern them directly.

The Society of Nuclear Medicine contains within its parameters the Education and Research Foundation incorporated in 1969 by the SNM as a nonprofit organization with the mission of increasing knowledge, enchancing standards, furthering progress, encouraging research, and improving practice in the :field of nuclear medicine.

The Education and Research Foundation presently operates three monetary support programs: The medical student fellowship program, enabling eight medical students to spend elective quarters in nuclear medicine laboratories working with experts in the :field; seed money research grants, awarded to eight investigators to support basic and applied investigation in nuclear medicine; and support for needy groups sponsoring educational meetings deemed crucial to progress in nuclear medicine has been undertaken.

The SNM is a sponsor of the currently operating American Board of Nuclear Medicine, established in 1971. The American Board of Iriternal Medicine is a conjoint board of the American Board of Internal Medicine, the American Board of Pathology, and the-American Board of Radiology. The American Board of Nuclear Medicine was organized to set educational standards and to evaluate the competence of individuals in nuclear medicine. It has responsibility for establishing requirements for certification, for conducting examinations leading to certification in nuclear medicine, and for issuing certificates to those who fulfill its requirements. Certification in nuclear medicine by the American Board of Nuclear :rvfedicine certifies that the diplomate is qualified to practice as a specialist in all aspects of clinical and laboratory nuclear medicine.

16109 At the close of 1975, the SNM was in

strumental in establishing the AMA section on nuclear medicine. A permanent section on nuclear medicine within the American Medical Association was approved by the AMA's House of Delegates at its Honolulu meeting on November 30, 1975. The establishment of the section was long sought by the SNM, which will have a vital role in its organization. Section status for nuclear medicine guarantees the presentation of nuclear medicine scientific programs at the AMA annual conventions and entitles the nuclear medicine community to have its own delegate within the AMA's House of Delegates. The SNM has appointed five members to the six-member section council. The sixth at-large member of the council will be selected by those registering in the section on nuclear medicine during the AMA annual convention in June 1976. The first organizational meeting of the council was recently held on AprilS, 1975 in Chicago, Til.

FROM FLANDERS FIELDS

RON. WILLIAM S. COHEN OF MAINE



Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, this past Memorial Day weekend, all Americans paused to give tribute to the many thousands of patriotic men and women who have given their lives during our country's two centuries of independence to protect the rights and freedom of their countrymen.

Our memories of the sacrifice of these lives should inspire us all to take steps to insure international peace-to prevent any unnecessary additional loss of American lives.

Every war brings with it great loss, both for the victor and the vanquished. I would like to share with my colleagues the moving story of one Maine man and how the First World War affected his life. The story, "From Flanders Field," is by Kay Washburn and :first appeared in the Orrington Gazette, a :fine local newspaper published in Orrington, Maine, under the leadership of Mrs. Joan Howard.

The story is appropriate reading for this Memorial Day season, and I commend it to the attention of my colleagues:

FRoM FLANDERS FIELDS

Occupying an honored place on the livingroom wall of Rena DeGrasse's neat little house on the Snow's Corner road is a small, glass-fronted shadow-box. Inside is a brown, flattened-out, incredibly brittle fiower from which time and the elements have erased almost all clues as to its species, were it not for the tiny hairs all along the greenish stem. These tiny cillia identify the fiower as a poppy, and what accounts for the elaborate precautions taken to preserve it is the fact that it was picked in Flanders Field during World War I by Rena's husband, the late Fred DeGrasse, while he was serving in the AEF.

The bright crimson poppies that grow wild in the meadows of Europe have become the symbol of the first World War, that holocaust that was supposed to make the world safe

16110 for democracy. Fred DeG1·a.sse came home from that war, bringing a small black diary, with the :fragile poppy carefully pressed between its pages. Over the years the family kept it safe, but could do nothing to halt th~ 'a.ging process that made it increasingly dry and brittle. When, in 1965, Fred passed away, Rena, by whom the poppy was now all the more treasured, appealed for help in preserving it. A good friend, Bill Gagne (Gonyer) came to the rescue. He lifted it carefully, page and all, from the little black book and pressed it under wax paper to keep it from shattering-thus, sandwiched between two sheets of paper, the upper one transparent, the poppy, now 58 years old, was ensconced in a glass-front shadowbox where, it is presumed, it will last forever.

Born in Shipplgen, New Brunswick in 1894, Fred DeGrasse was thus a Canadian citizen when the war broke out, and sub-3ect to the Canadian draft. But he had a Wife and 8-months old daughter (Virginia), and he knew if he went back to Canada they would be left without support. If he enlisted in the American Army, his dependents would receive an allotment. The only hitch was that, at just that time, America wasn't drafting married men, unless their wives signed releases absolving the government from paying allotments. Finally Rena signed, knowing full well that it meant signing away her allotment, but it was Hobson's choice. However, the recru1t-1ng officer must have been a most understanding man-somehow, the release got "lost", and she got the allotment anyway.

That was in 1916. Fred didn't get shipped overseas until September, 1918. We follow his progt'ess across Europe by notes in his diary, a diary which, incidentally, was against regulations. Possibly because of that, he wrote in such a tiny script that one almost needs a ma.gn1fy1ng glass to read it. on just 7 pages, Fred miniaturized his entire stay in Europe. In the back are autographs of his buddies; John MorrJs, Sam McCrum and Harry McHenry of Portland; Arno Jewett of Amherst; Wyman Boynton of Augusta, Charley Haynes of Ellsworth and Ed Shea and Lewis White of Bangor are among the names with Maine addresses. The back page is covered with numbers, which seem to be keeping score for some kind of game, and beside that a list of names with amounts of money, viz: Sargeant Boynton, 20 marks, Harry Snow, 20 marks, Houk, 28 marks, Parkhurst, 8 marks, Karmazio, 68 francs. One assumes that Fred was either a darn good poker player or a lousy one, depending on whether the money was owed to or by him.

But to get back to the front of the book. The European odyssey starts thus: "Arrived at St. Nazaire Sept. 1r, 1918 and marched to Camp 1, Base Section. Left St. Ncza.ire to troop train 3 days. March to Arc-en-Barrons twelve kilos ("which is 8 miles") and went into billets. Left Arc-enBarrons, marched to Letracy, boarded train at 7:30, left at 10 p.m. (Note: ah, the Army hasn't changed a bit--hurry up and walt!) Arrived at Thierry and marched a Kilo, pitched pup tents in the rain. Left next morning, marched 10 Kilos to next ville, pitched pup tents ... " it goes on and on, picturing in a few words the whole weary, m.iserabl& routine of the doughboy in France.

"Marched 9 Kilos and camped in dugouts on hlll 2 Kilos from Dunbazel. Moved to J.\.Iontfou-con where we were shelled very h-eavy all night for a week, but got used to it after a while. Kaiser abdicated Nov. 10, 1918. Armistice signed Nov. 11, 1918." If there was any elation in the ranks of

slogging footsoldiers, the diary gives no indication of it; "left Dunbasel Nov. 17, and marched to Mont Fercau 12 Kilos-left Mont Fercau and marched to Dun-sur-Meuse 10 miles, and at 1 p.m. left Dun and marched to Janitz 12 miles. Left Janitz Nov. 20 at

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 7 a.m. and arrived at Colmy 2:30 p.m., 11 miles. Left Colmy Nov. 21 and marched 6 miles to Tillencourt." On and on they plodded across the rain-soaked countryside--12 miles to Petange, 12 miles to the Luxemburg border. Mont Fercau was "where the last battle of the Argonne Woods was fought and where the Kaiser and the Crown Prince watched the battle of Verdun. "Dun" was an "awfully nice little town." Colmy was a little Village where 75 French civilians were killed by the Germans as they went through to the front; "we stayed there overnight and slept in a feather bed."

They crossed into Luxemburg, passing through Longwy, where there were 5,000 Russian prisoners of war; "it was the funniest little town I ever saw. On that same day I helped to bury an American soldier 1n one of their graveyards." Their first stop 1n Luxemburg was Petange "where we stopped seven days and had a good rest. Got good and full on German beer." The city of Luxemburg made quite an impression on the young American. "This wonderful place which we all read about. It is some place 1 I am awful glad I saw it--wonderful scenery."

Finally, they were 1n Germany, and on Dec. 9th they were "sitting by the Mozel River watching the fl.sh Jump."

Surprisingly, the parts of the diary that cover their sojourn ln Germany seem more happy than those which described France. No doubt the November rains had something to do with lt.

"Coblenz, Germany-went into the oldest church in Germany, and saw the knife with which Christ ate his last supper and the bo~s of lots of saints which were k1lled by the Romans, in those days, which were put in alcohol (too bad to waste alcohol like that)."

"'These saints were killed 1800 years ago. The lady of the house where we stopped gave us cider 3 times a day and cigars which were 5 years old, made by the man's wife who was k111ed by an air raid from the Americans, and it seems awfully funny that they should treat us so well. At every meal the old lady has everything for us-fried potatoes with onions, which you know I Uke, Rena." This poor old lady had lost everything 1n the war. Hungry German soldiers passing through had kWed her two cows and stripped the farm of everything edible. Fred and a buddy who were billeted with her brought her food from the company kitchen. Boyd LeClair, for many years a South Brewer Police officer, was the Company cook, and he saw to it that bread, butter, cakes, all kinds of food were sent up to her everyday. She often wept with gratitude as without these things she would have starved.

"On Dec. 9 I was drinking a glass of cider with Oscar Dube from Lewiston, Maine, and Cherlle Hanes and William Flannigan from Ellsworth. We all slept on the floor in the front room on hay and a nice coal :fire and it felt awfully nice after sleeping on the ground."

Although the Armistice had been signed, the war appru·ently wasn't over-they had stopped traveling at last, for a few weeksChristmas was "a great time--big Xmas tree all decorated and had chocolate and cigars and cigarettes all we wanted, and everyone in town was drunk with Moselle wine. We have been here 5 weeks. We were sent to do a job on a hospital, and about 3 in the morning the German whiz bangs began to come over. I don't know how we were hit, but the kitchen was all blown to hell, and everyone in it, which was 5 soldiers. We had to move all the soldiers out for safety. One night about 7 in Mount Zircon I was going up to C Co. and got up within a mile of the front and you could hear the shells whlstle overhead. The M.P. said to me you can't go any farther. I told him I had a message to bring and had to, so he let me go, but I never forgot it. I was right under an air battle that was going on and a German fiyer was brought down,

June 1, 1976 with half his head gone. It's awfully dangerous, because 1n a air battle they always :fire toward the ground."

He describes how the Argonne woods looked after the final battle there. "There isn't an inch o! ground that isn't torn up and trees cut down fiat. We used to say Meuse is the place where you don't have to cut your trees. Our line and the Hindenburg line run through this place and lt is something awful. A lot of people wouldn't believe this, but it is right there to see.'' Fred and a buddy were taking a message through during the barrage; it was so intense they hid under some logs until the flring died down.

The last two pages of the diary tell of sightseeing trips up the Rhine and other places in Germany, so we assume that the fighting had finally stopped, and the final entry notes: "On May 25, 1919,left Winnigen for Trea, stayed at Trea 2 days and on the 27th had an inspection and at 9 o'clock at night left for France.''

At last he waa on hfs way home. The poppies were in bloom, masses o! them, in the fields as they passed through, and at waereghem, Belgium, where the great American Cemetery had been establlshed, they looked like drops of blood among the white crosses.

"In Flanders Field the poppies grow Between the crosses, row on row, That mark our place; and in the sky The larks, still bravely singing, fly, Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the dead. Short days ago We Uved, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, Loved and were loved; and now we Ue

In Flanders• fields.

To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though poppies grow

in Flanders' fields."

We senior citizens were b1·ought up on that poem. Most of us can recite it from memory; not only is it heartbreaking sentimental, but 1t teaches a lesson; although, after all these years, and all these wars, we wonder if the lesson it teaches is the same one the author intended. Those ringing lines, "if ye break faith-" what did he mean? That we should go on fighting and kUling, determined that there can be only one victor and one loser? Or, did he, perhaps, mean that we must not break faith, the faith he had in our ultimate intelUgence to solve disputes without the cruelty and suffering of war? Whatever the author had in mind we will never know--John McCrae, Canadian soldier and poet, was killed at the front in 1918.

MIDEAST TRAGEDY: JORDAN TURNS TO MOSCOW

HON. DAVID R. OBEY OF WISCONSIN



Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD at this time a distressing column by Rowland Evans and Robert Novak concerning the serious consequences of congressional action imposing stringent restrictions on the sale of defensive Hawk missiles to Jordan. 'Tile column, which appeared in the Washington Post on May 31, 1976, raises the serious possibility of Soviet involvement in Jordan or of King Hussein's being forced to tum to t·adical Arab elements for support. Should either of these possibilities become reality it would be a major setback for the forces

June 1, 1976

of moderation in the Middle East and for the cause of peace and Israeli security.

The column follows: MIDEAST TRAGEDY: JORDAN TuRNS TO MOSCOW

{By Rowland Evans and Robert Novak) The tragic turn toward Moscow by Jor

dan's King Hussein, one of this country's stanchest friends in the Mideast until his humiliation by the U.S. Congress over the Hawk missile deal, threatens to harden still further Israel's refusal to give up the West Bank of the Jordan River.

If Hussein decides to buy Soviet antiaircraft missiles during his June visit to Moscow (his first in almost 10 years), the Israeli reaction will be both predictable and hard to refute: The insinuation of Soviet power on the East Bank of the Jordan makes continued Israeli occupation of the Arab West Bank imperative.

The West Bank could then become a counterpart of the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights of Syria: Arab territory Israel says will never be returned. That would destroy the key element of every U.S. peace plan ever devised to settle the bloody Arab-Israeli struggle: the return of the West Bank to Jordan--or to the Palestinians--under some form of international guarantee.

Even worse, King Hussein may feel compelled to turn to radical, oil-rich Libya for help in financing the purchase of anti-aircraft missiles from Moscow, now that the price of the U.S. Hawks has spiraled to $800 million.

Hussein originally wanted to buy 14 American Hawk batteries with about $350 m1llion supplied by Saudi Arabia, like Jordan a traditional friend of the United States. Saudi Arabia, however, will not pay $800 mllUon and is not eager to help Jordan buy much cheaper equipment from Moscow. Soviet weapons, possibly accompanied by Soviet advisers and technicians, in neighboring Jordan would be anathema to Communist-hating Saudi Arabia.

Hence, with the U.S. Hawks (including spare parts, training, computerized radar tracking and an inflation factor) now priced far beyond Jordan's and Saudi Arabia's capacity, Hussein is known to be considering help from Libya, the Arab world's well-heeled radical rogue.

Libya ended financial help to impoverished Jordan in 1970, when Hussein's troops swept Libyan-backed Palestinians out of Jordan in a shooting war. Until then, Hussein had been receiving about $80 milllon a year from Libya following Jordan's defeat by Israel in the six Day War of 1967.

Now, with Hussein turning toward Moscow for help in protecting his totally exposed country from possible Israeli air attack in so:ne future war, Libya is showing renewed interest in helping. Libya might agree to make up the full $180 million in unpaid subsidies to Jordan. With financing unavailable in Saudi Arabia for any Soviet arms deal, Hussein might use that $180 million to buy Soviet surface-to-air (SAM) fuissiles.

The irony of Jordan turning to Moscow and Libya instead of Washington and Saudi Arabia for help in its most essential aspect of self-defense is supreme. It would play directly into the hands of Israeli Hawks (probably considerably less than a majority there) by leapfrogging Soviet weapons to the long Jordan-Israel border, submerging the fundamental issue of returning the West Bank and inviting some Israeli response.

Equally ironic is the fact that Moscow is not likely to impose non-mobility limitations on its missiles for Amman, as Congress did. Nor would Moscow's sale of SA.Ms to Jordan, probably at cut-rate prices, likely be the end of a new Soviet-Jordanian connection.

Yet, had the pro-Israel bloc in the U.S. Congress not savaged Hussein and his halfoccupied country when the Hawk deal was fil•st pressed by the Ford administration, the

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS turn to Moscow would never have been contemplated by Hussein.

Congress required the Hawks to be paid for in cash, with no U.S. aid of any kind, and that the missiles be placed in fixed, immovable positions. For weeks such pro-Israel stalwarts as Republican Sen. Clifford P. Case of New Jersey tried to reduce the requested 14 batteries to less than half that number.

It was this series of humiliations to the king, who took so many grave political risks so often ~or his American friends, that persuaded him to seek weapons in Moscow when the cost of the U.S. deal skyrocketed beyond his reach.

No Soviet deal has yet been pinned down, but government officials here fear it probably will be on the king's June visit to the Kremlin or soon thereafter. If so, the dangerously soft-headed, pro-Israel politics so long in vogue on Capitol Hill will claim its greatest triumph: an in\·itation for a Soviet presence in hitherto forbidden territory and a devastating setback for all forces of moderation seeking a fair political settlement along the Jordan.

H.R. 9719-PAYMENTS-IN-LIEU-OFTAXES BILL

HON. MAX S. BAUCUS OF MONTANA



Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to bring to my colleague's attention certain materials on the payments-in-lieu-of-taxes bill <H.R. 9719) as compiled by the National Association of Counties--NACO. This bill should be considered by the House later this month. It would compensate State or local governments for the costs they bear as a result of federally owned land located in their borders. The bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to compensate those localities based upon the amount of certain public lands within their borders. The compensation amount would be limited by a per capita population factor.

The "question and answer" section in the NACO materials provides an excellent summary of this legislation. Rural communities stand to benefit greatly from passage of this bill.

Publicly owned lands inva1iably contribute to the operating costs for local governments. Accordingly, Federal ownership of land should carry with it a responsibility to share the burden of taxes and to make sure the debt is not borne solely by the local governments in whose area the lands are located. Montana has over 607,000 acres of Federal domain. Under this bill my State would receive close to $9 million in payments in lieu of taxes.

I urge my colleagues to consider the implication of this program for their districts and to support this measure when it comes to the :floor.

For the benefit of my constituents I am also providing today a breakdown of how much money each Montana county would receive under this law. How compensation is determined under alternatives A and B is described in the question and answer section. The amount given in the ·chart for each county is the greater sum that it could receive:

16111 Part !-Questions and Answers--H.R. 9719:

Payment-in-Lieu of Taxes Blll (A) Why is this legislation needed? The tax immunity of the public lands

places an unfair burden on the taxpayers within the counties where the lands are located. The Public Land Law Review Commission best summed up the need for this legislation when it recommended:

"If the national interest dictates that lands should be retained in Federal ownership, it is the obligation of the United States to make certain that the burden of that policy is spread among all the people of the United States and is not borne only by those states and governments in whose area the lands are located.

"Therefore, the Federal Government should make payments to compensate state and local governments for the tax immunity o! Federal lands."

More than 1,000 counties in 48 states are impacted by large holdings of tax exempt federally owned lands.

tB) Why don't current formula payments from the public lands accomplish tax equity?

First, current payments for timber, grazing, and mineral leases, etc., provide an inadequate share for local government. Timber payments are based on "net" proceeds after the costs for federal roads, overhead, etc. are deducted. Mineral payments for the most part are retained at the state level.

Second, current payments are based entirely on the amount of "production" so that many public land counties receive virtually no payments.

Third, current payments are restricted to be used for schools or roads only.

(c) Don't "economic benefits" from these lands provide compensation to local governments?

No. Intangible "benefits" to a local economy from tourist related activities adjacent to the natural resource lands do not accrue to the local governments. Income and sales taxes usually are state sources of funds. County governments must provide the law enforcement, road maintenance, hospital, social services, etc., due to the activity on these lands. The studies by the Public Land Law Review Commission demonstrated this effect.

(d) What is the estimated cost of this legi'>lation?

This additional costs for future years are estimated at $120 million annually. This figure is compared to payment levels experienced in FY '75, FY '76 and projected for FY '77.

These costs estimates are considered to be reasonable since more than $750 million per year in federal revenues are gene:·ated by leases on the natural resource lands. The cost estimate is considered to be far less than full property tax equivalency that would be generated 1f the lands were taxed as privately owned lands.

(e) What lands are included as "Entitle-ment" lands?

The entitlemend lands included are: 1. National Forests (including grasslands) 2. BLMLands 3. National Parks 4. Wilderness Areas 5. Corps of Engineers projects 6. Bureau of Reclamation Lands These are categorized as federal "natural

resourcE'" lands that either produce or have the potential to produce timber, grazing or mineral lease revenues.

(f) Why aren't military, post office, and other developed lands included?

Mllitary lands involve "impact aid" legislation. The developed lands are not considered "natural resource" lands that produce leasing revenues.

(g) How does the proposed payment formula work?

General Purpose local governments with entitlement lands within their boundaries

16112 would receive the greater amount. as deter• mined by the Secretary of Interior, of:

Alternative A-75¢ per acre of entitlement lands reduced by any direct current pay• ments; or

Alternative B-10¢ per acre of entitlement lands in addition to any direct current pay• ments.

Payments under either alternative would be limited to a population factor based on the following scale:

Population: Per capita limit 5,000 or less ________________________ $50

10,000 ------------------------------ 35 15,000 ------------------------------ 30 30,000 ------------------------------ 25 50,000 or more______________________ 20

No county would receive credit for more than 50,000 population.

Why is an acreage formula proposed instead of property tax assessment? Legisla~on proposed in the past to estab

lish payments based on a property tax assessment has been criticized as being too costly and too complex to administer.

Why 75¢ for the acreage payment? 75¢ is the threshold amount that will help

the average public land county. Payments averaged 68¢ per acre in FY '75 and are projected at about the same level for FY '77.

Why 10¢ tor Alternative B? Current payments are restricted to be used

for schools or roads yet the tax immunity a.f· fects all local government services. This amount w1ll help those counties now receiving more than 75¢ more closer to tax equity. Studies have shown that current payments in no case provide as much funds for state and local governments that would be achieved if the lands were taxed as though they were in private ownership.

Why establish a population limit? The per capita limitation-prevents any

county with a low population and large acreage from receiving a "windfall" payment that would exceed property tax equivalency.

WhY is there a special payment tor acquired parks and wilderness?

The special payment of 1% of fair market value (for five years only) recognizes the sudden impact on the local tax base when the federal government acquires parks and wilderness and thereby takes the lands off the tax rolls. No assessment procedure 1s necessary since the fair market value 1s determined during acquisition.

Why do the payments go to "general purpose .. local government?

Current payments go for schools and roads only. The tax burden problem is particularly acute for general local government functions.

The payments-in-lieu of taxes proposal 1s based on a concept of minimum payments to relleve the tax burden at the "general purpose" local government level. This would include counties, cities and townships, depending upon the location of the entitlement lands.

PT. 2.-PAYMENTS TO COUNTIES UNDER H.R. 9719 •

MONTANA County:

Alternative A**

Alternative s••

Beaverhead.............. 328,000 --------------

11~9;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=~~!~~~~~ ========~i~iii g:~~~;:::::::::::::==== ~~~: ~~ ============== Chouteau________________ 85,730 ---------- ----

g~~1:k:==::::::=:::: ______ ~~~~~~~-:::::::::::::: Dawson__________ ____________ __________ 6, 954

~;~~~n~0-~~~~=============---- --~~~~~---------i2;19i Fergus __ ._-------------- 271, 945 -------------Flathead_________________ 887,250 -------------Gallatin___ _______________ 481,407 -------------

gfa~:~~-.-:::::::::::::: :: 2~~; ~ :::::::::::::

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS· PT. 2.-PAYMENTS TO COUNTIES UNDER H.R. 9719 •-con.

Alternative A•• Alter·

native B ..

g~!~ft~~~~!:::::::::: ~~~:~~A ::::::::::::= Hill ••••• ·--------------- 9, 651 ------------Jefferson •••• ------------ 250, 000 ------------Judith Basin •• ·---------- 133, 350 -------------Lak~------------------- 76, 150 -------------Lewis and Clark_ ________ 732, 065 --------------

~~~f::l~~=~;;~~~------ili:m-~~~~~~~~ffi MusselshelL.___________ 186, 700 -------------

lf~~iiiiiiii::::::ll~~~;;~'r[~ i~~~~~:~~~==============~~~~~~~~~~~~~~========~~=~~ ~~r~~ar:r~=========::::: ~~: ~ ::::::::::::: Sweet Grass________ ____ __ 149,000 -------------

~t~~f~;;~~~~~~:-::::~~;!: ~~~~~~~ TotaL______ ______ ____ 8, 735, 864

• Compiled by the Department of the Interior. •• See question "G" for explanation.

189,844

A TALL ORDER FOR LEADERSHIP

HON. OLIN E. TEAGUE OF TEXAS

IN THE HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, June 1, 1976

Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Speaker, the following article by Howard and Harriet Kurtz, founders of War Control Planners, Inc., appeared in a recent issue of the Washington Star.

While I do not necessarily subscribe to the views expressed, I believe the article focuses on some very important issues and questions which deserve public attention:

A TALL ORDER FOR LEADERSHIP

The American people find no sense of security in the mindless debate between two Republican presidential candidates as to whether the United States 1s Number One or Number Two in the race producing the power to destroy world civilization. They find no sense of security in Democratic candidates who never mention the subject. hoping the new reality will go away. They find no sense of security in the "doves" who would weaken the U.S. unilaterally in the face of expanding world powers hostile to America, or from the "hawks" who would endlessly escalate the power to exterminate the human race.

The Washington press corps has kept the American people and the Congress in almost complete ignorance as the White House hides our deteriorating predicament in runaway world crisis behind walls of top-secrecy.

There are about 150 sovereign nations on this planet. The people of these nations (humanity as a whole) have not attached their support to either the Kremlin or the White House side of the self-generating race producing the weapons to destroy every man, woman and child now alive. No great political genius is required to grasp this.

June 1, 1976 More than a billion human beings around

the world face a future of starvation, disease, pestilence, pollution, violence, agony and ugly .death as the Planet Earth cannot both sustain its growing population and, in addition, burn up and waste the cream of its energies and resources and human creativity in the production of total death and de· struction and devastation.

As the human situation deteriorates, more and more national governments wlll continue to collapse and be taken over by more primitive political leaders. In the next five years. perhaps 30 of these leaders will have their fingers on the triggers of nuclear weapons capable of igniting the final holocaust. And in these same five years, nuclear weapons may come into the possession of the world's gangsters, hijackers. kidnapers, terrorists and multinationa.l political parties and corporations, each capable of holding humanity hostage with the threat to annlhllate world civilization.

These increasingly hostlle political leaders control the vast oil, mineral and other strategic energies and resources without which American civilization wm shrink toward second-class status.

Mimicking the Kremlin and the White House, hungry nations like India are taking scarce energies and resources away from their own dying people to produce nuclear weapons in the hope of maintaining their places in the pecking order of nations.

In this runaway commitment to produce the power to obliterate life from the planet, the real and invisible superpower leaders are exporting tidal waves of military weapons (including nuclear capablllties) to both sides of festering wars around the world, hastening the day of disaster.

Renewed hope for life could spread across world populations in support of a massive commitment by American creativity and power to lead the world in a new kind of "race" in which all nations would be in· vited (challenged) to make contributions toward the development of word-sized systems and management structures, more complex and effective tha.n the United Nations, within which the scarce energies and resources of the Earth can be utilized to produce food, clothing, housing, clean air and water, health, education and national security for world populations held within prudent limlts.

Throughout the agee. whatever people have been able to envision, eventually they have been able to create. We have the creative power. We lack the leadership •

HOWARD AND HARRIET KURTZ,

Editors. Washington, D.C.

SPOUSAL mA'S: A NEW FORM OF RETIREMENT INCOME

HON. STEWART B. McKINNEY OF CONNECTICUT



Mr. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker. in recent years Congress has displayed an increasing degree of concern over the fact that although Americans live longer, for a great many of them living standards decline due to inadequate retirement income. For those already facing this reality we have tried to improve the social security program and increase the various benefits and services available to the elderly. There have been more than 1,250 bills introduced in the 94th Congress that would either revise, reform. or amend the social security program.

June 1, 1976 This is not the long-range solution to

the constant financial pressure of an inflation-prone economy, however. We recognized that fact and Congress responded with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, a major effort to remove some of the total dependence on s<>cial security. In the months since ERISA became operative there have been various problems encountered during the breaking-in period that accompanies any major innovative program.

In an attempt to help my constituents in Connecticut's Fourth District understand the benefits and provisions of this act, I recently conducted a series of meetings in the district with the assistance of officials from the Department of Labor. These sessions helped to answer many questions about coverage and eligibility in vari<>us programs and gave a great many people the opportunity to clarify their personal benefits. ·

An unexpected dividend from conversations at these pension meetings was the idea for the bill I am introducing today which amends ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to allow individuals to make payments to individual retirement accounts for the benefits of their spouses.

Individual retirement accounts, or IRA, were allowed to be establlshed under ERISA for the 30 million working Americans who do not participate in group retirement plans. IRA contains bullt-in tax incentives to encourage such individuals to prepare for their retirement years and to reduce or eliminate their eventual dependence upon governmental assistance programs for a decent standard of living. Briefly explained, IRA's permit those who qualify to save up to 15 percent of earned income-not to exceed $1,500 annually-and to deduct the amount saved from gross income on Federal Income tax returns.

Further, the earnings of these personal retirement funds are not subject to current taxation as they accumulate in the account. This IRA concept is a very sound one for both the individual and the country as a whole, but for this to be a truly effective instrument of social policy, I feel that Congress should extend participation to a very large segment of our population that has been ignored until this time.

Nonworking spouses, and I am talking mostly about housewives, constitute a major segment of the population still without any tax-related opportunities and incentives to build retirement security. While a person with earned income may have an opportunity to participate in either a group retirement plan or an IRA, a nonworking spouse has neither of these alternatives available.

Let me point out a disturbing statistic: More than 2 out of every 3 poor persons over the age of 65 are women. The reasons are many and varied. Husbands die before providing meaningful retirement funds. Divorce disrupts retirement planning. Long periods of child care limit earning power and personal social security benefits. And of course, there is the historical concentration of women in low-paying and part-time jobs, further

CXXII--1016-Part 13


limiting their ability to contribute to family retirement security.

There are an estimated 47.5 million husband-wife families in the United States. Approximately 21.1 million, or 45 percent, of these wives are in the work force. Of the others~ 18.4 million have husbands who are working. Of the husbands, 39.5 million are in the work force and it is estimated that there are 2.4 million husband-wife homes in which only the wife works.

It is obvious to me that spouses in general and housewives in particular must be encouraged to provide for their old age if we are to generate greater :financial security among the Nation's elderly citizens in future years. This can be achieved through my bill by permitting one spouse to establish and contribute to an individual retirement account owned by the other spouse and utillz1ng joint return income as the basis for computing the allowable contribution.

Mr. Speaker, let me summarize the benefits of this biD. It will:

First, open the way for up to 18.4 million housewives and up to 2.4 mmton husbands to benefit from individual retirement accounts;

Second, reduce the longer range potential need for additional governmental assistance programs for the elderly; and,

Third, encourage additional accumulation of capital to meet the country,s needs for home construction, energy development, and other vital purposes.

Extending IRA to cover these Americans now can only serve to increase their feel.i.nglS of self-reliance, reinforce their self-pride and help to maintain them in a decent fashion in their future years of retirement.

EQUITY IN SOCIAL SECURITY FOR INDIVIDUALS AND FAMn..IES

HON. DONALD M. FRASER OR MINNESOTA

· IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


Mr. FRASER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to bring equity to the social security system. Since its beginning in 1935, the social security system has grown to become the most successful and the most complex Federal program in our Nation's history. Today, millions of Americans depend on social security not only as a retirement plan, but also as their disability, health, and life insurance plans.

Social security was predicated on the assumption that in almost all cases the worker would be a man supporting a wife and children. Today, however, in unprecedented numbers, women are participating in the workforce both before, during, and after marriage. Currently, 60 percent of all women working outside the home are married, 40 percent of the Nation's paid labor force at·e women, and 11 percent of all families are headed by females. Over 90 percent of all females work outside the home, for pay, during part of their adult lives. The average worklife expectancy for a typi-

16113 cal 18-year-old female in 1970 was 33.9 years. according to the February 1976 Monthly Labor Review. This 1970's female will work outside the home a major part of her adult life. Unfortunately, while the male and female labor force participation rate has changed significantly over the last 40 years, the social security system has contmued on tlle old assumptions.

Intertwined with the system's presumption that the worker is male, is the system's functional dependence on the institution of marriage and the permanence of individual marriages as the structural basis for social security. With our national divorce rate at an all time high and a general pattern of delaying marriage being observed through census reports, reliance on long-term fixed life situations does not fit either legal or social reality.

The social security system of the 1970's and the future must be flexible enough to look at marriage as an economic contract between two equal persons whose marriage may, or may not, last for a lifetime. It must have the foresight to realize that individual social security records can be bullt before, during, and after that contract and carried by each person throughout his or her working years. Social security must become portable. It must belong to the individualnot to the marriage.

In today's system, the concept of marriage as an economic partnership is applied only at the time benefits are being computed. Benefits are computed on the basis of marital status when application fs made for benefits or when marital status changes. Portability in social security is the flexibility that is necessary for the social security system to adopt. It 1s a flexibility which responds to the changed lifestyles and work patterns of both men and women.

The intent of the bill I am introducing today. the Equity in Social Security for Individuals and Fam.illes Act, assures that the maximum number of adults will bulld and maintain their own social security records throughout their working lives-records on which they and their dependents may collect benefits.

This bill allows individuals not working in covered employment to maintain their own records of coverage through spouses working in covered employment. Records would be adjusted annually, based on the Federal joint income tax's income splitting and tied to that system through the annual filing of income tax returns. Married persons have a choice of filing jointly or separately for their income tax. If they :file jointly they are splitting their income and share equally.

My bill carries this process to the social security system. A social security decision follows the income tax decision. Earnings records would be credited from the information on income tax forms. At the end of each year, individual social security earnings records would be credited after a couple tiles income tax returns. The W-2 forms currently attached to income tax forms give all the social security information necessary-income tax forms contain both the names and social seculity numbers of both spouses in a mar-

16114 riage plus income and social security contributions. To implement this reform of the system, then, requires no radical systemic change. The precedent and mechanism have been set by our income tax system.

When filing jointly, each spouse in a man-iage would receive credit for earnings and quarters of coverage. Couples filing jointly would be credited with the higher of the following:

First, 50 percent of their combined earnings in covered employment, or

Second, 75 percent of the highest salary in covered employment. Like the income tax, the social secw·ity decision would be an annual one, covering the full year.

The first alternative would apply in situations where the husband and wife earn close to the same amount. Generally, women's earnings are less than mens'. If each kept only his or her own earnings, women would almost always come out with lower benefits. When-and if-womens' earnings equal mens', the 50 percent will still be fair and equitable. Crediting each with 50 percent of the combined earnings will be similar to crediting each with 100 percent of their own earnings.

The second alternative would apply when there is only one wage earner in covered employment or one wage earner with a significantly higher salary in covered employment. Essentially, the 75 percent split is what happens today when benefits are computed for a husband and wife. Now, when a husband retires, hereceives 100 percent of his primary insurance amount. The total benefit for both husband and wife is 150 percent of his primary insurance amount. My proposal simply makes this computation annually, under the new formula, rather than making the computation when benefits are applied for at the end of one's working life. Thus, this method need not be costly to the social security system.

It is possible that, in order to maintain or create equity in the system, the earnings ceiling may have to be adjusted for married couples.

Workers today do not have static work records. One year both the husband and wife of a couple may be working in covered employment, full-time throughout the year. Another year one may be unemployed while the other is employed. They may divorce and remarry. Or, one partner in the marriage may be supporting both while one is a student. Later they may switch roles. All these changes cwTently affect benefit computations, often adversely for one of the partners in the mal.Tiage. With the portability and equity in my proposal, adverse effects of these nonstatic work records should be minimized.

Wages earned by a worker not in covered employment do not count in this system. However, the noncovered worker could maintain or build on his or her own social security earnings record through the spouse's earnings in covered employment.

This proposal also allows children to receive benefits based on both parents' social secw·ity accounts. Currently they can only benefit from one parent's record. However, since only a small number


of children lose both parents, this would cost the system very little.

This proposal results in disability coverage for both spouses. If they file jointly, both would be accumulating quarters of coverage and developing wage records so both would be eligible for disability. Again, this will benefit individual families enormously but cost the system little for housewives' disability is rare.

Special dependency requirements for husbands' and widowers' benefits are removed under this system. Currently, hus-bands and widowers are required to prove dependency on their wives before they can collect derivative benefits. Under this new system, those filing jointly would each have their own wage records and consequently not require derivative benefits.

The spouse at home, over 50 years old, who has no wage record and is surviving a deceased spouse, may receive survivors' benefits. A wage record is developed, treating these benefits as income, and the spouse continues to receive survivors' benefits until she becomes eligible for benefits on his or her own wage record.

The transition period of the bill insures that no one in the system or anticipating entrance into the system within the next 10 years, will be adversely affected financially. At the same time, we want to change the assumptions of social security immediately and let those who would benefit under the new system, r eceive that benefit.

The bill provides that the family of any person who was entitled to benefits up to 10 years before the time of enactment, or becomes entitled to benefits until 10 years after enactment will have total monthly benefits computed under both the present and new systems, receiving the higher of the two benefit computations.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will give this bill thoughtful consideration. Dw·ing its development, great interest has been shown by many individuals and organizations both with:n and outside Congress. I realize this proposal is complex and represents a significant reform of the present system. I do not pretend this plan is perfect. However, I believe patchwork reform to eliminate specific inequities has created an act that is nearly incomprehensible and that continues to operate on outdated assumptions. This proposal is not patchwork and deserves vigorous debate. I look forward in the coming weeks to being joined by my colleague<: in sponsoring this legislation.

ENERGY FOR TOMORROW: COAL, SOLAR, NUCLEAR, OR WHAT?

HON. MIKE McCORMACK OF WASHINGTON


Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, the magazine, the Futurist, deals with questions of what our future will be like and what we, as rational residents of this planet, should do to prepare for and help shape the trends of the future to our ad-

June 1, 1976

vantage rather than to our disadvantage ; that is, to be the masters of our fate rather than the victims of it and to make the future a better place in which to live.

In the October 1975, volume IX, No. 5 issue of the Futurist, the book "Beyond the Energy Crisis: A Global Perspective" by John Maddox, a former editor of Nature and science correspondent of the Manchester Guardian, is revieweQ.

This brief book review discusses Lhe energy options that are open to society today and particularly those that are open to Great Britain. His conclusions, it seems to me, are worthy of our consideration, and we would do well to consider seriously this quote from the author:

Historically, it will be a time when the benefits of industry are more widely shared between rich nations and some of those which have been poor. And 1f some stat es now rich should fail, through muddle, indecision, and cowardice, to adapt to changing circumstances, that will be no surprise. Throughout the industrial revolution of the past two centuries, dtiferent communities have been justly rewarded for such good sense as they were able to command.

The article follows: ENERGY FOR TOMORROW: COAL, SOLAR,

NUCLEAR, OR WHAT?

The rapid increase in the price of oil since 1970 will have a lasting effect on the pattern of energy consumption in the West, says a noted science journalist in his new book, Beyond the Energy Crisis: A Global Perspective.

"Put simply," says John Maddox, a former editor of the British journal Nature and science correspondent of the Manchester Guardian, "if the increase of oil prices remains unchallenged, oil consumers will be persuaded to obtain energy from other sources. If energy as a whole becomes more expensive than other kinds of raw materials, they will be persuaded to make more economical use of energy."

Maddox reviews at some length alternat ive energy sources, both conventional and unconventional. All have possible uses, but all have drawbacks, he says. Solar energy, for example, may be trapped and used in the home to heat water, etc., but apparently insurmountable economic obstacles make solar power unlikely as a major source of electricity.

"The most potent uses of solar energy in the decades ahead are likely to be found in agriculture, both in the improvement of the efficiency with which plants convert solar energy into chemicals (not just for food) and in the development of crops which might replace chemical manufacturing processes dependent on fossil fuels. Thus some of the agricultural research uow underway suggests that it may be possible to develop plants which are much more efficient a t converting atmospheric nitrogen into nitrogenous chemicals which might make it possible to reduce considerably the presen t consumption of artificial fertilizers in a gricult ure, saving energy from fossil fuel to the tune of perhaps 100 million tons of oil a year."

Of all the futuristic schemes for ext ract ing energy ultimately derived from the sun, the most hopeful, says Maddox, is the one t hat depends on the difference of temperature between the surface of the tropical oceans and water lying a thousand feet or so down.

"On paper," he says, "it should ·be possible t o use this temperature difference, con stan tly maintained by the heat from the su n in the tropics, as a source of electricity. All that is necessary is to construct a machine t hat would funct ion as a refrigerator in re-

June 1, 1976 verse, designed to float at the appropriate level in the sea." · But there 1s a catch: "The scale and intrl~ cacy of the machinery means we can as yet do no more than guess at the cost, let alone estimate the climatic consequences or the cost of transporting the energy, either as electricity or as hydrogen gas.''

Having examined other potential sources of power, Maddox comes down firmly on the side of nuclear power as the best hop& for the remaining years of the 20th century.

"Technically, nuclear power is as much one of the wonders of the modern world as the enthusiasts of the 1950s believed. Nu~ clear pQwer stations wlll, in the years ahead, provide much of the need for energy that would otherwise have had to be met by l:>m·ning oil, and they will, from the early 1980s, increasingly in:fluence the cost of energy on the international market, provided the 1ndustr1allzed nations pursue the cause energetically. By the turn of the century, nuclear power will almost inevitably deter~ mine the commercial framework within which other sources of energy are used. and that situatlon will remain for several decades."

Maddox acknowledges that the arrival of the nuclear power industry based on fission and the prospect that the industry will grow rapidly in the decades ahead have increased the chance that people will be exposed to -damaging amounts of radioactivity. He stresses, though. that all 11ving things. now and in the past, are and have been exposed to quite substantial amounts of naturally occurring nuclear radiation. The human body is exposed not only to cosmic rays but also to the radioactive materials which occur natm·ally in the ground and are lncorpora.ted into the body.

Those who hope to enjoy the benefits of nuclear power should acknowledge that the risk of serious accidents, however small, is by no means negligible. Maddox stresses.

"The situation, in other words, 1s strictly comparable with that which attends many other recent technical innovations, like modern air transport. Although travel agents do not go out of their way to emphasize that he who purchases a ticket to travel by air thereby increa.ses his chances of dying a.cci~ dentally, the popularity of travel Insurance is a proof that the travellers know the risks they run. Older industries, like coal mining, tend to concentrate their more obvious risks among those who work for them, but the calculation also takes into account the ex~ tent to which the general population is ar~ tected by air pollution. In short, and whatever may be accomplished by the reactor designers in the years ahead, the coming of nuclear power has brought with it a new kind of risk, comparable in many ways with that from other kinds of industries, but novel ln that the damage might be done by radioactivity."

Despite the danger, Maddox maintains that if it were ever possible to make an abstract calculation of the benefits and risks of nuclear power, the benefits would far outweigh the risks. In any event. Maddox belieYes that in the advanced communities of the industrialized world, as well as in developing countries, "the need to increase energy consUlDption is irresistible."

"It is unthinkable that commmlities such as the British would consider the unemployment that a sharp decrease in energy consumption would cause as more acceptable than the small risks of reactor accidents, just as it is politically unrealistic to expect developing countries to settle for slower economic growth or reduced agricultural output for the sake of keeping nuclear power at bay." lVIoreover, the rapid development of nuclear power offers the most promising route to the realignment of the cost o! energy on which the economic welfare of the next 10 years depends. The future, in a sense, is unavoidable."

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS In the long perspective of industrial his

tory, Maddox believes. the last quarter of the 20th century will be--from a technological standpoint-the time when nuclear !uels supersede fossil fuels.

"Historically, it will be a time when the benefits of industry are more widely shared between rich nations and some of those which have been poor. And if some states now rich should fall, through muddle, in~ decision, and cowardice, to adapt to changing circumstances, that will be no surprise. Throughout the industrial revolution of the past two centuries, dliferent communities have been justly rewarded for such good sense as they were able to comnumd."

SAVE OUR PORPOISE

HON. C. W. BILL YOUNG OF FLORIDA



Mr. YOUNG of .F'lorlda. Mr. Speaker. the House Merchant Marine and FJ.sheries Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment recently held hearings on H.R. 13865, a bill to amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 19'72 with respect to the taking of marine mammals incidental to the course of commercial fishing operations. Due to the expedient manner 1n which these hearings were scheduled,. I was unable to personally testify before this subcommittee. However. I did submit the following testimony, which expresses my strong objections to legislation such as H.R. 13865 which would weaken the original Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 by lessening the protection this act afforded our marine mammals.

TEsTDolONY OF HoN. C. W. Bn.t. YoUNG Mr. Chairman, I appreciate h~vlng the op

portunity to submit testimony on H.R. 13865, a biD to amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 19'12 with respect to the taking of marine mammals incidental to the course of commercial fishing operations. I would have preferred to have personally testified before your SUbcommittee, but because of the .. expedient" manner in which these hea.rlngs were scheduled, I was unable to do so.

As I understand- it, tlie legislation which this Subcommittee is considering would, in effect, nullify Judge Charles Richey's May 11th decision ordering a complete ban on the taking of porpoises by the tuna Industry tn connection with commercial fishing operations. In a suit brought by the Committee !or Humane Legislation, Judge Richey ordered the Department or Commerce to revoke all permits to the tuna fieet which permit "the incidental killing of porpoiEe unless and until ... such killing is not to the disadvantage of the porpoise and Is otherwise consistent with the Intent of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972". Judge Richey's decision is, as you know, consistent with the provisions of a bill I first introduced in 1974, and again on the opening day of the 94th Congress. which flatly prohibits the issuance of any permit to take marine mammals in conneetlon with commercial fishing operations.

In 1972, Congress enacted the Marine Mammal Protection Act to prohibit the taking or killing of martne mammals except under certain specified conditions-such as for scientific research or for aquatic display museums. However, a two-year exemption under the Act was granted to commercial fishermen to allow them to develop special fish-

16115 ing t-echniques to protect porpoises, which exemption expired on October 20, 1974. The Marine Mammal Protection Act allowed commercial fishing operations to continue after the expiration date under permits issued in accordance with regulations designed to protect marine mammals and reduce their serious injury or mortality to Insignificant levels approaching zero~

In considering the suit brought by the Committee :for Humane Legislation, the Court agreed that the primary purpose of the Marine Mammal Protection Act is to protect marine mammals, and that the Act was not intended as a "balancing Act" between the interests of the fishing industry and the anJmals. In handing down his deci· slon, Judge Richey stated:

"The language of the Act itseU • • • clearly indicates that Congress enacted the MMP A for one baste purpose: to provide marine mammals, especially porpoise, with necessary and extensive protection against man's activities."

"The MMPA does not direct the defendants to afford porpoise only that amount of protection which is consistent with the maintenance of a healthy tuna industry. The interests of the marine mammals come :first under the statutory scheme, and the interests of the industry, important as they are, must be served only after protection of the animals is assure4."

In summarizing his decision to end r as of May 31st} the taking of porpoise, Judge Richey stated:

"Since the two-year grace period expired on October 20, 1974, the only limlts the agency has placed on the general license to take marine mammals have concerned. certain gear and fishing techniques; the agency has never set a limit [as mandated by the Marine Mammal Protection Act] on th& number of porpoise which can be taken, de~ spite the fact that Incidental porpoise mor~ tallty during this period has been on the rise.

"Therefore, in light of the agency's continued failure to follow the mandate of Congress, the Court feels that the only appropriate relief at this time Is to stop completely the incidental kUling of porpoise unless and until the federal defendants [the Department of COmmerce J are able to determine, as the Act plalnly requires, that such killfng is not to the disadvantage of the porpoise and is otherwise consistent with the intent of the :MMPA."

Judge Richey's decision accomplishes what I have attempted to accomplish via the bill I first- introduced almost two years ago. I, therefore, wish to express my strong opposition to any legislation [such as H.R. 13865} which would overturn the court's declsion and the original intent of Congress in enacting the Marine Mammal Protection Actto protect our marine mammals.

THEODORE SMYTH'S BffiTHDAY PARTY FOR UNCLE SAM

HON. ROBERT J. LAGOMARSINO OF CALlFORNIA



Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Speaker, Theodore H. "Ted'' Smyth lives in Santa Barbara, Calif., and is going to have a birthday party on June 26, 1976, for Uncle Sam. Ted Smyth is a patriot in the true sense. His military record during World War II as a lieutenant commander in the U.S. Navy earned him the Distinguished Flying Cross and three air medals. He is a gentleman who, in the years since World War II. has contributed greatly to our free enterprise sys-

16116 tern, and has enjoyed success there. He is active in civic affairs. He has an intense love for his country and for its ft.ag.

To express this patriotic devotion Mr. Smyth has acquired a special, large--8 feet by 12 feet-commemorative Bicentennial American fiag, which will fiy at staff over his home every day.

Patriotism has been challenged recently as being old fashioned. Because of countrymen such as Ted Smyth it is back stronger than ever.

Because of this devotion to flag and country, its ideals and history, I ask the Members of the House to join with me in congratulating Ted Smyth and in wishing him a successful birthday party for Uncle Sam.

"A WORLD WALLED OUT"-FRUSTRATIONS OF THE PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED

HON. ROBERT W. EDGAR OF PENNSYLVANIA


Tuesday, June 1, 1976 Mr. EDGAR. Mr. Speaker, an article

recently appeared in the Washington Post which points out the singular frustrations of those who are confined in wheelchairs. Some months ago, I participated in a program similar to that described by Lynne Hoffman Keating in the article, entitled "A World Walled Out," and I feel that this experience is worthy of being shared by all of my colleagues. It is difficult to imagine the intimidation of 6-inch high curbs or ramps with too high a grade to those in wheelchairs, without having been in a wheelchair.

The Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 was an example of landmark legislation to minimize the limitations which handicapped people are faced with in living normal and productive lives. To comply with its provisions, all federally financed buildings must meet a set of standards set by the American National Standards Institute which makes the buildings accessible to the handicapped. A report by the GAO has uncovered that most buildings are not completely in compliance with this Act.

Mr. Speaker, I introduced H.R. 13174 on April 12, 1976, to help correct the deficiencies which the GAO found. It is based upon this Office's recommendation's.

First, H.R. 13174 would impose a clear statutory mandate that the responsible agencies named in the Architectural Barriers Act are to assure accessibility of public buildings to the physically handicapped. It would eliminate the current exemptions in the act and include all Government-leased buildings and facilities intended for public use, or in which a handicapped person may be employed. It would include under the act privately owned buildings leased to the Government for public housing.

The bill would require the agencies to establish a system of continuing surveys and investigations to insure compliance with the act. Finally, it would remove


the present exemption for U.S. Postal Service facilities from coverage under the Architectural Barriers Act.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues will be sensitive to the goals of this legislation. At this point, I wish to insert for the RECORD the article "A World Walled Out." I believe that it merits the attention of our colleagues:

A WoRLD WALLED OUT (By Lynne Hoffman Kea~ing)

CLAREMONT, CALIF.-We all gathered at the "people's park." The park provided every convenience a family or individual could expect: a children's playground, complete with wading pool and attendant; picnic tables and barbecue pits; a. drinking fountain.

we sipped drinks and lounged lazily selfsatisfied. Then we noticed Sally's van approach. Sally is a law student, presides over two organizations, and serves on the board of directors of Casa Colina Hospital for Rehabllitatlve Medicine.

Sally also happens to be a quadriplegic confined to a wheelchair.

Immediately we spotted three stairs at the park entrance. Four of us jumped up and raced to the drive. The curb looked six inches hlgh. Sally calmly allayed our concerns and pointed to her two portable ramps as she rolled down the ramp of her van. Others not so fortunately equipped would have had difliculty climbing the curbs and stairs. Then Sally confronted thickened grass en route to the main grounds. A lot of strength and spirit finally got our friend settled With a drink and general conversation resumed.

Had Sally needed water she could not possibly have reached the fountain, which was "42 inches high." Had Sally needed the bathroom, she could not possibly have rolled through the narrow wooden doors. We made many accommodations so our friend could enjoy the simple pleasures of a. Sunday picnic in the "people's park."

Sally neither wants nor likes accommodations, having worked long to become selfsufficient. Barriers that frustrate her efforts offend her total spirit. Mere obstacles reduce an independent dynamo to a frustrated dependent.

One week later I attended a Legislative Awareness Seminar on architectural barriers at Casa Colina Hospital. The semlna.r hoped to enlighten public officials to the realities of such barriers.

Thirty legislators, councilmen and mayors of Los Angeles County found themselves seated in wheelchairs for the evening along with 75 other guests. Each was assigned a paralyzing condition. Soon all "wheelchaired" guests were led through a maze of architectural barriers.

I noticed smiles of challenge on the legislators' faces, then slight frustration when they reached the first curb. In a building normally quite accessible, the barriers were noticeably constructed for the event. The frustrated looks turned to grimaces as each person approached double doors that had to be pulled, raised metal moldings on the floors, grass areas in the courtyard that had to be crossed to reach the patio. Sounds of relieved sighs were heard as each individual entered the hallway, which provided easy travel.

The men who emerged from the restrooms had sober looks. No one was allowed to rise from his chair for any purpose.

After a film and panel presentation of personal experiences from other wheelchair victims, a long silence settled in the dining room. The time of truth. Until that moment we all were brothers and sisters in distress. One could seldom tell who was a paraplegic and who was not. The silence broke as half the people in the room rose and stretched their legs.

A quiet murmur filled the hall.

June 1, 1976 One by one the men and women walked

away. They walked and I walked With them. One paraplegic remarked as he noticed distress on my face: "What's tragic is not what we are, but now that many of us have found joy in who we are, the barriers, the obstacles fully prevent us from enjoying normal lives."

Later as I walked into our home, I suddenly realized I could not invite my new friends to our house. The steps were too high, the doorway too narrow. No matter how aware I was or how concerned, unknowingly I lived in a dwelling that walled out a whole population.

This is a private home. The problem is magnifi.ed a thousand times in public buildings and educational facilities where services are offered that the handicapped require and desire as much as anyone-sometimes more.

The laws are on the books, but the codes are not enforced.

I am reminded of the poem by Robert Frost:

Before I built a. wall I'd ask to know What I was walling in or walling out, And to whom I was like to give offense. SOmething there is that doesn't love a wall That wants it down.

BUSING IS NO ANSWER

HON. EDWARD J. DERWINSKI OF ILLINOIS



Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Speaker, for a grassroots commentary on the issue of busing between school districts, I direct the attention of the Members to an excellent editorial which appeared in the Sunday, May 23, edition of the Life Newspapers which serve subw·ban Cook County, ill.

BUSING IS NO ANSWER In advocating the busing of inner city

pupils into suburban school districts, the state superintendent of education, Joseph M. Cronin, has displayed a superficial and mintmal knowledge of the total educational picture-especially when he cites overcrowded conditions in Chicago and declining enrollments in the suburbs as a. prime motive for busing.

In advocating his theory to lessen Chicago's alleged pupil overload, Cronin listed several school districts as possible targets for busing, none of which were in this area, presumably because the pupil decline here woUld not compensate for any appreciable number of pupils from the inner city.

Why Dr. Robert Gentry, south Berwyn's district superintendent, was quoted in a metropolitan paper is mystifying, since Berwyn was not mentioned by Cronin, but it is to Gentry's credit that he opposes busing because "any state aid (for increased enrollment) wouldn't begin to cover our costs . . . I can see nothing gained by the (busing) approach."

While continually insisting that state aid to schools would cover the cost of educating the transient students in each community, the proponents of busing pointedly ignore the impact on each community when the community suddenly becomes morally and financially responsible for the well-being of the children of parents who do not live in the community, don't support it in any way, and in most cases couldn't care less what happens to it.

It is obvious that the light decline in enrollments in suburban schools leaves only a few seats available for the proposed busing; the 116 school districts in the suburbs lost

June 1, 1976 only 29,000 students between 1968 and 1974, and the minority enrollment in Chicago 1s close to 400,000. The trickle of students bused to the suburbs, then, wouldn't even dent that latter figure.

Cronin does not have the minority stud ents' interests at heart; he is interested only in busing for busing's sake-an insignificant ploy to satisfy the demands from Washington that Chicago integrate its schools or be cut off from federal funding. As in Boston and elsewhere, our suburban sch{)()l districts are being made the victims of a. bureaucracy trying to justify its own existence.

The obvious solution to Chicago's problem is the upgrading and renovation of its own schools-not forcing upon the suburbs the responsibility (and expense) of educating Chicago's children.

BETTER FOOD LABELING: AN INVESTMENT IN GOOD HEALTH

HON. BENJAMIN S. ROSENTHAL OF NEW YORK



Mr. ROSENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, on January 14 of last year I introduced the Consumer Food Labeling Act, H.R. 42. This bill, which is cosponsored by 60 of our colleagues, would require the labels on foods and food products to disclose all ingredients; nutritional content; accurate weight data; storage information; true identity of the manufacturer, packer and distributor; uniform product grades; unit prices; ingredient changes, and it would bar the use of misleading brand names.

Two months later, I introduced the Price Disclosure Act, H.R. 4551, which would prevent supermarkets from removing individual price markings from groceries when they adopt the computerized Universal Product Code checkout system. The UPC's are the line markings on groceries which, when passed over an optical scanner at the supermarket checkout counter, tell the computer what was purchased. The price is then automatically rung up on the cash register.

The UPC, and the subsequent removal of price markings, could prove to have grave consequences for the consumer. In addition to the increase in food prices as a t•esult of the cost of the system, the consumer's price consciousness may be dampened. The UPC also presents too many opportunities for abuse of the system.

Since the introduction of these two bills, the response from constituents and voters throughout the country has been greatly supportive. In a questionnaire sent recently to my constituents, neal"ly 57 percent of the respondents said they are totally opposed to the elimination of item pricing. The remainder said they would accept it only if it results in "significantly lower prices." Leading g1·ocery trade groups, including the Supermarket Institute, have come out in support of retaining item pricing.

In the area of nutritional labeling, a Ga llup poll on nutrition commissioned by Redbook magazine found that approximately 50 percent of the women p a r t icipating said they were sufficiently

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS interested in expanding nutritional labeling on food to pay more for it.

The poll, as reported in the May 15, 1976, New York Times, found that support cut across economic lines, although an additional 3 cents an item was men-

. tioned as a possible surcharge. The support went from 47 percent in the under $10,000 annual income bracket to about 50 percent for women in the $10,000 to $15,000 range, with support from the highest income group falling somewhere in between. The poll also found that 90 percent of the women were concerned about the nutritional value of the foods they pw·chase, and 77 percent said they would definitely or probably be interested in having more nutritional information.

The poll also found that although 66 percent reported having read nutritional labeling on food products within the last few months, 58 percent of the women polled found the information now available "confusing."

This confusion is precisely what my legislation seeks to eliminate. By supplying nutritional information in a simple, consistent, and concise way, the consumer, rather than the manufacturer, will be able to decide what is best for each family.

Another finding of the poll was that women are concerned about the use of food additives. Fifty-nine percent favored banning all food additives "used to improve the food's appearance," and 20 percent either stopped or cut back on certain food purchases last year because of additives. In addition, 49 percent stopped or cut back because a food contained sugar.

Proper food labeling such as that proposed by H.R. 42 would provide consumers with all the necessary information for choosing the safest, most nutritional food for their families.

The article follows: MANY ARE WILLING To PAY FOR IMPROVED

FOOD LABELS

(By Enid Nemy) About half the women who participated in

a. Gallup poll on nutrition conducted last month said they were sufficiently interested in expanding nutritional la.bellng on food to pay more for it.

Support cut across economic lines, although an additional three cents an item was mentioned as a. possible surcharge. Fortyseven percent of women from families with annual incomes under $10,000 were favorable to the idea, one percentage point fewer than women from families with a. more than $15,000 yearly income. About half the women in the $10,000-to-$15,000 group approved.

Fifty-nine percent of the 750 women polled favored banning all food additives used only to improve the appearance of food, and 29 percent reported having stopped, or cut back, on certain food purchases in the last year because of additives. Forty-nine percent reported stopping or cutting back because a food contained sugar.

The poll, commissioned by Redbook magazine, was conducted in personal at-home interviews. Pollsters were assigned blocks in certain sampling areas. They calculated that the poll results had a. margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Almost 60 percent of the respondents had completed high school, and more than 25 percent had a college education. About 35 percent reported family incomes of more than $15,000, and slight ly more than 34 percent

16117 were in the $7,000-to-$15,000 range. Just under 40 per~ent listed ma.nual work as the occupation of the chief wage earner in the family, while 13 percent were in clerical and sa.les, and almost 21 pe1·cent in professional and business occupations.

Most of the women (90 percent) were concerned about the nutritional value of foods and 77 percent said they would definitely or probably be interested in having more nutritional information.

Although 66 percent reported having read nutritional labeling on food products within the last few months, 58 percent of the women polled found the information now available "confusing."

Fifty-seven percent blamed consumers themselves for lack of nutritional value in the American diet, while 27 percent blamed food manufacturers and 8 percent named government.

The poll found that weight control, sugar and cholesterol were prime areas of concern, a.nd that although 65 percent thought a.bout family likes 1n planning meals, only 11 percent considered that aspect "most important."

The most Important consideration for 40 percent of the women was bala.nced mea.ls. A minimal 15 percent listed staying within a food budget as their most important consideration.

More than 65 percent of the women rejected the idea that their children influenced them to buy foods advertised on television.

BONUS BID LEASING OF THE OCS

HON. MORRIS K. UDALL OF ABIZONA



Mr. UDALL. Mr. Speaker, the Ad Hoc Select Committee on the Outer Continental Shelf devoted many hearing days and markup sessions to examining how to best lease the resources on the OCS. The Congress must establish a leasing sys-tem that insures a fair return for the public's resources without erecting capital barriers that prevent involvement of potential bidders. The leasing system presently employed by the Interior Department requires a large capital outlay. This cash bonus system lessens the capital reserves available for exploration and development at a time when oil companies, administration officials, and bankers are bemoaning the shortage of capital for energy development.

One of the stated purposes of H.R. 6218 is to preserve, protect, and develop oil and natw·al gas resources, "in a manner which is consistent with the need to make such resources possible." The huge capital requirements of the cash bonus system cause delay·. Yet the industry lobbyists who say H.R. 6218 will cause delays fought hard to retain the cash bonus system. The cash bonus system requires the payment of large sums of money regardless of whether or not the lessee ever finds oil or gas. This does not assure a fair return, but rather creates deepwater roulette. We should not be fooled: although the oil companies are taking the risks, in the end the consumers and taxpayers pay for dry holes.

I would like to share with my colleagues a letter I recently received from Thomas E . Huzzey, commissioner of the

16118 State of West Virginia Oil and Gas Conservation CommtAAion. Mr. Huzzey succinctly outlines the fa.illngs of the cash bonus system. I hope that when the House considers H.R. 6218 my colleagues will support GEORGE MILLER's amendment to mandate greater use of a.J.ternative bidding systems. These alternatives, which are used successfully in other nations and in coastal states, will provide a fairer return to the public and w1ll generate greater competition in OCS leasing.

The letter follows: STATE OF WEST VmGINIA, On. AND

GAS CoNSEBV A.TION Col!DoUSSION. Charleston., W.Va., May 20,1976.

Re Leasing of Federal lands. Representative Mours K. UDALL, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Imu

lar Affwa, WaaMngton, D.C. DBAB MR. UDALL: The quality of our re

maining resource of petroleum decreases with each year's development and production. One need only become aware that the new natural gas reserve added 1n 1966 was about 600 cubic feet o! gas per foot of hole dr111e<1. and comparably 1973 additions were 100 cubic feet per foot of hole dr111ed. to appreciate the reduced quality and increased depth of the remalning na.tural gas resource. on reserves added reveal a compara.ble quality decline. with additions 1n the order of 300 barrels per foot of hole drllled 1n the m1d 1930's that has diminished to approxima.tely 30 barrels of on per foot of well drilled 1n 1973.

It concerns me that the Interior Department in its oU and gas leasing continues to add to the extraction costs large cash bonuses that have no relationship to oU and gas production. I urge you to consider removing cash bonus bidding for leases and to substitute royalty bidding. Two major benefits wlll result from this approach. First, the bonus capltal would be available for a more rapid development of the reserve, and second. companies with sma.Uer assets would have the opportunlty to bid. In this manner the leasor would share in the risk of exploring and development. but conceivably reeelve a hfgher tncome over a period of time, because of a higher royalty with more bidders involved.

Very truly yours, THOMAS E. HUZZEY,

Commissioner.

NATIONAL EMERGENCY CIVU... LIBERTIES COMMITTEE: BURROWING FROM WITHIN

HON. LARRY McDONALD OF GEORGL\

IN THE HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES


Mr. McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, tmder the guidance of the Soviet Union, the Communists have become the skilled craftsmen of subversion, adept at conducting protracted campaigns to undermine their opponents• will to resist. The Marxist-Leninists have also been quick to claim every possible ''bourgeois democratic right, as they contemptuously term our Constitution and legal system, to guard their conspiratorial operations from governmental observation and public disclosure. In this context, paraphrasing Marx:

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS We recogn1ze our friend, the old mole,

who knows so well how to work from within •••

The National Emergency Civll Liberties Committee-NECLC-wa.s formed in 1951 by the Communist Party, U.S.A.CPUSA-as a vehicle for organizing Marxist and liberal support for Communist Party members then being prosecuted under the Smith Act. NECLC activities expanded in the 1960's to provide defense attorneys for demonstrators arrested rioting in support of the Vietcong. for members of the U.S. armed services charged with sabotage and subversion, and for draft evaders and resisters. In my remarks of September 23, 1975, I detailed NECLC's origins and activities. This report supplements and undates that report.

The NECLC has had a long and intimate relationship with the National LawYers Guild-NLG-an organization founded as a Communist front, but which now includes considerable numbers of Castroites. Maoists, and New Left activists among its members. The NLG serves principally as the legal resource group while NECLC's function is to raise funds for litigation and distribute propaganda.

NECLC maintains headquarters at 25 East 26th Street, New York, N.Y. 10010 [212-683-81201. In New York, the majority of NECLC litigational work Is handled by the law firm Rabinowitz, Boudin & Standard, 30 East 42d Street, New York, N.Y. 10017-[212-697-86401.

Leonard Boudin, NECLC general counsel and long active NLG member. is the father of Weather Underground leader Kathy Boudin. Kathy Boudin is currently "starring" in Emlle DeAntonio's longwinded propaganda.~ "Underground" which has been boring radical left audiences recently in Georgetown and cities across the United States. DeAntonio's film features a group interview with the Weathermen but films their backs or their faces through a gauze screen. Leonard Boudin served as DeAntonio's lawyer in quashing a Federal subpena of DeAntonio's "outtakes" which showed undisguised Weathermen faces on the ground that the interviews with the terrorists were "news" covered by press privlleges. Kathy's last "in the :flesh" appearance was on March 6. 1970. when she :fled naked from the collapsing townhouse on West 11th Street in New York's Greenwich Village, leaving one of her terrorist comrades trapped still alive in the rubble to die slowly of wounds and suffocation. Kathy Boudin's fingerprints were reported discovered in a Manhattan apartment that had been "sublet" as a safehouse to the Symbionese Liberation Army by the Weather Underground. Per-haps when dealing with temporary terrorists like Patty Hearst. Miss Boudin prefers to stay close to her legal advisers.

Victor Rabinowitz, a member of NECLC's executive committee and former national president of the NLG, has long been identified with the Communist Party's "professional" circles. When called before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, Rabinowitz refused to state on oath whether or not he was a

June 1, 1976

CPUSA member on fifth amendment grounds. During the 1960's and early 1970's. Rabinowitz was a principal source of funds for many radical organizations and projects through the foundation created by his father who was not a Leninist.

Michael B. Standard, an aging "reddiaper baby,'' has been closely courted by the Old Left; but our information is that he has felt his NLG annual dues sufficient.

Rabinowitz. Boudin, and Standard's political "reliabllity" can be judged by the fact that they have been since the early 1960's the representatives of the "legal interests" of the Cuban Communist regime. It is noted that the firm has refused to register as CUban foreign agents on the ground that lawyers should be exempt from the registration requirement-a presumption the Justice Department has ignored. Junior members of the firm handling NECLC cases include Dorian Bowman, Herbert Jordan. Michael Krinsky, Eric Lieberman, and K. Randlett Walster.

NECLC's Pittsburgh affiliate is the law office-Berlin, Roas. Isaacson, Logan, Rosenfield & Sharon-505 Court Place, Pittsburgh, Pa. 15219-412/391-7707--also houses the Pittsburgh chapter of the NLG.

NLG attorneys David Kairys and David Rudovsk:y, 1427 Walnut street, Philadelphia, Pa. 19102-215/563-8312-operate the NECLC eastern Pennsylvania office. Kairys and Rudovsky, both representing the NECLC, were among the initial endorsers of the July 4th Coalition at its founding meeting called by the Cuban-controlled, violence-prone Puerto Rican Socialist Party and the Weather Underground's Prairie Fire Organizing Committee-PFOC. They are presently serving as the coalition's SJttorneys in negotiations with Philadelphia city officials for parade and demonstration permits.

The Washington, D.C., offices of the NECLC are located in the NLG law firm of Forer and Rein, 733 15th Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20005-202/628-4047-which also serves as the local branch office for Rabinowitz, Boudin and Standard. David Rein was identified as a member of a secret cell of Communist Party lawyers in the U.S. Government in the 1940's, while his partner, Joseph Forer, has served as cocounsel for the CPUSA with John Abt. Alan Dranitzke. the junior partner, is counsel to the organizing committee for a fifth estrute--OC-5-an organization which has made a specialty of exposing CIA agents to set them up as targets for ,.revolutionary justice" as with Richard Welch, murdered in Athens last December, and on which I recently testified at length before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee.

NECLC's cluttered New York offices recently produced a docket update reviewing their current cases, sponsored by their National Emergency Civil Liberties Foundation-NECLF. Although dated December, 1975, the docket 1s being currently distributed. NECLC points out that it emphasized the defense of Communists in the 1950's; in the 1960's it

June 1, 1976

worked to support the Soviet-backed Communist takeover of Southeast Asia by defending large numbers of protesters in the streets and by creating a "pressure at the top" group, the Lawyers Committee on American Policy Toward Vietnam. The target for the 1970's is the American intelligence community. NECLC states:

On its 200th anniversary, the nation still confronts the need to wipe out oppressive practices • • • such as * * • surveillance • * * by the F.B.I. and C.I.A. * * *. Several NECLC cases have been directed to this end.

Among those on the NECLC docket are:

Hiss-Under the Freedom of Information Act, Alger Hiss and two researchers are seeking government documents which they believe will overturn Hiss's 1950 perjury conviction. • • • The papers were the basts for then-Representative Richard Nixon's claim that Hiss had been involved in "the most treasonable conspiracy in American history." Seeing the papers for the first time, • • * William H. Reuben, Hiss' coplaintlff • * •, characterized the material as "totally useless as espionage material, total garbage." * • • The suit which resulted in the papers' release was filed by K. Randlett Walster of Rabinowitz, Boudin and Standard under the auspices of the NECLF.

NECLC's self-serving case description ignores many facts embarrassing to convicted perjurer Alger Hiss, such as the fact that it was made clear at his trial that not every document on the microfilms came from Hiss since Chambers served as a courier for several Communist espionage rings, or the fact that Hiss and his coplainti:ff are not the most unbiased judges of what documents are good espionage material-

Harrington v. Colby-A complaint filed by Congressman Michael Harrington (D-Mass.) alleged that the Central Inte111gence Agency is, in both foreign and domestic activity, exceeding the limits of its charter. • • • The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the action in a oneparagraph order without reaching the merits of Harrington's contentions. Rather the court ruled that Harrington had no "standing" to bring the action and that the action, in any event, presented "political" questions which the court should not decide.

The right of Congressman Harrington to challenge the legality of CIA activities is now before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. * • *Michael Krinsky and Eric Lieberman of Rabinowitz, Boudin & Standard are representing the Congressman on behalf of the NECLF.

Avrech v. Secretary of the Navy-* * * Avrech was court-martialed and convicted of violating the General Article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which forbids "all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces" and "all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces." • • * The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held in 1973 that the General Article was unconstitutionally vague, and therefore overturned Avrech's conviction. The United States Supreme Court reversed, upholding the Article and reinstating the conviction.

The case then went back to the Court of Appeals • • * on the two remaining issues. Following reargument the Court issued a decision holding that the "disloyalty" specification was not unconstitutionally vague, and that the military court-martial properly considered and rejected AVl·ech's First Amendment claim. A petition for certiorari wlli be filed in the Supreme court.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS The case was argued on behalf of NECLF

by Dorian Bowman of Rabinowitz, Boudin & Standard and David Rein of Forer and Rein.

Olson v. CIA-We represent the Olson family 1n their claim against the CIA for the Wl'Ongful death of Frank Olson who committed suictde after he was unknowingly given LSD in a drug experiment conducted by CIA agents. The matter is now under negotiation with the Justice Department. We have been provided with the entire CIA file on the case and its contents will be disclosed at an appropriate time. Kairys & Rudovsky.

Forsyth v. Mitchell and Burkhart v. Saxbe-Both * * • are suits for damages for unlawful "national security" wiretapping. In both cases, the plaintiffs were overheard during electronic surveillance ordered by John Mitchell under the NiXon Administration's policy of tapping suspected "subversives" without a court order. We have overcome claims of "immunity" in both cases and have taken the deposition of Mr. Mitchell. Kall·ys & Rudovsky.

Philadelphia Yearly Meeting v. Rizzo-This suit presents a broad scale attack on the political surveillance policies and methods of the Philadelphia Police Department. It resulted from public disclosure by Mayor Rizzo over national TV of the names of persons who have been subject to surveillance and compilation of dossiers by the civil disobedience unit. A decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in this case establishes the principle that it is unlawful under the First Amendment for governmental officials to disclose the contents of dossiers, including the political beliefs and associations of citizens. Kairys & Rudovsky. ·

Philadelphia Resistance v. Mitchell-This is a suit on behalf of the American Friends Service Committee, Philadelphia Resistance and 18 individuals against the FBI for unlawful surveillance and harassment. The major issue in the case deals With the citizen's right to privacy • • •. The case has resulted in an excellent opinion on pre-trial discovery and the release of highly significant documents of the FBI. The Court has denied the Government's motion for summary judgment and the case will either be settled or tried in the very near futul'e. Kairys & Rudovsky.

Institute for Policy Studies v. MitchellWe have recently been retained by the Institute for Policy Studies in their suit against various governmental agencies and officials from the Nixon presidency for wiretapping, opening of mail, theft of documents and infiltration of informers. The defendants have already admitted certain lllegal acts and we are in the discovery process to determine how widespread these acts may have been. Kairys & Rudovsky.

The NECLC's objectives were summarized in the late 1950's by the House Committee on Un-American Activities as including:

Extinction of the investigative powers of the Congress in the field of subversive activities;

Restriction of executive branch agencies in the investigation of subversive activities; and

Creation of a general climate of opinion against the exposure and punishment of subversion.

Certainly NECLC's track record shows that the goals of its directors have not changed.

NECLC lists its current o:fficers as fol-lows:

Corliss Lamont, Chairperson. Mary Mothersill, Vice-Chairperson. Leonard B. Boudin, General Counsel. Sidney J. Gluck, Secretary. Edith Tiger, Director. John H. Scudder, Treasurer.

16119 John M. Pickering, Vice-Chairperson. Clark Foreman, Director Emeritus.

NATIONAL EMERGENCY CIVIL LmERTIES COMMIT'I'EE

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

James Aronson, N.Y. Dr. Alan R. Bleich, N.Y. Bernard Brightman, N.Y. Eleanor Brussel, N.Y. Ernest Chanes, N.Y. Eugene G. Eisner, N.Y. Moe Fishman, N.Y. Henry Foner, N.Y. Rabbi R. E. Gold burg, Conn. Ira Golobin, N.Y. Samuel Gruber, Conn. David Haber, N.Y. Joseph M1ller, Pa. Claire Nichtern, N.Y. Maurice Paprln, N.Y. Leon Quat, N.Y. Victor Rabinowitz, N.Y. Harry I. Rand, N.Y. Louis L. Redding, Del. Alex J. Rosenberg, N.Y. Esther Rowland, N.Y. Robert J. Schwartz, N.Y. Nathan H. Schwerner, N.Y. Isidore Silver, N.Y. Morton Stavis, N.Y.

NATIONAL COUNCIL

Arthur Alpert, R.I. John S. Atlee, Md. Charles Avery, D.C. Michael Avery, Conn. Rabbi L. I. Beerman, Cal. Wllllam J. Bender, N.J. Robert L. Boehm, N.Y. Paul R. Booth, lli. Anne Braden, Ky. Robert S. Browne, N.J. Jane Buchenholz, N.Y. Haywood Burns, N.Y. Kenneth Cloke, Cal. Aleine Austin Cohen, Md. Sylvia Crane, N.Y. Charles W. Collins, N.Y. Robert S. Cohen, Mass. Lawrence Cole, N.Y. Joseph H. Crown, N.Y. Ossie Davis, N.Y. David Dellinger, N.Y. Earl B. Dickerson, Dl. John M. Dolan, Minn. Douglas Dowd, Cal. Benjamin Dreyfus, Cal. Hester Eisenstein, N.Y. Norman Eisner, N.Y. Thomas I. Emerson, Conn. Robert Engler, N.Y. Jason Epstein, N.Y. AI Evanoff, N.Y. Abe Feinglass, Dl. Shirley Fingerhood, N.Y. Moe Foner, N.Y. Jean Fox, N.Y. Laurent B. Frantz, Cal. Rev. Stephen H. Fritchman, Cal. Rev. David Garcia, N.Y. Charles R. Garry, Cal. Maxwell Geismar, N.Y. Louis Gilden, Mo. Allen Ginsberg, N.Y. Joseph Goldberg, N.Y. Sally Gorton, N.Y. Jane Gould, N.Y. Richard Grossman, N.Y. Charles V. Hamilton, N.Y. James Houghton, N.Y. Tom Hayden, Cal. Rev. George G. Hill, Conn. Warren Hinckle, Til., Cal. Edna Ruth Johnson, Fla. Gloria Joseph, Mass. Marc Kahn, N.Y. Blanclle Katz, N.Y. Sanford Katz, N.Y. Hon. Robert W. Kenny, Cal.

16120 -Arthur Kinoy, N.Y. Andrew Kopkind, Mass. Willlam Kunstler, N.Y. Edward H. Lamb, Ohio. Paul Lehmann. Va. Irving Lerner, N.Y. Sandra LeVinson, N.Y. Herman Liveright. N.Y. Oliver S. Loud, Ohio. Jonathan W. Lubell, N.Y. Conrad J. Lynn, N.Y. Curtis MacDougall, DI. Elizabeth Martinez. N .M. Carey McW1111ams. N.Y. William Meyers, N.Y. Sidney Milwe. Conn. Broadus Mitchell, N.Y. W. Edward Morgan, AriZ. Ph11llp Morrison, Mass. Stewart Matt, N.Y. Jack Newfield, N.Y. Harvey O'Connor. R~ Grace Paley, N.Y. Sidney M., Peck, Mass. Eleanor Jackson Piel, N.Y. Lawrence Pinkham, Mass. Michael N. Pollet, N.Y. David Rein, D.C. Tessie Sacher, N.J. Marjorie B. Schell, N.Y. Diane Schulder, N.Y. Donald Sha1fer, N.Y. Modjeska Simkins, S.C. John Simon. N.Y. I. Ph111p Sipser, N.Y. Dr. Benjamin Spock, N.Y. NnchaelStandard,N.Y. Syd Stapleton, N.Y. Irving Statsinger, N.Y. Catherine Simpson. N.Y. I. F. Stone, D.C. W11liam S. Susman, N.Y. Paul M Sweezy, N.Y. Stanley Swerdlow, N.Y. Moe L. Tandler, N.Y. A. Dale Tussing, N.Y. Rev. W. S. Van Merer, Wise Lawrence Velvet, Md. Bruce C. Walzer, La. Peter Weiss, N.Y. David Wesley, Cal. John Wilhelm, Conn. Frank Wilkinson, Cal. H. H. Wilson, Pa. James Wilson, N.Y. Francis D. Wormuth, Utah. Jose Yglesias, Maine. Sidney Zion, N.Y.

REGULATORY REFORM: A VIEW FROM THE FIRING LINE

HON. GEORGE E. BROWN, JR. OF CALIFORNIA



Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, one of the latest popular causes to sweep the Congress is regulatory reform. Like most reforms, regulatory reform is necessary, long overdue, and taken in excess, harmful.

While most members involved with regulatory reform are quite sincere about improving the accountability of Government to the people, others are primarily interested in preventing the governmental regulatory process from working.

It is naive and dangerous to the wellbeing of society to believe that we can survive without regulatory agencies. This is especially true when one considers regulations designed to protect the pub-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS nc health and welfare from the poisons generated by our masslvea technological society.

Russell Train, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, is one of the people most responsible for protecting the public and the environment from industrial poisons. In all candor, he 1s not noted for being an aggressive enforcer of environmental laws and regulations. As one who has frequently criticized the EPA for its cautious approach to regulating polluters, I have observed that the EPA strives too hard to meet the objections of those it is supposed to regulate. In spite of this record, the EPA has been charged with overzealousness in regulating pollution. This is not too surprising; all violators of laws hate to be caught, or change their ways. What is surprising is that the screams of polluters carry credibility in the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share a recent speech delive1·ed by Administrator Train to the National Conference on Regulatory Reform last May 26. One sentence from this speech deserves repeating:

I think we had better face the fact that increased economic growth, more intensive agricultural production, increased energy usage, more synthetics in the environment. instant global communications, the increased speed and volume of transportation, more popul.a.tion, crowding, and land pressuresall inevitably mean more regulation.

The speech follows: REMARKS BY THE HONOlLABLE RUSSELL E.

'l'RAxN, ADlloiiNISTaATOR, u.s. ENviRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

lloi.&KING REGULATION WOBX

Most of us, I am sure, would agree that one of the most str1klng phenomena to emerge in this country over recent years has been the increasing antipathy, even antagonism, toward government, marked by a revolt against "Washington" in general and Federal regulation in particular. This public attitude appears, indeed, to be opening up a whole new order of politics--one with which I must admit to a good deal of personal sympathy. Like most people, I have little personal liking for the constraints upon individual choice which Government regulation often imposes.

I do not think it is a bad idea to look at government with a skeptica.l and jaundiced eye. I believe, in fact, that we must do a far better job, as a people and as a country, of keeping an eye on government and insisting that it do its job better than it has. I am, however, deeply concerned that, while the antigovernment rhetoric finds easy and enthusiastic acceptance and is rapidly becoming the common coin of American politics, it may prove dlfficult and perhaps impossible in actual practice to produce the changes promised. It may well be that we have had thoroughly unrealistic expectations of what government could do for us; but I am afraid we may be replacing these with equally unrealistic expectations about how rosy li:fe would be without government. We may, 1n short. be setting ourselves up foz an even m.ore shattering recurrence of the "manicdepressive" cycle we went through in the late Sixties and early Seventies-a cycle o! inflated rhetoric and meager results, followed by massive public frustration and resentment.

I would suggest that the intrusion of government regulation into our lives is not the real issue before us-at least to the degree that it assumes we have a real choice between regulation or no regulation. To pose

June 1, 1976 the issue in these terms is just as mistaken and m.Jsleadlng as to argue that, as a society, our only alternatives are between growth or no growth. It 1s not a question of growth or no growth. The question is how and where we are going to grow. Similarly, lt is not a question of regulation or no regulation. It is a question of how and were we are going to regulate.

Surely, we can reduce and cut out some government programs; we can improve the efficiency of others; we can streamline, simplify and otherwise improve regulation-and President Ford has, in my view, exercised admirable and effective leadership along these lines. But these are very different things from simply "getting rid of regulation;" these are ways of making regulation work.

It seems to me that the increasing regulation is an inevitable, 1! perhaps unfortunate, by-product of our high technology and high economic growth society associated with high and rising densities of human populations. If we rea.lly wish to maintain our commitment to an increasingly complex economic, technological, and soc1al system, it is illusory to think we are going to get away from big government. M&jor government programs and widespread regulation are inherent in that kind of society, which 1s the kind of society we apparently want.

r think we had better face the fact that increased economic growth, more intensive agricultural production, increased energy usage, more synthetics in the environment, instant global communictions, the increasing speed and volume of transportation, more population, crowding and land pressuresall inevitably mean more regulation. If we must have nuclear power to insure the supply of energy we feel we need, we had better accept as well the need for regulation to protect the public from accident, from radioactive wastes (perhaps for thousands of years) • and from terrorist acts. If we must greatly expand the use of coal, we had better accept as well the need for regulation to protect the health and safety of miners. to protect the land, and to protect the public health from the products of combustion. If modern agriculture requires the use of highly toXic chemicals to control pests. we cannot avoid regulation to protect human health and the environment. And so it goes. There 1s no way to accommodate such levels and kinds of activity without regulation. To put lt even more bluntly, it is really regulation that makes further growth possible at an. Alvin Weinberg has suggested that our commitment to nuclear power involves a Faustian bargain. Perhaps we need to recognize as well that ever· increasing levels of economic and technological activity may also exact a cost in terms of human freedom. This is a recognition that will come particularly hard to Americans-witness our present antagonism toward regulatory constraintssince much of our economic success has stemmed from the opportunity to exploit with few constraints the natural riches of a virgin continent. What once seemed limitless resources of soU, forest, water, minerals and energy have suddenly become a finite world in which interdependence is the new reality.

Once we understand that "government regulation" 1s here to stay, and that we need to focus our e:frorts on making it work better, we need to distinguish between two very ditferent kinds of Federal regulatory activities and agencies: between what we might call the "social regulators" such as EPA and OSHA. and the more traditional "economic regulators" such as the Interstate Commerce or Federal Power Commissions_ These traditional agencies are designed to help get rid of obstacles and inefficiencies that keep market forces from operating freely. EPA was established not to keen these forces from operating, but to make "certain that they operate in the public interest by insuring

June 1, 1976 that the market increasingly takes into account environmental costs that it would otherwise exclude from its calculations. Left unregulated in a highly advanced industrial society, all the normal economic incentives of a competitive, free enterprise system work to encourage the disposal of vast volumes of wastes into the environment, at rapidly increasing cost to public health and welfare and the natural environment. Regulation is required to internalize this cost, thus utilizing the free market system to achieve pollution abatement With the greatest economic efficiency. {The only alternative, or effective supplement, to such regulation would be a system of effluent and emission charges, and there has been little or no movement in this direction.)

In the area of environmental protection, therefore, there can be little question of "deregulation." What must always be open to examination-and what EPA, as an Agency, must do an increasingly better job of insuring-is the degree and extent of public participation in the regulatory process, the efficiency and effectiveness of specific regulatory approaches and timetables, and the accuracy and adequacy of the scientific and other data upon which these are based.

In this regard, EPA has pioneered a process that--to my knowledge-comes closer than that of any other agency in the Federal government to achieving the goal of full public participation in regulation development. We have, over the past several years, taken a number of major steps to overhaul and improve our processes for developing guidelines and regulations. These efforts have had four main objectives: First, to open up our processes for developing regulations; Second, to simplify our regulations; Third, to streamline our regulations; and Fourth, to reduce to the barest minimum any adverse social and economic impacts of our regulations. Let me touch brie.fly on each of these objectives.

First, we have in all of our regulatory efforts made great strides toward involving, from the very start of the regulatory development process, affected and interested segments of the public-including other levels of government, other Federal agencies and, where appropriate, the Congress-as well as the broad spectrum of scientific and. technical expertise outside the Agency. We have made especially noteworthy improvements along these lines in our pesticides regulatory decision-making process. And just a few days ago, we announced the adoption of interim procedures and guidelines for improving the Agency's ability to assess the risks and benefits of carcinogens while offering the maximum opportunity for public review of the Agency's deliberations.

Second, we have undertaken a sustained effort to ma.ke sure that our regulations are written in clear and concise English so that they can be readily understood-not only by experts and lawyers-but by the small businessman and the farmer and the ordinary citizen whom they deeply and directly affect.

Third, we have set up rather stl·ingent procedures for streamlining our regulati~ns by asking, not only of every regulation we have already issued, but of every regulation we are thinking of developing: "Is this regulation really necessary?" In this regard, we have review.ed all regulations under development when these procedures were adopted. That review covered some 125 regulatory initiatives, some 20-25 of which were either deferred, dropped, or pr<)p<>sed in different form.. These procedures also include a requirement that all regulatory proposals must be approved by my Office before their development.

Fourth, it is es.sential that EPA do all it can to meet its responsibilities in ways that \Von't put people out of business or out of work and that won•t impose excessive and unl'easonable costs. EPA has, in fact, been

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS preparing economic analyses on its standards and regulations years before the President's requirements for in.flationary impact statements. By the time EPA's standards and regu1ations reach final form, they have received--and they reflect-the scrutiny of other Federal agencies, industries, environmental groups, and the general public. While I cannot claim the process 1s perfect--as no process is perfect--it is the most open and rigorous process of economic impact analysis performed by any agency of the Federal government. As a result of this process, we have, in several instances, altered proposed guidelines and extended compliance deadllnes in order to avoid plant closings an avert job losses. Most recently, for example, we have ruled that several iron and steel plants in the Ma.honing Valley in Ohio would not have to meet national requirements for water pollution abatement until 1983. Our analysis indicated that meeting these requirements on schedule might throw as many as 25,000 workers out of jobs-about 14% of the region's total work force.

The development of EPA's Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations under the Safe Drinking Water Act provides an excellent example of how our regulations are prepared. These regulations establish maximum levels for drinking water contaminants which may affect public health. Under this Act, the major responsibillty for enforcing EPA regulations rests with the States. For that reason, representatives of State agencies attended several meetings of EPA work groups set up to develop the regulations and made a significant contribution to the regulations.

Throughout the process of developing these regulations, EPA received recommendations from the National Drinking Water Advisory Council. The Council, created by the Safe Drinklilg Water Act, is composed. of representatives from environmental groups, consumer groups, State agencies, and private industry. In formulating its recommendations, the Council held numerous meetings and actively sought the participation and advice of industry, public interest groups, and other governmental agencies. Before the publication of the regulations in the Federal Register, the Agency also held a meeting With concerned environmental groups to explain the proposed regulations, and to discUS5 EPA's current thinking on other related issues.

When the National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations were proposed in March of last year, pubUc comments were invited and public hearings were held in Boston, Chicago, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. Almost five hundred written submissions resulted, totaling several thousand pages, with seventy-seven witnesses testifying at the public hearings. In all, an aggregate of over 3,500 separate comments were contained in the written submission and oral testimony. Based on the commenU! received and further consideration of available data, the Agency made a number of changes in the regulations before they were promulgated on December 24, 1975.

The Safe Drinking Wate1· Act also required EPA to publish regulations concerning the requirements for State implementation of the Interim Primary Regulations and for States to obtain EPA grants for such implementation. In order to insure that States bad an adequate opportunity to take part in the development of these regulations, the Agency held major meetings involving an of the States in Chicago and in Dallas. The discussion and comments by the States in these two meetings were taken fully into account by the EPA work group which developed the implementation and grant regulations proposed on August 7, 1975.

Public hearings on the proposed regulations were held in San Francisco, California, on September 3, 1975, and in Washington, D.C. on September 5, 1975. Although the Act did not require these hearings, the Agency

16121 scheduled them because we believed the public shou1d have the opportunity to comment on the regulations. Since the promulgation of the regulations on January 20, 1975, we have held numerous meetings with State representatives to discuss their implementation and enforcement programs.

Not all of our regulations have been developed With as much public participation and dialogue. But I can state that the development of these regulations serves as a model for the Agency's future regulatory development.

As a result of the improvements we have made over the past several years, every regu1ation we now issue must run the most grueling and rigorous gauntlet of comment, review and revision that exists anywhere in the Federal government. To be sure, our processes are by no means perfect; they are still in the early--even pioneering--stages of development, and we have a long way to go before we can be anything close to satis:fled With them.

It 1s by thus continuing to improve the regulatory process itself and, where tt 1s necessary, by revising the basic legislation itself, that we can expect to achieve an IncreaSingly effective Federal regulatory approach toward safeguarding the public from the hazards of pollution. The Congress is now considering amendments to our air and water and other environmental legislation. Some o! these I :fully support as essential toward genuinely strengthening the legislation; others I oppose as undermining our ability to achieve the goals set forth in the legislation itself.

I am, in particular, disturbed by various measures introduced in the Congress that, while they vary in some details, would all give the Congress what amounts to a direct item veto over regulations issued by EPA and other agencies. In fact and in intent, these amendments wou1d thoroughly subvert not only the orderly processes of government, but the separation of powers that the Constitution has established as one of the most fundamental elements of our system of government.

It is essential that the Congress continually assess and review regulations to assure that they do help achieve the goals set forth in the legislation and that they are justified and authorized by the law. But these measures go far beyond the bounds of such thoroughly legitimate Congressional oversight and review. 'Ib.ey are unworkable; they would throw an already complex regulatory process into virtual chaos; they would put the Congress into a quasi-judicial position which cou1d bring it into direct conflict With the courts, not to speak of the Constitution.

Beyond the extensive delays, the chaos, the conflicts with the courts that these measures wou1d surely generate, the simple fact is that they are unworkable. EPA promulgates a large number of regulations each year, most of them required by statute. These often include extremely complex standards based on extensive scientific and factual records. rt would be an enormous task for the Congress to review all the data necessary to make an informed decision regarding the correctness of the regulations. At the present, EPA's regu1ations add up to four volumes or 2,763 pages of the Code of Federal Regulations. While it 1s difficult to estimate the actual volume, we do know that the support data for our technical standards is substantial. On several effluent limitations and guidelines (promUlgated pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act), the records certified to courts in connection with subsequent litigation exceeded 100,000 pages each. Routinely, the records exceed 10,000 pages. It would be a conservative estimate that the background data for twelve months of rulemaking activity would exceed two mil11on pages.

16122 Where Congress disagrees with a particular

regulation it already has procedures for voiding the actions of the regulatory agencythrough amendment of the authorizing legislation or, in some cases, l'iders to appropriations acts, both of which techniques have been used for EPA. The Congress, on several occasions, has exercised an effective oversight on EPA implementation of its statu t es such as the regulations involving transportation control plans.

I believe that the Congressional oversight of agency actions can best be accomplished by the continual exchange of information between the agencies and Congressional committees and by prompt consideration by Congress of amendments to the statute where it believes that an agency's regulations do not comply with Congressional intent. This approach will certainly avoid the problems I have referred to and preserve the traditional and complementary roles of the three branches of Government.

We have had the most success, as an Agency, in carrying out those parts of our environmental laws that involve the control of specific sources of emissions or eftluents by the application of technology. We have had the least success in trying--often under deadlines imposed by the courts-to require pollution control measures that i.nvolve very real changes in life-styles and land use patterns. These are changes that can take place only over a period of time; they entail very basic social and economic and environmental choices and tradeoffs that can only be made by the people involved and affected through the political process at the State, local, and regional levels.

I see such a process as one in which societal choice evolves from the ground up with open "give-and-take" which recognizes and reflects the extraordinary diversity of needs, conditions and aspirations which make up this country.

Increasingly, in the years ahead, real and lasting environmental progress must substantially depend on State and local initiative and action. The Federal role must, inevitably, focus more and more not simply upon the development of national standards and regulations and guidelines, but upon encouraging and assisting in the development of joint Federal, State and local decision-making processes that can enable the citizens of this country to deal effectively with what might be called the issues of growth-the issues involved, for example, in trying to preserve and maintain air quality, to control nonpoint source water pollution, and to relate and reconcile different environmental concerns such as clean air and clean water with each other and with social and economic concerns such as housing, and jobs, and energy.

Faced with an extraordinary complex array of issues, and often forced to proceed under stringent court-imposed deadlines, EPA has put in place much of the regulatory machinery needed to ensure the eventual achievement of a sound and healthy environment for all Americans. It has made its share of mistakes, to be sure. Its success has not always been complete. But the Agency has demonstr ated a very real ability to learn from its mistakes as well as a determination to take costs more effectively into account, to open up it;s processes of rule- and decision-making so as to include everybody affected, and to build plans and programs from the bottom up so as to place as much responsibility as possible in our regional offices and at the State and local level.

It is, as I suggested at the start, primarily in these terms-of devising the most appropriate and effective regulatory approaches and of making the regulatory process itself PS open and accountable as possible-that we can most usefully approach the whole Ctuestion of government regulation in our S'Jciety. It is only through the political process and the machinery of government

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS that we can expect to cope effectively with the increasingly complex public problems that are part and parcel of the high technology, high growth society that we have chosen to be. our most urgent piece of business, in my view, is to make that process and that machinery work far better than they do. That is no easy task, and it is time we got on with it.

THE SOVIET MILITARY BUDGET CONTROVERSY

HON. LARRY McDONALD OF GEORGIA



Mr. McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, the size of the Soviet defense budget is a time of growing interest to the U.S. Congress. For years the question has been asked how the Soviets could produce such large armed forces with such a small amount of money. Some thought the Soviets had developed a new magic formula. Lt. Gen. Daniel 0. Graham USA, reth·ed, formerly head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, has taken a lot of the mystery out of the problem. General Graham has always expressed the view that our calculations of the Soviet defense budget were continually too low. His view has recently gained more credence as the CIA issued an interim study in May 1976 stating that the Soviets are spending 12-13 percent of their gross national product on defense. I commend the serious attention of my colleagues to the article from Air Force magazine of May 1976 which follows: THE SOVIET MlLrrARY BUDGET CONTROVERSY

(By Lt. Gen. Daniel 0. Graham, USA, retired)

In the fall of 1975, shortly before the abrupt dismissal of Dr. James Schlesinger as Secretary of Defense, I found myself embroiled in a sharp public debate over the size of the Soviet defense budget. The row was sparked by the Secretary's public statement that the Soviets were spending as much as fl.fty percent more on military forces than was the United States. Congressional budget-cutters and some elements of the press sharply criticized this estimate, accusing Dr. Schlesinger of d·istorting intelligence. Sen. William Proxmire maintained that both Wllliam Colby, then Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and I, as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency( DIA), supported his claim that the Secretary's figures were inflated. In fact, Dr. Schlesinger's figures came from Mr. Colby's CIA, and my view was that the Secretary, far from overstating the case, was understating it. In March 1976, after Mr. Colby's forced retirement, CIA published figures that again supported Dr. Schlesinger's warnings about the gross imbala.nce between Soviet and U.S. military outlays. (see also "New CIA Assessment of Soviet Military Expenditures," p. 42.-The Editors.) The CIA analysis again, in my view, is too conservative and tends to understat e the actual Soviet defense burden.

WHEELS WITHIN WHEELS

Estimating Soviet military costs has been one of the toughest jobs for American intelligence analysts. This is an area in which the new information-gathering satellites don't help much. The military analysts in the Pentagon today can state with remarkable precision how many missiles, aircraft, ships, and divisions the Soviets have. Fur-

June 1, 1976 ther, they can do a pretty good job of using such data to estimate how many Soviet soldiers and sailors it takes to man the USSR's military machine. But when it comes to estimating with reasonable confl.dence how much it all costs, analysts have been faced with a nearly impossible task.

The task would be a lot easier if the Soviets openly published their defense expenditure figures as the U.S. does and if there were open debates in Moscow about the costs of various defense programs. Of course, this iS not the case. If there are debates about military spending, they are among very few persons in Moscow, and they are held in utmost secrecy. The Soviets do publish the total state budget, but the figures for military expenditures are patently phony. For instance, Brezhnev recently announced the official military budget figures for 1976-17.4 billion rubles. At the Soviet official rate of exchange for foreign trade purposes-1.35 dollars to the ruble-this amounts to about $23.5 billion, a totally unbelievable fl.gure.

Ostensibly, the 17.4 billion figure is a decrease of 200 million rubles from last year. All this means absolutely nothing except as an indicator of what figure best suits the needs of Kremlin propagandists. It must be high enough in comparison to previous figures to assure the faithful that the socialist guard will not be let down, low enough to allay any guns-vs.-butter worries in the general Soviet populace. The fl.gure must also be both low enough and trending in the right direction to back up the Soviet peace offensive in Western minds. No reputable scholar of Soviet economics gives the slightest credence to these announced Soviet military expenditures. Moscow's oftlcial figures have remained at seventeen-point-something billion rubles for many years.

To make matters worse, we would still have serious intelligence problems even if the Soviets did release an accurate account of military expenditures. There are a number of large items that Western countries count as military expenditures, but the Soviets do not. For instance, retired pay for military people is carried in the budget of the Soviet Welfare Ministry. Much of the basic training of Soviet soldiers takes place in secondary and higher civilian schools. This is paid for by the Ministry of Education. Most of the costs of moving military units and materiel in the USSR are carried in the budget of the Ministry of Transportation. The wages of the hundreds of thousands of reservists periodically called to active-duty training are borne by the factories and farms where they work. Thus, even if the Soviets should release a frank presentation of the Ministry of Defense budget, it could not be taken as a fair presentation of Soviet military costs when compared with those of the United States or any other Western power. ·

Also, when it comes to comparisons, we would have the problem of Soviet budget figures expressed in rubles. And what is a ruble worth? Well, in the USSR it is worth whatever the Soviets say it is, because all prices are determined and manipulated by the Soviet government. Further, the Soviet s don't set a given price for a particular item. There are different prices for the same items sold in different markets. For instance, a given type of Soviet-manufactured truck sold to a collective farm is priced at 40,000 rubles; sold to a state enterprise, it is priced at 10,000 rubles; sold outside the USSR, it costs only 4,000 rubles. We are not sure what the Soviet Army "'pays" for this truck, but probably near the lower end of the price scale. This means that the other parts of the Soviet economy, say the collective farms, are actually paying a h uge subsidy for military trucks, and it wouldn't show in a budget. Thus, even if the Soviet s were not so secretive about their defense budgets, intelligence analysts would h ave a terrible time converting the figures t o dollars t e; compare them to our defense b udget s.

June 1, 1916

CIA'S MISLEADING METHODOLOGY

For many years, intelligence people, both at CIA and in the Pentagon, simply didn't try to estimate the Soviet military budget. It was not until the early '60s that CIA felt compelled to try to express the Soviet mllita.ry budget in dollars. The pressure came from Mr. McNamara's "whiz kids." At that time. "systems analysis" and "cost-effectiveness studies" became the big game in Washington as far as mill tary planning was con-cerned. The indispensable yardstick in such studies is the dollar. Nothing would do but to come up with dollar figures attached to Soviet military programs.

CIA, with its usual "can-do., attitude, responded to the pressure for dollar estimates of Soviet defense expenditures and gave 1t a try. The basic approach was to take a Soviet weapon system, e.g., a missile, estimate what it would cost to build it in the us, estimate the relative efficiencies of the Soviet and US industries involved to obtain a "ruble-dollar" ratio, and multiply the results by an estimated number of such missiles in the Soviet inventory. The room for error in the process so far was considerable. But that wasn't the end of the problem. It was also necessary to calculate the costs of the men to man the weapons, maintain the equipment, train the crews, bulld the launch pads, and so on. One can imagine the enormous complexity of such efforts covering thousands of weapon systems from aircraft carriers to pistols. Naturally, the process was computerized to a large extent.

Initially, most CIA analysts connected with this efi'ort recognized some of the method's inherent drawbacks and inaccuracies. What was not recognized was that the results of the system consistently and seriously understated the total burden of mil1-tary expenditures on the Soviet budget. This fact did not become apparent for several years after the method had begun to crank out estimates of the Soviet military budget in dollars and rubles. When the costing methodology came under attack, however, many of Its adherents had forgotten their initial mlsgivlngs.. It became a matter of Institutional and professional pride to defend the cost estimates. Figures originally suspect had become sacred cows.

The first challenge to the costing method came in 1970 from the Defense Intelligence Agency. That agency has the responsibility for projecting ten years into the future the numbers and types of Soviet weapons and units. Since such projections are bound to be imprecise, DIA always gives a range of possibilities for each weapon system projected. There is a low figure, a high figure, and one between the two representing a best guess. The high figure usually represents what would happen if the Soviets made very strong efforts to acquire quantity and quality in a particular type of weaponry. We are always worried that someone might try to add up all the high figures for the various types of weapons and units, that is, all the worst cases, and exaggerate the threat. Therefore, all such projections have for many years carried the wa.rnlng to users that the high side figures should not be added together because their totality would "place an intolerable strain on the Soviet economy/'

In fact, SOviet efforts result.ing in all the high side estimates coming true would dislocate their economy, but not according to our costing methodology. When that methodology was applied to all the high figures, it produced a strange result. Not only did 1t appear that the Soviets could go all out on all types of military capabilities, but they could do so at an ever-decreasing percentage o! Gross National Product! From that time forward, DIA never used the results of the CIA costing methodology in its publications.

Shortly thereafter, the validity of the

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS costing methodology came under fire again. This time the analysis was a National Intelligence Estimate, a paper that has to be agreed to by all intell1gence agencies-ciA, DIA, the State Department, and others. During the process the same case was made against the method, but from an historical rather than a futuristic point of view. CIA provided cost figures covering the Soviet military budgets for the time frame 196Q-71. These figures indicated a very modest two or three percent annual increase in the Soviet budget, which to DIA estimators was incredibly low. During that time frame the Soviets had deployed 1,500 or more ICBM launchers; built more than fifty mlssllelaunching nuclear submarines; deployed most of 700 medium and Intermediate-range missile launchers, some 7,000 surface-to-air missile launchers, and a large theater force opposite China; created twenty new divisions; and introduced on a broad scale five or six new fighter aircraft. And that 1s only a partial list. This simply could not have been done at the low costs indicated by the methodology.

The most dubious figures were those ascribed to Soviet strategic attack forces. In 1960, the SoViet strategic offensive force consisted of four intercontinental ballistic missile launchers, no missile subs, 200 heavy bombers, and 200 or so medium-range ballistic missiles. By 1971, the SoViets had overmatched the us in ICBM's, had nearly matched us in mtssne subs, deployed more than 700 medium and intermediate-range missiles, and still had the 200 heavy bombers. Further, they were undertaking a massive construction program to accommodate the four new ICBM systems under test. We were to believe that costs for strategic forces in 1971 were only one-third of one percent higher than 1n 19601 From that point on, DIA would never agree to the inclusion of such cost figures in National Estimates even though CIA continued to produce these figures on a regular basis.

MAKING MOSCOW'S CASE

As Deputy Director tor Estimates at DIA during this period, I became chief antagonist of the low cost estimates. I became even more determined to correct this anomaly in intelilgence when I found that these underestimates were being used by the whole world. The U.S. was publishing an annual unclassified report on worldwide arms spending as a service to the UN. The Soviet and Warsaw Pact figures in that document were simply the totals derived from the CIA direct costing methodology, cleaned up a bit to protect intelligence sources and methods. As a result, the report, which found its way into the reference files of most universities and research institutes around the globe, stated that NATO outspent the Warsaw Pact on arms by about $30 billion a year I The Soviets must have been enormously pleased to see the u.S. making Moscow's case for them.

Although my DIA estimators and I were the first to balk at the Soviet budget figures, I would not like to leave the impression that the controversy was a purely Pentagon-vs.CIA issue. There were analysts in DIA who supported the figures, and analysts at CIA who shared my doubts. A doubter from the outside was Joe Alsop, the well-known columnist, whose pungent criticism of low intelligence estimates of the Soviet military budget sparked half-joking barbs directed at me by my CIA colleagues. Alsop seemed to use a number of my arguments in his columns, and there was a strong suspicion that I was leaking them to him. I wasn't, but I must confess to enjoying his e1Iorts.

This controversy boiled and bubbled along for about three years. CIA continued to publish the results of the suspect methodology; indeed, they had no other choice because there was a. constant demand for such figures. There was no other official source for

16123 them. And we continued to get into controversies over dollar costs of Soviet and even Chinese efforts. During the debate over continuing aid to South Vietnam, we were asked by Congress to estimate the dollar cost of Communist aid to North Vietnam. The minute we were asked, I knew we were in for another round of outraged expressions from some congressmen based on the proposition that the U.s. had put more dollars into South Vietnam than the Soviets and Chinese had put into North Vietnam. Later, we had the same problem with regard to North and South Korea. It seemed impossible to avoid providing these rather useless dollar figures, and all the warnings of intelllgence people about our lack of respect for the figures could not prevent them from becoming the centerpiece of arguments over policy.

Both DIA and CIA. meanwhile, were trying to find alternate ways of assessing the defense expenditures of the USSB. Experts on Soviet economics from academia and the "think-tank" world were assembled on the subject. Only one of them, however, had a strlklngly d.liferent approach. That was a Mr. Wllllam T. Lee, a persistent, extremely objective analyst who had been previously employed at CIA. [114r. Lee 1s the author of the article "MiUtary Economics in the USSR," which appeared in the March "Soviet Aerospace Almanac" issue of Am FoacE Magazine.]

Mr. Lee's approach was essentially this: In order for the Soviets to manage thelr economy, they must publish real budget figures; otherwise, they would confuse their own bureaucrats and managers. Therefore, the reaZ defense expenditures are somewhere in the overall budget figures. The trick then was to find those sums that could not be accounted for in non-defense outlays. The residual then would probably represent the hidden defense expenditures. This all made some sense, but unfortunately !or Bll1 Lee, his method Indicated that the results from the old direct costing method were not just a little too low, they were 100 pe7cent too low. His results showed an expenditure of some sixty billion rubles a year vs. about thirty billion estimated by CIA. Neither CIA nor DIA analysts could swallow that big an admission of error. Thus, Bill Lee's results were rejected with much criticism of his analytical approach. But Lee was eventually to have the last laugh. His method may or may not have serious flaws, but his results were far closer to the truth than those of his critics.

SENATOR PBOXMIBE'S PERNICIOUS PLOY

The whole matter of Soviet defense spending came to a head again in the spring of 1975. As is the case with most intelligence controversies, this one was solved by the acquisition of .good evidence. By April 1975, evidence from a variety of sources combined to provide solid proof that we had indeed been underestimating the Soviet budget by at least 100 percent. In terms of percentage of GNP, the new evidence showed that, our old estimates of six to eight percent were wrong. At a minimum, the Soviets are spending fifteen percent of their GNP on the military. In my view, the actual figure is probably closer to twenty percent, because the fifteen percent figure still excludes pensions, much training, and transportation costs, which remain hidden in the budgets of various nonmilitary ministries of the USSR.

This new information came to light right in the middle of the first big US defense budget fight with the new post-Watergate Congress, one that promised to be the most hostile to the military esablishment in many years. Evidence of the substantially larger Soviet defense expenditures, particularly compared to those of the US, could conceivably be used to persuade the Congress to increase, or at least maintain, the existing level of defense spending. If one chooses to believe the conventional wisdom around

16124 Washington, one would expect military intelligence to have immediately used this bombshell to help fend off broadax cuts in the Defense budget. This was not the case. With the agreement of Dr. Schlesinger, Mr. Colby, the CIA Director, and I, now Director of DIA, elected not to release the new evidence pending a thorough redo of cost estimates. We judged that its use at this time in the congressional arena would evoke a furious attack on the validity of the evidence and endanger t he sources of the information.

We were able to continue this policy until July, when Senator Proxmire requested Mr. Colby and me to testify on the Soviet budget. We did so, and we both mentioned the new evidence and informed the Senator that our estimates of the Soviet budget were going to rise sharply. Senator Proxmire asked that we be as liberal as possible in declassification of the testimony for publication. We were, and the declassified testimony was ready for publication within a few days. It seemed strange to me that the testimony remained unpublished and unreleased for three months. I cannot escape the suspicion that had Mr. Colby and I testified that the Soviet military budget was lower than we had previously held, that testimony would have been released with alacrity.

Senator Proxmire finally released the testimony in October 1975, tn a press conference following Secretary of Defense Schlesinger's public statement that the Soviets were outspending us on military matters. To my astonishment-and, I am sure to Mr. Colby'sProxmire's press conference managed to convey he impression to newsmen that both of us would quarrel with Dr. Schlesinger on the ground that he was overstating the case. The facts were that Dr. Schlesinger was using Mr. Colby's estimates of dollar costs of Soviet military expenditure, and my only quarrel would have been that, the revisions notwithstanding, the dollar estimates still tended to understate Soviet expenditures. Upon rereading my testimony to Senator Proxmire, I find it Inconceivable that he would come up with the opposite impression.

MANPOWER COST: AN ANOMALY

In the controversy over Soviet military spending, the military pay factor is consistently cited by those who believe the dollar figures too high. The rank and file of the Soviet Army are draftees and are paid very little in rubles. If their wages are translated directly into dollars, the Soviets obviously get them very cheaply when compared to U.S. soldiers. The dollar figures provided by the CIA for the Soviet military budget, however, represent an effort to state what their forces would cost if they had to be purchased in dollars. Thus those estimates charge the Soviets U.S. wages for their military men.

On the face of it, this would appear to inflate the estimates of Soviet military expenditure. In reality, it does not. The dollar est imates are made for the purpose of comparing Soviet military costs to those of the U.S. The ruble prices and wages of the U.S.S.R., which are easily manipulated by the Kremlin, simply don't count in such an equation. The actual cost to the general economy of the U.S.S.R. of putting a main in uniform is greater than it is in the United States. The Soviet economy is manpower intensive. Not only is everyone employed, the economy is short of manpower. In agricult ure the shortage is so acute that the Army is called out at harvest time to assist. In the U.S. one can reasonably deduct from the· wages paid servicemen the costs that would be incurred b y t he country if a million or so able-bodied men were not in uniform and were added to the ranks of the unemployed. The problem of explaining these matters to congressmen, newsmen, and others is one of the reasons I have been a severe critic of dollar comp arisons of U.S. and Soviet military budgets.

The uproar over the size of the Soviet militat·y budget will wax and wane, but is

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS sure to crop up frequently during the presidential campaign. As a participant in the internal intelligence debates over the issue for the past five years, I am convinced that Dr. Schlesinger did not overstate the case when he said that the Soviets may be outspending us on military matters by fifty percent in dollar terms. I am also convinced by good evidence that the Soviets are expending in rubles about twenty percent of their Gross National Product on the military. The Soviet GNP is around $750-$900 billion. Twenty percent of lihat gives a rough estimate of $150 to $180 billion in defense expenditures, which, in my view, is a much more accurate figure than any derived by the discredited method that has produced the erroneous figures provided by intelligence in the past.

The figure $180 billion in Soviet military spending is and should be a shockingly high one to US citiz.ens. It would not shock the dissident Soviet academician Andre Ss.kharov, recent Nobel Prize winner. In tact, he would consider the estimate of twenty percent of GNP to be an understatement. In 1972, he was quoted as having calculated the burden of Soviet miUtary expenditures at forty percent of GNP. This figure was roundly pooh-poohed by US Intelligence experts at the time. I agree With the experts that the forty percent figure is too high, and it remains unclear as to whether Sa.kharov was talking about GNP or budget percentages. But I would point out to those experts that they would have roundly pooh-poohed a ngure as high as fifteen percent of GNP one year ago.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

In December 1975, the Soviet government announced the civilian economic output for the year had been drastically short of expectations, particularly in agriculture. Further, Moscow announced that 1976 was going to be another bad year. Of course, part of the reason for this remarkably poor performance was bad weather, which reduced harvests, as well as the chronic bungling of an overcen~ tralized economic system. But to these factors must be added the impact of enormous military outlays over the past several years. It is not just weather that caused a ten percent drop in agricultural output; it was also a lack of good farm machinery. Soviet military hardware is produced in the same factories with farm machine. In a Soviet plant that turns out both tractors for farms and tanks for the military, high tank production lowers tractor production. In a plant producing both war gases and insecticides, the more gas manufactured, the less insecticide. And so it goes. Heavy military expenditures are putting a severe strain on other sectors of t he Soviet economy, and the Soviet leaders seem determined to endure that strain rather than check the growth of military power. They would rather expend their limited hard currency to buy grain from America than alter military priorities.

The huge Soviet military expenditures alone do not lead to the conclusion that the US is today in a militarily inferior position. They do, however, demonstrate Moscow's resolve to extend Soviet military advantages where they exist , cancel out the few remaining US advant ages where they exist, and achieve recognition as the prime military power in the world. If this happens, US intelligence officers can throw away that comforting lexicon of words used in past intelligence appr aisals to describe Soviet behavior in the world-"pragmatic," "cautious," "nonadventurous," "defensive," and so on. Already such adjectives fit poorly current Soviet behavior, e.g., t he thrust into southern Africa.

I hope that the internal intelligence struggles wit h t he problems of estimating the Soviet milit ary budget are behind us. My only worry is that it is very hard for some analysts to accept a 100 percent error in their long-held views, and there is bound to be a

June 1, 1976 tendency to try to obscure that magnitude. But solution of an intelligence anomaly is not nearly as important as the strategic implications of very high Soviet expenditures on military matters. The Soviets are spending twenty percent of their GNP on their armed forces and civil defense; Adolf Hitler's Germany was spending somewhat less fifteen percent of GNP-for armaments In 1938 just prior to the outbreak of World War II. Can the United States continue to deter the growing Soviet military threat with a grudgin~ 5.4 percent outlay on defense?

BOSWELL TRIBUTE DINNER

HON. JOHN L. BURTON OF CALIFORNIA



Mr. JOHN L. BURTON. Mr. SpeakPr-on behalf of Congressman PHILLIP BuRTON and myself-on June 25, 1976, the friends and colleagues of the Reverend Hamilton T. Boswell will meet to honor him upon his departure from San Francisco's Jones United Methodist Church. He is leaving to take up new duties as district superintendent, Bayview Di::;trlct, of the California-Nevada Conference of the United Methodist Church.

Tllis will be both a proud and sad occasion for all his friends in the bay area. Proud, because they recognize that a man of his talents and abilities must go to where he is needed; sad, because he will be missed by all those in the community he has helped and served.

A profile of Reverand Boswell will give an idea of what a truly remarkable m~n he really is. It is nothing less than a rollcall of service, involvement, and concern for his community, and demonstrates the devotion he has for the continued betterment of his fellow man.

Reverand Boswell was born in Dallas, Tex., in 1914, and received his B.A. degree from Wiley College in 1938. He attended the University of Southern California where he earned his Th. M. degree in 1943. He later returned to 'Viley College and received his D.D. degree in 1956.

He married Eleanor B. Gragg in 1939, and they have two children, J erilynn and Eleanor Louise, and two grandchildren, Lorraine, age 11, and Nichole, age 6.

His service in the clergy began when he was named minister of St. Johns in Los Angeles, a post he held from 1939 to 1943. He presided at Bowen Memorial from 1943 to 1947, and has served at the Jones United Methodist Church in San Francisco since 1947.

His involvement in community affairs is impressive, to say the least. From 1958 to 1962, he was the commissioner for juvenile justice in California and commissioner of the San Francisco Housing Authority from 1964 to 1974. The Reverend Boswell has been chaplain to the San Francisco Police Department since 1969, and founded the Jones Methodist Credit Union and Jones Memorial Homes in 1954.

The numerous awards he has received from his peers serves as further testimony of his dedication to his fellow man.

June 1, 1976

He is a life member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and recipient of the NAACP Freedom Award for 1972 and 1974. He was presented the National Black Methodist Church Renewal Award for 1973, and was given the San Francisco Planning and Urban RenewalSPUR-Award in 1968.

Reverend Boswell was bestowed the Human Rights Award by both the California State Senate and Assembly in 1964, and has received numerous plaques and commendations from the California State Legislature for pioneering senior citizen housing.

My brother, PHILLIP BURTON, and I have the deepest affection for Reverend Boswell. He bears a great deal of credit for both of our success. He has been a staunch friend and ally from the inception of our political careers.

Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleagues in Congress join with me and Congressman PHILLIP BURTON in extending our congratulations to Reverend Boswell for a job well done. The dinner at which he will be honored on June 25, 1976, will be but a token of the appreciation which he so richly deserves.

In closing, I would like to say that Kim's father offers Lorraine's grandpa best wishes for further success and accomplishments as he assumes the position of district superintendent of the California-Nevada Conference of the United Methodist Church.

H.R. 50 COMING UP FOR CONSIDERATION SOON

HON. MARVIN L. ESCH OF MICWGAN


Mr. ESCH~ Mr. Speaker, the Members of this House are fully aware, H.R. 50 will soon be coming up for consideration on the House floor. Considerable concern has been expressed over the potential impact of this legislation, part of which is detailed in the minority views to H.R. 50, contained in House Report 94-1164. I urge that these views be read by everyone concerned with the serious problems confronting H.R. 50.

Since the publishing of our views, considerable testimony has been given during Senate consideration of the companion measure, S. 50, which for all practical purposes is identical to the House bill. -

Inasmuch as this testimony has come from several noted, and :.1ot altogether conservative economists, I believe these statements would be well worth the attention of the Members of this House. Accordingly, during the weeks ahead, I will be submitting several , f these statements into the RECORD. The first of these is the remarks of Charles L. Schultz of the Brookings Institution before the Senate Committee on Public Welfare on May 14. To summarize Mr. Schultz's testimony: while praising the goals of 8.50,


the major problem facing the legislation is the bill's failure to recognize inflation as an obstacle to full employment.

The statements follow: THE ECONOMICS OF THE FuLL EMPLOYMENT

AND BALANCED GROWTH ACT OF 1976 (S. 50) Mr. Chairman and Members of the Com

mittee, the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1976, S. 50, addresses the most important domestic problem of this decadehigh and persistent unemployment. The chief obstacle to overcoming that problem, both politically and economically, is inflation. I believe that S. 50 does not sufficiently recognize that fact, and hence needs to be changed in a number of important respects. Moreover, the combination of the "employer-of-lastresort" provisions in this bill and the wage standards that go with it threatens to make the inflation problem worse. These sections, particularly, need extensive reworking.

THE IMPORTANCE OF FULL EMPLOYMENT

The emphasis which S. 50 puts upon the goal of full employment is, in my view, quite proper. We are a society in which not only economic rewards but status, dignity, and respect depend heavily on a person's place in the work force. The single most important contribution toward solving the major social problems of this generation-deteriorating inner cities, inequality among the races and between the sexes, high and still rising crime rates, poverty, insecurity, and hardship for a minority of our citizens-would be a high level of employment and a tight labor market.

However valuable some of the federal government's manpower training and other social programs may be, they cannot hold a candle to the efficacy of a tight labor market. Necessity is the mother of invention. When 4 million business firms are scrambling for labor in a highly prosperous economy, it suddenly turns out that the unemployable become employable and the untrainable trainable; discrimination against blacks or women becomes unprofitable. Instead of being the concern solely of bureaucrats in government training programs, the finding, counseling, training, and hiring of the disadvantaged becomes the goal of the entire profit-seeking private enterprise system.

In the second World War, to choose a dramatic example, we pushed the unemployment rate below 2 percent. And the result of that tight labor market was revolutionary. Black-white income differentials shrank faster than in any subsequent period; the income distribution became sharply more equal; employers scoured the back-country farm areas and turned poor and untrained sharecroppers into productive industrial workers, whose sons and daughters became the high school graduates of the 1950's and whose grandchildren will shortly begin to enter college in droves.

The importance that S. attaches to high employment, therefore, is not misplaced. The nation cannot afford over the next decade to settle for a relatively sluggish economy and a high unemployment rate.

WHAT STANDS IN THE WAY OF FULL EMPLOYMENT?

The basic problem with achieving and maintaining full employment is not that we lack the economic tools to generate increased employment. The traditional weapons for stimUlating economic activity-easy money, tax cuts, and government spending for worthwhile purposes-are perfectly capable of generating an increased demand for public and private goods and services thereby inducing employers to hire more workers. Moreover, we do not need to have the government hire people directly on special programs of public service employment as a long run device to reduce unemployment. The real problem is that every time we push

16125 the rate of unemployment towards acceptably low levels, by whatever means, we set off a new inflation. And, in turn, both the political and the economic consequences of inflation make it impossible to achieve full employment, or once having achieved it, to keep the economy the1·e.

With unemployment now at 7.5 percent, the problem is not an immediate one. A rapid recovery could continue for the next year and a half or so, pushing the unemployment rate down steadily, without setting off a new inflation. But experience in the postwar period to date strongly suggests that once the overall rate of unemployment edges below 5¥2 percent or so, and the rate of adUlt unemployment gets much below 4¥2 percent, inflation will begin to accelerate. And since the underlying rate of inflation, even with good luck, is likely to be running at 4 or 5 percent a year, the new acceleration could lead to very high rates indeed.

Unless the inflationary consequences of low unemployment are tackled, it will prove impossible to get the economy to that level and keep it there. The first problem is political. When unemployment is rising, layoffs are high and for every person actually unemployed many more are afraid for their own jobs. Hence, tt is easy to generate political support for the fiscal and monetary measures necessary to stimulate employment, even when lnfl.atlon is high (Witness the 1975 tax cut and $75 billion deficit). But when unemployment is falling, even though still large, layoffs decline; concern about unemployment shrinks while concern about inflation rises. Ta.k1ng the measures necessary to reduce unemployment st111 further becomes politically impossible when inflation begins to accelerate.

Most of the economics profession would agree that holding the rate of adult unemployment at 3 percent would lead to inflation_ There is, Within the profession, a division of opinion about whether the resultant inflation would be a high but steady rate or an everaccelerating rate. If the latter view is correct, then keeping employment to the 3 percent target would eventually become impossible, since no economy could stand an ever inerasing rate of inflation. One of the reasons we do not know the answer to this controversy is that the political consequences of intlatlon have been such that the nation has never persisted in holding adult unemployment to 3 percent for many years running.

I believe, therefore, that a realistic view of both the economics and the politics of infiation and unemployment lead to one central conclusion: The stumbling block to low unemployment is inflation; the supporter of a full employment policy must of necessity become a searcher for ways to reduce the inflation that accompanies full employment.

S. 50 AND INFLATION

There are a number of ways in which tight labor markets lead to inflation. One of these is the acceleration of wage increases which begins to occur well before the overall unemployment rate has been reduced to reasonable levels. In this context, it is useful to look at the structure of the labor market during periods when the unemployment rate is lower than it is during today's recession, but higher than we would like it to be.

Table 1, on the next page, p1·esents some estimates of how unemployment woUld be distributed among various groups, and the nature of that unemployment when the economy operates at an overall unemployment rate of 5 percent_ Despite the stlll high overall unemployment, the rate among men from 25 to 64 years of age is well below 3 percent , and among women 45 to 64, about 3 percent . Teenage and young adults, however, who constitute only one-quarter of the labor force make up over one-half of the unemployed.

16126 TABLE I.-STRUCTURE OF UNEMPLOYMENT WHEN THE

OVERALL RATE IS 5 PERCENT

Number of Unemploy. Average unemployed ment rate duration spells per

Group (percent) (weeks) year

Male: 16-19 ____________ 13.9 4.0 1.8 2(}-24 __________ 7.3 4.5 .9 25-44_ ------------ 2.7 5. 7 .3 45-64 _____________ 2.2 6.6 .2 64 plus ____________ 3.0 NA NA

Female: 16-19 _______ 15.2 4.0 2.0 2(}-24 _____________ 8.4 4.1 1.1 25-44_ ------------ 4.9 4.3 .6 45-64_ ------------ 3.1 5.2 .3 64 plus ____________ 2.9 NA NA

Addendum: Males and females age 16-24: Percentage oflabor force_________________ ____ ____ 24 Percentage of unemployed_______________________ 51

Source: 1973 structure of labor force and unemplo~ment(when the unemployment rate was 4.9 percent). Estimates of durations and spells adapted from George Perryt "Unemployment Flows Flows in the U.S. Labor Market," Brooktngs Papers on Economic Activity, 2:1972, table 3, p. 59.

The unemployment among teenagers and young adults, under such labor market conditions, arises not so much from a continuing inability to find a job, but rather from a number of short spells of unemployment, as many young people go from one unattractive job to another. The 16-19 year old, for example, would average two spells of unemployment a year, of about four weeks' duration each.l

1 The unemployment duration estimated in Table 1 understates the true duration since many young people, discouraged at finding attractive jobs, drop out of the labor force :tor awhile.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS The central problem 1s that when the over

all unemployment rate gets down into the neighborhood of 5 percent, the job market for experienced prime age workers becomes very tight. There are many unfilled job vacancies and not many unemployed in this age group. The large number of younger unemployed workers do not move in to fill these vacancies. As a consequence, wages are bid up sharply and prices begin to rise, even though the overall unemploment rate is stUl high.

One approach to this problem lies in the whole panoply of job counseling, training, and placement services for youth. Federal efforts in this direction should be continued and expanded. And a carefully structured public service program for youth could also contribute. (Strangely, the "employer-of-last resort" program in S.50 is restricted to adult workers.) But fn all honesty, the record of recent years does not warrant a confident hope that such programs can be the best principal solution to the problem.

GOVERNMENT AS EMPLOYER OF LAST RESORT

Sec. 206 (d) of S. 50 establishes a major new policy-the federal government 1s pledged to become the employer-of-last-resort for those who cannot find work elsewhere. sec. 206(e) (4) provides that a person shall be eligible for an employment opportunity under this section if, among other things, he or she has not refused to accept a job that pays whichever is the highest of either the prevailing wage for that job or the wage paid tn the government-created "employer-of-last-resort,. job. In turn, Sec. 402 sets up a standard for wages in the "last resort" jobs which are bound to be highly lnfiationary.

Under sec. 402(c) (1). for example, the wage paid for a "last resort" Job in which a

June 1, 1976 state or looal government is the employing agent must be equal to that paid by the same government for people in the same occupation. But in states or cities with union agreements for municipal employees, and in many cases even without union agreements, the wage for a low-skill or semi-skilled municipal job is often far higher than the wage paid for the same jobs in private Industry. Given the provisions of Sec. 206(d), a person can turn down a private industry job and still be eligible for a "last resort" job so long as the latter pays more than the former, and in many cases it will, Table 2 shows the wages paid by several randomly selected municipalities for low-skilled jobs. As you can see these are very substantially above mlnlmum wage levels. An unskilled laborer, earning say, $2.50 an hour in private industry, can afford to quit, take unemployment compensation for four to six weeks (or whatever time might be needed to be eligible), then claim a last resort job paying (on municipal wage scales) $3.50 to $4.50 an hour, and come out way ahead.

This would show up In heightened form in any "last resort" jobs created in construction work, since Sec. 402 requires DavisBacon wages which In practice are set at the construction union wage scale In the nearest large city.

It is clear that In any area where municipalities or non-profit institutions pay higher scales for relatively unskilled or semi-skilled labor than does private Industry, the wage scales in private industry w1ll quickly be driven up to the higher level. Otherwise there would be a steady drain of labor away from private industry into "last resort" jobs. A new and much higher set of mlnimum wages would be created!

TABLE 2.-MEDIAN HOURLY WAGES IN MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT'

(In doDars per hour)

City Laborers,

class A

Occupations

Laborers, class B

Park laborers

Truck drivers Refuse (heavy, other

collectors than trailer)

Cleveland, Ohio------------------------------------------------------------------------Kansas City, MO-------------------------------------------------------------------Atlanta, Ga __ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. 83 ------------- 4. 36 4. 36 4. 93 3. 67 3. 34 3. 06 -------------- 4. 42 L~ ~~ L~ L~ ~00 (4. 80) (5.17)______________ (5. 75) _____________ _

4.67 5.13 4.35

(6. 08) 5. 75 ~~~re~?~~;:==:=::::::::::::::::::::::::::::=:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ 08 ~58 -------------- 4. 18 5. 24

1 Except for Portland, the numbers are the median wages for workers in the indicated occupations based on U.S. Labor Department municipal wage surveys taken in various months during 1975.

'The data for Portland are equal to median wages as reported in September 1973, adjusted upward by 10 percent, as a "guesstimate" of the wage increase since then.

The direct and Indirect effects of this on the lnfl.ationary problem would be extremely serious, once the bill was in full operation. Labor would become very scarce over a broadrange of seml-skllled and unskilled Jobs in private Industry. Wage rates would rtse sharply and prices would follow; the size of the government's job programs would grow rapidly, as workers left lower paying private jobs for the higher wages stipulated in Sec. 402.

Once you begin to ask how to correct this problem, the dilemma of any 'government-asemployer-of-last-resort" provision becomes clear. AB pointed out earlier, when the unemployment rate ts below 5 or 5~ percent, most unemployment 1s not long term. Among adult males unemployment often consists of a period of four to eight weeks after a layoff before a new job is found. Among many teenagers unem.ployment 1n such times is not a steady thing, but a period between two relatively low paying jobs. What wages do you pay in the "last resort" jobs? If you pay low enough wages so as not to attract many people :from their existing jobs, you have a very unattractive program. Many private jobs are low-paying, and the only way to avoid attracting people from private industry Is to set the "last resort" wages very

low indeed. But then, except in periods of high unemployment, when even very low paying jobs aren't available, who wants the program? If you set the wage somewhat higher-even if not absolutely high-it w1ll still exceed the wages of many people with a current job In private industry. If so, it will begin to cause an exodus from private in· dustry, and drive up wages and prices.

Table 3, based on Labor Department Surveys of area wage structures, attempts to measure how far below the prevailing (medium) wage for selected low-sklll occupations, wages would have to be set 1n the last resort jobs in order to avoid attracting large numbers of workers from private industry. The first line of numbers for each city and occupation indicates the wage discount that would have to be applied to insure that the wage did not exceed the wages o! more than 10 percent of the workers in private industry. The second line shows the discount needed to keep the last-resort job from being more attractive than 20 percent of the pl"ivate jobs in the same occupation. Thus, in order for a last-resort laborer's job in Buffalo not to attract more than 10 percent of laborers in private industry, it would have to be paid at a rate of 37 percent below the area median wage for laborers. I:f the

wage were set 28 percent below this median, it would still pay better than laborers wages received by 20 percent of the private work force.

TABLE 3.-PERCENT WAGE REDUCTION BELOW PREVAILING WAGE NEEDED TO PREVENT SPECIFIED PERCENTAGE OF ~E~~~i~~ C~~&~ LEAVING PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT;

Occupation

Janitor, Percent-

age po~~a Shipping City cutoff cleaner Laborer packer

Buffalo, N.Y __________ 10 -18 -32 -37 20 -16 -22 -28 York, Pa _____________ 10 -29 -34 -11 20 -25 -17 -10

Cleveland, Ohio _______ 10 -6 -29 -27 20 0 -20 -15

Kansas City, Mo ______ 10 -22 -35 -30 20 -13 -21 -21

Richmond, Va ________ 10 -20 -28 -37 20 -17 -15 -35

Portland, Oreg. _______ 10 -13 -31 -21 20 -6 -26 -14

Source: Based on BLS area wage surveys· lhe 1st line for each city and occupation is the wage at the ioth percentile of workers, and the 2d line is the 20th percentile wage. Linear interpolations were used within the c ass mtervals published by BLS.

June 1, 1976 Special public service employment during

periods of recession is a. useful tool of counter-cyclical policy. Government-financed summer employment "for school age youths makes sense. And, in good times, public service employment, paid at unemployment compensation rates, may be the most appropriate way to provide for that relatively small number who have exhausted their unemployment compensation. (This would, however, imply unequal pay for equal work.) But the concept of government as employer of last resort is not a workable method of pu~hing the overall tmemployment rate down to very low levels.

DEALING WITH INFLATION

I have no magic answer for bow to reduce the inflation which accompanies full employment. But there are a series of steps, each of which could contribute.

1. As mentioned earlier, there should be continued emphasis on programs to make unemployed youths more qualified for the main stream job vacancies which increasingly appear as the overall unemployment rate is reduced. On an experimental basis, a government wage subsidy to employers who hire disadvantaged young workers for permanent career jobs should be tried.

2. Substantial, tough action is needed to deregulate areas of the economy where government itself stifles competition and holds up prices. Transportation is a key example.

3. Actions which reduce the competition from imports should be avoided. Import threats probably do much more than antitrust to keep prices down.

4. That part of the bill which directs the President to develop and submit a plan for counter-cyclical employment creating measures, including public service employment, should be retained. The government as employer-of-last-resort section should be dropped. At the same time, as I indicated earlier, several other methods to help achieve low unemployment without inflation could be added; public service employment for those those who have exhausted unemployment compensation; and, on an experimental basis at first, a program of wage subsidies to employer for pJ:oviding long term jobs to disadvantaged youth.

5. Finally, and most importantly, we need an incomes policy. It cannot be across-theboard wage and price controls; they can't be maintained very long, and they are ultimately far too rigid for a dyna.Inic economy. But we do need to find a way to work out some kind of social compact, perhaps along the lines that Callaghan and Healy are trying to work out in Great Britain. In particular, any sophisticated approach to the joint attainment of full employment and price stability should incorporate use of the tax system as a means of attaining a social compact. There are a number of different alternatives, no single one of which should be locked into a long term bill like S. 50, but all of which should be part of the arsenal which a President could, from time to time, propose as part of the annual full employment and balanced growth plan. My colleague, Arthur Okun, bas suggested several examples of how this might be done: in return for labor accepting a. wage guideline, offer to reimburse labor, via a working man's tax cut, for any overall price increase that is out of line with the wage guideline, and finance part of the cut with a temporary surcharge on corporations; offer employers and workers an option-either to sign whatever wage con tract they want or to sign a contract within the wage guidelines and receive a temporary reduction in social secul'ity payroll taxes.

S . 50 already contains an implicit, but not generally recognized directive to the President to spell out wage and price guidelines. Sec. 104, establishing the full employment and balanced growth plan, requires the Pres-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS ident to set forth goals for "full purchasing power" at levels necessary for reaching goals of the Act. But the only way to set forth an explicit goal for the wage component of purchasing power is to stipulate a wage guideline to go with an employment target; and the only way to specify a purchasing power target for profits is to specify a set of guidelines on general price movements, to go with the wage, employment, and production targets.

RESTRUCTURING S. 50

I think that there would be merit in reorganizing the bill so that it jointly addressed the inflation and unemployment problems, and explicitly pointed in the direction of preventing the inflation acceleration that goes with low unemployment.

The planning and target-setting part of the bill should be rewritten to specify both unemployment and price stability goals: the policy goal would be to undertake those structural and incomes policies needed to approach both goals simultaneously. Many of the sections of the present bill, i.ncluding the manpower training parts, would then become a means of reaching full employment without accelerating inflation. The hidden incomes policy sections should be made explicit, directing the President to develop guidelines and indicating the desirability of using tax policy as a possible adjunct to incomes policies.

Finally, the targets for unemployment and price stability should be made more flexible. The present bill sets an ultimate target of 3 percent adult unemployment which is roughly consistent with a 3Y:t percent ovet·all rate if "adult" means over 18 years of age, and 4 percent if "adult" means over 21 years of age. But such targets should not be absolute. For example, in a situation like the middle of 1973, with inflation beginning to go into double digits and the adult unemployment rate of 3.8 percent, I cannot imagine that, for the year ahead, the federal government would pursue a policy of increasing budgetary stimulation or easier money in order to reach a mandated target of 3 percent. Hopefully, we would never be in that situation again. But no one can be sure in an uncertain world. As I read the present bill, after 1980 (assuming enactment in 1976) each year's target for unemployment would have to be no higher than 3 percent (for adults), regardless of the rate of inflation. I do not think that such a rigid specification of targets each year is consistent with the purpose of the bill which is to be a long term guideline for econoxnic policy. Nor do I think the goal for unemployment should be expressed in terms of adult unemployment. The individual distress and social problems caused by high unemployment among youth warrant attention as well as does unemployment among other workers.

Even with the specific anti-inflation measures suggested above, we do not know how low the unemployment rate might be pushed without running into the inflation barrier. The goals set forth in the Act, therefore, must be quantitatively imprecise. I would suggest that they be rewritten in language which directs the President to present longrun plans for reducing the infiation that heretofore has accompanied low levels of unemployment and simultaneously to outline the actions needed to reduce unemployment towards the lowest rate sustainable over the long-run. The specific proposals and plans that he present each year, in response to this directive, will in a.ny event, be widely debated before the Congress and in the media. It is unrealistic to expect that the simple inclusion of a single numerical target for unemployment, like 3 percent, in a planning bill of this type will somehow force a President to take action to get there, regardless of the consequences.

16127 SUPPORT FOR PARK GOVERNMENT

HON. JOHN M. MURPHY OF NEW YORK



Mr. MURPHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, there has been of late a persistent effort to eliminate security assistance funding for the Republic of South Korea, based on allegations of a denial of "human rights" which is inconsistent with the facts. Tomorrow's vote on the House floor on section 413 of H.R. 13680 has brought about a last-minute propaganda blitz of press articles, films, speeches and individual pressures to support such a cut in funds.

Those who would desert our allies have attempted to lend a small amount of credence to their cause from valious members of the clergy, notably Father James Sinnott, who claims that personal and religious freedoms have been severely restricted in the Republic.

The facts do not support such inferences. Mr. Wn.soN of California and I just last week commented in some detail on this topic, and I have today received, and offer for the RECORD, additional commentary from a leader of the Columbian Fathers, Father Michael J. McFadden. Father McFadden's letters serve to prove just the opposite-that there is considerable, and believable support in the Republic of Korea for the Park goveinment.

Father McFadden notes that what Father Sinnott and his followers are doing to disturb the unity of the Korean people cannot be measured. Many Korean priests, ministers and citizens are outraged at the propaganda scheme being carried out, and Father McFadden has been kind enough to bring just a few of these indications of support to the attention of my colleagues:

COLUMBAN FATHERS, Los Angeles, Caltf., May 28, 1976.

DEAR MIKE: So sorry that I will be u.nable to meet you as I am sure you are anxious to hear all the latest from Korea.

As you are aware there are three priests in jail at the moment for what is know.n as the "Myong Dong Incident." This was a. meeting that was held at the Myong Dong Cathedral under a guise of a "prayer meeting." It was instigated by the opposition and the priests were simply "used" so for that reason they had no sympathy from the clergy or people.

It is so annoying to hear of the criticism that Korea is getting in the U.S. as the facts do not bear out what is being reported and those who publish such things have bee.n misinformed. There is more freedom in Korea .now than ever before and President Park is doing a wonderful job and I would safely say that 90 to 95% of the people are right behind him a.nd his policies as they are aware that he has the good of the country at heart. Furthermore, they were never better off economically.

I wish we could meet and I could give you more details.

God's blessing . . PATRICK HEALY.

(EDITOR's NoTE.-Father Healy has served as a Columban Missionary for 21 years in Korea. He is a pastor of a parish on the outskirts of Seoul. Father Healy departed Korea May 23, 1976. The letter is addressed to Father Michael McFadden.)

16128 ST. PETER'S RUltAL DEVELOPMENT

AsSOCIATION, INC., Philadelphia, Pa., September 26, 1975.

DEAR MEMBER OF CONGRESS: Your help and understanding of the situation that exists in the Republic o! Korea 1s of the utmost importance. Hence I am writing to solicit your aid and support. The Government of President Park Chung Hee 1s without doubt the strongest ally that our country has in Asia. Yet, the U.S. Press and Media have been painting a. picture tor Americans that 1s reminiscent of reports that eventually brought the downfall of Nho Dlnh Diem in 1963. Eg. Mr. Halberstam-NYT--June 16, 1963 (5 column hea.dllne) RELIGIOUS DISPUTE STIRS SOUTH VIETNAM-Budd1st Struggle Poses Major Threat to Diem Rule .•. Recently, Mr. Saar, WP, September 3, 1975: (6 column headllne) REPRESSION HELD THREAT TO SOUTH KOREAKim Dae Jung warns of "another Viet-nam" .••

In September 1963 I passed through Vietnam enroute to U.S.A. from South Korea. The allegations against Diem were particularly perplexing to me-many confllcting reports. Upon my arrival in the U.S., ;fortified with knowledge I gained in my travels, I tried 1n vain to defend Nho Diem. To my dismay even my own family were lined up with Halberstam, Brown and SheehanDiem must go-as a Roman Cathollc priest I was prejudiced in favor of Roman Ca.thollc Diem. With what we know now about Vietnam.tmagine my frustration.

I left Korea this summer to find in the U.S. many of my fellow Americans with much the same feelings for Park Chung Hee that they had for Diem 1n 1963. The Fraser Committee Hearings were on, and after reading so much one-sided testimony, I felt conscience-bound to speak out again, not only as a Roman Catholic Priest in good standIng. but also as an American Citizen who has spent most o! the past 20 years 1n South Korea. I testified before the Fraser Committee on June 12th. That I disagree with many of the witnesses is obvious, both in this testimony and my testimony before the same COmmittee on August 5, 1974. That I am concerned with and a champion of Civll Rights, Justice and Liberty is also obvious.

I enclose excerpts from letters that I have received !rom Korea during the summer. Father Crosbie, a SO year Korea veteran missionary spent over 3 of these in a North Korean Prison Camp. He was captured 1n June 1950 and tells his story in a. book published by Newman Press, Westminster, Maryland, 1956 MARCH TILL THEY DIE. Father Phil is now stationed 1n Po Chun, about 15 mlles from the DMZ. Father Frank McGann went to Korea in 1936 and is now in charge of the Columban Fathers vacation home on Cheju Island. Kim In Sang lived under the North Korean Communists from 1945 to 1951 when he with his family was able to :tlee to the South. His last flight from the Communists was April 28, 1975 !rom Saigon.

In conclusion, I beg you to take a hard rea.listlc view of the situation 1n South Korea. and brtng your lnfluence to bear in any legislation that might a1fect 33 mlliion South Koreans. Although there are some seemingly harsh measures by our sta.ndards taken by the Pa.rk Government. we must view these in the over-all picture, and even though we vehemently disagree with them, we should consider the form of Democracy existing in Korea, its origin and growth in 30 years, the ethnic and traditional background of the people, coupled with the imminent threat of War being provoked by North Korea. If we fail in Korea. as we did in Vietnam, then we are reverting to the past, and must be held accountable for the future.

If I can be of any service to you in this field, please do not hesitate to call upon me. I am recovering from hepatitis that struck

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS me while in Korea, and will be 1n the United States until early November at least according to latest reports from the Doctor, and my Superiors. You can contact me at my Mother's home 1n Philadelphia-telephone 215-844-9058, or write to me at her address listed along side o:t my Korean address on the stationery. Thanking you in advance for taking the time to read. this letter, I remain,

Sincerely yours, (Reverend) MICHAEL J. McFADDEN,

Director.

EXCERPTS FaOM LETTERs TO REV. MICHAEL J. McFADDEN FaoM SoUTH KoREA

Letter from Rev. Phlllp Crosbie, Pastor of Po Chun, author of "March Till They Die." Newman Press, Westminster, Maryland, 1956. An account of his experiences in a North Korean Prison Camp-195o-1953-a 30 year veteran of Korean Missionary work 1n Korea.

AUGUST 20, 1975. DEAR MIKE: You certainly have my permis

sion to use my name, quotations from book and letters and so forth. Can't see that it would help much 1n the U.S. but you be the judge of that. Of course it will be said that we are both in favour of the repressive measures that Park Jong Hee a.llows, but that cannot be helped. In a verbal tussle, folk are not apt to make fine distinctions.

For me this is a parallel situation. You are out in an open boat with a. fellow you are not exactly 'buddy-buddy' with. (Park Jong Hee & Co.) 1n it. If you have a disagreement with this fellow are you going to stand up in the boat and fight!

If you look around Po Chon today, Mike, life is fairly normal and the people reasonably well off. People do not seem to be worried about the political situation-I mean this supposed great lack of freedom. Here at the church we go along without anyone worrying us. The Bishop lent me some fUms on the I.Jfe of Christ and I mentioned to the pollee that I would be showing them in some ot the "kong-608'" (Mlsslon Stations 1 ) in a '<rna-dang" (large yard, e.g., school yard 1) because of the warm weather and a crowd would assemble. The pollee are supposed to be notified, as you know, about an unusual gathering of people. They told me that they thought it would be a good thing to show these movies to the people. I give that as an example. I find the pollee courteous and reasonable. I suppose there are C.I.A. men 1n Po Chon, but I do not know who they are, and I don't think many people do.

Most people seem to have a home and some means of providing a livelihood for the family. We have two COnferences of the St. Vincent de Paul Society in the parish, and they have to look hard to find folk to help.

Practically all the children are being educated and they're happy and care-free. Yet the reds would come if they had the opportunity and bring war, deaths, sufferings, mock tria.ls and very real executions to Po Chon. The very thought of it burns me up!

Look after your health, Mike. All the best, Yours,

Signed: PHlL C. LETTER :FROM KIM IN SANG

AUGUST 25, 1975. Lived under the North Korean Communists

from 1945 to 1951 in Won San where the USS Pueblo was taken in 1968. His last flight !rom the Communists was April 28, 1975 from Sa.lgon.

From 1945 to 1950 North Korean Communists undertook an educational program based on scientific and philosophical reasons in order to ignore the existence of God and taught this to laborers, peasants, and students as well as the general public. They inculcated the absolute dllectic materialism

1 Translations ot Korean words used.

June 1, 1976 and the history ot social development to replace the traditional theism which prevails in Korea.

Many Protestant Christians united all sects and organized the Christian Association in 1946, and this was used as a governmental body under the communist regime. Moreover, mlnisters received the same share of food as civil employees. A few prestigious ones were promoted to members of COngress and some made Governors of Provinces. In this way, the communists pretended to guarantee the freedom of religion under the pretext of democracy. The Catholic Churches were persecuted and their clergymen were arrested all over North Korea. in May 1949. The Catholic Churches, schools and other properties were confiscated and their members scattered like sheep without a shepherd. While putting mllltary efforts together for the Korean war, the North Korean regime eradicated the Catholic churches, leaving the Protestant ones intact--this was because of bitter experience the communists encountered from Catholic members who irrespective of their social status, laborers. peasants, and serfs, struggled against the communist revolutionaries in North Korea, and experience of what the catholic and Orthodox Christians did during the Bolshevik Revolution. Even after the complete suppression of the Catholic church in North Korea, the communists still found out about members by means of disguised priests going from village to vlllage, hearing confessions, and administering to the Cathollcs in secret. When reported these Catholics were immediately executed.

Eventually, all the m1n1sters who worked with the communists and were promoted to high positions and praying for Kim n Sung day and night were arrested when the Korean War broke out, and most of them were slaughtered when North Korea was in an unfavorable situation during the war. For example, the Reverend Hee Ryum Cho who graduated from a theological school 1n the United States and served as a high officer in North Korea was shot to death in a pig house near my home. After devoting himself to the communist regime, Reverend Cho deserved the ·consequence of his betraying God in the communist society. In those days many Korean and Foreign Catholic priests su1fered from persecution and died martyrs death for their faith instead of surrendering themselves.

I hope you feel well soon, Father Nam. and return to our people in Korea.

Signed: KIM IN SANG. EXCERPTS FROM LETl'ER OJ' REVEREND FRANCIS

K'GANN

N.B. References made to any persons, places or things are quoted directly from the letters. Copies of original may be had. from Rev. M. McFadden. Remarks made do not cast any aspersions on the sincerity or integrity of persons involved, but merely a different point of view.

AUGUST 27, 1975. Father McGann, an Irish National, went to

Korea in 1936, was imprisoned by the Japanese during World Warn, retreated to Pusan during the Korean War, was Vicar General of the Diocese of Chun Chon, and is now Superior of the Columban Fathers Vacation home in Che.Ju Island.

"As regards J. Sinnott-1! you mentioned his name, nearly everybody would say 'Who's he?' He is a dead duck here and so is a.ll the racket that was. People are much too sensitive about the North to do anything to disturb the peace here, and they know they never had it so good. What the news e.re saying about here is a damned lie and very unfair indeed-nobody thinks that here, nor does anyone want any fooling around like there wa.s last year. The best thing I heard one of our strongmen from Wonju say was 'well, it's all over, but what are we going to

June 1, 1976 do with Bud!" 2 I can tell you nobody remembers Sinnott in Korea."

Signed: FltANX.

COI.UMBAN FA'l'HERS, Los Angeles, Calif., May 18 1976.

DEAR CoNGRESSMAN MURPHY: This letter is of the utmost urgency to mlllions of peoples throughout the world. I beg you to take notice. Ambassador Harriman, one of our most distinguisbed Statesmen in modern times has stated aga.in and again what he stated at the Foundation of the United Nations which was in essence that the philosophy of Communism was world domination. Slice by slice they have been chopping up the world a.nd causing divisions in Nations that propaganda-wise the people of the United States can not see--because Communist Propaganda is geared for us not to see it. Our Fathers who have been imprisoned, tortured and killed testify to this.

Vietnam is· gone. Angola-Italy-Portugal-any country-you name it is going through agony with Communist subversives. Kissinger just went to Africa--Why??? Ghana didn't want him-Why?? Nigeria. executed 32 political prisoners on the beachit made one page in Newsweek, and a short coverage in the daily newspapers. Nigeria and such countries are not that important yet to the Communist cause. But take a little country of 32 mUllan people in South Korea struggling to keep from under the Communist tyranny they have experienced, a.nd when a few civfi liberties are deprived, this country's newspapers, especially the New York Times, the Washington Post, and The Los Angeles times blow it out of an proportions.

What Congressman Fraser, and his star witness, Pather Jim Sinnott and their followers are doing to disturb the unity of the Korean People can not at this time be measured. But I know many Korean Priests. Ministers and people who are outraged at the propaganda scheme they are carrying out against their country.

I enclose a letter written by the Senior priests of Korea to His Hollness, Pope Paul asking his intervention. I also enclose a Signed statement "from 17 of my closest Korean Priest .trlends telling of their freedom of Religion etc. After twenty years in Korea myself and I just Ie!t there April 22nd, I think their words convey more meaning than anything I could ad.d.

Very Sincerely yours. Reverend MicHAEL J. McFADDEN,

Columban Father.

.APim. 19, 1976. We, the undersigned, met Father Mike Mc

Fadden today in Seoul. Father McFadden informed us about the distorted reporting attitude of some American newspapers concerning the current situation in Korea. Father McFadden also told us about wrong opinions of some American Congressmen in regard to the real situation in Korea.

We would like to assure our American friends, through Father McFadden, that we fully enjoy freedom of faith in Korea. In Mynlg Dong Cathedral, where the March 1st incident took place, 500 people were baptized. Over five hundred thousand Christians gathered in an Easter SUnday service. In Korea, a country facing North Korean Communists, only political-minded priests meet restrictions of the government.

Signed by the pastor, St. Joseph's Church , and 16 ot hers.

MUN SAN CATHOLIC CHUltCH, Republic of Korea..

MOST HOLY FATHER: Kindly permit me to write this letter to Your Holiness 1n the spirit of loyalty to the Church and the Holy See.

2 Reference to Father Bud Holecek who was very active with Father Sinnott.

CXXII--1017-Part 13

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS In the Archdiocese of Seoul, I ofticlally

represent the first age group of senior priests (Nos. 3-58 in the order of ordination, abo e the age of about 42).

Since several years ago. as Your Hollness may be aware, there has been a vehement political turmoil within the Church in Korea, caused by some bishops and priests taking advantage of soclal participation of the Church in Korea. Unfortunately, on March the 1st, some young priests had a political rally together with some Protestant mlnlsters and anti-government politicians during and a.Iter Mass in Myeong Dong Cathedral. Before the rally was over, they reportedly announced an anti-government declaration, demanding President Park's government to withdraw. As a result of this incident, three priests and some others are in prison and many have been acc"ttsed of anti-government conspiracy.

This incident and other such events throughout the country for the past few years have had the following results:

1. Bishops, priests, religious communities, seminaries and lay people are sadly divided.

2. The national security is greatly endangered. The North Korean Communists are already capitallzlng on this incident !or their propaganda purpose. This incident may cause the North Korean Communists to make miscalculation to invade South Korea.

3. The dignity of the Church and clergy Is considerably damaged. The image of priests and nuns shouting political slogans in ehnrch and streets in a country, facing a formidable enemy In the north, can never be In accordance with clerical and religious dignity.

4. There are many serious obstacles in pastoral activities. Many sensible Catholics feel tired of hearing noisy slogans in church, and abstain from attending Masses and church services.

5. Some political-minded bishops and priests are having the Church hopelessly involved in politics, and thus provoke religious persecutions, which nobody wants, neither the Church nor the government. We are certain that we enjoy freedom of religion 1n this country.

Many priests of Seoul have repeatedly given suggestions to cardinal Kim of Seoul to keep the Church and priests away from politics and politicians. But Cardlna.l XJm has obviously falled so far to stop the current political turmoil within th~ Church 1n Korea.

We, therefore, beg Your Holiness to intervene in the current eritical situation of the Church in Korea in order to drive politics and politicians away from the Church and priests in this country .

It has to be utmostly emphasized that the purpose of this letter 1s not to challenge any ecclesiastical authority or any person but to seek a way for unity of all prit!sts in the Archdiocese of Seoul by keeping the Church intact, free from politics.

With deep sentiments o! esteem, filial love and humble obedience, I am humbly and devotedly in Our Lord, given in Seoul, on March the 18th, 1976,

(Rev.) ANTONIUS PoNG, Pastor of Munsan Catholic Church, Offi

cially representing the first age gro-up of senior priests in the Archdiocese of Seoul.

MUN SAN CATHOLIC CHURC~ Republic of Korea, April 8, 1978.

His Excellency Most Rev. LUIGI DoSSENA, J.CD., Apostolic Pro-Nuncio, Kwang Hwa Mun P.O. Box 393

Youa ExcELLENCY, Enclosed please find a copy of my letter sent today to the Holy Father in Rome. This letter was written as o~ March 18, 1976. Since then, some of our senior priests have tried to have dialogue not only with Cardinal Kim but also many younger priests of Seoul. However, our efforts for solution of the current problem Within the Church through dialogue have

16129 failed so far. We ha.ve reached a. conclusion that the d11rerence of optnlon.s among the priests of Seoul 1s deeper and more serious than we have thought.

All told, Cardinal Kim privately admitted that politics a.nd politicians should be driven out of the Church in Korea. But he said he couldn't declare so publicly. The reason for his hesitation, according to Cardinal Kim, is that such publlc declaration (to drive politics and politicians out of the Church in Korea.) may be interpreted in effect to submit to the Korean government's claim that some anti-government politicians abused the Church and priests. Many wonder if the given reason can be acceptable.

I want to assure your Excellency and the Holy See that we will continue our efforts to solve the current problem by means of dialogue in an endeavor to achieve unity among the priests of Seoul.

With deep sentiments of esteem. I am Sincerely yours in Christ.

Rev. ANTONIVS PONG, Pastor, Munsan catholic Church, Offi

cially representing the fint 4ge group of senior priests in the Af"ch.diocese of Seoul.

SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

HON. GEORGE MILLER OF CALIFO:aNIA



Mr. MUJ.ER of California. Mr. Speaker, I have taken a very strong position in support of the school lunch program during this Congress. I was pleased to work hard on behalf of its passage by the House and in overriding the President's unwise veto.

One question which I believe this Congress should take under consideration, now that the continuation of the program is assured, is the nutritional quality of the lunches served to millions of schoolchildren daily.

During committee consideration of the school lunch bill, we were told that the lunches provided under this program were sometimes the only nutritional meals a chfld received during the course of a day.

We never did adequately investigate, to my mind, the nutritional quality of these lunches, however. Recent stories in the press have raised what I believe to be very basic questions about the types of foods purchased under the program, and the unwillingness of many children to eat the food. The articles also illustrate some highly successful programs which offer nutritional and creatively prepared foods which children happily patronize.

I believe a proper and necessary role for the Congress would be to undertake oversight hearings at which the nutritional quality and administration of the lunch program is discussed. The overavailability of sugars, starches, high cholesterol and other nutritionally hazardous food which seem to appear frequently in lunch programs do not serve the children who need good food which the program is designated to provide.

In addition to the formal lunch program, I believe we should study the food available to schoolchildren in vending machines located. in school buildings. We ought to investigate, also, the availabil-

16130 ity of cigarettes to our school age children within public buildings.

our respective committees, by using our oversight powers, ought to look into these areas at the earliest opportunity. Hopefully, these articles will begin that process.

The articles follow: [From the New York Times, May 19, 1976)

(First of two articles) L UNCHES FOR PUPn.s GIVEN POOR MARKS

(By Mimi Sheraton) New York City children are being fed

school lunches that are both unappetizing and often far below minimum standards of sound nutrition.

Faced With food that is all too frequently soggy, salty, cold or burned, a large number of children toss the lunches, uneaten, into garbage pa.Us.

These conclusions are based on this writer's three-year study of 150 public, private and parochial schools, and the findings on low nutrition and waste were corroborated recently in a. report released by State Comptroller Arthur Levitt.

Mr. Levitt's auditors, in a study made two years ago, found that 22 of 66 lunches (containing 40,000 servings) did not meet the minimum nutrient requirements set down by the United States Department of Agriculture.

The meals eaten in New York City schools often are served in crowded, drab feeding halls to rushed children in hats and coats who have only 20 minutes to line up for food, eat it and then line up again to dispose of the trays.

To eat the food, they frequently were crammed on benches at narrow tables as they try to cut meat, scoop up soup or wind up spaghetti with a spork, a diabolical utensil that is a sort of papery plastic ice-cream scoop With blunt tines at the tlp.

Only a few schools offer spoons for soup, and no children are given knives, for reasons that are depressing and obvious.

In New York City, 556,225 lunches are served on an average day to youngsters in public and nonprofit parochial schools at the elementary and junior and senior high levels. Of the total, 92 percent of the meals are given without cost to the youngsters who qualify because they come from lowincome homes.

In order to obtain Federal and state subsidies that make it possible for the schools to provide free lunches, schools must serve what the United States Department of Agriculture has designated as Type A lunches, which represent one-third of the recommended dally requirements of all nutrients for 10-to-12-year-olds.

Each lunch must include a two-ounce edible portion of protein in the form of meat, fish or cheese, or one egg or half a cup of dried beans or four tablespoons of peanut butter, or an equivalent combination of any of these.

It must also include half a pint of fluid whole milk, three-quarters of a cup of vegetables or fruit, one slice of bread or a roll or muffin made of enriched flour. and one teaspoon of butter or fortified margarine.

These requirements are met in New York City with four lunch systems-the basic lunch, the cooking ca:t'eteria, the use of bulk frozen convenience foods, and t he u se o! so-called meal packs.

BASIC LUNCH

The simplest of these is the basic lunch, which is served in only 162 elementary schools. Because these schools have virtually no cooking facilities, the lunches consist of soup and sandwiches or of entrees heated from cans, plus a fruit desert and milk.

Cooking cafeterias are used in 528 elementary and junior and senior high schools. They use fully equipped kitchens where hot

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS meals are cooked from fresh ingredients, sometimes supplemented with convenience items.

Bulk frozen convenience foods are served in 119 junior and senior high schools. In these places, the food iS prepared in kitchens that have only convection ovens to heat fully prepared and portioned foods. Sometimes fresh fruit is added.

LIKE TV DINNERS

Meal packs make up the fourth system and they are a three-year-old program presently used in 434 elementary schools. They consist of fully prepared frozen entrees in fitted foil trays that are much like TV dinners. Unfrozen items, such as bread, fruit and dessert, are served separately.

Comptroller Levitt's report listed estimated costs for food alone in the various systems. Using a hamburger lunch as an example, the findings were these: 78 cents in a cooking cafeteria, 69 cents for bulk convenience and 75 cents for the meal pack.

The basic lunch cost for the hamburger . was not calculated, but Julius J. Jacobs, director of the Board of Education's bureau of school lunches, estimates that they average 30 percent less than meal packs.

Although prices have risen since the audit two years ago, they have maintained the same relationship.

It is significant that the quality of school lunches did not depend on the age or condition of the school, nor on the income level of the neighborhood, but on the type of food system used. with smelly, tasteless and tepid meals predominating when the lunches were made from convenience foods, either frozen or canned.

I had a wonderful turkey dinner with mashed potatoes in the dilapidated cooking kitchen of Charles Evans Hughes High School in the Chelsea section of Manhattan, but I had a dreary, scorched lunch from a meal pack in Public School 6, which is in a wealthy neighborhood on upper Madison Avenue.

The fried chicken at the new John F. Kennedy High School in the Bronx was of the bulk convenience type, and it was steamy and musty. But the mildly spiced but savory chili made from scratch in the fairly modern P.S. 41 in Greenwich Village was satisfying and delicious.

The same range of features from bad to good, described in detail below, holds true for the same systems when observed in other cities that I studied-chicago, Newark, New Orleans and Milwaukee.

THE BASIC LUNCH

The nutritional requirements are met with canned soup and sandwiches, prepared at the schools, which fulfill the bread and butter needs and the protection needs with such fillings as cheese, sliced meat, peanut butter and tuna fish. Soups such as vegetable, chicken or beef noodle, tomato and split pea are products of standard commercial packers, with the Heinz brand most in evidence.

Vegetable or fruit requirements are met with vegetables in the soup or with fresh or canned fruit desserts. Milk is included and, on special days, ice cream or cookies are added.

CHILDREN BALKED While one might wish for a better choice

of breads than the standard American white or the hamburger, hot dog or hero rolls, whenever rye or whole wheat alternatives have been tried, most children have balked at eating them.

In order to upgrade the soup-and-sandwich format, and to satisfy the demands of parents for hot food (even though most children prefer it cold), most schools with these basic lunches serve heated canned entrees once or twice a week.

These entrees include ravioli, spaghetti with meat-balls or sauce, sloppy joes, beef stew and canned cooked hamburgers in tomato sauce or gravy. Because sauces make it

June 1, 1976 hard to be sure that two ounces of protein have been picked up in the serving ladle, a slice of American cheese is usually added to such entrees.

The canned pasta products are the starchy, slippery, overcooked and oversweetened types found on supermarket shelves, and are made by Chef Boy-ar-dee, Prince and an institutional packer, Venice Maid. The worst entrees are the sodden canned hamburgers, mealy with textured vegetable protein and tasting every bit as sour as they smell.

It is unfortunate that the * • • who encourage them to eat, in such bad repute, because of all the lunches observed this was the one that consistently led to the least waste because it was most preferred by the children.

Since this is also the least expensive lunch, it is too bad that it is not used at least in combination with one of the other systems. Instead soup-and-sandwich kitchens are being systematically replaced with meal pack systems.

COOKING CAFETERIAS

This is by far the best system in operation, with fresh food prepared in fully equipped kitchens. Among the more memorable entrees eaten in such kitchens were crisp ovenbaked chicken, roasted fresh ham, chili, sloppy joes, meat loaves, Italian-style meat sauces, and corned beef and cabbage on St. Patrick's Day.

Some fresh vegetables are used, although most are canned, but even those are especially well handled by cooks who take pride in the meal they turn out. The vegetables are usually well drained and tossed with butter or margarine. They are altogether superior to their frozen counterparts in bulk convenience kitchens.

SOME FLEXIBILITY

Rice and potatoes are freshly cooked, but most of the potatoes at·e frozen or dehydrated, and convenience items such as breaded fish portions are, again, carefully handled.

With this system, it is possible to give larger portions or seconds of individual items to older children. Best of all, perhaps, is the appetizing smell of food in these kitchens when the children come in to lunch and the warmth and friendliness of staff members who encouraged them to eat.

In three dozen cooking cafeterias visited, only four turned out genuinely poor cooking.

While the waste observed in cooking cafeterias was far less than in meal-pack lunches, there was still far too much, mostly because of vegetables that were thrown away, and one still has to work around the unpredictability of children's tastes. One group of junior high school students in District 1 on the Lower East side ate a-lmost every shred of the excellent freshly made cole slaw. Another group, in a Newark high school, left every shred of equally good and equally fresh cole slaw.

BULK FROZEN CONVENIENCE

This system, followed only in junior and senior high schools, uses precooked frozen foods. The kitchens have convection ovens for heating, conveyor belts for arranging trays and no conventional ranges or ovens.

Fried chicken that is at once dry but greasy; curled-up, dry hamburgers; gray, soggy fish portions, and metallic-tasting meatballs are among the standard hot entrees. A cold sandwich is almost always available as an alternative.

At the handsome new Martin Luther King Jr. High School at 66th Street and Amsterdam Avenue, a luncheon entree billed as a meat ball hero was a. thin, gray, oval sllce of meat loaf, about as appetizing as the worn out ~ole of a shoe, which it resembled.

MEAL PACKS

As far as this observer is concerned, this system is the worst in operation, allowing

June 1, 1976 for even less fiexlbility than bulk convenIence. Foil trays hold fully cooked and frozen protein and vegetable entrees that a.re heated in convection ovens es:pecia.lly fitted for the trays. The result is a serving that looks like the dreariest, tiniest of alrllne meals.

The standards items are tough, sodden hamburgers tha.t are pasty with vegetable protein and usually bitingly salty; limply breaded fried chicken; gray, pulpy fish; damp grilled cheese sandwiches; sour, sticky pizza, usually on thick soda. cracker bases, and salty hot dogs, often tinged with a gray-green pallor.

Fruit, dessert, bread and milk supplled by the bureau a.re often the only part of the lunch the children eat.

Even more important than taste, perhaps, is the question of nutrition. At the time the Levitt audit was being made, the bureau of school lunches was purchasing meal packs from Na.tlona.l Portion Control. Intercontinental Foods Industries, Mass Feeding and Morton's.

All concerned a.t the bureau swore by these suppliers in Interviews, but since many of the protein portions seemed much below the two-ounce-recommended mlnlmum requirement, I sent some of the meal packs to a.n independent laboratory to be weighed.

The Morton's samples' protein portions weighed 1.6, 2.0, 2.1 and 2.3 ounces, while Mass Feedings were 0.7, 1.6, 2.0 and 2.3 ounces (the 0.7-ounce one being a. tiny fried chicken wing).

The Intercontinental packs had protein portions that weighed 1.2, 1.8, 2.0 and 2.3 ounces.

National Portion Control and Intercontinental were later dropped as suppliers, but Mr. Jacobs of the lunch bureau said, "They were dropped strictly on a bidding basis. Their prices were higher than those we selected."

Mass Feeding and Morton's remained as suppliers, and in the last school year, Larry's Inc., was added, and upon seeing a few of its meals, I sent one seemingly inadequate sample to the same laboratory. Tests found that it contained only 1.7 ounces of protein.

This year Larry's has been dropped. Also this year, I saw some Mass Feeding packs that looked inadequate in protein, but I was unable to have them tested: District supervisors said that it was against regulations to take them otr the premises.

The Levitt study examined the nutritive values of the food and reported failures of many lunches to contain the recommended da.Uy requirement of one-third of the youngsters' needs. National Portion Control and Intercontinental did not meet the ba.slc requirements for 6 out of the 12 nutrients in 17 out of 47 meals, the Levitt audit said, and Morton's at times lacked sufficient Iron or phosphorus. Reports were not included on Mass Feeding.

FINDINGS CORROBORATED

If these packs often are short in nutrients and in protein weight, they are almost always una.ppetlzlng. The instant mashed potatoes are caked into the compartments like library paste, carrots are waterlogged, shriveled peas are often burned black, the corn kernels are almost empty, the string beans are brownish and the baked beans are mushy.

All of this corroborates the Levitt audit's contention that the lunch bureau's inspection methods leave much to be desired, and when the report was released last week, the Board of Education said it agreed with the findings.

However, during the three years that I have been doing his research, everyone questioned in the lunch bureau lnsisted that inspection was adequate. It, must be noted that inspection of meal packs 1s especlally d11ficult, because each pack 1s sealed with foil for proper heating.

Only inspection of every pack as it 1s opened by the children would assure a.de-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS quate portions. Never did I see a lunchroom attendant return a meal pack because of small portions or because the food was burned or cold.

Meal packs accounted for the greatest waste, and a.t one elementary school in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn, I counted 40 children in a row who dropped unopened packs into the garbage can even though they contained hamburgers, a normally popular item.

LUNCH FROM HOME

Reasons this occurred must include the possibility that some children brought lunch from home even though they took the free lunch, that they had had bad experiences with meal packs in the past and assumed they were a.ll alike, and that they were just shy, frightened and rushed and needed encouragement to taste the food and give it a. chance.

It has been found in interviews with children, parents, supervisors and lunchroom attendants that meal packs meet with great acceptance within the first eight weeks of their introduction, but that they then begin to decline in favor. This is perhaps due to the sameness in menu and :Oavor that they present.

Another drawback to the meal-pack system is that the same size lunch is served to children of every age, from the tlniest first-grader to the biggest fifth-grader.

INFLEXIBLE FORMAT

And the meal packs and the bulk convenience kitchens share this shortcoming: Once the kitchens are stripped of all conventional equipment to accommodate the heating of prepared frozen foods, an infiextble format takes hold and the schools cannot take advantage of lower prices for fresh foods and seasonal bargains. They are at the mercy of the convenience-food processors.

There are opponents to this within the school establishment. Richard Reed, chief of the New York State Education Department's bureau of school foods, said of meal packs:

.. They may make good stopgaps until com.plete kitchens are installed, but they are certainly no permanent satisfactory answer."

Others concur with Mr. Reed, including one of Mr. Jacobs's most valuable deputies in the school lunch bureau. who said, asking to remain anonymous:

"There is no room for profit-making companies in a public school lunch system. We could give the kids more and better food if we cooked it ourselves.''

But Mr. Jacobs remains the school pack's greatest booster, swearing by it and the bulk convenience method, and new schools in New York City are being equipped only for these systems and in older schools a.s old-style equipment wears out it is replaced with convenience faclli ties.

''Frankly and honestly," Mr. Jacobs said last week, "this bureau 1s committed to convenience food lunches, both in the form of meal packs for elementary schools and bulk frozen for high schools. We feel it is less expensive than food prepared at local labor costs, the food is more sanitary, and we can get the processors to adjust their products to our specifications."

And so, the more than half of the city's .more than one mllllon schoolchildren who get their lunches in this program will be eating more and more frozen convenience foods. Those in the remaining half-million or so will do a.s they have done before: go home for lunch or bring it with them to school.

Observations of the latwr group yield results as discouraging as those cited above. Instead of finding the nutritious. high-protein selections that one mlgbt expect, 8 out of every 10 brown-bag lunches that I have seen appear to be even more deficient than the school lunch. They feature jelly sand-

16131 wtches, cookies, candy, pretzels, potato chips and, instead of mllk. soda.

SCHOOL LUNCH UTOPIA: Nu I.14POSSIBLE DREAM

School food does no~ have to be bad. As hard as that may be to believe, considering the food served in most 'ew York City schools. there 1s a good deal of encouraging evidence to the contrary. Many schools throughout the country achieve more than minimum standards of palatability, aJl on limlted budgets and witbln the requirements of the United States Department o1 Agriculture.

Based on a study of lunches in 150 schools in five cities, the key to success appears to be the amount of preparation done in the school kitcl:.en. The formula, at its simplest, is the more the better.

I! there is a. school-lunch paradise, it 1.s Milwaukee, and the lively, energetic perfectionist who is the director of that program, Thomas J. Parley, has won a number of prestigious food service awards.

Boasting a. 70 percent parttclpatlon out of an 105,000 enrollment, with 22,000 free lunches, Mr. Farley prepare.s meals from scratch in almost every school, baking everything on the premises, including hamburger rolls, and transporting hot cooked food to the few schools that have no kitchens. He does a.ll of that at what he says 1s the lowest priced lunch 1n any major city in the United States, a. figure he compiles each year by requesting prices from 50 large cities.

Elementary students pay 30 cents, while high schools charge 35 cents per lunch. The program is self-supporting and receive no municipal funds to supplement Federal and. state subsidies.

Every school in Milwaukee otrers the same lunch on a. given day and, unlike t.he New York high schools. no a.dditl.ona.l foods are sold a la. carte nor are students permitted otr the premises for lunch.

Leafy green salads with a choice of dressings, delicately seasoned Swedish meat balls, convincing lasagne and crisp golden grilled cheese sandWiches are among the understandable favorites.

Asked how he could produce such good food a.t such low prices, Mr. Farley gave several reasons.

"For one thing, remember you get better food," he said. "Why that meal pack stutr could gag a. maggot. Since we prepare the same meal !or a.Il schools we get better bulk prices, have less waste, and pay lower delivery charges since wholesalers do not have to figure out which schools get what.

"And, of course," he continued, "it's just plain cheaper to do your own cooking than to have someone else do it !or you. Our labor eosts are about 30 percent lower than New York's, but even more important, we do not pay a. differentiated wage scale. We can rotate kitchen workers so they Jearn an jobs and become well-trained."

CHOOSE MENUS

If Milwaukee food personnel hear few gripes it is mainly because two students from each of 33 high schools meet seven times a. year with Mr. Farley to relay student complaints and suggestions, decide on new menus. and try out new recipes and products. Having had a voice in the menu planning through their representatives students do not resent menus imposed on them by adults.

When asked if the lack of choice might not be a shortcoming, Mr. Farley explained: "Remember, our students make a choice when they choose their menus. Choice on a cafeteria llne is bunk. You could have two or even three choices a. da.y and there would still be some kids who didn't like anything ava.lla.ble:•

But I would have to have the same comm:ltment from the Board of Education in New York a.s I got in Milwaukee. That is to

16132 install cooking kitchens in new schools and add then to existing buildings. ours here is a 20-year plan.

"It would cost more, but could stUl be done within Federal, state and municipal allowances. Not that I would want to have that job of course. It's possible that there's just no 'way to be right in New York."

Like Milwaukee, New Orleans also cooks the same lunch from scratch, for all schools in the city each day. Every midmorning, students in classrooms are blissfully distracted from studies by the sweet smell of freshly baked rolls being taken from the oven. Entrees such as red beans and rice, chili, Italian specialties and even shark are seasoned to suit the spice-loving New Orleans palate.

SUCCESSFUL AND SIMILAR

Chicago and Newark, both of which utilize the same !our lunch systems as New York, have the same record of success and !alluregood lunches when cooked on the premises, mediocre to poor lunches when comprised of metal packs and bulk convenience choices.

New York does a much better job than either, however, with the basic soup and sandwich lunch.

As a group, some of the best lunches in New York were those cooked-fr()m the basics up-in District 1 on the Lower East Side. Three years ago, the local school board chose to administer its own lunch program.

Throwing out all meal packs, bulk convenience and basic lunches at the demands mostly of parents, the local board hired its own personnel, developed its own sources for food and planned its menus, taking advantage' of all Federal and state subsidies and donated commodities.

Nine old schools with no kitchens received meals from cooking kitchens in heated conveyors just before lunch. Much fresh food is used, supplemented with about the same range of convenience items used in cooking kitchens operated by the city's school lunch bureau.

So satisfied are the parents in this district, that they voiced strong opposition when the recently completed Public School 142 was equipped only for bulk convenience foods.

When the District 1 board threatened not to open the school until a cooking kitchen was installed, a range and venting system were added.

But the single best group of school lunches sampled in New York were those served at yeshivas, under the Board of Jewish Education. Since these schools qualify for all subsidies and donated commodities, they must meet government standards. In addition, because their food must be kosher, and such convenience items are either not available or extremely expensive, they are practically required to do all cooking from scratch.

Even considering the advantage these schools have by catering to a homogeneous group with the same eating habits, and not having to meet union wage scales, they do an extraordinary job of turning out delicious food.

Beautiful vegetable and bean soups, cold beet borscht, elaborate, crisp salads, vegetable chow mein, and pizza made with doneted flour are among the dairy specialties.

Meat kitchens add expertly seasoned goulash, and convincing Italian meat balls and sauce, or inventive entrees such as crisply breaded schnitzels cut from turkey roll. And the cakes and cookies could compete with those at quality neighborhood bakeries.

FOODS CEOLDREN LOVE

It is not really difficult to figure out what children like to eat. In any city, among children of all ages and backgrounds, there is almost total agreement on favorites. It is a tribute to the Italian kitchen that its specialties, such as pizza, meat balls, meat sauce, spaghetti, lasagne and ravioli make

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS up a sort o! gastronomic Esperanto, understood by all palates.

Fried chicken, peanut butter (abhorred by parents, adored by children), hamburgers, and, to a slightly lesser degree, chili, hot dogs, tuna fish, grilled cheese sandwiches and fried fish round out the list. The only vegetables eaten consistently were potatoes--french fried, puffs or chips-carrot sticks and buttered corn kernels. Children who like other vegetables are regarded as the lunatic fringe by their peers.

Most children love sandwiches, often making them out of such unlikely candidates as spaghetti and pizza, and they also seem to relish oranges, bananas and canned fruits. Milk is sometimes a favorite-far more popular when chocolate flavored. As much as one might deplore the intake of sugar and artificial chocolate :flavoring, it seems worth that risk to be sure chlldren will get the calcium, protein and vitamins in the milk.

While it might seem simple to plan menus with the favorite choices, to do so would incur the wrath of many parent, consumer and nutrition groups who feel the school lunch should extend eating experiences. But without adequate classroom introduction to new foods and nutrition, and given the limitations of time and the lack of teacher supervision, it would seem preferable to glve children favorite foods that they will eat instead of insisting on choices they will throwaway.

Other concerns with the lunch program should include the drabness of lunchrooms in the new buildings and their ster111ty in newer ones, and the fact that children are not taught to pick up things dropped on the :floor. In addition, there should be concern over the combined residual effects of the additives in the vast amounts of convenience foods served and which educate young palates to accept those foods when they are adult.

Certainly one of the more serious shortcomings is the lack of teacher supervision in lunchrooms. The innovative educator, Herbert Kohl, said in an interview, "The teacher's place is in the lunchroom . . . Albert Shanker will hate me for saying this, but it's true. All sorts of things can be taught to kids through food ... As organized now, the lunch period is the most wasted educational opportunity in the school day."

WAGE INCREASES SHOULD BE RELATED TO PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENTS

HON. ROBERT McCLORY OF ILLINOIS



Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has called attention recently to the relative wage scales in the United States for manufacturing production workers in contrast to those of the other major industrial nations. The figures disclose that the gap between the hourly wages of American industrial workers has narrowed in recent years-and, indeed, American workers receive lower wages per hour than their counterparts in Belgium and Sweden.

Mr. Speaker, the wage rates reveal only part of the story. Indeed, our Nation has been able to compete successfully with other industrial nations in the past, notwithstanding the high level of compensation in this country. However, as I pointed out recently in a statement

Jttne 1, 1976

included in the Extensions of Remarks on Wednesday, May 26, productivity among American workers is not keeping pace with the wage rates.

Mr. Speaker, I should emphasize here that I am in strong support of increased compensation for all Amel1can workers. This compensation is needed and is fully justified-where production levels are maintained or increased commensurately.

However, it is clear that we cannot expect to compete successfully in the marketplace if our wage rates go up and our productivity fails to keep pace-or drops.

An editorial which appeared in the Wednesday, May 26 issue of the Washington Post focuses attention on what has been occurring in the wage levels of manufacturing production workers in the industrialized nations-and the challenge which faces American industry and particularly the American working men and women in maintaining the high standard of living from which all of our citizens benefit.

Mr. Speaker, I am attaching the Washington Post editorial for further clarification and exposition of this subject:

WAGES HERE AND ABROAD

Americans are still accustomed to thinking that they earn by far the highest wages in the world, supporting the world's highest standard of living. But the reality is that wages and living standards in northern Europe have now generaJ.Iy drawn even With this country's. The trend bas been toward convergence for many years, and the average industrial worker in a couple of the smaller countries now makes more than his American counterpart.

The figures are worth careful consideration, for they illustrate the truth that the rest of the industrial world is growing rapidly richer in relation to the United States. That, in turn, helps explain why the American national economy no longer works the way it used to. As the economies of North America, Western Europe and Japan become more similar, they are becoming more dependent upon each others' markets. That costs each government some considerable measure of political control over its own national economy. From World War n up through the 1960s, American economic policy assumed, for the most part correctly, that the rest of the world had only a marginal etrect on the way things worked here. But the lesson of the 1970s is that the great questions of inflation and unemployment are increasingly answered by international influences that no one government commands. It is not a welcome idea, or an easy one for candidates to discuss in an election year.

The converging trend has greatly accelerated in the past several years-years which have apparently constitued, in terms not yet fully understood, a turning point in modern economic history. The pattern can be most succinctly described by the following brief table. The numbers are the average hourly wages, in U.S. dollars, for manufacturing production workers in each of nine countries.

1965

United States ____ --·--- $3.15 Canada --------------- ______ 2.29 Japan ----------------------- ____ .48 Belgium --------- _ _ ____ 1.32 France ____ ··------------------- 1.19 West Germany______________ 1.41 Italy -------------------·--- ----- 1.10 Sweden ...... ---------------- 1.86 Britain ---------------·--·------ 1.13

1970

$4.20 3.46

.99 2.08 1.74 2.32 1.75 2.93 1.48

1974

$5.66 5.50 2.70 5.10 3.41 5.31 3.48 5.48 2.61

1975

$6.22 6.20 3.10 6.46 4.57 6.19 4.52 7.12 3.20

June 1, 1976 These wages include fringe benefits, and

they are translated into dollars at the commercial exchange rates. The rise in wages abroad reflects not only higher pay in those countries' own currencies, but the declining exchange rate of the dollar as well. The source is the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which has also broken these figures down by industry. In Europe, it appears, wages vary much less from one industry to another than they do in this country. To take a high-wage industry, automobile manufacturing, the average production worker's wage in this country last summer was $9.29, a good deal more than Germany's $7.94 or Sweden's $7.25. But the reverse is true in the low-wage industries. In textiles, the average American production worker made $4.09 while his counterpart in Germany made $5.10 and in Sweden $6.31.

One institution that watches these figures with unblinking attention. Citibank of New York, observes in its Monthly Economic Letter that the convergence of wages is making the United States increasingly attractive to foreign companies looking for plants sites. In the 1950s and 1960s, it was American manufacturers who built plants overseas. European companies rarely tried to go into production here because of the enormous wage differentials between their countries and ours. But that's rapidly changing. One notable example is the Volvo plant now under construction at Chesapeake, Va.., and another is Volkswagen's recent decision to build a. pl~n.t in this country. Since those plants mean jobs, they suggest some of the practical benefits to Americans of the new prosperity abroad.

Productivity is output per man-hour, and in the seven years from 1967 to 1974 lt rose 29 per cent in this country. It rose 35 per cent in Canada, and anywhere from 43 to 80 per cent in the major European countries (except in Britain, where it was slightly lower than here). In Japan, it doubled. It used to be common wisdom that, if European productivity approached the American level, the rise would slow down to the American pace. But it doesn't seem to be working out that way. Having met what used to be known as the American challenge, several European countries may well keep up a faster rate of improvement than the United States has shown for quite a. long time. It is worth remembering that, as the rich economies get richer, they are also getting more competitive.

"WE WILL NEVER ABANDON ISRAEL"

HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL OF NEW YORK



Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with my colleagues Secretary Kissinger's speech given before the American Jewish Congress National Biennial Convention on April 4, 1976. Secretary Kissinger is to be praised for his commitment to Israel and his impartial and realistic approach as to what Israel must sacrifice in order to maintain its democratic fotmdation.

In his speech Secretary Kissinger asserts a humane and moralistic philos-ophy of what must be done to attain a Middle East resolution. One of his theories deserve special emphasis since it applies not only to the Middle East crisis but to any turbulency between men or sovereigns that demands peaceful


·settlement-"The ultimate safety of every minority, of every oppressed people, lies in a world where respect for human dignity governs the affairs of nations." Israel is now struggling for the preservation of that human dignity and it is this, Mr. Speaker, which makes Israel's fight legitimate.

Herewith, I submit "We Will Never Abandon Israel":

"WE WILL NEVER ABANDON IsRAEL"

(An Address by Henry A. Kissinger, Secretary of State, to the American Jewish Congress National Biennial Convention, Washington, D.C., April 4, 1976)

RABBI ARTHUR HERTZBERG

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Secretary, distinguished friends on the dais and in the room, ladies and gentlemen of the Convention. It is, a memorable moment that our 60th anniversary Convention, being given here in the City of Washington, should be closed with an address by the Secretary of State.

I would like to tell the Secretary of State something about ourselves. The American Jewish Congress is quite a unique organization. We were born in controversy-indeed, in foreign policy controversy-back in 1916 when the Jews of the United States were divided over what their policy should be towards the peace that would come after the Great War. Should they ask for group rights as a Jewish minority or individual rights as Jewish citizens? Should they demand a national Jewish home in Palestine?

The American Jewish Congress was reborn 1n the 1930's again in the midst of foreign policy controversy. There were those in the American Jewish community who wanted to semi-ignore Hitler, in the hope that he would go away. And the great Stephen Wise, as president of the Congress, took the attitude that Nazism had to be fought openly with every means at our disposal.

Just as we fought from our earliest beginnings for a. Jewish state, so has the American Jewish Congress also been involved, from its very inception, in the domestic controversies of our country: in the struggle for racial justice and separation of church and state, for full employment and equal opportunity, for the fulfillment of the dream of full equality in a free society for all Americans.

And so, in the midst of an ongoing concern and in deep debate about issues domestic and foreign, it is absolutely fitting that a Secretary of State, one whose policies are so much the subject of national debate, should be here to speak to us. I am no expert on foreign policy and don't pretend to be, but there is something we in the American Jewish Congress do know something about, collectively: we are informed about and care about Israel.

There are two approaches to the Middle East. One is confrontation; the other is to try patiently to defuse and relieve tensions, to reduce hostility and to bring the sides closer togeteher. The basic perception of the Secretary of State as we understand it is that de-escalation of tension and of hatrednot confrontation-is the difficult but only

· road to peace. We have asked you to speak to us, Mr. Sec

retary, because we too crave peace and believe that if a peace is achieved in our time it will more likely come to be through patient negotiation and de-escalation of tension than through confrontation and sabrerattling. We do not promise that we will not disagree with you, as we disagree with others. But we share your basic commitment to peace and appreciate your endless and tireless pursuit of this elusive but precious goal. And in that spirit, Mr. Secretary, in a moment or two, when Henry Rosovsky takes back the

16133 chair and has said what I know he has to say, we are going to give you two things: a Jerusalem Bible, the only Hebrew Bible ever printed in the holy city of Jerusalem; and a scroll, which Dr. Rosovsky will read to you at the end of his remarks.

May I say, as the president of the American Jewish Congress, that we are deeply honored by your presence in our midst at this closing session of our bicentennial convention in this, our nation's capital.

DR. HENRY ROSOVSKY

It is no longer possible to give Secretary Kissinger an introduction in the ordinary sense of that term. The events of his life are well known to all of us. His accomplishments and honors are a matter of historical record. All I can do, therefore, is to attempt to make him feel welcome at this Convention of the American Jewish Congress, welcome in the name of our organization and also very personally.

I first met Secretary Kissinger thirty years ago-in 1946 in Oberammerga.u, Germany, at the European Theater Intelligence School. He had been a soldier and was now teaching German history. I was a soldier in the Army of Occupation and a student at the school, in one of his classes. We were both Hitler refugees, very young and very new Americans. Thirty years have passed, and our paths have crossed many times since then. But I allude to this common experience because I believe that it contributed to a. bond of deep sympathy.

These days it is frequently suggested that Secretary Kissinger is a pessimist about the future of this country and the future of the democratic West. I do not think that he is a pessimist, but I have no difficulty in 'Understanding his deep sense of unease when-as occasionally must happen-his thoughts go back to the spirit of this country when we were both newcomers, or when he contemplates the state of mind and the state of politics in the few democracies that remain.

My personal memory includes all the Secretaries of State since Cordell Hull. None have faced greater obstacles and none have performed the duties of the office with greater success, dedication, or intelligence, At this moment in our history, when all values are questioned; when "nothing sacred" has almost become our national motto; when public scrutiny of all affairs of state may be our highest form of political art; when our country is still reeling from the effects of the Vietnam War-a. conflict that will undoubtedly rank with the Civil War in importance When history is written a hundred years from now-one sometimes wonders how it is possible to be Secretary of State at all! And yet, every time the experts on Schadenfreude (malicious joy) have set the latest trap and predicted certain doom, there is a new achievement-usually set against the backdrop of very long odds. May these achievements continue.

Mr. Secretary-! am tempted to say "friend Henry," though this might be considered inappropriate-we are at a Jewish convention with a largely Jewish audience, and a word or two about that is also in order. We all know that your relations with the Jewish community have sometimes been difficult, and this would have been true of anyone occupying your high office. (You will have to admit that we are not alone in giving you periodic headaches!) The American Jewish community is the largest in the world, and in some ways the most influential. We--together with Israel and the Jews of the Soviet Union, and some other small communities-are the remnants of the Holocaust. The American national interest is our own, as we have demonstrated many times. But the fate of our brethren throughout the world is crucial to everyone of us.

16134 That 1s the meaning of "We are one." We

do not intend that slogan to be narrowly interpreted. We are one, not only for ourselves. Our communities, and especially this oTganizatton, have stood against injustice and oppression everywhere. But we also stand for ourselves, for our remarkable though tragic past, for the concerned present, and for a peaceful and productive futw·e.

Mr. secretary: I know that you are one of us, and I also know that when the history of this country and the chronicle of the Jews of this era are written, you will be honored in both.

I am therefore honored to present to you this Jerusalem Bible and this scroll, which I read to you now:

AMERICAN JEWISH CoNGRESS, Washington, D.C., April4, 1976.

To HENRY A. KisSINGER, Scholar, Historian, Diplomat, U.3. Secretary of State:

Who dares to dream that men and nations, despite their ideological di:frerences, will find a way to Uve together in peace. Toward the reallzation of that dream, we offer you our prayers and our hopes so that, in the words of the Psalmist, mercy and ·truth may meet together and righteous and peace embrace.

RABBI ARTHUR HERTZBERG, President,

American Jewish Congress. HE:r>.""RY ROSOVSKY,

Chairman, Commission on Int. Affairs.

Ladies and Gentlemen: I have the honor to present to you the Secretary of State of the United States of America.

HENRY A. KISSINGER

Rabbi Hertzberg, Dean Rosovsky, Mr. Wilkins, distingu1shed guests, friends:

I am honored by this citation and by the very moving words you have spoken. I would like to extend to Rabbl Hertzberg my congratulations on his re-election as president o! the American Jewish Congress. He and I have worked together through many difficult times in the cause of the great goals we all share. His moral strength and wisdom are in the great tradition of Jewish splrttual and community leadership and now that he 1S safely re-elected I can say that I consider him a friend.

I am grateful also for the remarks of my old friend Henry Rosovsky, who has maintained his humanity 1n the inhuman Job of Dean of the Harvard faculty and his perspective during many turbulent periods. He and I share s1m11ar life experiences which impose upon us, both of us, certain perceptions and moral obligations. His words mean a lot to me.

And I am honored to share the platform with Boy Willt1ns, a great American. His life long devotion to the cause of civil rights, and indeed, the partnership between the JewiSh and Black communities symbolized by this occasion have a special place in the history of this democracy. America's tradltionalideal of brotherhood and opportunlty is becoming a reality because men like Roy Wllklns have fought for it.

Now I have wondered what I should say to this group about our foreign policy. Rabbi Hertzberg has delicately referred to some occasional disagreements usually directed, lf I understand them, not at things I have done but of things I am suspected of planning. And I reallze also that there is a pecUliar difficulty of conducting foreign policy viS-a-viS a country of three mlillon people and six million opinions. So let me talk a bit about some of the basic assumptions of our foreign policy and bow in my view. they relate to the problems of the Middle East and the future of Israel.

The greatness of America has been not so much its physical strength as its moral significance. Since its birth this nation has st ood for something larger than ltsel!. Ameri-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS cans have always had a sense of moral misSion; we have been inspired by the knowledge that we were champions of Uberty and of progress for all mankind. We have been a refuge for those fleeing persecution, for the defense of democracy, a feeder of the hungry and a solace to the suffering. Today we bear a central responsibility for maintaining peace and shaping a global structure which can help realize mankind's dream of an end to conflict and hatred.

These are the qualities and responsibilities and hopes which tie America. to Israel. No people knows more vividly than the Jewish people that morality must be more than a theory-it must be a quaUty of human conduct. No people yearns more for tranquillity than those who historically have been the first victims of its loss. And no people perceives more acutely that peace depends ultimately not on political arrangements but on the conscience of mankind.

History is often cruel, but the wisest are those who know that fate can be shaped by human faith and human courage. The true realists are those who recognize that all great achievements were a dream before they became a reaUty. These are the quaUties that have enabled the Jewish people to survive their tragedies. These are the qualities that brought about the state of Israel. These are the quaUtles that guarantee the future of the people of Israel. And these are the quailties which people and nations everywhere must possess 1! they are to be free.

The moral ba$is ojjoreign policy History challenges us among the world's

amb1gulties to shape events by our own purpo.ses and ideals. U democratic societies Uke America and Israel are to prosper, we must summon the unity and resolve to be masters of our future on the basis of our values.

The declslons that must be made are always di16.cult-:for forelgn policy deals With the interaction of sovereign states. No county, no matter how strong, can impose its will on the world. Today, in a world of thermonuclear weapons, di1fusion of power and growing interdependence, foreign poUcy is more than ever an enterprise of incomplete and imperfect solutions. Tension 18 unavoidable between mora.l values, which are invariably cast in absolute terms, and efforts to achieve them, which of necessity involve compromise.

This accounts for much of the foreign policy debate in democratic societies, in America and in Israel, which to some extent is a rebellion against the contemporary reality. In all democratic societies the temptation is great to deny the circumstances of the world 1n which we Uve and to blame them on individuals, to confuse optlmism with the shallow projection of the desirable.

But we cannot escape conditions around us. Morality without pragmatism is empty, just as pragmatism without moral direction is like a rudderless ship. The true optlmlsts are not those who make facile predictions but those who a.re prepared to face complexity and who have the faith that their people can master it by dedication and by vision.

If democracies like America and Israel are to survive and flourish in a world of competing wills and sovereign states, they must stand firmly for their belie! 1n human dignity; otherwise we will lose our bearings. There Js no way to make these choices. and to navigate between the shoals of temptation and danger, without a strong inner moral conviction. But equally, we need a mature and hard-headed understanding of the difficult choices that must be made, lest we substitute wishful thinking for the requirements of survival.

For Americans. foreign policy has always been more than the search for stability. Americans have always needed a vision of a

June 1, 1976 world of justice that drives all out efforts. A purely pragmatic policy would be empty of humanity; it would lack direction, and roots, and heart.

But equally if poUcy becomes excessively morallstlc, it can turn quixotic or dangerous. our responsibility to conduct a moral, farsighted and reaUstic policy has grown in recent years. In . a world made smaller by technology and communications, events anywhere are instantly known and have effects in distant places. Never before have the destinies of nations been more lnterwinednot only practically but morally.

We have a stake in a peaceful world and an environment where man's aspirations for justice and Uberty and dignity have the greatest chance of fullfi.llment. The ultimate sa.:fety of every minority, of every oppressed people, lies in a world where respect for human dignity governs the affairs of nations. Peace can be said to exist only when the insecurity of nations 1s eased, the hope of people for economic advance 1s fulfilled, international habits of restraint and conclliatlon are nurtured, and men experience at last the blessings of a world of justice and progress.

Peace in the Middle East I have spoken at some length about the

moral foundation of our foreign policy to this group which fs so concerned and serious about the survival of Israel, because Israel cannot survive 1n Isolation from the general context of our foreign policy and the general security and progress of the world at large and because the relationship between America and Israel depends ultimately not on rormal assurances but on the Unks of our people and the reality of our values.

The survival and secUrity of Israel are unequivocal and permanent moral commitments of the United States. Israel is a loyal friend and a fellow democracy, whose very existence represents the commitment of all free peoples. The moral strength of the people of Israel, which has so often meant the margin of victory in war, gives us the confl.dence that Israel Will also win the peace. No people has earned it more.

Time and events have brought us to a threshold in Middle East history-an unprecedented opportunity to realize the peace of which we all have dreamed; a peace in the interest of all the people of a region tha.t has experienced enough anguish for this and future genera.tlons.

Israel, having proven by its own courage that it is here to stay, has taken equally courageous steps towards a peaceful resolution of the confllct.

Some of her Arab neighbors, for the first time, are now speaking openly and wisely of making peace and ending generations of confilet.

The United States has demonstrated to both sides its commitment to continue to promote a just and enduring solution.

The relationship among the major outside powers, if conducted with reason and firmness, can create a global environment of restraint that will enhance securlty and the possibllities of peaceful settlement in the Middle East.

Israel obviously faces profound problemsnot the least of which is that in any n~otiatlon with her neighbors, she will be asked to yield the physical buffers of territory 1n exchange for pledges which are inherently intangible. The process of peace Inevitably presents Israel with many anguishing decisions-and the pain is shared by all of us who are friends of Israel and who are dedicated to further p1'0gl'ess toward peace. Throughout this process we in the U.S. owe Israel ow· compassion and our support.

The risks and obstacles are many. Steps taken must be carefully thought out and realistic. But we must move together, with courage and With a vision of how reality can

June 1, 1976 be shaped by an idea of peace. And we must not paralyze ourselves by a suspiciout?ness that deprives our relationship of dignity and our cooperation of significance.

The United States will help keep Israel stroug-to ensure that peace is seen clearly to be the only feasible course. We will never abandon Israel-either by failing to provide crucial assistance, or by misconceived or separate negotiations, or by irresolution when challenged to meet our own responsibility to maintain the global balance of power.

We will never forget that America's responsibility for peace includes, above all, responsibility for the fate of smaller nations that rely upon us as the ultimate defender of their survival and freedom and that Israel's fate is inseparable from the future of human dignity. America will not abandon a friend because to do so in one part of the world would shake confidence in every part of the world. There will be no American weakness or abdication, for this can only tempt adversaries, confuse allies, and undermine security in the world, ultimately to the grave peril of our country.

Moral ideals and practical interest thus come together. Peace in the Middle East is a goal shared by Americans and by Israelis alike. The road towards it will be a common one. And as we pursue the course of peace, our guarantees rest not so much in any formal agreements or reassurances endlessly repeated but in the deeper ties of emotion and morality, history and principle, that can never be sundered.

The dream of peace is the dream of the prophet Isaiah-that "nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." It is the benediction of Leviticus-that "the Lord lift up his countenance upon thee and grant thee peace." This peace, this dream is both an inspiration and a duty. And those who strive for it know both the pain and the exhilaration of man's noblest endeavor.

The United States and Israel will have the courage and the faith to seek this dream and to fulfill it.

CAREY CRONAN ON WASHINGTONA DIFFERENT VIEW

HON. STEWART B. McKINNEY OF CONNECTICUT


Mr. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, for more than a quarter of a century, the national correspondent for the Bridgeport PostTelegram, Carey Cronan, has been an astute observer and reporter on the Washington scene. In a recent column, he reflected on the "anti-Washington" fever which seems to have infected so many of this year's political candidates. His perspective on the City of the Potomac is a view somewhat different from what we have been hearing and perhaps, a little closer to that which can be described as commonsense. So as to share Mr. Cronan's observations with my colleagues, I would ask that his column be reprinted in the RECORD at this time:

RuN FOR PoLITICAL OFFICE, GET AsKED

A SILLY QUESTION

(By Carey Cronan) WASHINGTON.-It is inevitable in any elec

tion year for any office that silly questions will be asked just as silly speeches will be made and embarrassing situations arise and blossom.

As Mr. Dooley said over 75 years ago: "What's this country comin· to, anyhow, that

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS a man that's out f'r to be President has to set up on a high chair an' be questioned on his record be a. lot iv laads that hasn't had anything to do since th' carpet-beatin' season's ended? ... Ivry day a rayporther comes ... with a list iv questions. 'What are ye'er views on th' issue iv eatin' custard pie with a sponge? ... What is your opinion iv the hereafter . . . Where did you get that hat?"

But, of course, sometimes from silly questions often come serious answers and vice versa.

Take the question of Washington as a whipping boy. Nearly every candidate including the President himself harangues the populace with horrendous tales of the Potomac version of the Loch Ness monster tended by civil service Frankenstein creations that are sapping the commonweal. Yet every one of those candidates wants to become a resident of Washington and move into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. as soon as possible.

There is no doubt that Washington is the last place in the U.S. to find out what the electorate thinks. The information is to be found on Main Street U.S.A. But Washington does have a lot of red tape, officiousness, arrogance, laziness, stupidity, and a morbid fascination with coffee breaks, 26 days' annual leave and the glories of retirement, while getting an extra job to boost the pension.

Washington can be disciplined and curtailed, the only vital aspect being that everyone has his own version of what should be cut. The defenders of a strong democracy would not touch the Pentagon and many who would slice the budget to the bone do not want the local highway or bridge projects eliminated. They do, however, want funds for summer jobs, community affairs, hospital and school construction to remain on the board for action.

As for Congress those are the people the voters send to Washington and they are supposed to represent the folks back home who want to eat their cake and have it too.

Washington can be streamlined but Main Street has to realize that if the economy program is to go into effect, federal orders to local industry will slow down, the housing industry will have to tighten its britches, the local beach will have to suffer additional erosion, the dam will not be built, funds for education will be limited and the shipyards will quiet down.

Perhaps the average voter has to realize more fully that Washington was created by the people themselves and if there is going to be a national economic diet it is going to be undertaken by everyone from sea to sea and maybe we'll only get our mail once a week.

ARE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ACCOUNTABLE?

HON. BILL FRENZEL OF MINNESOTA


Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Speaker, depending on whose poll you read, Congress scores a favorable rating from the American people of somewhere between 10 and 20 percent--hardly a ringing vote of confidence. The lack of trust is based both on legislative performance and on the Members' personal deportment. Three recent events have reduced that rating even further. A prominent TV show accused one Congressman of conflicts of interest. Then a national daily made charges of

16135 congressional cheating on travel expenses. Now a powerful committee chairman is accused of hiring a staff member solely to serve as his mistress.

No censures, or indictments, are in order until the completion of ''due process"-timely resignations from key leadership posts by accused persons would help in the credibility department. But the unwillingness of House leaders to move swiftly on an investigation is frustrating and infuriating. Due process may never happen.

The Congress was a raging tiger in attacking the privilege and arrogance of the executive department. Its now a shrinking violet about looking into improprieties of members of its own club.

Beyond the merits of the individual cases lies a profound and frightening question: Are Members of Congress accountable to anyone, or to any standards, except at election time?

The three events should be catalysts to begin a thorough housecleaning. Try standards of conduct for openers. Add regular audits of expense reporting, and prohibition of nepotism. Throw in also some hiring standards, uniform salary schedules, and then supervise the whole congressional staff through the Civil Service Commission.

Last year new Members of the House bragged of their reforms. Sadly, those changes have proved to be largely cosmetic. Its easy to change the rules, but hard to make real improvements. To do so requires a commitment by Congress and its leadership which is obviously lacking today. A House that cannot be reformed is asking to be replaced.

Most Members of Congress do their jobs conscientiously and well. Yet these incidents re:tlect adversely on every Member, on those who control the Congress, and on the American people. A sense of public out1·age stimulated the Watergate investigation, one of Congress finest hours. Will the same constituency which reelects Members of Congress with monotonous-90 percent-regularity muster the outrage to demand that the House clean up its own befouled nest?

COOKING THE OPTIONS

HON. LARRY McDONALD OF GEORGIA


Mr. McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, some of us h:tve been less than impressed at the recent "shennanigans" as to whether Mr. Kissinger is coming or going as the Secretary of State. Indications are that he will both leave and be retained as Secretary of State should President Ford be the nominee and win the election. I, for one, am not in favor of his contnaunag as Secretary of state any longer than recessary. The damage he has done is beyond calculation. A very thoughful editorial on his performance in office recently appeared in the Wall Street Journal of March 15, 1976. I commend it to the attention of my collc-gues:

16136 COOKING THE OPTIONS

Secretary o! State K1.ssl.nger is going public with a defense of his pollcies. With the genius that has served him so well inside the bureaucracy, he has now presented the American people with the following options paper:

Option A: Surrender. Option B: Accept my policies and stop

complaining. Option C: Blow up the WOI"ld. These are the only options on the table

because, the spokesman for "detente" tells us, his opponents offer only slogans. "What do those who speak so glibly about one-way streets or pre-emptive concessions propose concretely that this country do?"

1) Stop firing Secretaries of Defense who are performing well.

2) Stop telllng James Reston you deplore the Ambassador to the United Nations.

3) Receive Alexander Solzhensttsyn at the White House 1f he's willing to forgive the last snub.

On a more forward looking note, as suggested by various of "those who speak so glibly":

4) Complain vigorously to the Soviets. and don't apologize for them to the American people, about activities that raise questions of compliance with the first strategic arms treaty-Elmo Zumwalt.

5) Start a program of mobile missiles to offset the growing Soviet strategic forcePaul Nitze.

6) Build a navy of 650 to 700 ships by the mid 1980s, instead of the 500 ships the President's budget suggests-Henry Jackson.

7) Develop the cruise missile vigorously instead of barga1n1ng it away-Ronald Reagan.

For the sake of a 10-point program, we might add:

8) Don"t go to Moscow for im~tant negotiations in the midst of a Soviet-Cuban conquest of Angola.

9) Instead, openly interrupt the flow of American technology to the Soviet Union.

10) After getting your signals clear by doing an the above, take to the American people your case that congressional aid terminations, Pentagon budget cuts and assaults on the intelllgence services make a good foreign pollcy tmposstble. and a.sk the people to change the Congress.

SUPPRESSION OF INNOVATION: EVEN ADMINISTRATION AND HEW COMPLAIN ABOUT FDA




Mr. SYMMS. Mr. Speaker, during the course of my research into the FDA and the 1962 amendments to the Food and Drug Act, which my legislation addresses, I have been amazed about the criticism of the FDA which has come from its own people as well as criticism which has been directed at the agency by HEW panels and the President. With all these critical commentaries about the operation of the FDA, the drug lag caused by the unworkable 1962 amendments, and the tremendous economic and health losses infiicted upon the American consumer, I am amazed that regulatory reform has not been commenced prior to my legislation. What legislation has been introduced heretofore is in the nature of


cosmetic reform, and also in the nature of augmenting the powers granted to the FDA. The recently passed Medical Devices Act now thrusts upon FDA many powers to regulate medical devices prior to marketing. I predict that throwing these additional powers at an agency which is already in a state of chaos, where professional employees engaged in spitball :fights in the halls, whose own Bureau of Drugs Director has acknowledged that no one knew where documents were kept or which employee was responsible for what assignment until 12 years after the 1962 amendments. is going to bring about a medical device lag just as severe and just as harmful to Americans as the existing drug lag.

The Congress needs to be made aware of the internal problems of the FDA before it continues along the merry path of passing nice-sounding laws which delegate powers to an agency so fraught by problems that it is incapable of handling those powers.

Dr. Richard Crout. Director of the Bureau of Drugs, testified on Aprll 19 before the HEW Panel on New Drug Regulation. What follow are comments he made during the course of his testimony:

The a.dmlnlstratton of tho drug laws 1s not working properly. The battle to control chemicals properly and optimally has not been sueeesstul. I am not involved yet with all that is going on by any means. So I want to describe to you the agency as I saw it . • . My intent 1s to be very candid and to be fairly personal because, as I read the record and transcripts of your previous discussions with people experienced in drug regulation. I do not think you have been told things like I am going to tell you. And I think that you should know them.

[After describing the problems caused by moves to d1fferent buildings which FDA made, reorganization of various bureaus within FDA and low morale of employees, Dr. Crout continued: 1 When I talked with MD.s or pharmacologists about the NDA process at that time, they really were clearly interested in the loss of documents, the chaos, and the fact that managerial assignments were confused. No one liked this and people felt they were on the hook for work assignments that were never given them . . • There was a whole lot of trouble of that type ••• No one knew where anything was. There was an enormous documents roomI don't know whether you believe it or not, but this was a place where people said fights went on in a literal sense. There was absenteeism; there was open drunkenness by several employees, which went on for months; there was intimidation internally; and there was a great deal of what I would call feudalism in bureaucracy .... I can tell you that, in my first year at the FDA-even actually longer than that, 1972, 1973-golng to certain kinds of meetings was an extraordinarily peculiar kind of exe1·cise. People-I'm talking about Division directors and their staffs-would engage in a kind of behavior that invited insubordination; people tittered in the corners, throwing spitballs-now I'm describing physicians; people would slouch down in their chair and not respond to questions; and moan-and-groan, the sleeping gestures. This was a kind of behavior I have not seen in any other institution from a grown man.

(Dr. Crout went on to describe the mixed results of efforts to improve the administrative operation of the FDA and allegations about influence from the drug industry which stemmed from the 1974 hearings before Senator Kennedy's Health Subcommittee. He then concluded: ] Let me suggest

June 1, 1976 quickly what our long-term problems are • . • FDA has a long-term problem with the recrUitment of personnel, good scientific personnel. FDA sta1f 1s not strong in the same sclentlflc sense that the staff of the NIH is. So, it is a fundamental societal concern as to whether, over the long term, FDA can operate solely with an in-house staff, or what the role of the advisory committees will be, because 1 don't think we will ever solve the problem of a totally strong in-house staff. [Emphasis added]

Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues, I cannot believe that the health of the American public and the need of consumers for newer and more effective drugs has, over the past 14 years, been blocked by such a group of bureaucrats as those described above by one of their own directors. I do not doubt that the 1962 amendments were conceived and passed by this body with every good intention of protecting the health of the American public. But intentions do not become real.ity when one assigns police powers over drugs to an agency beleaguered with internal strife. Intentions do not become reality when the subjective determination of drugs' "efficacy" is handed to an agency which suffers from a lack of quallfied, scientific personnel. An agency which will probably never be able to uPgrade the quality of its staff, according to one of its directors.

Other criticisms of the FDA's tendency to impede medical progress have been leveled. A prestigious group of doctors, academicians and scientists was gathered, pursuant to Public Law 93-352, to review and assess biomedical and behavioral research. Although the study was directed to a review of the National Institutes of Health and the Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Adminlstl·ation, it is interesting to note the comments made by the various panelists about the Food and Drug Administration. These are contained in the Report of the President's Biomedical Research Panel which was issued on April 30, 1976. Among the report's pronouncements, we find the following:

The FDA is constrained against a positive interest in drug development and at the same time cannot monitor utillzation of approved drugs. New procedures for this function, and that of drug evaluation, require extensive collaborative review of the network of involved parties. Drug development has entailed escalating costs, increasing bureaucratic, and at time pseudoscientific, requirements, and increasing frustration for industry, the FDA, and clinical investigators. The system militates, for example, against a feasible technology using a small number of patients to study new entities at an early stage of development. Systems for rapid, relatively inexpensive, and safe answers to a drug's potential utility can be developed, but without policy change might not be utilized.

The HEW, the FDA, and state and local regulations grow steadily 1n complexity, weighing heavily against the acquisition of useful new knowledge and applications to health. Their real utility and impact on therapeutic advances require assessment.

Many feel that the American public is being denied new drugs currently available abroad because of excessive FDA requirements.

There is a clear impasse arising between society's desire for new and better drugs and the barriers society is erecting to their development and introduction. These bar-

June 1, 1976 riers, based on a valid desire to improve the standards of safety and efficacy and to assure ethnical control in clinical evaluations, increase developmental costs. There is a deal danger of bringing the development process and access to clinical resources to a halt.

The FDA stands at a pivotal point in the process of technology transfer, with an extraordinary difficult and complex role, exposed to a steady crossfire of criticism and conflicting exhortations from the Congress, consumer groups, the media, industry, the academic science community and the Administration itself.

At present, the FDA's most visible public function as a regulatory agency is concerned With protection of the public against hazard from new drugs, new food substitutes or additives, and new devices. The systems available for these functions seem to be effect! ve enough, but they also seem to work ponderously and very slowly, requiring the existence of a huge, often unresponsive bureaucracy.

Meanwhile, there is a different kind of hazard to public health, posed by the prolonged delays and great costs of developing new and potentially useful drugs which the FDA's own protective systems have imposed. In some respects, the agency has become a formidable roadblock.

In one section of the Report, Dr. Julius H. Comroe, Jr. discusses the lags between initial discovery and clinical application to cardiovascular plumonary medicine and surgery. At one point in this section he states:

Conservatism of regulating bodies such as the Food and Drug Administration and committees or commissions on human investigation slow progress or block initiation of research.

There is an obvious inconsistency between the insistence by some Congressmen and some branches of the Administration on "instant" clinical applications of new discoveries, and the Food and Drug Administration's regulations that insist on laboratory and clinical trails that may last for four to six years. One branch of government requires a "lag"; another wants to abolish 1t.

Committees to approve or disapprove protocols for clinical investigation have introduced another barrier to prompt clinical trials. Consultants have noted that many life-saving drugs, sera and vaccines might never have been developed under present concern for "no risk".

These are moderate voices, indicating that an extremely serious problem exists and that action must be taken to remedy it. I call upon the Congress and the administration to take prompt action and move toward hearings and passage of the Medical Freedom of Choice Art. That this regulatory reform is badly needed, no one will disagree. In fact, the administration has called for this exact kind of regulatory reform and has taken no concrete steps to bring it about. The 1975 Economic Report of the President states the following:

Governments ... regulate product and input standards. For example, in the case of drugs the costs of regulation include not only the direct costs of testing (borne by the FDA and private drug manufacturers) but also its side effects: !ewer new drugs and delays in the introduction of those drugs which ultimately get to the market. In 1962, Congress amended the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938 to require tha.t new drugs be proved effective as well as safe. Since then the rate of introduction of new drugs has fallen more than 50 percent and the

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS average testing period has more than doubled. Moreover, it is not clear that the average efficiency of drugs introduced after 1962 is any higher than that of drugs previously introduced. One recent study estimates that the 1962 drug amendments cost consumers, on balance between $300 million and $400 million during 1970.

Let the Congress demonstrate that, where the administration has failed to follow through on regulatory reform, our legislative branch can and will follow through.

TRffiUTE TO JERRY R. LYMAN

HO . JOHN H. ROUSSELOT OF CALIFORNIA



Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues the unique contribution that one of this city's citizens, and the radio station that he manages, have made to the cultural awareness and musical enlightenment of our Nation's Capital. The citizen is Jerry R. Lyman and the radio station is WGMS-AM/FM, owned and operated by RKO Radio.

Jerry Lyman and WGMS-AM/FM have an exemplary record of service to the arts and achievement in their industry. The station was founded in 1946 by three area businessmen who were convinced that classical music had a proven audience in the market. Originally name<! WQQW, it was always identified as Washington's "good music station," and in 1951, the call letters were changed to correspond with the slogan. WGMS was purchased by RKO General, Inc., in 1958 and, with the help of two full-time musicologists and an estimated 25,000 albums, they now offer the listeners in the Washington, D.C., area more "good music" than any other classical radio station in the country. Over the years, the station has pioneered a number of broadcasts, many of which are still on the air. For over 25 years, the weekly Sunday evening concerts at the National Gallery have been carried live on the station. For 18 years, WGMS carried the live broadcasts of the Library of Congress chamber music series. Nationally known critics such as Patrick Hayes and Paul Hume have broadcast musical and cultural commentaries for 25 and 19 years, respectively, and the Boston Symphony Orchestra broadcasts have been heard over the Nation's Good Music Station for 15 years.

Jerry Lyman, senior vice president of RKO Radio, was appointed general manager of WGMS in 1972 at a time when the station was operating at a loss and during a period when a decision was being contemplated to change the format on AM to rock music. However, due to public outcry and the leadership of the new, capable general manager, the station was able to retain its traditional classical format on the AM band, turn its losses into profits and begin a period of sustained growth and progress that has continued ever since. Today, WGMS, under the direction of Jerry Lyman, is

16137 the most successful classical format radio station in the United States.

The leadership of Jerry Lyman was perhaps most appreciated during 1975 when the station sustained a string of unending calamities. Beginning with a mishap that resulted in the loss of the station's broadcasting antenna, the year of misfortune also included the accidental destruction of an important phaser unit and a catastrophic fire that destroyed all of the station's offices and studios. In spite of these discouraging odds, Jerry Lyman, together with the committed and dedicated staff at WGMS, has succeeded in overcoming these setbacks and continues to produce a service that Washington, D.C. can be proud of and for which all Americans who esteem culture and the performing arts can be grateful.

Last March, Jerry Lyman and WGMS earned national recognition when the station received 1 of 27 coveted George Foster Peabody Awards that were given this year for meritorious service to broadcasting. Selected for recognition as a result of programs broadcast in 1975, WGMS won for "their combined overall efforts to provide outstanding radio entertainment •.. "

Not only is Jen-y Lyman a successful broadcasting executive, he is also a devoted family man. He and his wife Judith are extremely active in civic political philanthropic, and cultural ~terests u{ the Washington area, and together they prodive an inspiring example of personal and professional achievement.

As we reflect upon the accomplishments of our country and its people during this Bicentennial Year, it fs important that we measure the growth of our civilization not only through our advancement in science and technology but also through our cultural development. It is appropriate that we pay tribute to those citizens who are making a contribution to these endeavors. Jerry Lyman deserves our thanks and recognition for his serious and successful e1forts to maintain a high degree of quality in public entertainment and provide continuous pursuit of our cultural attainments.

REFORM OF THE RAPE LAW AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL

HON. JOE MOAKLEY OF MASSACHUSETTS



Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleagues another in a series of letters I have received regarding my bill to reform the rape laws at the Federal level. The letter follows:

AURORA, ILL., April 7, 1976.

DEAR REPRESENTATIVE MOA.K.LEY: We ap-plaUd your efforts to bring about much needed reform to the country's rape laws. We are especially pleased with your substitution of "sexual assault" !or rape and the non-sex specific language o! the proposed legislation.

We woUld, however, like to suggest some changes in H.R. 11603 for your consider<ttion.

16138 In speaking to women's groups on the subject of rape, we have discovered that one of their biggest fears concerning reporting the crime is that a pollee officer will need to be present during the gynecological examination. Even if that officer is a woman, we feel that this is unnecessary and may serve as a deten·ent to 1·eporting.

One of the major factors influencing juries acquitt ing rapists is the harshness of the penalties for rape. It is for this reason that we urge shorter sentences for sexual assault. We are very pleased with t he concept of minimum sentencing, especially for repeat offenders. However, we would urge that sentences be shorter and that the maximum penalty be less than that for murder.

Thank you very much for informing us of this upcoming legislation. We hope you will keep us advised of its progress.

Sincerely. CYNTHXA ALLEN,

Fox Valley Women Agai nst Rape.

A TRIDUTE TO RICK MONDAY

HON. EDWARD J. DERWINSKI OF ILLINOIS



Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Speaker, the Chicago Cubs may not win the pennant, but their centerfielder, Rick Monday, certainly deserves to be considered as one of the great and patriotic Americans for his heroic action in preventing the bw·ning of an American flag at a ball park recently. WLS-TV in Chicago telecast a fine editorial on this incident which I place in the RECORD:

RICK MONDAY

According to Chicago Cubs star Jose Cardinale, America can be proud of three great patriots: Abe Lincoln, George Washington, and Riok Monday. cardinale included his teammate Monday following a Los Angeles ball game, where two men attempted to burn the American flag. When Monday saw the men take out lighter fluid and matches, he ran over to left-center field, grabbed the flag, and carried it to safety. His action won him praise from the Dllnois legislature, which commended him for his patriotism. Mayor Daley also paid tribute to Monday, naming him Grand Marshal in Chicago's "Salute to the American Flag" parade.

As for the two who attempted to burn the flag, one was given a year's probation and ordered either to pay a $60 fine or spend three days in jail. His companion, a young boy, was not sentenced. Here in Dlinois, penalties might have been stiffer. Under our Dlinois Flag Act, recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, anyone who mutilates, defaces, defies, tramples or casts contempt upon the flag faces up to five years in jail, and can be ordered to pay as much as a $5,000 fine.

Of course, potential fines and jail sentences aren't always enough to stop persons determined to call attention to themselves or their poll tical beliefs by shocking the sensibilities of others. And, t oo often the public is reluctant to question those protesters who openly flaunt established American laws.

So, Rick Monday sets a good example for all of us who want to stand up against actions we know are offensive and illegal. Channel 7 joins Mayor Daley, Dlinois legislators, thousands of baseball fans, and other citizens in applauding Rick Monday's quick thinking. He deserves our praise and our respect.


PROTECT INDEPENDENT GASOLINE RETAILERS

hON. WILLIAM LEHMAN OF FLORIDA



Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have today introduced the Motor Fuel Franchise Protection Act. The purpose of this bill is to protect independent gasoline distributors and retailers from arbitrary cancellation, termination, or nonrenewal of franchise agreements or contracts, and to give franchisees some recourse in cases where they have not been fairly or properly treated.

In increasing nwnbers, gasoline retailers from Florida's 13th Congressional District have been in touch with me to relate their experiences. Many of these dealers are not only the ultimate marketers of the major oil companies' products, but also tenants on company-owned property. These factors give the companies the inordinate power to direct their franchisees to follow marketing procedures which are not necessarily in the dealers' best business interests, and to end the franchises if dealers are unable to comply. Moreover, the dealers cannot try to find other franchise arrangements for the same facilities; they must, as tenants, vacate and start from scratch. In addition, if the company should decide simply to close down a franchiseoperated gas station and open on the site a company-run self service facility, many independent dealers have no means of protecting their livelihood. Even if it were possible to take a large corporation to cow-t, the small franchisee would simply be outgunned.

My bill would set standards which I believe are fair and reasonable for franchise termination, cancellation, and failure to renew, and would provide franchisees with recourse to the courts in instances where their franchises were being ended in violation of the standards. The guarantee that an independent dealer could have his day in court would go a long way toward assuring fair practices in gasoline franchises.

Mr. Speaker, the text of my bill follows:

H.R. 14080

A bill to provide for the protection of franchised distributors and retailers of motor fuel. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Motor Fuel Franchise Protection Act".

TABLE OF CONTENTS Sec. 101. Definitions. Sec. 102. Sanctity of franchise relation

ship-termination or cancellation.

Sec. 103. Sanctity of franchise relationshipfailure to renew.

Sec. 104. Trial franchise period-failure to renew.

Sec. 105. Notification of termination or cancellation or failure to renew.

Sec. 106. Enforcement. Sec. 107. Relationship of this Act to exist

ing franchises. Sec. 108. Relationship to State law.

June 1, 1976 DEFINITIONS

SEc. 101. As used in this Act: ( 1) The term "distribution" means any

person who pu1·chases motor fuel for sale, consignment, or distribution to another, and includes any person who (other than by means of a franchise) controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with, a person who purchases motor fuels for sale, consignment, or distribution to another.

(2) The term "franchise" means any writ-ten or oral agreement or contract-

(A) between a refiner and a distributor, (B) between a refiner and a retailer, (C) between a distributor and another d is

tributor, or (D) between a distributor and a retailer,

under which a refiner or distributor (as the case may be) grants the authority for, or permits, a retailer or distributor to use, in connection with the sale, consignment, or distribution of motor fuel, a trademark, trade name, service mark, or other identifying symbol or name which is owned or controlled by such refiner or by a refiner which supplies motor fuel to such distributor. The term "franchise" includes any written or oral agreement or contract under which a retailer or distributor is granted the authority, or permitted, to occupy premises owned, leased, or in any way controlled by a refiner or a distributor, which premises are to employed in connection with the sale, consignment, or distribution of motor fuel under a motor fuel trademark, trade name, service mark, or other identifying symbol or name which is owned or controlled by such refiner which supplies motor fuel to such. distributor.

(3) The term "franchisor" means a refiner or distributor (as the case may be) who grants the authority for, or permits, a distributor or retailer to use, in connection with the sale, consignment, or distribution of motor fuel, a tradeina.rk, trade name, service mark, or other identifying symbol or name under a franchise.

(4) The term "franchisee" means a distributor or retaller (as the case may be) who is granted the authority, or permitted, to use, in connection with the sale, consignment, or distribution of motor fuel, a trademark, trade name, service mark, or other identifying symbol or name under a franchise.

(5) The term "refiner" means a person engaged in th.e refining or importing of motor fuel, and includes any person who (other than by means of a franchise) controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with, a person engaged in the refining or importing of motor fuel.

(6) The term "retailer" means a person who purchases motor fuel for sale to the general public for ultimate consumption.

(7) The term "motor fuel" means gasoline and diesel fuel of a type distributed for use as a fuel in any self-propelled vehicle which is designed primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways.

(8) The phrase "failure to comply" does not include any failure which is only technical or unimportant to the franchise relationship.

(9) The phrase "failure to renew" includes a termination or cancellation of a franchise-

(A) at the conclusion of the term, or on the expiration date, stated in the franchise, or

(B) at any time in the case of a franchise which does not state a term or an expiration date.

SANCTITY OF FRANCHISE RELATIONSHIP-

TERMINATION OR CANCELLATION

SEc. 102. No franchisor may, prior to the conclusion of the term, or the expiration date, stated in the franchise, terminate or cancel such franchise, unless-

(1) the requirements of section 105 are met; and

(2) (A) the franchise failed to comply, without reasonable excuse or justification,

June 1, 1976 with any term of the franchise, which term is both reasonable and of material significance to the franchise relationship, and, with respect to such failure, the franchisor first acquired actual or constructive knowledge not more than one hundred and eighty days prior t{) the date of such terml.I:.ation or cancellation;

(B) an event occurs which is relevant to the operation of the franchise relationship, as a result of which, termination or cancellation of the franchise is reasonable, and, with respect to such event, the franchisor first acquired actual or constructive knowledge not more than one hundred and eighty days prior to the date of such termination or cancellation; or

(C) not more than one hundred and eighty days prior to the date of such termination or cancellation, the franchisor and the franchisee agree in writing to terminate or cancel the franchise, the franchisee is promptly provided with a copy of s11ch agreement, together with a summary statement of the provisions of this Act, and, within seven days after the date on which the franchisee is provided a copy of such agreement, the franchisee has confirmed and not repudiated such agreement. SANCTITY OF FRANCHISE RELATION

SHIP-FAILURE TO RENEW SEc. 103. No franchisor may fall to renew a

franchise unless--(1) the requirements of section 105 are

met; and (2) except as provided in section 104-

(A) the franchisee failed to comply, without reasonable excuse or justification, with any term of the franchise, which term is both reasonable and of material significance to the franchise relationship, and, with respect to such failure, the franchisor first acquired actual or constructive knowledge not more than one hundred and eighty days prior to the date of such failure to renew;

(B) an event occurs which is relevant to the operation of the franchise relationship, as a result of which, failure to renew the franchise is reasonable, and, with respect to such event, the franchisor first acquired actual or constructive knowledge not more than one hundred and eighty days prior to the date of such failure to renew; or

(C) not more than one hundred and eighty days prior to the date of such failure to renew-

(!) the franchisor and the franchisee agree in writing not to renew the franchise, the franchisee is promptly proVided with a copy of such agreement, together with a summary statement of the provisions of this Act, and, within seven days after the date on which the franchisee is proVided a copy of such agreement, the franchisee has confirmed and not repudiated such agreement;

(11) the franchisor and the franchisee fail to agree to reasonable changes or reasonable additions to the terms of the franchise; or

(ill) the franchisor's interests in premises which are leased to the franchisee expires and such expiration could not reasonably have been avoided by the franchisor.

TRIAL FRANCHISE PERIODFAILURE TO RENEW

SEC. 104. (a) The provisions of section 103 (2) (with respect to !allure to renew) shall not apply to the initial term (not including any extensions or renewals of such term) of any franchise-

(!) commenced on or after the date of en actment of this Act;

(2) in which the franchisee has not, prior to the date of enactment of this Act, been a party to a franchise relationship with a franchisor;

(3) which is 1n wl'ltlng and which states clearly and conspicuously-

( A) that the franchise is a trial franchise; (B) the duration of the initial term of

the franchise,

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS (C) that the franchisor may fall to renew

the franchise at the conclttsion of the initial term stated in the franchise by notlfying the franchisee of the franchisor's Intention to fall to renew 1n accordance with the provisions of section 105 of this Act; and

(D) that the provisions of section 103(2), limiting the right of a franchisor to fail to renew a franchise, are not applicable; and

(4) the initial term of which is for a period of not more than one year.

(b) The provisions of section 103(2) shall apply to any failure to renew a franchise which is extended or renewed beyond the initial term of such franchise. NOTIFICATION OF TERMINATION OR CANCELLA

TION OR FAILURE TO REVIEW

SEc. 105. (a) Prior to termination or cancellation, or failure to renew, a franchise, a franchisor shall furnish notification to the franchisee affected thereby-

(!) in the manner described in subsection (c); and

(2) except as provided in subsection (b) ( 1) , not less than ninety days prior to the date on which such franchise is to be terminated or cancelled, or not renewed.

(b) (1) In circumstances in which it woUld not be reasonable for a franchisor to furnish notification pursuant to subsection (a.) (2}, such franchisor shall furnish notification to the franchisee affected thereby on the earliest date on which furnishing of such notification is reasonably practicable.

(2) With respect to any termination or cancellation, or failure to renew, a franchise to which paragraph (1) applies, the franchisor may not establish a new franchise relationship with respect to such franchise before the expiration of the thirty-day period which begins on the date notification was posted, except that a. franchisor may, where specified 1n the franchise, repossess any facllities subject to the franchise and operate such facUlty through his own employees or agents during such thirty-day period in circumstances under which it woUld be reasonable to do so.

(c) Notification furnished under this sec-tion-

( 1) shall be in writing; (2) shall be posted by certified mail; and (3) shall contaln-(A) a statement of intention to terminate

or cancel, or fail to renew, such franchise, together with the r~asons therefor;

(B) the date on which such termination or cancellation, or failure to renew, takes effect; and

(C) a summary statement of the provisions of this Act.

ENFORCEMENT

SEc. 106. (a) If a franchisor terminates or cancels, or fails to renew, a franchise in a manner which does not comply with therequirements of section 102 or 103, respectively, the franchisee affected thereby may maintain a civil action against such franchisor. Such action may be brought, without regard to the amount in controversy, in the district court of the United States in any judicial district in which the principal place of business of such franchisor is located or in which such franchisee is doing business, however, no such action may be maintained unless commenced within three years after the date of cancellation or termination, or failure to renew such franchise.

(b) (1) The court shall grant such equitable relief as is necessary to remedy the effects of any termination or cancellation of, or failure to renew, a franchise in a manner which does not comply with the requirements of section 102 or 103, respectively, including declaratory judgment and mandatory or prohibitive injunctive relief, including interim equitable rellef.

16139 (2) In any action under subsection (a), the

court shall grant a prelimlnary injunction 1!-

(A) the franchisee shows that his franchise has been terminated or cancelled, or not renewed; and

(B) the franchisor does not demonstrate to the satisfaction of the court that such franchisor is likely to prevail in a trial on the merits. In any action under subsection (a.) • the franchisor shall have the burden of proving that his termination or cancellation of, or failure to renew, the franchise compiled With the requirements of section 102 or 103, respectively.

( 3) If the franchise prevails in any action under subsection (a), the court shall award actual damages, and exemplary damages where appropriate, and shall direct that reasonable attorney and expert witness fees be paid by the franchisC»", unless the court determines that only nominal damages are to be awarded to such franchise, in which case the court may, tn its discretion, direct that such fees are to be paid by the franchisor.

(4) The questions of whether to award exemplary damages and the amount of such award shall be determined by the court and not by the jury.

(c) (1) In any action under subsection {a) with respect to a failure to renew, the court shall not compel a continuation or renewal of the franchise relationship if the franchisor demonstrates to the satisfaction of the court that the basis for such !allure to renew is a reasonable business judgment on the part of the franchisor.

(2) The reasonable business judgment defense to permanent injunctive rellef specified ln paragraph ( 1) shall not affect any right of a franchisee to recover actual damages and reasonable attorney and expert witness fees under subsection (b).

RELATIONSHIP OF THIS ACT TO EXISTING FRANCHISES

SEc. 107. (a.) Sections 102 and 104, and the proVisions of section 105 (relating to the furnishing of notification with respect to termination or cancellation of a franchise before the conclusion of the term, or the expiration date, stated in the franchise), shall not apply to any franchise entered into prior to the date of enactment of this Act. Sections 102 and 104, and such provisions of section 105 shall apply to any franchise entered into on or after such date.

(b) Section 103, and the provisions of sections 105 (relating to the furnishing of notification with respect to !allure to renew a franchise) , shall apply to any franchise in effect on the date of enactment of this Act or entered into after such date.

RELATIONSHIP TO STATE LAW

SEc. 108. No State, territory, possession, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any political subdivision thereof, may adopt, enforce, or continue in effect any law or regulation with respect to a termination or cancellation of, or a failure to renew, a franchise, or the furnishing of notification with respect to a termination or cancellation of, or failure to renew, a franchise, which is inconsistent with the proVisions of this Act.

CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW AMENDMENT

HON. JAMES G. MARTIN OF NORTH CAROLINA



Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Speaker, In the debate today on H.R. 12169, had I not been

16140 p1·evented by the time limit from explaining my amendment, I would have offered the following:

Mr. Chairman, the Members should be familiar with this amendment. This is similar to the Ketchum amendment which was added to the EPA research and development authorization bill on May 4 by a vote of 228 to 167-an earlier amendment by Mr. LEVITAS to the consumer product safety authorization had the same intent. Briefly, it gives the Congress "veto" power to approve or disap~ prove any new FEA rules or regulations which are "likely to have a substantial impact on the Nation's economy or large numbers of individuals or businesses."

For some time now, we have been paying lip service to the idea of making Government more responsive to the public. In the past, we have had the excuse that we have no control over executive agency actions. This amendment should end that excuse. It provides for a 60-day waiting period during which any rule or regulation as described above may be disapproved by concurrent resolution.

There has been a lot of talk about bureaucracy, about unnecessary and harmful rules and 1·egulations. Here is a chance to do something positive. Something your constituents can understand.

I would not envision this body availing itself of this opportunity very frequently, but at least we would have the option of doing so, and I think the very exsitence of this possibility would lead to better and more careful rulemaking on the part of the agency.

ECONOMIC SECURITY FOR SENIOR CITIZENS

HON. ROBERT W. KASTEN, JR. OF WISCONSIN



Mr. KASTEN. Mr. Speaker, Census Bureau statistics, released recently, conclude that if present birth trends continue, an estimated 17 percent of our population will be 65 and older by the year 2030-compared with 10.5 percent today.

Clearly, this trend demonstrates the need for Congress to express its concern about the problems-present and potential-of the elderly in the United States.

What does it mean to be old in America today?

It can mean unemployment, inadequate retirement income, a fixed income drained by infiation, chronic health problems, or taxes so high that maintaining a home is no longer possible and institutional care is not an alternative but a necessity.

These and many other concerns of our senior citizens all point to their No. 1 problem: economic security. And it is not a problem that will go away with age.

Congress can provide some solutions by better focusing on the needs and concerns of the 22 million Americans who have already celebrated their 65th birthday.


Senior citizens suffer more than any other age group from direct and indirect effects of inflation-rising costs, scarcity of goods, and reduced services. For homeowners, which comprise about 70 percent of our senior citizens, housing costs-utilities, taxes, and repairs-have risen sharply over the past several years. As a result, many have been literally taxed out of their homes, homes they have built, cherished, and maintained as a place for retirement.

Many senior citizens suffer most from high taxes and an inadequate retirement income. Retirement for most Americans means living on low, fixed incomes, which are usually not enough to adequately cover the high costs of their basic staples-food, medicine, transportation, and shelter.

Today, about 50 percent of the families headed by an individual 65 or older have incomes below $7,298, compared with $12,836 for all American families. And despite pensions, savings, and social security, almost 5 million senior citizens live 01~ $2,000 a year.

SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM

Reform of the social security system would help alleviate the economic insecurity of many elderly Americans.

The average social security checkwhich most rely upon for at least onethird of their income-is not enough to enable most senior citizens to live day to day with economic security.

One of the greatest inequities in the system is the so-called outside earnings limitation. Even though an individual may have paid into the system for 40 years, he is limited to $2,760 on what he can earn in outside income and still receive social security benefits.

Under the current law, working senior citizens are, in effect, denied benefits they have paid into the system, and those on social security are discouraged from leading active, independent, productive lives.

I will introduce legislation to eliminate the outside earnings limitation so that senior citizens can receive benefits and earn a decent standard of living at the sa.me time.

REFORM: ESTATE TAXES AND RETmEMENT

INCOME CREDIT

Congress has already begun to work toward tax reform in two areas which will be of great benefit to senior citizens.

The new Tax Reform Act, which has passed the House and has just been completed by the Senate Finance Committee, revises the existing 15-percent tax credit on retirement income to apply it to earned income as well as pensions or other forms of retirement income.

The revised credit would be available on income up to $2,500 for single persons and $3,750 for joint returns. The credit would be phased down $1 for each $2 by which total adjusted gross income exceeded $7,500 for single persons and $10,000 for joint returns.

Work toward reform of Federal estate and gift taxes is gaining momentum. The House Ways and Means Committee held extensive bearings in March and is scheduled to begin drafting their recommended reforms this week.

June 1, 1976

The Senate Finance Committee had planned to include estate tax reform in their version of the Tax Reform Act. However, if the House passes a separate measure before that, the Senate may consider the bill separately as well, as there is strong support in the Senate for expediting estate tax reform.

Still, much more needs to be done by Congress to respond to the needs and concerns of America's elderly. The inequity of the outside earnings limitation is an issue which Congress must review this year. I will be working toward that end during the next severa1 months.

RICHARD A. DICE, OUTSTANDING LEGISLATOR

HON. RONALD A. SARASIN OF CONNECTICUT



Mr. SARASIN. Mr. Speaker, the Connecticut General Assembly will be the poorer when it convenes next year as a result of the retirement of Representative Richard A. Dice of the 93d District. As a long-time friend and admirer of Dick Dice, I want to take this opportunity to apprise my colleagues of the fine contribution he has made to good government in Connecticut and the wellbeing of his constituents.

Many of those who serve in this Chamber have previous experience in the legislatures of their various States and can appreciate better than most the many unique difficulties encountered at that level of government. The constraints of continuing State financial problems, the comparatively small remuneration, and the closeness of the relationship with those served make State service a labor of love.

Under these circumstances, I know you can appreciate the job done by Representative Dice, particularly in view of his leadership of the House Appropriations Committee. Dick has served as chairman and as ranking member of this most important committee during this peliod of intense financial pressure in our State.

It has been said that no one in the general assembly has a better grasp of State fiscal matters than Mr. Dice, and no one has done more to maintain sound management than Dick. His influence was felt throughout the general assembly, and his counsel was heeded.

Dick also found the time to maintain a close personal relationship with his constituents in the communities of Chesire and Hamden. An advocate of the opendoor policy, he was always available and could be counted upon to respond to local concerns with fairness, compassion, and effectiveness.

I consider it a privilege to have served with Dick Dice in the Connecticut General Assembly in the first of his three terms and I wish I could be with the many friends and admirers honoring him at a testimonial dinner this week. I know my colleagues join me in wishing him well in the future.

June 1, 1976

OUR NATIONAL FORESTs-A THIN LINE BETWEEN ADVICE, LOBBYING, AND PUBLIC SERVICE

HON. GEORGE E. BROWN, JR. OF CALIFORNIA



Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I realize that when controversial subjects arise which question, to some degree, the abilities or performance of one of the Federal departments it is an understandable reaction on the part of the department to defend its activities in any way possible. The nationai forest management controversy is one such example for it has raised many questions and has stimulated blunt statements regarding some of the Forest Service's management practices. Though I sympathize with the position of the Forest Service administrators and personnel, I must disagree with any attempts on their part to cover up evidence or to lobby citizens on one particular piece of legislation. I can understand the desire to do so, especially in light of such a heated debate and growing national interest and input, but this is a line which they must not cross.

I have received two separate sets of materials which point toward the occurrence of such happenings. One is a news article from the San Francisco Examiner and a 14-page memorandum to John McGuh·e, Chief of the Forest Service, by James Moorman, attorney for the Sierra Club. These pertain to the destruction of an in-house environmental impact report which questioned the ecological impact of a paved road proposal. The report was rejected though it stated that the road would cause serious risks, including possible landslides and soil erosion. Another report was issued in its place. I find such behavior questionable.

The second set of materials I wish to include in the RECORD is a letter and statement. The statement was prepared by a member of the Forest Service, as the letter states, for the use of the Wisconsin Northwest Regional Planning Commission. It is a statement in support of particular forest legislation, S. 3091. I find this questionable also.

I submit the articles for my colleagues' attention: SIERRA CLUB CHARGES SIX RIVERS COVER-UP

(By Alan Cline) The Sierra Club yesterday accused the

U.S. Forest Service of taking the easy way out of a touchy situation-destroying an inhouse study because its conclusions differed with policy.

At Issue is a paved road being built in wildlands of the Six Rivers National Forest in the Siskiyou mountains.

Sierra Club attorney James Moorman told Forest Service Chief John McGuire in a 14-page memorandum that a regional engineer deep-sixed a report from two subordinates who saw the road as a potential environmental disaster.

McGuire was asked to stop construction of the six-mile stretch, investigate and reconsider his agency's approval of the $2 million project.

The road, now a subject of court action, is part of a much larger dispute between the San Francisco-based conservation or-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS ganization aligned with Indian spiritual leaders over plans to log 45,000 acres of land the tribes consider sacred ground.

Moorman's target was assistant regional engineer Phillip A. Schultz, who, he said, retrieved and destroyed a road study made by engineer Douglas Scholen and geologiSt Eugene Kojan.

That Aug. 21, 1975, document said the Dillon-Flint section of the Gasquet-Orleans road involved serious environmental risks and hazards, that they had not been properly assessed by the Forest Service in any Environmental Impact Statement and that means for preventing landslides and soil erosion had not been analyzed.

A week later, Schultz approved a much briefer document.

Both h& and deputy regional forester Glenn Haney said the first study was rejected because the authors exceeded the scope of their special ties.

"There was no intent on our part to delude anybody," Haney said. "We tried to operate in a completely open ma~ner."

In depositions taken last week by Moorman, both Scholen and Kojan said they considered their study professional and accurate.

Asked what he thought about the Sierra Club obtaining a supposedly nonexistent document, Schultz replied that whoever supplied it "ought to be tried for treason."

Scholen said Schultz told him personally that the document supplier would be fired if discovered.

Schultz said he considered the disputed study a draft, that everything prepared by subordinates is a draft until he gives his blessing.

Schultz said in his ·deposition that he was embarrassed "that my people had put something in print that was beyond their employment expertise and were offering opinions of something that was contrary to management philosophy."

The regional executive also said he apologized to Austin Thompson, a Six Rivers Forest engineer and strong road advocate, because the study went beyond an agreem'- '-l t he had made with Thompson.

Scholen testi.fied that he gave a copy of his report personally to Thompson and was told by Thompson after he read it that he did not like it and was going to call Schultz.

Moorman called Schultz's reasons for "suppressing the Scholen report . . . a combination of arrogance, pettiness and bad judgment."

The Sierra Club considers the study important because it backs up a report from a University of Montana professor, Robert Curry, alleging the engineering approach for the road is the wrong one.

NORTHWEST REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION,

April 29, 1976. To: Members of Timber Resources and Wood

Products Committee. From: Ernest Skotterud, Chairman.

DEAR COMMITTEE MEMBER: A pressing matter affecting timber management on the National Forests including the Chequamegon National Forest in Northwest Wisconsin has been brought to the attention of the regional planning commission by a number of area industries and Mr. Wayne Mann, Superintendent of the Chequamegon National Forest. The Commission has asked that the Timber Resources Committee develop a position statement for the proposed legislation to correct the Monongahela decision. Back-ground information on this matter is enclosed.

I've scheduled a Timber Resources and Wovd Products Committee meeting for:

May 6, 6:00 P.M. Dinner-Order from Menu, Escape Restaurant, Division Street ( lf2 block off Hv.:ry 13, Downtown), Park Falls, Wisconsin.

16141 AGENDA.

Approval of Minutes of March 2, 1976 meet-ing.

Old Business: 1. Status of Softwood Resource Report 2. Status of French's debarking operation

in Spooner New Business: 1. The "Monongahela Decision" and pro

posed federal legislation ERNEST SKOTTERUD,

Chairman, Timber Resources and Wood Products Committee.

NORTH\VEST REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION,

May 3, 1976. To: Members of Timber Resources and Wood

Products Committee. From: Mark Mueller. Subject: May 6, 1976 Timber Resources Com

mittee Meeting. Enclosed for your review are two differing

viewpoints on proposed legislation affecting timber harvest on the National Forests. One discusses viewpoints of the Northern Environmental Council (NOREC) and the other is a draft of a possible statement prepared by Wayne Mann of the Forest Service.

MARK MUELLER.

POSITION PAPER DRAFTED BY USFS FOR LOCAL GROUPS To PRESSURE CONGRESSMEN

The Wisconsin Northwest Regional Planning Commission is vitally interested in the pending Federal legislation concerning the future management of the country's National Forests. This Commission represents the Counties of Ashland, Bayfield, Burnett, Douglas, Iron, Price, Rusk, Sawyer, Taylor, and Washburn; and three Indian Reservations.

Our interest in the pending legislation is accentuated since the 837,000-acre Chequamegon National Forest is located in the Counties of Ashland, Bayfield, Price, Sawyer, and Taylor. This Forest contributes significantly to the area's timber resources. The Forest also is a significant factor in regard to wildlife, watershed, and recreation to this area.

We believe any legislation should recognize the major uses of the National Forests are forage, recreation, timber, water, and wildlife. The legislation should also recognize that these uses are generally compatible with ea.ch other a n d should be coordinated accordingly.

We believe, also, that sound forest management based on the application and understanding of basic ecological principles will best meet the human and natural resource needs. Beca-;.tse of the complexity and diversity of forests and human needs, forest land management cannot be carried out through routine, prescribed prescriptions.

The forests in this area, including the Chequamegon National Forest, are relatively young and very diverse. They are just coming into full productivity. Professional forest; land management, with the needed flexibility to meet the resource needs for recreation, timber, water, wildlife, and aesthetics, is necessary for the Chequamegon National Forest to meet its full potential and contribute fully to the economic stability and quail ty of life in this area.

Legislation restricting the use of any of the scientifically sound silvicultural systems could have serious impacts on the ability of the Chequamegon National Forest to meet the resource needs in timber, wildlife, and other resources. Restricting sound sllvicultural systems would be very critical on the Chequamegon National Forest because of the diversity of timber types and the need for a variety of silvicultural techniques for Wildlife management purposes for deer, ruffed and sharptail grouse. Wildlife coordination

16142 needs would be seriously hampered if management fiexibiUty iS not permiSSible in the management of the 216,000 acres of Eastern northern hardwoods, and 178,000 acres of aspen on the Forest.

In reviewing the pending legislation, we feel that Senate Bill 3091, at this time, would best serve the nation's and our needs in this area. This bill requires Congress to establish the overall public policy goals and standards, and allows the necessary flexibility to land managers to carry out this policy. We feel this approach best meets the economic, natural resource, and social needs of the Northwest District. However, ~we suggest the following major items be considered for any future legislation:

1. New legislation should be instituted within the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resource Planning Act o:f 1974, and reln:force the Multiple Use-sustained Yield Act of 1960.

2. Any future legislation should set forth only policy and principles. Because the conditions on the ground are too varied and complex, Congress should not prescribe specific management practices.

S. Guidelines and standards for managing National Forest resources should be strengthened by the Secretary of Agriculture.

4. Public involvement should be encouraged in the relationship to the planning process and establishment of management standards.

5. The goal of balancing the production of all renewable National Forest resources which can be maintained on a sustained yield level should be top-priority.

6. Any changes in land use allocation on management goals for timber or other resources should only be made through land use plans.

7. Timber contracts should be limited to provide needed management flexibility, protect the resources, and reduce environmental problems.

8. Silvicultural guides should specifically recognize the need to better regulate and control clearcutttng since lt has been misapplied, in some cases, on the National Forests.

REPORT FROM WASHINGTON

HON. JACK BRINKLEY OF GEORGXA



Mr. BRINKLEY. Mr. Speaker, my May-June Report from Washington has gone out to constituents of the Third District of Georgia, which I am privileged to represent.

At this point, I offer this constituent publication in its entirety for the RECORD: U.S. CONGF!ESSM,\N JACK BRINKLEY REPORTS

FROM WASHINGTON

THE TAX SNARL AND SOME REMm>IES

Something is fundamentally wrong with a tax system which, in effect, penalizes a. per-son for improving his job status and moving into a different income bracket; something is fundamentally wrong when the average citizen doesn't understand the basic law under which he 1s taxed; something is fundamentally wrong when some individuals pay no tax at all, although they are wealthy in every sense of the wm·d.

The tax system in the United States has just become too complex for even some accountants and trained tax specla.Usts to fully u nderstand. It may not be long before we find ourselves in a fix like some foreign c , , ~:L ie::: , v;here taxatlon has become so

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS confiscatory and oppressive that good citizens are fleeing.

\¥hat we need is a total overhaul of the tax system. What I envision is a system which, simply and in an uncontused manner, taxes to some extent everyone who has taxable income. Loopholes would have to be closed; some currently allowable deductions would have to be eliminated; the existing tax schedules would be completely rewritten. We wouldn't recognize most of the content of the new Internal Revenue Code. But there would be advantages to the system envisioned:

The highest-taxed individuals would pay no more than 20 to 30 per cent of their income; segments of the taxpaying population would not continue to subsidize others; taxpaying would be simplified to the point where most citizens could again prepare their own returns; and, perhaps best of all, the net revenue to the government would actually increase!

A formula based on slmpllcity a.nd predictability would have to prevall over absolute equity or over adjustments for "th1s and that." But ease of payment and enforcement fac111tated by less administration and uncomplicated by fewer legal proceedings would make our support of the U.S.A.through tax dollars-a more palatable thing again. It is my hope and belief that others will be attracted to my position.

DUring the 94th Congress I have Introduced legislation to:

Allow an income tax credit to parents for a child's college tuition. This credit would be on a graduated scale, and would apply only to certain fee and tuition expenses. The cost of college or vocational education is an in· vestment, and I would envision this as a type of "investment credit."

Provide that a canceled check would be prima facie, or firsthand, evidence of a legitimate income tax deduction. Within guidelines established by m.s, this proposal would relieve taxpayers of the almost-impossible burden of detalled bookkeeping, and to a certain extent put some of the burden of proof on ms, whereas virtually all of it 1s now on the taxpayer.

Provide that life insm·ance proceeds to a husband or wife would be exempt from the estate tax. In short, life insurance proceeds are often the only genuine "estate" a person leaves, and such funds, on which hardearned premiums have been paid, should not be taxed like other parts of an estate.

Increase from $60,000 to $200,000 the portion of an estate which is exempt from the estate tax. The existing situation is ridiculous, based on yesterday's figures when we all know what inflation has done. As it now stands, those who inherit family farms and small businesses face the grim prospect of having to sell them to pay taxes!

Change the law to disallow the deduction of first-class air travel as a business expense. Businessmen who use coach class--as most do-and other taxpayers vh·tually subsidize those who cun·ently are allowed to go first class and deduct the whole thing. This iS the kind of deduction which simply can be tightened up, and needs to be.

In addition to these key measures, I have co-sponsored other proposals with the same goal: to at least alleviate some of the burden of the current tax system pending an o-utright overhaul tJf the entire tax law.

I remain convinced there is only one way to bring ultimate stability and sanity to the system-establish a minimum tax, modernize exemptions and deductions to attune them to modern times, and insure that everyone so required pays a reasonably proportionate share.

JAY CEES VISIT D.C .

Seldom do we greet as aler t and en ergetic a group in our Washington office as when t he 3rd District Jaycees come to the Nation's

June 1, 1976 Capital for their annual Federal Atrairs Seminar 1 The 3rd District sent up the largest delegation from Georgia for this year's meeting.

This year, the Jaycees and their wives brought with them John Mark Willingham of Columbus, 3rd District winner of the Good Citizenship Award, and plenty of curiosity about what goes on in their federal government. Between snacks of Georgia peanuts, we had interesting and informative exchanges consisting of their questions, my answers and their comments on Washington.

I have had a particularly full year of activity with the Jaycees in the 3rd District, ranging from an honorary membership received at the Awards Banquet in Warner Robins to visits with officials of the Georgia. Epilepsy Foundation, of which the JayceP.s are active participants.

We appreciate their interest in good government and will continue to look to them for advice and counsel on key issues.

Seminar participants this year included, from Columbus, Richard Olnick, Joseph Bross, Louis Willett, Don Watson, Wade Hill and Renny Daniel; from LaGrange, Rudy QuUllan and Jerry Johnson; from Americus, Dan Hicks; from Forsyth, A. Lee Willingham m and Charles Funderburke.

EDITORIAL COMMENT-FARMERS INSULTED

Recent scandal surrounding grain inspection practices represents one of the most outrageous insults to the integrity and hard work of American farmers in a long while.

Allegations of bribery, weighing irregularities and inspection shortcuts have resulted in a large-scale investigation by the U.S. De· pa.rtment of Agriculture, the FBI, the Internal Revenue Service, the Justice Department and Congressional committees.

The foreign buyers destined to receive contaminated grain have or would have lost out on the deal, but the real losers are the farmers who grew the grain, and deserved better than the handling their product got when time came to export it.

Instead of fair treatment, they got shortchanged, and the damage done to the farmers' reputation in the world grain market is reflected in one report that the commodities of other nations are preferred to our own.

The short weights, brlbel'Y and shipping of contaminated grain are an insult to the farmer, the free enterprise system and America's image abroad. It is blatantly unAmerican to degrade what we have to offer, and it iS my earnest hope that the guilty parties Will be held to account swiftly and sharply.

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

Coastal Plains Funding-The BrinkleyGinn amendment to the Economic Development Act extension has been voted upon and passed by the Public Works Committee and is ready for House action pending scheduling by the Rules Committee. Passage and signing into law must occur prior to the old fiscal year deadline of June 30, in order for the City of Fort Valley to qualify for a $293,-000 grant from the Coastal Plains Commission. Should House and Senate action not be completed by July 1, an effort will be made to secure "new money" by the October 1 deadline for the new fiscal year.

Veterans Home Loans--May 18th passage of an omnibus bill from the Housing Subcommittee o! the Veterans Affairs Committee, chaired by Rep. Brinkley will amend chapter 37 of title 38, United States Code, to increase the limitations with respect to direct housing loans to veterans to $29,000, to permit up to 50 per centwn of the amount of any mobile home loan to be guaraLteed under such chapter, and to provide for the continuation of the direct loan revolving fund.

War m Springs Rehabilitation ComplexLnnguage adopted for House Appropriations' Labor-HEW Subcommittee report, as sub-

June 1, 1976 mitted by Congressman Brinkley: "The Committee believes that the federal government should continue the leadership and incentive for states to renovate and expand rehabilitation facilities with regional potential su:::h as the Georgia Warm Springs Rehabilitation Complex. Since the days when Franklin Roosevelt benefited from the use of these facilities, Warm Springs has pioneered in the development of innovative services for the handicapped. The Committee recognizes that, in order for Warm Springs to maintain its current standard of excellence, funds for the implementation of planned renovation and expansion of the Complex are necessary. The Committee also expects that the Rehabilitation Services Administration will make every effort to ensure this funding during Fiscal Year 1977."

School Bus Safety Amendment--An amendment proposed by Rep. Richardson Preyer of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee would further extend the effective date for school bus manufacturers to implement new safety standards from October 1, 1976 to April 1, 1977. Bus manufacturers would thus gain sufficient time to do a better job on the new safety features required. Rep. Brinkley interceded with members of the Commerce Committee towards adoption of the Preyer Amendment, and Floor action is now imminent.

Military Construction-Pursuant to the recommendations of the military constl·uction subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee, the House has passed and sent to the Senate a bill which provides everything the Department of the Air Force requested for Robins AFB ($4,550,000) and everything requested by the Department of the Army for Fort Benning ($6,627,000), both located in the 3rd District. In addition, under an amendment by Rep. Brinkley, funds were authorized for construction of an interchange at Marne Road and the Lindsay Creek ByPass (at Martin Army Hospital), as well as extension of the By-Pass to First Division Road ($3,767,000). The $11,355,000 authorized for the reception station at Sand Hill is good untill978.

Gold Star Wives-To date, 54 House colleagues have joined us in introducing H.R. 12119, a much-deserved piece of legislation which would provide a federal charter to Gold Star Wives, an organization of and for widows of men who die on active duty in service of their country. Such incorporation would permit this worthy organization to engage in productive activities to improve the lot of widows and war orphans which are otherwise restricted without a federal charter.

Multi-Mode Transportation System-Both houses of Congress have cleared .for the President's signature a new Federal Highway Act which includes an amendment sponsored by Representative Brinkley and Representative Bo Ginn, providing a continuing push to the Multi-Mode Transportation Corridor proposed to stretch from Brunswick, Ga., to Kansas City, and whose planning board is located in Columbus. For the first time, under this amendment, the federal Department of Transportation will actually conduct a feasibility study of the multi-mode concept, which combines highway, pipeline and water transportation into a single system along with electrical transmission and other modes.

Revenue Sharing-Backed by revenue sharing's proven track record, and with strong support by local officials from the 3rd District, the Georgia Municipal Association, and their counterparts around the nation, the House Government Operations Committee has favorably reported H.R. 13367, the state and local Fiscal Assistance Act. The Formula proposed is for a three and threequarters year continuation with a hold harmless funding level at present rates to recipient jurisdictions.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS Civil Defense-It is extremely pleasing to

have the strong support of colleagues for H.R. 12899 which has been introduced to stabilize a worsening situation with regard to civil defense. This bill, which has a big boost from Civil defense authorities, would at long last amend the 1950 Civil Defense Act to assure a "dual-purpose" role for CD agenciesin the event of natural disasters as well as the original purpose of nuclear attack preparedness. The Administration had proposed limiting civil defense to nuclear work and drastically cutting its funds.

Follow-on GI Bill-Introduced by Congressman Brinkley to amend title 38 of tl~e United States Code to establish a program of educational assistance (funded in part through contributions made to the program by individuals while on active duty) for individuals entering on active duty after the Vietnam era who are not eligible for educational assistance under earlier programs.

NFm SPEAKS OUT

The views and counsel of constituents are very important to me. In many areas the expertise of constituents who are themselves affected by legislation is invaluable since it provides new insight and perspective. In a larger sense all of us are affected by Federal legislation because of taxation and expenditures.

To obtain as many facts as possible is a wise course of action and, once information is marshaled, decisions which are more nearly correct can be reached. In a constitutional republic the carefully weighed convictions of a Member of Congress should be exercised, but the enlightened counsel of citizens certainly helps to formulate sounder judgments. Election to office does not provide instant wisdom or infallibility, although it almost always results in a commitment to do the very best pos5ible. For all of these reasons I express appreciation to the National Federation of Independent Businesses, others who send opinion ballots, and those who write to me on the issues for their standing up and being counted.

"It isn't hard to do right," said a former President, "it's hard to know what is right." This is true in many cases where new ground is being broken, and I always welcome your letters, calls or visits because a reasonable expression of opinion counts heavily with me.

CONSUMER COMMUNICATIONS REFORM ACT

HON. TIMOTHY E. WIRTH OF COLORADO



Mr. WIRTH. Mr. Speaker, on May 27, I placed in the RECORD a report from Business Week on A.T. & T.'s efforts to get Members of the House and the Senate to introduce legislation which is being refen:ed to as "the Consumer Communications Reform Act of 1976."

Today, I would like to share with my colleagues a speech delivered last month by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Richard Wiley which traces the FCC's decisions with respect to competition in the telephone industry. Chairman Wiley's speech is one of ·'"he best statements I have read on this subject and I recommend it to any of my colleagues who might be considering introducing the A.T. & T. legislation.

The speech follows:

16143 ADDRESS BY RICHARD E. Wn.EY

Thank you for inviting me to be the Keynote Speaker at this 29th Annual ICA Conference. It is an honor to participate in this distinguished and world-wide gathering of telecommunications experts from industry, commerce, education and government.

Although this is, indeed, an international association, I would like to begin by addressing certain controversies which have arisen over the domestic communications policies of the Federal Communications Commission. The era of the 1970's in the common carrier field has been one marked by rapid technological change, new and innovative services, diver.:;e and ever-expanding consumer demands and, finally, governmental action which has attempted to respond to these dynamic factors.

Now, here in 1976, one aspect of the government's response-a return to market-place principles and opportunities in limited sectors of the communications field-is under an intensive and wide-ranging attack, an attack being directed by the world's largest corporation in conjunction with other members of the telephone industry and one which has moved well beyond the Commission and the courts to the halls of Congress itself. The intended objective of this assault-and I say this factually and without rancor-is to sweep away every last vestige of this Commission-made and, to date, court-upheld policy.

Perhaps, then, the time is ripe to take a close look at the FCC's efforts in this area : what have we decided, why have we so acted and, most pertinently, what are and will be the probable results of these determinations. Let me try to summarize it for you in what, obviously, can be only a brief recitation.

Distilled to its essential ingredients, the fundamental issue which faced our agency in the late 1960's was whether the telephone company had to be the sole provider of the nation's telecommunications services or whether, instead, the public interest might be better served by eliminating regulatory barriers to the development of alternative sources and alternative supplies. Both then and today, there was no question concerning the logic or efficiency of a single integrated network to provide the basic facilities for public telephone service. Rather, the issue was whether the American consumer should be afforded an opportunity to secure equipment--from any source-which would adopt those facilities to meet his own individualized communications needs. With respect to telephone company activities outside of the public telephone field, a related question was whether similar opportunities should be permitted for specialized facilities to meet specialized non-public communications needs. The FCC answered these questions by concluding that the communications market is so vast, so vigorous and so vital that opportunities for new ideas and new sources of services could be publicly beneficial without n ecessarily injuring an existing monopoly supplier or its residential telephone customers.

Om· policy-!>asically, to provide the American consumer with telecommunications options and alternatives-was restricted to two discrete areas of the market: customer-supplied terminal equipment and private line services. Just how narrow and limited these opportunities have been is best illustrated, perhaps, by the market shares which competitors have been able to obtain in economi(! rivalry with the telel>hone industry. Today, specialized common carriers account for only 1/ 10 of 1% of the telecommunications market while companies offering terminal equipment in competition with "telcos" have captured but 4/ lOths of 1% of that market. Their combined revenues do not exceed $170 m1llion. By way of contrast, the revenues of

16144 the telephone industry-which exceed $35 blllion for all services--are over $4 billion 1n the competitive market sectors alone. The current dimension of the competition is perhaps best dramatized by the simple fact that AT&T'S increase in revenue for private line and terminal eq·uipment services in 1975, over 1974 figures, was more than double the total revenue of all competing suppliers of these services.

Now why has the Commission permitted competition 1n these discrete markets 1n place of a regulated monopoly? As to terminal equipment, the answer is our conviction that our citizens should have the right t o use their telephone system in a manner "privately beneficial, but not publicly deterimental". Similarly, with respect to private line services, we believe that consumers should be permitetd to enjoy the communications options available from alternative sources. This principle of protecting the American consumer's right to decide how his communications needs w11l best be met, and who can best meet them, undergirds the FCC's decisions permitting competition 1n these two well defined markets.

Implementation of such precepts has borne fruit for the public 1n substantial forms. For one thing, there always will be some communications needs which a monopolist either does not find profitable to meet or which it simply lacks the incentive to Introduce. The businessmen in thls audience know this far better than I do--and you can 1:lll in your own diverse examples. I Will provide only one, rather interesting example of this reality: namely, the development of communications terminals for the deaf. As students of telephony may recall, Alexander Graham Bell first became interested in communications as a teacher of the deaf. Some 100 years later, however, telephone companies still have not produced special communications services which would enable over one and a half milllon deaf Americans to utlllze the voice telephone network. Meanwhile in the 1960's, a deaf engineer developed a terminal which-it widely marketedwould afford a convenient system for the deaf to communicate by telephone. His initial efrorts were unsuccessful because the telephone operating companies concluded that this communications market was too small to be attractive. Undaunted, the ent4'epreneur began selling his terminal directly to deaf users and, today, over 20,000 of those terminals are now in use.

In the area of private line offerings, it was a specialized common carrier-not a telephone company-that was the first to provide a switched digital data system so important for efficient data communications. Moreover, the first two domestic satellite systems were not launched by a telephone company but by competing private lin& carriers. The carriers who have pioneered this new satellite technology provide such new and novel services as: a distribution system for the Wall Street Journal; a delivery system for cable television movie services; long haul, high speed data offerings; and vital communications services to remote villages in Alaska.

I say all of this not to denigrate the tele· phone industry for which I have profound respect and admiration. We do have the finest telephone system in the world, thanks primarily to the expert and dedicated serv· ices of the men and women of the Bell System and of thousands of independent companies located throughout the nation. The question, however, remains: is it only the telephone industry which can provide telecommunications service for our citizens or can others, in selected areas, also compete to better service the public in a number of very tangible ways?

Moreover, the greatest benefit to the American consumers from increased competition may be an Intangible one. The old monopollst philosophy that "you can have it it

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS w& choose to ofrer it" has given way to a new receptivity and responsiveness to the public which best can be summed up by AT&T's recent and highly publicized motto: "We hear you". Consumer wants and the needs of small businessmen, both of which previously might have been overlooked, now are pursued energetically by the telephone industry. Competition, in my opinion, has made AT&T and its partners better and more vigorous . business entitles and better and more vigorous public servants.

Critics of the Commission's pro-competitive policy originally argued that the "one carrier--one system" concept was necessary to preserve the technical integrity of the telephone network. After nearly a decade of experience with the interconnection of customer-supplied equipment and specialized common carriers, the telephone industry has yet to document any deterioration of the nationwide switched network. Thus, it is not surprising that the technical integrity arguments have now been superseded by the theme of adverse economic Impact.

In point of fact, however, Bell and the independents also have yet to prove any case of harm here either-that is, any present adverse economic impact. Indeed. USITA's own study bears clear witness to this fact. This does not mean, of course, that some companies or some users could not experience economic efrects in the future. But the first task 1n assessing such potentialltles, I would suggest, is to ascertain where subsi· dies may exist between various classes of users served by the telephone company. Since telco services traditionally have been dealt with 1n the aggregate for ratemak.lng purposes, the FCC, and perhaps the industry itself, has paid little attention to the very fundamental social and political question of whether some classes of users do or should subsidize other classes of users.

Stated another way, rate averaging has not been conducive to record-keeping which refiects whether Individual services are priced above, or below, cost. Not surprisingly then, the evidence submitted 1n the Commlssion's Docket 20003 Economic Inquiry has been confiicting. The telephone companies ma.lntain that terminal and private Une services subsidize local exchange rates. Others, most notably the New York Public Service Commission, argue that those services are priced below costs and that residential users may be subsidizing business users. For example, some suggest that residential users may well be subsidizing low private line television transmission rates for the broadcast networks and news Wire services. The Commission 1s presently analyzing these confilcting contentions and will be issuing an initial report late this summer. Until the nature and extent of eXisting subsidies between cla-sses of users are identified, however, there is no basis for any intelligent conclusions as to potential economic harm to some portion of the telephone industry or its subscribing public.

Let us assume, arguendo, that some economic impact might eventuate. What possible remedies might be available? The tele· phone industry seems to suggest that the only solution 1s to submerge or destroy their competitors-a notion vaguely akin to con· tending that amputation is the only cure for an incipient hangnail. There are, however, numerous other alternatives which should be considered. First and foremost is the repricing and unbundling of telephone service rates to make them more competitive with independent suppliers. Second, telcos might be authorized to impose access charges for terminals interconnected with the network. Third, specialized common carriers could be brought into the separa· tions an-angements. Fourth, usage sensitive pricing coUld be adopted by state jurisdic· tions t o allow users to pay only for the services they use and in relation to the costs

June 1, 1976 they cause. And fifth, state jurisdictions could adopt a "lifeline service" offeringsuch as that authorized by the New York Public Service Commission-which guaran· tees each citizen the availability of an inexpensive phone. These are but a few of the options which might be available 1n the event that any real economic impact on telephone company or subscriber should occur.

The public interest equation must take into consideration the abllity of the telephone industry to provide the public with quality service at reasonable rates. Obviously, not all telephone companies throughout the United States stand on the same economic tooting in terms of their profitability and their resulting ability to absorb any new costs or burdens imposed by regulatory policies. Regulatory actions that have diminutive im· pact on large or profitable licensees may be unbearable for their smaller or less profitable brethren. The FCC has given recognition to this reality in the Broadcast and Cable Television fields by according special or difrerent treatment for small or marginal licensees.

Once the Commission has finalized its interim report in Docket 20003, we should have--as indlcated-a better idea as to how the subsidies run for telephone company services. At that juncture, the Commission will be in a position to assess whether its ter· mina.l interconnection and private line decis1ons pose special burdens on marginally profitable telephone companies. If so, iffor example-some cooperatives or independent telephone carriers are found unable to provide quallty public service at reasonable rates with a reasonable return on their investment, I believe that the Commission will take prompt remedial action. Accordingly, the attempt by certain large companies to oppose our policy by wrapping themselves in the banner of small, rural entities is simply not very compelUng.

One final word about our decisions in this area, both past and future: they should per· mit true competition and not market allocation. In the private line field, for example, the Commission must walk a careful tightrope between ratemaking principles which fail to adequately protect new entrants against monopoly services being utilized to subsidize competitive services, and the equally dangerous evll of erecting a protective umbrella over new entrants. If the public is to receive the benefits of innovation. efilciency and productivity stimulated by competition, telephone companies must be free to realize any efilciencles or economies of scale inherent in their operations. Furthermore, new entrants should not expect regulatory intervention to protect them from what are natural marketplace forces as opposed to anticompetitive cross-subsidies. For this reason, I expect to spend most of the next several months personally reviewing the contents of Docket 18128 dealing with ratemaking principles. This proceeding poses a tremendous challenge to the agency in assuring that the cardinal principle of full and fair competition is attained.

Having belabored domestic common carrier matters at length, let me turn very briefly to the international field. Last Jun~. I publicly expressed my conviction that the time was long ovel'due for careful Commission analysis of international common carrier policies and practices. In fact, no comprehensive assessment of international common carrier issues has been undertaken by the FCC since 1943. Since last June, the Commission has been engaged 1n a systematic review of long pending proceedings or outdated policies. As a resUlt, a number of major decisions have been issued-including those relating to "gateway" cities, formulas for distributing unrouted oversea,s telegraph messages, international dataphone and the lengthy Comsat rate case.

The Commission will continue to devote considerable time and resources to the in-

June 1, 1976 ternational fteld during the next year. Just last week, for example, -we ordered an audit of all international carriers. This will be the lnltial step in the first FCC review of international rates since 1958. Indeed, for some 18 years, the COmmission has neither ascertained what the international carriers' costs and earnings have been nor determined what should be the allowable rate of return for their services to various points throughout the world.

While this lnltial audit is being conducted-with an intended conclusion date of December 1, 1976-I would hope that our agency, interested parties and members of the academic community would devote attention to possible alternatives to rate of return regulation for international and, indeed, domestic carriers. Criticisms of this form of regulation have been frequently catalogued, but practical and feasible alternatives have yet to emerge. In this connection. the COmmission announced last week also that--in July-we w1l1 hold a. Future Planning Conference on alternatives and possible improvements to rate base regulation.

Ladles and gentlemen, my time is up. In closing, let me simply say that the FCC today is committed to a. course of addressing and resolving all of the major policy issues vital to the well-being of the nation's telecommunications capabilities-and doing so in a. timely and responsible manner. We welcome your participation and the benefit of your expertise in these efforts to the end of providing our citizens with the very best communications services available and at the lowest possible cost.

LOCAL HEARING AMENDMENT

HON. ROBERT J. LAGOMARSINO OF CALIFORNIA



Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Speaker, had I not been precluded by the time limitation, this is what I would have said.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment has already been added to the EPA research and development bill, the vocational education bill, and the ERDA R. & D. bill, the latter having been accepted by both sides. It simply provides that any hearing, the expenses of which are paid from funds authorized under this act, which concerns a single unit of local government, single geographic area, or single State, shall be held within the affected jursidiction.

Quite simply, this would require that government be conducted for the convenience of the people rather than for the convenience of the Government. We have had numerous instances of such hearings being moved or even denied, including one in Mr. KETCHUM's district, involving HEW, and one now in my own, involving the Federal Power Commission and its hearings on liquified natural gas terminals in southern California.

I think most of you would agree with me that such hearings should be held in the affected area, and in fact, this is a requirement in many jurisdictions. This amendment will help restore people's faith in the administrative proceedings of Government, and may just lead to better Government, period.

The amendment does contain the language offered by the gentleman from

CXXII--1018-Part 13


Texas (Mr. TEAGUE) when the amendment was offered to the ERDA bill. That language improves the measure by making it clear that nothing shall be construed as requiring a hearing where none is now required and by allowing consolidation of hearings.

Attached is an editorial on the subject: (From the Santa Barbara News-Press,

May 28, 1976] ARROGANT GAS PORT RULXNG

In a decision unfortunately bordering on governmental arrogance, the Federal Power COmmission has flatly rejected a. request for West Coast hearings on proposed Uquified natural gas (LNG) ports at Point Conception, Oxnard and the Los Angeles area.

It also apparently will press ahead with Washington hearings despite the fact that draft environmental impact reports are still lacking on the Oxnard and Los Angeles sites. In its only possible concession, the FPC indicated that a staff member might take some testimony at one of the California locations.

The FPC ruling runs counter to the wishes of the state Public Ut111ties Commission, the state Energy Commission, Los Angeles County, Los Angeles Mayor Bradley, Ventura and Santa Barbara. Counties. While the PUC is the only official intervener in the case, all bad urged coastal hearings on the matter.

A pre-emptory action such as this one is a. dis-service to the state o! California and Santa Barbara. The installation and operation of these plants is of deep consequence to the West Coast, its economy, environment and general livability. Its residents should be thoroughly briefed, through local hearings, on the potential impact of such operations.

A report by the director of the State Offlee of Planning and Research has pointed out that the "potential consequences of a loaded LNG tanker releasing its cargo ... are sufficiently extreme to warrant special attention." He said the analytical work done to date on risk management is mostly theoretical, incomplete and controversial. He questioned a federal agency policy that is forcing California to develop a policy response on a critical issue on the basis of incomplete or nonexistent environmental documents.

This week Santa Barbara's county supervisors asked a staff exploration of the legal possibilities of requiring the FPC to hold local hearings on this issue. They envision a. co-operative effort with the state PUC.

It's a sound move, a. commendable one and in the best interests of the people of the three counties immediately involved.

ILLEGAL ALIENS

HON. JOSHUA EILBERG OF PENNSYLVANIA



Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Speaker, legislation-H.R. 8713-providing a penalty for employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens, has been ordered favorably reported by the full Judiciary Committee. This important bill addresses the serious problem of aliens illegally residing in the United States and the consequences of their presence on the domestic labor market. Leonard F. Chapman, Jr., Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, has estimated that there are between 6 and 8 million persons ille-

16145

gaily residing in the United States. According to the Commissioner:

At least 1 million illegal a.llens are holding good jobs and pay well-probably another 2 or 3 million are holding lesser-paying jobs.

I want to commend the American Legion for passing a resolution urging all of its members to support legislation which would prohibit the employment of illegal aliens at their 57th Annual National Convention held in Minneapolis, Minn. It is encouraging that this important organization has chosen to courageously speak out on a problem which is plaguing our country.

At the dinner given by Comdr. Harry G. Wiles, honoring the Legion's National Executive Committee, Chapman was the principal speaker and directed his remarks to the increasing number of illegal aliens in the United States and Ulustrated the serious consequences caused by their presence. I am inserting the text of Gen. Chapman's remarks for your information: ADDRESS BY LEONARD F. CHAPMAN, JR., COM•

MISSIONER, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZA·

TION SERVICE

Good evening ladles and gentlemen. I am very proud to be here tonight to speak to the American Legion National COmmander's Banquet. And I am honored to be here among so many who have borne arms in defense of ottr country.

Today, as we near the celebration of our nation's Bicentennial, the need remains just as great to maintain a strong defense of our nation, and our ideals.

In this hostile world we must be vigilant and ever alert if we are to preserve the freedoms, and the way of life which so many of our veterans have fought to ensure, and for which many have laid down their lives.

As a. military man for 37 years, and Marine Commandant for tour years, it has been my responsibility to help ensure that our position against armed aggression was such that we could turn it back, and that there would be no doubts about our ability to do so.

Today, as Commissioner of Immigration, I am concerned about another type of invasion of our country. It is ongoJ.ng now, and has been for several years ... although it has gone largely unnoticed. For the perpetrators are not wearing uniforms, and are not carrying weapons. They are not storming our beaches under the cover of artillery.

Rather . . . their invasion is a silent one, occurring mainly at night across our unprotected borders. Their uniform is usually the simple clothes of a peasant. They are coming not as an occupation force, but simply to find jobs and to partake of the wealth in this great land of ours.

At first glance, that may not seem to be such a serious problem. But the great numbers involved and the impacts they have upon this country, our society and our economy make it a very serious concern, indeed. It is growing, and will become much worse in the years ahead unless some actions are taken to slow it.

There are today in the United States six to eight mllllon illegal aliens, and that number in increasing by a half mllllo..J. to a million each year. The Immigration Service arrests 800,000 a year, and we are only skimming the surface.

Just the effect on the job situation alone is enough to cause concern. At least one mililon illegal aliens are holding good jobs that pay well . . . probably another two or three million are holding lessor paying jobs. But today, even these are 1n demand by students, teenagers, minorities and young Vietnam veterans.

16146 Three million or more jobs is a serious

matter, considering there are seven million unemployed Americans today. Among these are one million or more veterans, with a half million or more Vietnam veterans unemployed.

It was the 20 per cent unemployment rate among Vietnam veterans that caused us in the Immigration Service nearly two years ago to change the policy regarding work permits for foreign students in this country. Previously, colleges had authorit:Y to allow these students to work, and most could easily obtain permission; now, they must come to the Immigration Service, and make a very convincing case for work authorization to be granted.

I hear often, especially from those who espouse an open door immigration policy for this country, that the jobs 111egal aliens take are only low-paying ones which no American will have. Nothing could be further from the truth.

About two-thirds of those we apprehend working are in industry, service and construction jobs that pay good salaries. In Chicago last year, we apprehended 4,700 illegal aliens holding jobs; 4,200 or 90 per cent were earning over $2.50 an hour. Twelve per cent earned over $4.50 an hour.

It is common to find aliens lllegally in the United States holding professional and technical jobs earning five figure incomes. Last year in New Hampshire we found an Ulegal Japanese working as a metallurgical engineer at a salary of $12,000; in Alaska we found the manager of one of the best hotels, who was illegally in the country and earning $29,000 a year.

And probably the most ironic incident of illegal aliens working concerns two Greek brothers who had deserted their merchant ships and had been here several years, building sizeable bank accounts. We found them on a construction crew, earning $9.71 an hour ... repainting the Statue of Liberty.

Besides taking jobs that should go to Americans and legal residents, Ulegal aliens utilize public services, including welfare, medical care and schools, without paying their share of the costs.

This past February in the state of Washington, among one group of 130 we apprehended, 33 held food stamps, 17 resided in low-cost Government housing, 16 were collecting welfare and nine were collecting both welfare and food stamps.

In San Francisco this year we found one lllegal ali~n who had a thirty-three thousand dollar medical bUl, which had to be paid for by public funds. Another in California had a seventy thousand dollar medical bill, which he could not pay.

A spot check of welfare recipients for one month in Los Angeles confirmed 305 illegal aliens on welfare rolls.

Yes . . . the welfare load upon our taxpayers is heavy. How much is accounted for by illegal aliens we don't really know. One study we had done by a private consulting firm in washington indicated illegals cost U.S. taxpayers about $13 billion a year ... that's billions not million ... in services, welfare, unemployment and costs of citizens displaced from jobs and as a result require public assistance.

There are other costs which are hidden and unmeasurable. It is estimated that illegal aliens send $3 billion each year out of this country ... money that is lost to our economy and is a negative impact upon our balance of trade.

Every program we have ever conducted with the Internal Revenue Service has indi ~a ted that hundreds of millions of dollars each year are lost to our nation's treasury through earnings paid to illegal 1:1.liens, on which little, if any, income tax is paid. Ordinarily, the aliens claim so many dependents that no tax is withheld; and usually no return is filed.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS Last December, the IRS district director

in Augusta., Maine, reported to us that they contacted 282 employers of illegal aliens, after we had notified them, and they found a total of 2,500 dependents had been wrongfully claimed for tax withholding purposes. Among 261 illegal aliens IRS pursued at the same time, they found unpaid taxes of 210 thousand dollars. And IRS believed this represented only 10 per cent of what could be collected in this one small district.

The desire of persons from poverty-ridden and other less developed nations to come to this country to find jobs and enjoy th~ benefits of this great nation is overwhelming. There is litera.lly no hardship they won't endure or no price too high for them to achieve their goal-to come to America and find a job.

This situation. of course. paves the way for lucrative rackets. Smugglers charge aliens as much as seven hundred dollars, and more, to aid them in entering the country or help them to the interior once they get here. Recently at Chicago's O'Hara Airport we checlred an a.rrtving flight from Los Angeles. and even our omcers were surprised to find that over half of the 140 persons on board were lllegal aliens.

We apprehended over 80,000 illegal aliens who had been aided by smugglers last year •.. and we caught almost 7,000 smugglers.

Another favorite and highly profitable scheme is arranging sham marriages for aliens. The spouse of a U.S. citizen is able to gain almost immediate admission to this country. so the temptation to pay someone for this privilege is very great. Recently in Texas we apprehended a man operating a small business as a tax consultant and notary public. We found he also operated a very large business finding U.S. citizen spouses for all~ns who wished to enter the United States.

His own records revealed he had arranged 3,500 such marriages, at a price of $1,600 each. After the alien was admitted to the country the marriage was dissolved.

One of the more successful and imaginative marriage arrangers was uncovered about a year ago in Miami.

This was a lady, who had married six alien men to facllitate their entry to this country. She had two daughters, and each of them married three allen men. In addition, her common law husband had two marriages to alien women. All of these 14 marriages were for a price of about $1,000 ea-ch.

But in addition to the fees collected for the sham marriages, this enterpriSing lady applied for and collected welfare in each of her six married names. Her two daughters were also collecting welfare in each of their three married names. The lady was, in addition, collecting an Aid to Dependent Children welfare check for two children whom one of the men had brought with him.

And finally, she was assigned a rent-free public housing apartment, which she had sublet and for which she was collecting rent.

The total cost to the public of this enterprise was several thousand dollars and resulted in the fraudulent entry into this country of at least 14 aliens.

After hearing some of the horror stories, you may wonder what we in the Immigration Service are doing to earn our salaries. Well, we're trying, but despite our efforts, illegal immigration to the United States is hopelessly out of control. With our limited manpower of less than 2,900 enforcement perscnnel to guard our nation's 6,000 miles of open land border and seek out illegal aliens hidden among our population of over 210 million, the immigration laws of this country are unenforceable.

With six to eight million persons here illegally today, the problem is serious. But we are seeing only the beginning of a fiooda human tide tl1.at is going to engulf our

June 1, 1976 country. unless something is done to stop, or at least slow it. Without improved controls against lllegal immigration, this is 81bsolutely inevitable.

Anyone who dobuts this needs only to look at the population growth occurring around the world, and at our doorstep. The world's population, which has taken since the beginning of history to reach 4 billion, will reach 6 billion within 26 years. Some experts say it may be 7 billion. Where is this growth occurring? ... Most of it is in the underdeveloped nations-Africa, Asia and Latin America, where the birth rates are three times as great as in North America and Europe. Mexico has the world's highest birth rate--3.6 per cent--double the world average.

Otllcial estimates place the Mexican population at 60 m1llion today . . . with nearly 10 per cent of those people already in the United States illegally. It is expected to reach 130 million within 25 years.

By the year 2,000, some 80 percent of the world's people are expected to be concentrated in the so called developing nations, which includes Central and South America and Mexico--already the source of most illegal aliens who are in the United States. Faced with the prospect of no jobs and substandard living conditions in their own countries, millions of these persons will seek to break out . . . and most will head for the United States-as they are already doing today.

The State Department recently reported that a survey taken by the Government of Haiti-another source of heavy illegal migration to this country-revealed that 40 per cent of the persons interviewed wished to migrate to the United States. Their motivation was economic.

Some estimates are that this country must develop three million jobs a year-double the current pace-just to keep up with our own nation's additions to the work force. But this does not take into consideration the heavy flow of illegal aliens, who are also entering the U. S. job market.

I mentioned earlier a silent invasion of our country. which is underway. That may sound alarming. However, it is true. In a single day in March of this year, Border Patrol otllcers in one 20 mile stretch of our Southern border apprehended 1,100 illegal aliens .•. and our limited force was able to respond to less than one-third of the border sensor alarms, which indicate an intrusion has been made. Another 2,000 or more made their way past our officers, and successfully entered this country.

This is not a particularly unusual event; similar happenings are occurring almost daily along our 2,000 mile Southern border, and to a lesser extent on the 4,000 mile Canadian border.

In addition, and just as difficult to cope with are the six million tourists, students and other temporary visitors, who come to our country each year. Up to 10 per cent do not depart, but instead stay here to seek jobs. Others enter with counterfeit, altered or borrowed documents.

Well, the end result of these hundreds of thousands of illegal and fraudulent entries to this country is a large population-nearly the size of New York City-competing with our citizens for jobs, using public services, sending their earnings out of the country, and otherwise milking our economy.

But the influence of these people on our nation extends even further than an economic impact. They are rapidly gaining a political voice, which is heard loudly calling for amnesty for all illegal aliens, and has so far been successful in blocking any action to tighten controls.

This huge block of people represents an invisible sub-culture in the United States, which must exist by deceit and fraud •.. for they live in fear of exposure and discovery by the Immigration Service. They

June 1, 1976 must live their lives below the surface of our society, but as their numbers grow, their influence is becoming greater.

I have one other concern that I would like to share with you tonight. Our nation has long been known as a melting pot, where persons from many countries could come, share in our freedoms, contribute to the national well-being, and blend in With our society.

Today, America is becoming no longer a melting pot, but a n_ozaic, made up of hundreds of nationalities, whose interests represent the countries from where they came, rather than this nation. This, of course, cannot contribute to a strong and unified country.

I have painted some pretty severe scenes for you tonight, bringing up all sorts of problems, any one of which could make a full evening's speech. By now you must be asking if I have any solutions.

Yes, I do, but the problems are large, and the solutions are not easy. To begin with, we need a national policy to discourage the employment of illegal aliens. As of now, there is no law against hiring anyone illegally in 1!his country; there is no requirement on the part of an employer to determine if a job applicant is here legally and entitled to work. The result is that it is extremely easy for illegal aliens to obtain employment. Employment is the attraction that brings them here, and that attraction must be removed.

A bill in the House-the Rodino Bill H.R. 8713, and one in the Senate- the Eastland Bill S. 3074 would prohibit hiring of illegal aliens. We need such a law if we are to make even a beginning in shutting off the flow of illegal immigration.

Second, we need a major commitment on the part of the nation to provide adequate controls and the means to enforce current immigration laws.

And, third, we need major groups, such as the American Legion and others, to recognize this problem and become concerned about it.

The Legion is deserving of praise and gratitude for its role in demanding that our nation keep up its defenses against the forces of aggression. But, you must not look only outward, while a danger that is almost as great erodes our country from within. You must not overlook the silent invasion.

The problem I have described is growing and there is ample reason for serious concern. However, though I am concerned, I am not discouraged. our nation has faced dark days before.

But because we are a great nation, we have hitched up our belts, gone to work and somep.ow gotten the job done. If there is one thing I have become firmly convinced of in 40 years of traveling this earth, it is that America is truly a great and a good nation, filled with honest and dedicated people.

Despite the differences, problems and controversies that are always among us, we are still the greatest country in the world. No wonder so many millions wish to come here.

We have welcomed some 50 million immigrants throughout our history; this is a part of our heritage, and they have helped build our nation. There is still room in this country for those who wish to come here legally, work hard and contribute to our national well being. However, we cannot let America become the haven for all the world's unemployed. We must have controls on immigration, and those controls must be enforced.

Thousands of people are seeking to come to these shores, are waiting their turn to come in legally and will be a welcome addition. This new blood can help to keep our country strong. I hope we will continue to welcome these immigrants who see here a land of freedom and opportunity.

Despite the tir -des and the rhetoric against us, America is still known world wide

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS as the land of the :free and the home of the brave. Let us make certain that w11l never change.

INVESTING IN YOUNG PEOPLE

HON. MICHAEL HARRINGTON OF MASSACHUSETTS



Mr. HARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, the employment picture for America's young people is extremely bleak. The unemployment rate for youth ages 20 to 24 is over 13 percent, for youth 16 to 19 it ~s over 20 percent. In the cities the rate is higher still. Among minority youth, unemployment is above 35 percent. Thus, one out of every three black or minority youth in our cities who wants a job is denied the right to work.

The existing youth employment situation serves to perpetuate and aggravate an already chronic and grave national unemployment problem. Only by addressing unemployment at all levels can we achieve the goal of full employment.

I applaud my colleagues' recent passage of Congressman MEEDs' bill to establish a Young Adult Conservation Corps. However, it is time to stress the need for an even more comprehensive program of full employment for youth. The conservation corps idea must be expanded upon so that steps to ameliorate the unemployment situation reach directly into the .cities as well. Both urban and rural environments must receive attention if we hope to accomplish our employment objectives. Moreover, the concept of jobs for youth must be transformed into community service by youth. The need for community services which can be provided by American youth is only exceeded by the personal fulfillment and growth young people may derive from such an experience.

It is to illustrate the need for a comprehensive youth employment program and to suggest the direction such a program should take that I am inserting an editorial by Neal R. Peirce entitled "Investing in Young People," which appeared in the May 24 edition of the Washington Post. I strongly commend to my colleagues this editorial and their consideration of the proposal it outlines.

The text of the editorial follows: INVESTING IN YOUNG PEOPLE

(By Neal R. Peirce) Universal youth service, often proposed

but never instituted in the United States, has emerged again as a response to sky-high levels of unemployment-and alienationamong the nation's young people.

Even in a "full employment" economy, according to former Secretary of Labor Willard Wirtz, "there would be a 20 per cent unemployment rate among white youths and 40 per cent among black youths. More and more employers are simply not hiring anybody under 20 except for dead end jobs such as dishing out hamburgers."

"We make almost no investment in youth between 16 and 25," Rep. Andrew Young (D-Ga.) told this correspondent. "These young people wander the streets and become drifters. They lack a basic sense or direction or roots." The dearth of youthoriented programs, Young said, leads directly

16147 to "crime and all kinds of social disorders we're now throwing money at-with few tangible results."

It would be a better idea, Young said. to "throw some love" instead, through a universal youth service (UYS) that gives young people a structured way to serve their communities and gain their first work experiences.

The start of a national campaign to enact UYS in the 1970s emerged last month at a conference of some 75 educators, labor officials, businessmen and alumni of past national youth projects at the Eleanor Roosevelt Institute in Hyde Park, N.Y.

The Roosevelt tie is a "natural." The closest the nation ever came to UYS was the Civilian Conservation Corps' forest and park camps and the wide variety of service projects under the National Youth Administration, both programs of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s.

Youth programs since World War II have been limited to specialized groups: the GI Bill for veterans, the Peace Corps and VISTA for the highly qualified, and Great Society "war on poverty" programs for the disadvantaged. President Lyndon B. Johnson considered national service in 1966-about the time he found he couldn't have both guns for Vietnam and more social programs at home.

Among attendees at the Hyde Park conference were Young and Franklin D. Roosevelt Jr., strong supporters of Jimmy Carter, the frontrunning contender for the Democratic presidential nomination. Carter, Roosevelt said, believes a national plan and program to combat youth unemployment is essential, and is studying the universal service approach. Both Young and Roosevelt said they would strongly urge Carter, should he be elected, to back UYS. Young, as Carter's leading advocate among black elected officials, might be particularly influential.

No precise formula for UYS emerged from Hyde Park, but three points came through loud and clear: Youth must be involved in the planning. Major federal funding-$! billion to $5.5 billion annually-would be needed. And the program should be administered at the grass-roots level to avoid federal bm·eaucratic red tape and to encourage local lnltiatives for creative service opportunities.

Under the model developed by Donald J. Eberly, a universal youth service proponent since the early 1950s, the program "must be truly open to all persons from 18 to 25." It would have two major options-community service (teacher's aides, paramedics, &SSistants ln social agencies, etc.) and environmental service (tree planting, park improvements and the like) .

Applicants would agree to a contract with public or private agencies that had requested volunteers. UYS would pay the minimum wage to all participants.

A pilot program in Washington State, first proposed by Republican Gov. Dan Evans and similar to the Eberly model, has been in op-; eration for three years.

By all accounts this "Program for Local Service," funded by the federal volunteer agency, ACTION, and administered by the state's Office of Community Development, has been exceptionally successful. Agencies have hired 40 per cent of volunteers at the end of their year's service, and 71 per cent of the agencies reported that the volunteers "equalled or surpassed regular employees in motivation, responslbllity and skllls."

The Washington program does not eliminate applicants for lack of education or experience. One 22-year-old woman, considered mentally retarded, worked at a senior citizens center organizing events from pinochle tournaments to trips out or town. When her service was up, the residents successfully petitioned their c ty coun cil for funds to hire her permanently.

16148 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE June ::! , 1 r; t' u Young envisages a prestige youth corps in

non-military type uniform ("like what our Olympians wear") . Service should begin, he thinks, with physical and civics training and discipline to help young people learn to work within a group. Young believes the program should eventually be compulsory. He had opposed abolishing the draft because "the Army provided the only education a lot of poor folk got."

But compulsion, according to Washington's Secretary of State Bruce K. Chapman, " is a horrible idea that would poison the well of volunteertsm and service. I don' t trust the government to know what's best for people." Voluntary service, Chapman add-

ed, can be an honor and challenge for young people and provide Incentives for longterm career success.

UYS could even expand to include private sector opportunities-perhaps, Roosevelt suggests, through tax breaks to employers who offer young people work experience. The arts, home crafts or even organic farming could be eligible, Chapman says.

In place of either "federal officialdom" or "local officialdom" administering UYS at the local level, Wirtz would turn to such groups as community colleges, Lions and Rotary Clubs, or Big Sisters to propose volunteer activities and run the program.

Bypassing state and local goYernment", however, could generate the same kind of opposition that eventually killed off Great Societ y projects such as the Community Action Program.

A s t ron g point of a. successful UYS p rogram is that it might reduce future criminal just ice and welfare costs so significantly that it would be cost-effective, even with an nual expendit ures of several billion dollars of the taxpayers' money.

But the essential point is human. As President Roosevelt said in 1935, when 2,870.000 young people were out of work and out of school, "We can ill afford to lose t he skill and energy of these young men and women."

SENATE-Wednesday, June 2, 1976 The Senate met at 11 a.m. and was

called to order by Hon. ROBERT MORGAN, a Senator from the State of North Carolina.

PRAYER The Chaplain, the Reverend Edward

L. R. Elson, D.D., offered the following prayer:

0 Thou King of Kings and Lord of Lords, in Thee do we trust, not just as the God of the state, nor as an American God, nor as a tribal deity, but as the universal transcendent God ..tf all life and history, of all men and nations, our Creator, Redeemer, and Judge. Remove from us all false gods, deliver us from evil, and help us to worship Thee in spirit and in truth. In our consultations here, make us wise and strong. In our dealings with other nations, help us to pursue justice and peace. In whatever we think, or say, or do, use us for the advancement of Thy kingdom.

Through Him who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Amen.

APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to the Senate from the President pro tempore (Mr. EASTLAND).

The second assistant legislative clerk read the following letter:

U.S. SENATE, PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE,

Washington, D .C., June 2, 1976. To the Senate:

Being temporarily absent from the Senate on official duties, I appoint Hon. RoBERT MoRGAN, a Senator from the State of North Carolina, to perform the duties of the Chair durin g m y absence.

JAMES 0. EASTLAND,

President pro tempore.

Mr. MORGAN thereupon took the chair as Acting President pro tempor e.

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT Messages from the President of the

United States were communicated to the Senate by Mr. Roddy, one of his secretaries.

EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED As in executive session, the Acting

P resident pro tempc,re (Mr. MoRGAN)

laid before the Senate messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry nominations which were referred to the appropriate committees.

(The nominations received today are printed at the end of the Senate proceedings.)

FERROCYANIDE PIGMENT INDUSTRY-MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem

pore (Mr. MoRGAN) laid before the Senate the following message from the President of the United States, which was referred to the Committee on Finance:

To the Congress of the United States: In accordance with Section 203 (b) (2)

of the Trade Act of 1974, enclosed is a report to the Congress setting forth my determination that import relief for the U.S. industry producing ferricyanide and fenocyanide pigments is !lot in the national economic interest, and explaining the reasons for my decision.

GERALD R. FORD. THE WHITE HousE, May 31, 1976.

APPROVAL OF BILLS A message from the President of the

United States announced that he had approved and signed the following bills:

On May 28, 1976: S. 510. An act to amend the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide for the safety and effectiveness of medical devices intended for human use, and for other purposes.

On May 29, 1976: S. 1494. An act for the relief of Paul W.

Williams. S. 2129. An act to provide for the defini

tion and punishment of certain crimes in accordance With the Federal laws in force within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States when said crimes are committed by an Indian in order to insure equal treatment for Indian an d non-Indian offenders.

S. 3399. An act to authorize and direct the Administrator of General Services to convey certain land in Cambridge, Mass., to the Commonwealt h of Massachusett s .

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE A message from the House of Repre

sentatives delivered by Mr. Berry, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has passed the bill <S. 3295) to extend the authorization for annual con-

tributions under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, to extend c-ertain housing programs under the National Housing Act. and for other purposes, with amen dments, with which it requests the con currence of the Senate.

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNE D

The message also announced that the Speaker has signed the following enrolled bills:

S. 52. An act for the relief of Miss Rosario Y. Quijano, Walter York QUijano, Ramon York Quijano, Tarcisus York QUijano, Denis York Quijano, and Paul York Quijano.

S. 223. An a.ct for the relief of Angela Garza and her son, Manuel Aguilar (aka Manuel Garza.)

The enrolled bills were subsequently signed by the Acting President pro ternpore (Mr. MORGAN).

The message further announced that the House has passed the bill (H.R. 12169) to amend the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 to provide for authorizations of appropriations to the Federal Energy Administration, to extend the duration of authorities under such act, and for other purposes, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate.

BILL PLACED ON THE CALENDAR The bill (H.R. 12169) to amend the

Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 to provide for authorizations of appropriations to the Federal Energy Administration, to extend the duration of authorities under such act, and for other purposes, was read twice by its title and placed on the calendar.

ENROLLED BILLS PRESENTED The Secretary of the Senate reported

that today, June 2, 1976, he presented to the President of the United Sta tes th e following enrolled bills:

S 52. An act for the relief of Miss Rosario Y. Quijan o, Walter York Quijano, Ramon York Quijano, Tarcisus York Quijano, Denis York Quijano, and Paul York Quijano.

s . 223. An act for the relief of An gela G arza and her son Manuel Agu ilar (aka :r-.1anuel Garza. )

THE JOURNAL Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the reading of the Joumal of the proceedings of Friday, May 28, 1976, be dispensed with.

16086 - US Government Publishing Office

Documents

Transcript of 16086 - US Government Publishing Office